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	39	0	39
TfD	0	0	7	0	7
MfD	0	0	1	0	1
FfD	0	0	3	0	3
RfD	0	0	23	0	23
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 10 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 1 user-reported username for administrator attention
• 0 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 0 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 132 sockpuppet investigations
• 4 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 1 Fully protected edit requests
• 0 Candidates for history merging
• 4 requests for RD1 redaction
• 58 elapsed requested moves
• 6 Pages at move review
• 25 requested closures
• 65 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 (25 out of 7978 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Draft:Dr shajahan basha 2024-07-07 15:02 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Draft:Vandals are cool superheroes 2024-07-07 14:20 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Soke Sam Gervasi 2024-07-07 14:09 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Kirata 2024-07-07 01:18 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case List of Indian films of 2024 2024-07-06 21:36 2024-08-06 21:36 edit Persistent disruptive editing: request at WP:RFPP Ymblanter User talk:Superduper313 2024-07-06 20:52 2024-07-13 20:52 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing Yamla 35th Marine Brigade (Ukraine) 2024-07-06 20:42 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case 36th Marine Brigade 2024-07-06 20:36 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Agenda 47 2024-07-06 19:57 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/AP; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Masoud Pezeshkian 2024-07-06 19:40 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/IRP; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan 2024 University of Oxford pro-Palestinian campus occupations 2024-07-06 04:57 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case 2024 Kiryat Malakhi attack 2024-07-06 04:53 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case International Legion (Ukraine) 2024-07-06 02:14 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denial of the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel 2024-07-06 00:16 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Jatav 2024-07-05 07:35 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: request at WP:RFPP Ymblanter Keir Starmer 2024-07-05 07:29 2024-07-19 07:29 edit Ymblanter Health in the State of Palestine 2024-07-05 05:22 indefinite edit,move Steven Walling Mental health in Palestine 2024-07-04 22:52 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Steven Walling Hun clan 2024-07-04 21:56 2025-07-04 21:56 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry Ponyo Sevens Football 2024-07-04 17:49 2025-07-04 17:49 move Persistent sock puppetry/UPE, repeated page moves despite long history of this clearly being contentious. Rosguill Draft:Real Malabar FC 2024-07-04 17:44 indefinite move Persistent sock puppetry linked to UPE Rosguill Mount Ararat 2024-07-04 08:05 2025-07-04 08:05 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/KURD ToBeFree Draft:French Revolution Bicentennial 2024-07-04 00:50 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated UtherSRG 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

Anne Heche

Some additional admin eyes on Anne Heche would be appreciated. She is reported "dead" by many outlets. Technically she is brain dead ("dead" per California law) and her body's tissues are being oxygenated pending organ donation. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

The LA Times appears to have declared her dead after she was removed from life support, quoting her son Homer.[1] -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

...and "legally dead" by the BBC.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:48, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

It's sadly just academic now... but the Los Angeles Times does not have the authority to declare someone dead. They can, however, report that a qualified person has declared someone dead.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

She has now been removed from life support after donation recipients have been found. Nate • (chatter) 03:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

RFC about ANI

My RfC at the admin noticeboard talkpage may be of interest to, well, admins, so I posted a link to it here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Should've been left open for 'at least' 24-hrs. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

The thread is still open, it's just been moved. It can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

It shouldn’t have been started. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

• Honestly, this RFC seems like a waste of time, although I'm sure it was done in good faith, I don't think there's anything that needs to be changed about ANI. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 09:53, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  Other than the toxicity? the fact that some threads are ignored while others produce incomprehensible walls of text? that threads are archived without closure? that friends/fiends of parties pile onto one side or the other to support/attack as needed? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  • All of those issues are simply because of the nature of ANI. The RFC is a waste of time. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 15:26, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

    This is a fatalism mindset. There is nothing inherent about ANI that makes it toxic. Why do other noticeboards manage toxicity well? Why couldn't ANI do the same? And better yet, why don't we try out solutions and experiment to reduce the drama? After all, you aren't gonna blow up Wikipedia if the ANI solution went wrong. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Fatalism is probably the best mindset to have at and about ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Touché -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Alexa M. Curtis

Hello, I have been hired to make a page for Alexa M. Curtis (already disclosed in my userpage). However, it seems that they had some spam issues in the past with persistent trying after decline and hence the name appears to be blocked. I think their last attempt was over 2 years ago and now she has hired me to try it again. She has a lot more news since then and as an editor with some past experience, I have done my best to write it as best I can to comply with the guidelines and would like a chance to submit to AFC. I have posted the page in my sandbox here for now User:Freezejunk/sandbox. Could you please unblock the name so I can submit it or if you see any issues, you can let me know to fix. Freezejunk (talk) 03:37, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

The WP:SALTer seems to have been @JzG [2], but they aren't very active atm. You should check WP:BAREURLS and WP:NYPOST and WP:FORBESCON. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Bare URLs I was going to use the reFill Tool but I found that it is not working on userpage, so this will be completed after page is in drafts or approved. Regardless, the rules allow bare URLs to be used and that should not be a reason for decline.

Regarding NYPost, it seems only the political content are not considered reliable, but this is not a political content. "There is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics." Regarding Forbes, I went ahead and removed that citation. Freezejunk (talk) 06:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Refill does improve things. Better than refill usually does it is better, but not mandatory. I think you missed the "generally unreliable for factual reporting" part of your quote. That + WP:BLP = better excluded, is my opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I have removed NY Post citation. Freezejunk (talk) 08:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Freezejunk, it is not reasonable to ask other editors to wade through 37 bare URLs. Properly formatted references showing all of the bibliographic content are vastly easier to evaluate. I suggest that you identify your three very best independent reliable sources that devote significant coverage of this person in note at the top of the draft. Cullen328 (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328 I have added the references and posted the best sources on top. Please review again. Freezejunk (talk) 09:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

• Yeah, I don't care if you are paid or not, but don't ask us to the work for you. Learn how to properly format citations like the rest of us. You would think that is a requirement to be paid to create Wikipedia articles. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:16, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Dennis Brown Please read what I said above. I was not able to use reFill tool , because I am guessing the page is in the user space. Once page moved to draft or main space, I will convert the bare URL citations. I know how to do it and not expecting an admin to do that. Provided that Bare URL's should not be a reason for decline (as there are no guidelines that state you can do that), do you see any other issues as to why you would oppose to unblock the page name? Freezejunk (talk) 21:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  I did read it. Then use a different tool. Personally, I fill out cites by hand, never have used any of the tools, and I have several articles with over 100 references and a dozen or two in the bibliography section. No admin is forced to act, btw. I did flesh out your first source (which isn't being called in the article, oddly enough), and you are using a very different citation method than the few that I use, but you can see the fields. You can see until you edit since it isn't being called, but it's there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  I have added the references and posted the best sources on top. I removed the bad source (NY Post) that was not being used. I had removed it earlier when an admin said it is not acceptable. Please review again. Freezejunk (talk) 09:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

• There is no doubt this topic meets WP:GNG, given the multiple feature-length biographies of the subject in various independent RS. I will handle it. Levivich 18:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

  With some changes, it's now at Alexa Curtis (entrepreneur). I don't think there's any need for any admin action. An admin could unsalt Alexa Curtis (blogger) if they wanted to, but there isn't much point; "blogger" is not the right disambiguator per most-recent RSes and I don't think it's needed as a redirect. Alexa M. Curtis could be unsalted too but I can't find an RS for the middle initial/name anyway, so I don't think that page should be created (until/unless there's an RS for the middle name). I'm not sure if there are any other relevant salted titles. BTW, I removed DOB, middle name, and "journalist" for lack of RS. Levivich 19:35, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

• At this moment there is a problem at Alexa Curtis (disambiguation) (see: [3]) what makes it impossible to "solve" linking to disambiguation pages by fooling the maintenance bots. The page is locked/blocked/blacklisted. Can somebody change that page into a (protected?) redirect to Alexa Curtis? The Banner talk 16:15, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

  I've created the requested redirect at Alexa Curtis (disambiguation). Not sure whether the title blacklist entry is needed any more. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

TTP1233 Unblock Request

The following is an unblock request placed on behalf of - @TTP1233:. It is an unblock request that has now been open for a considerable length of time and warranted additional community consideration. The user was blocked for socking in November 2021. When the most recent appeal in May was made, they were given a clear checkuser so that (technical) aspect is already concluded. I would also advise participants to take a look at their user talk page for a broader context. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Appeal Text

Greetings Sir/Madam, I do like to re-apply for unblock in Wikipedia. It is to inform you that after reading blocking policies and conditions of Standard Offer, I have, Not did any sock puppetry on my any blocked accounts mentioned in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_NS_Dibyojyoti for 6 months since my last edit of TTP1233 on 11:01 hrs.; 25 November 2021 (UTC). Neither created accounts for further sock puppetry nor for illegal use. Also, I made productive edits on Simple English Wikipedia. I have created around 30 articles (3 deleted due to my interest) and over 1000 edits before and during block on this account, since created. Explanation how I was blocked:- A year ago I opened an account named TTP1233 in simple.m.wikipedia.org but I never edited in risk until I confirm that admin Ninjarobotpirate blocked that as well. But after some months past, I started editing Wikipedia and after months I got encouraged to edit here. Moreover no one suspected me. But creating Sujit Bose (politician) and Indranil Sen was the biggest blunder I made. Though they are notable but since I made it, I feared if anyone knows. Second thing I made identified is shortening my original name, Dibyojyoti Roy Chowdhury to Jyoti Roy. And I live in same place (As mentioned in my bio in both the accounts). This is the truth I can say. And I have realized that sockpuppetry is unlawful and useless also I'm not willing to create anymore account. So I had decided that until six months has over, I refrain from editing Wikipedia. To continue, I think I have aware myself of my misbehavior to the community and I will not continue to do so, henceforth. I also want to assure you that if I be unblock, then I will be working on the basics, means what a normal editor usually do. I will fully focus on creating, editing and updating articles that are completely based on India-related topics. When I will gain experience on the user rights, I will apply but after few years, as my unblocking immediately will not grant me that right. To conclude, I want to contribute many things and not to spoil the community. I will try my best to get back trust everyone. I hope you will not abandon me. I would request you to please consider my review and then unblock me. If any conclusion comes regarding my un-block, please inform me. I look forward to your response regarding the request. Thanking You, Yours sincerely, --Jyoti Roy (talk) 12:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)}} [Addendum by TTP 19th Aug] "Extraordinary Writ advised me in an e-mail to get involved in other wiki projects to convince other users that I'm worthy to join or not. Currently I'm working in Simple English Wikipedia as rollbacker. Also I made almost 1800 edits by now and created over 45 articles. My aim in working there is to fight against vandalism and create articles (when the activity in editing is low in simple wiki)."

• Just because May was a while ago, I did run a new check and do not see any new activity. So checkuser remains all clear. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
• Regarding the username being used for the appeal, they've noted: "I cannot access my master sock account User:NS Dibyojyoti because I have forgotten the password of it. I have tried to reset the password but it failed anyhow. So I chose to request here." Thus any appeal would unblock this specific account. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
• Unblock per Simple Wiki.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Blocking in an Editathon

Dear administrators, here in Switzerland we just started a international Editathon/Workcamp and some of the participants could edit, but some computers are blocked for registration of a user account. The message of the system is: 178.197.192.0/18 has been partially </nowiki>blocked (disabled). Can you us a solution for the next days (till August 24th)? Thank you! --Hadi (talk) 12:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Let's first ping the blocking admin, @ToBeFree: The combination of parameters and the block history suggest that ACB might not have been intended. Otherwise, we can probably adjust the block for a short while. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:25, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you zzuuzz. As I see that Admin:ToBeFree is not editing today, may I ask someone else to unblock this IP-Range? Thank you. --Hadi (talk) 13:00, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

It sounds like people are there in person waiting for this, zzuuzz. Maybe someone else can act quickly to help them out? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:13, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

zzuuzz fixing ping — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:14, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@Hadi:. Done, in the interim. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

THANK YOU zzuuzz and Rhododendrites! --Hadi (talk) 13:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, and thank you very much for fixing the issue for now. The block is meant to prevent the following type of contributions: [4]

Making the block circumventable by anyone clicking "Create account" seemed counterintuitive to me, so preventing account creation from the range was (back then) an intentional setting. I'd be interested in opinions about whether this currently makes sense, particularly from checkusers. As zzuuzz is a checkuser, I'm perfectly fine with them making the decision; I lack the needed data.

(Isn't this what we have an event coordinator permission for, which we could have assigned to Hadi instead?) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

It would have been more persuasive if you had linked to abuse from accounts :) I don't wish to tempt fate, but some vandals just don't create accounts for whatever reasons. CU logs tell me that the range is far from perfect, but on balance I don't think it presents much of a risk at this time. If it does light up, I'm sure a CU will find and adjust the block. I have a few of these pages already on my watchlist so hopefully I might pick up any increase, but I'll state for the record that anyone can adjust my involvement in the block (hopefully after the editathon). Event coordinator would seem to make sense (but would still have been typically thwarted by the old ACB block). Maybe Hadi wants to look into that. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Heh, true. Well then, thanks again; let's keep the block as it is now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm just a simple wikipedian and don't really understand the technical aspects of blocking. In the German WP (my home WP) I have an IP-Block exception (in German: IP-Sperren-Ausgenommener). So I was surprised that I could not create an account for another person here present. I will have a look at Event coordinator for the next event (I didn't know this.) --Hadi (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, it appears I didn't either. There are multiple options that can be enabled for blocks; one of them is "Apply block to logged-in users from this IP address". This was disabled, so I was certain the block shouldn't have affected you (when logged in) at all. However, both zzuuzz's note in brackets and your description ("could not create an account for another person") state the contrary. I have now checked again and found the following clarification in the blocking policy (#Common blocks imposed):

"A soft IP address block (anon. only, account creation blocked) [...] also restricts any account creation by the IP address or by any user accounts while behind the blocked IP address."

This is counterintuitive to me, as I had disabled the "Apply block to logged-in users from this IP address" option. I didn't want the block to affect logged-in users, so I told MediaWiki not to make it do so.

This is not a bug? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Technical details: The counterintuitive behavior appears to have been introduced in 2008, in response to phab:T15611, creating problems like the still-open phab:T189362. I guess the benefits outweigh the downsides, as making such blocks truly "anon. only" would help more sockpuppeteers than event coordinators. That's sad. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, would having the event coordinator user right allow a logged-in user to be exempt from the account creation block of their underlying IP? My understanding is that the right bypasses the rate limit for account creation (6 accounts per IP per day) and also allows the user to grant confirmed status to new accounts, but in order to get around the account creation block, they would still need an IP block exemption. I would be happy to be wrong. Mz7 (talk) 02:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Nothing can get around an account creation block. phab:T189362 — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah, interesting. That is not optimal. Mz7 (talk) 09:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Motion regarding Muhammad images discretionary sanctions

A motion has been proposed to rescind the discretionary sanctions from the Muhammad images case. Maxim_(talk) 12:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Can an admin help convert a WikiProject into a task force?

Apologies if this is an incorrect venue for this request. I've tried elsewhere previously.

Following a Request for Comment, editors of WikiProject Public Art have agreed to convert the project into a task force of WikiProject Visual arts. In addition to many page moves, a conversion would require folding Template:WikiProject Public Art into Template:WikiProject Visual arts (to reduce the number of talk page banners), without messing up the article assessment framework.

Back in May, I asked if someone from the WikiProject Council could convert the project into a task force. An editor shared a helpful link describing the process, but I do not feel comfortable completing the job without completely mucking everything up. Is anyone here familiar with converting a WikiProject into a task force? If so, could you hop over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Public Art to help out?

Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'd be happy to assist if the need be, as I read a bunch of policy & guidelines on conversion fairly recently to complete this conversion (Checklist) and hopefully didn't break anything. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 14:48, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Please feel free to hop over to the WikiProject Public Art talk page with questions and concerns. One thing to note: You'll see we've previously discussed how this conversion might impact current task forces of WikiProject Public Art, which further complicates this restructure. For example, the London task force of WikiProject Public Art may need to become a task force of WikiProject London, moving Wikipedia:WikiProject Public Art/London to Wikipedia:WikiProject London/Public Art, etc. Sharing for background/context. Thanks again! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:29, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Closure review: Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Mass addition of Cleanup bare URLs template

Non-admin Sideswipe9th has speedily closed two ongoing RFCs, acknowledging this was a controversial closure. I've raised the issue at User talk:Sideswipe9th#Please undo your close of the bare URL RFCs, and they refuse to undo their closure, despite my objections to it. As such, I request a closure review, and that the RFCs be re-opened and let run its course.

Sideswipe9th's unfairly characterizing the RFC's opening as based on a one-sided 'dispute' characterized as a two-sided dispute amongst other things and giving undue weight to early opinions. The RFCs were productive, despite heavy ABF bludgeoning from one person. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Note, as per the discussion at my talk page I welcome this closure review, though I would perhaps have worded it slightly differently. I believe I've given Headbomb a fair hearing at my talk page, as well as a rationale for why I do not find his arguments for re-opening convincing. I'll happily answer any further questions here, and I will of course self-revert both of the closures if they are not endorsed.

As I said in my closure of the two RfCs (RfC 1, RfC 2), I recognise that it is a controversial speedy close and I would add that I did not do so lightly. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll also note that this is a follow up to a previous BRFA on the matter, which explicitly endorsed having an RFC on the matter. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:19, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

These were good closes by Sideswipe9th. The 2 RFCs were transparently disruptive action, in revenge for the fact I had explained to Headbomb how his bullying conduct and multiple abuses of process at WP:BRFA/BHGbot 9 had not prevented me from getting on with my work, which has been highly productive. I simply followed the core policy WP:NOTBURO and worked around the barrier which Headbomb had tried to place in my way. For 8 months I have been removing redundant {{Cleanup bare URLs}} banners, over 10,000 of them, with plenty of thanks notifications. There was not a single objection or question or even expression of concern until Headbomb decided to resume his vendetta.

The "review" at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard/Archive_16#BHGbot_9_review_sought was a disgrace, in which BAG members piled in to endorse one of their own and ignored the abuses of process. They were all so keen to simply back Headbomb that I was denounced for asking them to explain why we would want a big banner at the top of an article which requests editors to fill a ref which had already ben identified an unsuitable. That is a very reasonable question, but sadly BAG was on such an authority kick that they just wanted submission rather than reasoned discussion.

That was my second horrible experience of BAG piling on in support of Headbomb's aggressive follies, and since then I have resolutely avoided the wildly dysfunctional BAG, and tried to avoid the aggressive Headbomb. I have worked with exceptional productivity in cleaning up bare URLs, and it is very sad to see that Headbomb has decided to resume his disruptive aggression in a new space. I thank Sideswipe9th for putting a prompt end to these antics, and am sad to see that Headbomb has not dropped the stick. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

This is a gross characterization of my actions and motivations. I've asked you several times to stop that by now. I've acted in nothing but good faith at every step. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

On the contrary, Headbomb: your bad faith has been extreme and persistent, and your conduct deplorable. I will not stop noting that. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

• I support User:Sideswipe9th's speedy close in this case. The RfC improperly presumed an unestablished consensus to revert thousands of arguably useful edits, and jumped straight to asking how those should be reverted. BD2412 T 02:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The RFCs presumed no such thing, nor did it call for anything to be revert (save perhaps a handful of edits at most). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The second RfC (to which I intended to refer) asked:

There are two questions.

1. Should the mass REMOVAL of {{Cleanup bare URLs}} be done by bots or meatbots?
2. Should bare URLs tagged with issues, like <ref>https://example.com {{deadlink}}</ref> be ignored in this mass removal? Meaning that the {{Cleanup bare URLs}} tag would be removed in those cases.

This clearly presumes that a consensus for "the mass REMOVAL of {{Cleanup bare URLs}}" was a foregone conclusion. BD2412 T 03:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't. The answer can be it should be done by bots, it should be done by meatbots, or there shouldn't be any mass removal done at all. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Then perhaps the question should have been asked more clearly, along the lines of: "Should the mass REMOVAL of {{Cleanup bare URLs}} be done by bots, or meatbots, or not at all?", but even that starts from the proposition that "the mass REMOVAL" of the template is something understood to be supported. BD2412 T 06:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The question "Do you want a drink?" does not suppose you want such a drink. This is a pedantic trivial wording tweak at worst, and not any basis of speedy closing the RFC. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:27, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The question "Do you want a drink?" is not the equivalent of the question quoted above; that would be "Do you want tea or coffee?", which does presuppose that you want a drink, as the question above presupposes that the removal is to happen, questioning only how. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 08:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Fine, then assume someone ask "Do you want water or orange juice?" The answers to that question are either "I'll have some water", "I'll have some orange journal", "I'll have neither." You could even answer "Do you have Dr Pepper? If not, I'll have some water." None of these answers are precluded or invalid. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Endorse the procedural speedy close. The RFCs very obviously didn't comply with WP:RFCNEUTRAL or WP:RFCBEFORE. Levivich 18:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

How is it not neutral? And there was plenty of WP:RFCBEFORE done! That's the explicit recommendation of the failed BRFA! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The questions were not neutral for the reasons stated above by BD and in the subsequent discussion. It wasn't a proper RFCBEFORE because nobody signed off on the questions. Levivich 19:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

"Should Task X be done by bots or meatbots" is a perfectly neutral question. The answer can be bots, meatbots, or not done at all. If the option "not done at all" needs to be explicitly specified, that's a really trivial thing to add, and not a reason to halt the RFC. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Backlog at Category:Wikipedia fully-protected edit requests

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

 – ⁠andrybak (talk) 23:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

A couple of edit requests there has been waiting for a response for a few weeks now. I hope that some administrators here would answer these requests. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Watergate scandal editnotice

I think that the Watergate scandal editnotice should be removed. It says that it is covered by post-1992 American politics, but it happened before 1992. The admin (JzG) who implemented the notice is inactive so I am posting here to get the attention of administrators to determine whether this editnotice is still needed. Interstellarity (talk) 01:14, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify the history: the year 1992 is transcluded via Template:Ds/topics, which befire this edit in 2021 said 1932; this article is about that 60-year period covered by the oroginal DS topic which had subsequently excluded when the topic was narrowed. 93.172.250.2 (talk) 08:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Note that as I understand the motion [5], whatever confusion the editnotice may cause, the consensus required restriction is still in place until and unless an admin decides to remove it. Nil Einne (talk) 11:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Are there enough pre-1992 AP2 editnotices that it would be worth amending the wording to make this clearer? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Nil Einne, I would interpret it the same way. There are still some tangential connections to modern day politics (comparisons of Trump's problems and Nixon's for example, but others as well) such that I would leave it in place, although it is one of those articles that only parts would fall under DS. Many articles only partially fall under DS, ie: BLP for living individuals where the topic isn't that person. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Based on Any sanctions or other restrictions imposed under the discretionary sanctions authorization to date shall remain in force unaffected, I would interpret it as remaining in full effect. An option could be added to the template to give the 1932 cutoff for those legacy cases. Or the template could be subst'd with the 9 changed to a 3. I seem to recall this coming up somewhere before; forget what, if anything, came of it though. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:50, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Sanna Marin

I would like to request review of my actions regarding this article. Sanna Marin is the young prime minister of Finland. Video was recently leaked of her at a party, dancing in what some people thought was a suggestive or inappropriate fashion. There have been repeated attempts to add this content to the biography, which I consider a violation of WP:BLP as trivial gossip and an invasion of privacy. The incident has been widely reported. I have semi-protected the article. One new editor rapidly edited their userpage to get autoconfirmed and then immediately loaded up the article with a controversy section including this dancing incident. I consider that gaming the system, so I reverted and pageblocked that editor. So, I am asking for feedback from other administrators on this matter. Thanks. Cullen328 (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The semi-protection seems appropriate to me, due to the vandalism, current high profile, and some lazy OTT BLP edits. I can also go along with the p-block in the spirit of semi-protection (per the gaming). Hopefully you'll be able to re-visit the block duration at some point. I don't particularly agree with some of the objections about including some of the material in an appropriate way. Even BBC Radio 4 talks about how she's cool and likes festivals, but there's no mention in the article. On the other hand, a detailed description of her dancing style or sound quality is of no interest. Hopefully the discussions will progress constructively. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:30, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

"Even BBC Radio 4 talks about how she's cool and likes festivals, but there's no mention in the article" - That is irrelevant in the current controversy. No description of dancing style was given (where do you take that from?), and that bit about sound quality is what makes this a controversy. In Finland they were discussing whether the expression "flour gang" was heard or not. Some (the opposition) say it is, while others, as reported by Finnish media, could not confirm that, and actually deny it. In order to eliminate any doubt Marin took a drug test. Professor Peter van Nostrand (talk) 01:19, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

What you see a big paragraph labelled 'controversy' and containing full details of what is part tabloid, part allegation, part politics, and plenty of speculation, I see as a small footnote to some details of her personality and public reputation. If there's substance to be had after the test results, I'm sure we'll hear more about any notable long term effects. In other words, try not to overthink this. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:41, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

My edit was not an "invasion of privacy" This is in the news, everywhere... no longer private, and I have already provided the source links. Actually, it is a translation from the Finnish version of Wikipedia. You have not provided any valid argument to claim that privacy is being violated.

"I consider that gaming the system" - there are not rules regarding what articles one user is not allowed to edit once the required conditions are met, or if a edit of a controversial topic would be considered a violation of any other rule. I saw the article had a missing section, which is relevant today, and I provided the necessary sources to mention what happened and why Marin is accused of drug consumption. ~~~~ Professor Peter van Nostrand (talk) 01:14, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Professor Peter van Nostrand, you are incorrect on this specific point. Please read Wikipedia:Gaming the system. Anybody can review the evidence and see that I explained the requirements for autoconfirmed status on the BLP talk page, and then see you make seven rapid-fire trivial edits to your own user page, and then immediately violate BLP policy, which you had already been informed about. Wikipedia administrators did not just fall off a turnip truck.Cullen328 (talk) 03:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Man, I have this account since June, 2021. I had the insane idea of using it for the first time today when I saw the bias on this article, and my edits (previous to this article) were mostly spelling mistakes corrections from the Spanish version (all useful), and an attempt to give shape to my profile page, I still don't know how to add a few features like language, and stuff. You assume it was all on purpose. So, I was waiting for a year and two months with a dormant account so that I could spring into action now and spread "gossips" and an obsession with "dancing styles". False accusations after false accusations, unbelievable. There are no rules written regarding what I can edit or not right after I had the necessary requirements to do so, and you know it. Professor Peter van Nostrand (talk) 04:07, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Professor Peter van Nostrand, your comments make it crystal clear that you do not understand WP:BLP policy and that you are here for the purpose of making a living person look bad by any means necessary. This is a faux controversy about a person's dancing style and utterly unsubstantiated rumors about drug use by a public official. Do you really think that you have the right to cram unsubstantiated rumors into an encyclopedia? If so, you are wrong . Cullen328 (talk) 01:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I only provided information about a current controversy as I said many times. No other judgments. If the information or accusations are "bad" or "negative" that is not my problem. They are public and relevant. The accusations could be false, but Marin took a drug test and that was made because the accusation had a political consequence. If you consider that's an attempt to make a person look bad, then many articles with reports of corruption, and wrongdoing should be removed. After all, the accuser will say someone is guilty, and the accused will claim innocence. What side do we take? None. Only to describe what is being said. However, as I understand, we're not here to make personal judgements of what is "good" or "bad", but to share what information is known, particularly when is relevant for the subject (a political leader in this case is relevant). You keep talking about the dancing, the "dancing style" and "rumors" of drug use. I'm not talking about rumors, and I'm not talking about dancing styles (show me where I did that), but about news and accusations that are in the headlines. It is more than clear that you have an interest for this information not to be available. Total bias, as expected and pointed out by other users. Professor Peter van Nostrand (talk) 02:02, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Professor Peter van Nostrand, you are trying to add utterly unsubstantiated allegations of illegal drug use based on wild rumors to a biography of a living person. If she gets convicted of drug offenses, it belongs. If she gets formally charged, then that probably belongs. But rumors based on maybe somebody although not her saying "flour" as code for drugs in a leaked video of a private party? No. This is an encylopedia, not a purveyor of sleazy clickbait. Cullen328 (talk) 02:31, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Professor Peter van Nostrand, I would like to address your accusation of "Total bias". I have been an editor here for 13 years and an adminstrator for five years. All of my edits are readily visible in my edit history. The only bias I have on Wikipedia is in favor of Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines. I have warned and when necessary blocked policy violating editors of every major ideological persuasion on Earth. I am very proud to have prevented BLP violations on the biographies of many politicians who support political positions that I disagree with, sometimes strongly. As for Sanna Marin, I do not follow Finnish politics and had no idea what political party she represented when I semi-protected the article. My action was motivated by the policy based need to stop rumor-mongering and nothing else. Cullen328 (talk) 02:44, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

What do you know about the "utterly unsubstantiated allegations"? You already have an opinion about those allegations, I don't. I won't share personal opinions about the topics I want to write about. I don't know if I explained myself with enough clarity, but what I share are the news of the incident, not gossips or rumours "some people said she got some drugs at the party". Marin made an official statement about this incident, in the role of a prime minister, She made the whole topic public and official. What rumours are you talking about. The allegations could be totally false, but the controversy is not and public statements are real, they happened. I repeat: the controversy, the public statements. To remove that from Wikipedia is an act of biased editing. You already talk about "bad image". Like it is our work to make people look good or bad. Professor Peter van Nostrand (talk) 04:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Professor Peter van Nostrand, have you read and studied the WP:BLP policy? Do you understand it? Do you consider yourself bound by it? Cullen328 (talk) 04:30, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I did, and this part is the one you refuse to comply with:

"In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." <--and I added many links to the most important newspapers talking about this. Professor Peter van Nostrand (talk) 04:44, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

By the way, you wrote here "trivial gossip and an invasion of privacy". Marin made an official statement, is that a gossip? The allegations exist. Are those gossips? "invasion of privacy"? The section Privacy of personal information and using primary sources proves your accusation agaist my work is completely wrong. I never did that. I ask for the third time: Where did I do that? So far I've been told things I never wrote. Professor Peter van Nostrand (talk) 04:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

This is the type of content that you think is encyclopedic, Professor Peter van Nostrand: There were speculations on social media that in the video the word ”jauhojengistä” (flour gang) could be heard, while the passage from Petri Nygård's "Hyvästi selvä pää" song "Palvon Lemmyy, otan hennyy" played in the background. According to Iltaleh's Lauri Nurme, police and legal sources say in general that recreational drug users in Helsinki generally refer to amphetamine or cocaine with the word "jauho" (flour). MP Mikko Kärnä suggested that Marin voluntarily undergo a drug test. According to Riikka Purranki, the chairman of the Finns Party, it would remove doubts if the test were negative. According to Iltalehti's Pyry Vaisma, a sound technology expert interviewed anonymously by the newspaper, spectrum analysis shows that the video talks about a "flour gang".According to Yleisradio's sound designer Sami Lindfors, the soundtrack is of poor quality and people hear it in different ways even after cleaning it up. According to the interviewed phonetics professor Martti Vainio, people's expectations affect what they hear. Marin said that she could take a drug test if necessary, but she forbade the use of drugs at the party. In addition, Vainio said that he does not hear anyone talking about the flour gang in the video. What unmitigated garbage. Cullen328 (talk) 05:15, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

• Yep, "unmitigated garbage" is a good description for that - it's nothing more than an attempted hit job based on unsupported speculation and accusation. Fully agree with your actions, Cullen328. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:46, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and as for "This is in the news, everywhere"... it really shouldn't need to be said that Wikipedia is *not* a news outlet. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

• I was going to make a joke about how we need a full paragraph on Barack Obama's article on that one time he wore a tan suit instead of a gray one, and lo and behold: Obama tan suit controversy. This is why I rarely edit about current affairs. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:30, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oh dear, if I couldn't see it was true, I really would have believed that was a joke. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

• Had they received the DS alert before that edit, I would have simply applied a BLP ban unilaterally. The last thing we need is this kind of garbage in biographical articles. I would be open to, and support, a BLP topic ban here. If for no other reason, than they lack the competency to discern what is and isn't appropriate in a BLP encyclopedia article. I can't see how anything of value would be lost with a BLP tban. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:47, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
• Another August silly-season news story about a politician dancing, that merits at most 3 sentences.

Meanwhile, on wiki, a BLP was semi-protected, and a user then started to game the system to get autoconfirmed in order to edit that article and violate BLP policy. Good protection, good block. Cabayi (talk) 09:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Clearly nobody wants to admit the bunch of censors that you guys are. I wasnt wrong. This is on the news, and will come up eventually on this article to give context if the controversy grows. That text is perfectly fine. That's how it started, and how it became what it is in Finland these days, but what can one say about people who keep on talking about the dancing... not the drug use accusation. Pure fallacies. Professor Peter van Nostrand (talk) 10:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news website. If she's convicted, it's encyclopedic material. Until then it's conjecture and against WP:BLP policy. Cabayi (talk) 10:15, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

There is no credible "accusation". There is merely social media gossip about what someone thinks background music might have implied and a word that someone other than Sanna Marin might have said. Then space-filler news stories repeated the gossip and we all had a good laugh. That is not how WP:BLP articles are written. Johnuniq (talk) 10:20, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

"will come up eventually on this article to give context if the controversy grows" is pretty much what Cullen328 has been saying this whole time. That is a reasonable expectation for BLPs, and for articles in general. CMD (talk) 10:22, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

As an uninvolved party, I have to say that I endorse User:Cullen328's point of view. This is nearing a WP:BLP violation. For the most of Sanna Marin's term as prime minister, part of the Finnish media seems to have been on some sort of witch-hunt against her, desperate to find something to accuse her of. Sanna Marin has not been convicted or even accused of illegal drug use. Saying the word jauho ("flour") at a private party is not a crime. If anything, it's the people who posted the video who should be accused here, not Sanna Marin. This material simply does not belong on Wikipedia unless there's an actual conviction. JIP | Talk 10:48, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I also concur with @Cullen328's assessment and actions. Sandstein 20:28, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

If she had been investigated by the police, or an other official investigative body (and I mean more than a drug test, which came out negative), there may be a basis for including it in the article. If she were officially charged, there would definitely be. If a witness had claimed to see her take drugs, and several unrelated reliable news outlets repeated that statement, there may be a basis to repeat them. If, when running for any elected post (or for nomination for it in any political party) the competition uses this claim as propoganda against her, there may be a basis. Short of the above, don't even mention it. 93.172.237.84 (talk) 06:25, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Revision deletion of more than 15-year history of How to Win Friends and Influence People

In March 2022, parts of the article were removed for being copyright violation. Afterwards, all revisions since January 2007 when this content was first added has been deleted, more than a thousand revisions, for WP:RD1: "Blatant violations of the copyright policy". While I can see how it can be argued that this content was a copyright violation, and that they should be removed from the article, I think it is a stretch to claim that they are "blatant violations" that needs to be suppressed from history at such high cost. If nothing else, the fact that this content remained up in the article for more than 15 years, and not one person thought they were copyright violations, is a testament that they are not that blatant violations: Perhaps blatant copyright violations can go unnoticed in obscure articles, but this is a fairly popular article, viewed millions of time over the years, probably thousands of times by Wikipedia admins. Use of WP:REVDEL like this, which is mainly intended for recent material, seems too heavy-handed; and taking into account how disruptive it is, affecting so many valid contributions by hundreds of editors, I don't think such a large-scale use should take place in this case.--Orwellianist (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

@Orwellianist: Did you discuss this with Primefac before coming here? (Full disclosure, I was the one who made the revdel request, as a then-non-admin. I think Primefac made the right call for an exceptional case of an 1,800-word summary that described every key point of the book in such a way as to significantly interfere with the book's market potential.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Primefac and Tamzin - this is something of an exceptional case. In general, whether to redact copyright violations is a balancing act between the size and impact of the copyright violation, and the number of intervening edits / amount of time since the violation was introduced. Here we have a large violation that effectively provides a Cliff's Notes for the book, and so while the number of intervening revisions is large, I think the use of revdel was justified. Is there a specific issue you have with the redaction (e.g. not being able to see earlier revision content)? firefly ( t · c ) 13:03, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Deletion RfC Closers sought

As part of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case, the Arbitration Committee decided to request community comments on issues related to mass nominations at Articles for Deletion in a discussion to be moderated and closed by editors appointed by the committee.

ArbCom is getting ready to appoint the 3 closer panel. Some editors have already contacted the committee to express their interest; thanks to those who have already volunteered. ArbCom would like to let the community as a whole know that we're looking for these closers. If you're interested in being a closer please send us an email to let us know. For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Deletion RfC Closers sought

An RfR request

Some time ago, I made a request (Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Page mover) for the page mover user right. Today, I received the template notifying me that I acquired the right, when I did not receive the right or a "done" at the RfR page. NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

• If you look at how the template got on your page [6] you will see that an IP editor out of India placed it there, not an admin or bot. ie: it was an act of vandalism. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:00, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Clarification on lifting of BLP ban

• Jabbi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Good day editors

Just over a year ago I wrote about sensitive aspects of Belarusian politics and did not provide acceptable sources for some of my statements. I appealed my ban about a third into it which was not well received. I understand that any statements, regard living persons especially, in all namespaces, need to be appropriately sourced and not contain a non-neutral point of view. I want to stress that I am a long term contributor to Wikipedia, having focused the majority of my contributions to the Icelandic Wikipedia, but have increasingly switched to the English one. I do understand BLP policy, I made a mistake and furthermore in trying to defend my original mistake rather than accepting criticism. I see that clearly with distance on it. My suggestion for anyone sceptical of my integrity would be to look at my edits to 2011 Minsk Metro bombing, a sensitive topic but you could also look at Alexander Lukashenko, Constitution of Belarus.

I have adhered to the ban for the past year. Mostly contributing around the important Belarusian historical figure, Konstanty Kalinowski with one accidental breach, see Talk:Soft_Belarusization.

Pinging @Nick, @El C, @Bbb23, @Robert McClenon, @HighInBC, @Deepfriedokra, @Ncmvocalist, @Celestina007, @Jackattack1597, @Meters, @Cullen328, @Pawnkingthree, @Isaacl

My question is simply if the ban can be lifted and I am allowed to edit BLP.

Thanks for your time, Jabbi (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

@Jabbi: You edited Alexander Lukashenko? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:42, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Now I remember . . . -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I support lifting the topic ban. BTW, couldn't you have started off with "Hello editors"? GoodDay (talk) 12:53, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support lifting the topic ban, regardless of whether it is about to expire anyway. There have been no new issues in about a year. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support lifting the topic ban. It has been more than one year, and the user's limited editing on English Wikipedia during that time shows no problems. Meters (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per my original reasoning in the ANI thread that resulted in the ban. I don't see any engagement with other editors wrt solving conflict and minimal edits in general during their ban. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
• Not so sure The problem is, you haven't done anything here or on the Iceland Wiki to judge by. 20 edits in the last year? That isn't enough of a measuring stick to feel warm and fuzzy about it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:07, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose at this time. I, too, feel that 20 edits in the last year isn't a good enough measuring stick to confidently tell whether we'd be spared another episode. I suppose that, practically speaking, since the ban is gonna expire soon, anyway, it doesn't really matter. But I still think this point needs to resonate. El_C 20:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
• Neutral I was pinged, but there is not enough to go buy.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
• Procedural questions. I'm not sure why I was pinged, but, more important, I don't understand the ban. The only thing formal I've read was that Jabbi was banned until "at least July 26, 2022". Isn't that kind of odd ban language? What happens after July 26? Why do editors say that the ban is going to "expire soon"? Just in case anyone is curious, today is August 22. :p I guess I must be missing something.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

  The closing statement suggests that the ban is an indefinite one appealable after one year, but reading through the discussion it seems pretty clear to me that the proposal being supported is Jabbi is banned from making any edits anywhere on Wikipedia that concerns a living person or recently deceased person for one year (which you proposed, incidentally!) There's an alternative proposal for an indefinite ban appealable after nine months, but that doesn't seem to attract any support. (And Wug's message on Jabbi's talkpage notifying them of the re-imposed ban says I closed your AN appeal having seen consensus to essentially reset your one year topic ban.

  So my understanding is that the ban has expired, and Jabbi is free to make edits relating to living people once again. (The alternative interpretation would be that Wug's ANI close statement is the canonical sanction, the ban is indefinite and therefore will not expire soon. But either the ban has already expired, or it won't at all; I can't see any reading by which it will expire soon!) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

• Moot The best I can tell is that they were under a 1 year ban, violated the ban in july of 2021 which reset the clock on the 1-year ban. But it is now August 2022, and unless there was another extension of the ban, the ban has already expired. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

  Normally, the violation of a ban results in a block or at least a warning. It doesn't automatically reset the ban unless the administrator formally states that is the sanction for the violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

  That is correct, from what I saw of the discussion they chose to reset the ban in July 2021. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Statement regarding harassment on off-wiki chat platforms

In recent years, the Arbitration Committee has referred several cases of off-wiki harassment involving off-wiki chat platforms (e.g. IRC, Discord, Telegram) to the Wikimedia Foundation Trust and Safety team (T&S). While these cases were not part of T&S's original core mandate, ArbCom made these referrals because these chat platforms are not supervised by any particular project community and allegations often involve non-public information. The Arbitration Committee has therefore asked T&S to further develop its policy and communication options for responding to these cases and has specifically asked T&S to consider updates to the global event ban policy to more effectively handle harassment in virtual, off-wiki spaces.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 05:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Statement regarding harassment on off-wiki chat platforms

Close challenge of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 381#RfC: Business Insider news reporting

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

---

I am requesting a formal review of the closure made by FormalDude at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 381#RfC: Business Insider news reporting. The request for comment was focused on the extent to which the news section of Business Insider is reliable for news reporting from December 2021-present. I have several concerns with the closure and, following discussion on the closer's talk page, I am bringing it here for community review per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

I am concerned with the close for two main reasons:

1. FormalDude, who has previously !voted in an RfC relating to the reliability of Business Insider, is WP:INVOLVED with respect to the reliability of Business Insider. FormalDude, who was a participant in a previous RfC on Business Insider's reliability, where they !voted in support of the publication's general reliability for culture reporting, shows that they appear to be WP:INVOLVED with respect to the reliability of Business Insider. When I reached out to them on their talk page, they defended themselves by saying that the comment was a year old. But WP:INVOLVED clearly states that involvement is broadly construed to include disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. That the RfC in which they !voted in favor of declaring Business Insider's culture section to be WP:GREL occurred just under a year ago does not make them uninvolved.
2. FormalDude's closure is a WP:SUPERVOTE. The entire motivation for the consensus given in their closing summary is their erroneous and novel claim that [m]ost concerns were with their clickbait content that is not associated with their news section. But this isn't an accurate summary of the discussion; evidence was presented in the discussion of a plethora of issues with respect to the website's reliability throughout its entire existence (such as editorial staffing issues, lack of independence from advertisers, making employees sign what amount to gag orders, the acceptance of quid-pro-quo payments for coverage, the widespread propagation of false stories without fact-checking, false reporting on COVID-19 preparations in hospitals, etc.), including RS commented negatively the source's journalistic stature as recently as this year. Editors, such as VickKiang and Chetsford, also offered affirmative arguments against those who supported Option 1, noting that the Pulitzer for illustrated reporting is not actually a prize awarded for breaking news or investigative reporting and that one can win this sort of prize while also (as Chetsford puts it) publishing a revolving door of errors and falsehoods almost too numerous to mention and giving editorial control to advertisers. Rather than addressing any of this in their close, FormalDude falsely characterizes the thrust of the arguments in opposition to Business Insider's reliability as merely there being clickbait published in sections that are not news. As such, the closer's characterization of arguments in opposition to Option 1 is deeply incorrect and borders on being a straw-man characterization of the arguments presented. And, as a result of this, the closer fails to offer anything close to an appropriate summary of the discussion.

In light of the above, I ask that the close be overturned and re-opened for closure by an uninvolved closer.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

• Looking at this (as an uninvolved non-admin) it seems the old RfC was about the Business Insider "Culture" section, while the newer one is about its "News" section. This is presumably why there were two distinct RfCs. I don't think having a view on one necessarily makes an editor "involved" with respect to the other, so don't think this argument has merit in evaluating the close. (On the other hand, the OP here using the username "Mhawk10" was heavily involved in the RfC, maybe even to the point of WP:BLUDGEONING.) Alexbrn (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2022 (UTC); expanded 06:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC); amended 06:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
• 1) This RfC was about Business Insider's news section while the 2021 RfC that I commented on was about their culture section. 2) DeletionClose review is not for repeating arguments already made in the deletion discussion. Furthermore, I did not characterize the opposition to Option 1, I simply stated that a majority of concerns were about content that was not in the news section, which is nowhere near a supervote. ––FormalDude talk 05:59, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

  This is AN not DRV. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:06, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

  I did not characterize the opposition to Option 1, I simply stated that a majority of concerns were about content that was not in the news section is nonsensical when those very concerns are about whether the source is generally reliable for news reporting. And, quite frankly, a !vote in an RfC based upon your belief that Business Insider is an RS in the context of culture is quite involving when the staff of the two sections substantially overlap. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

  Those concerns are about whether the source is generally reliable overall, not for news reporting. ––FormalDude talk 06:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

  You are presenting as if you have an emotional connection to your close. Not a good look if you are arguing that your close was impartial. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

  If the source is... not generally reliable overall due to company-wide deficiencies in editorial practice (as was the prior consensus, mind you), then what WP:policy or guideline are you referencing that indicates that a closer should assume the reliability of a media organization's news reporting is totally isolated from the media organization's general reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

  It seems like you're alluding to an inductive generalization that assumes the reliability of BI's news section must match the reliability of BI in general merely because the news section is a part of BI. This is not the case, as evidenced by their culture section being elvaluted on its own merits, as well as by other cases where departments are separated out from their parent media organization such as WP:BUZZFEED vs WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS. ––FormalDude talk 06:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Not looked at this too closely but this seems like a legitimate concern to have and if a recluse by someone who can't be seen as involved will help the outcome to land properly with participants then that must be a good thing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm all for addressing legitimate concerns, but overturning this because I am WP:INVOLVED seems like pandering. My prior involvement is minor and obviously does not show bias. ––FormalDude talk 06:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Voting on a similar discussion is not minor and ensuing that an outcome is cleau not involved is most certainly not pandering to anybing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus. On the involved point, I think it's a borderline argument. FormalDude expressed an early opinion in the prior debate that they have a clear feeling that BI is reliable, at least as far as the Culture section discussed in that debate was concerned. I think if that debate had ended up being closed the other way (that it is not generally reliable for Culture), that would be an indicator that FormalDude was out of step with the community on this. In fact, though, the close was with FormalDude so their opinion aligns with Wikipedia's in that regard so I'll move on and look at the close itself. Numerically, !votes between treat as generally reliable and apply caveats (which was the prior status quo) were roughly split, and I don't see anything in the arguments that would render either position automatically preferable from a guideline or policy point of view, or which would make me think that WP:NOTAVOTE needed to be invoked. And as noted by the OP above, the argument about "click bait" doesn't seem to align with the thrust of many of the "Option 2" votes. Thus I think the correct outcome is to give each an equal weighting and close as "no consensus", which means retaining option 2 as the prior status quo. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus, the arguments for option 1 (generally reliable) might have been slightly stronger but clearly not enough to overcome virtually equal numbers of people supporting 2 who also provided reasonable, sensible rationales. There really is no clear consensus here, instead being virtually split between option 1 and 2, so I feel that it must be overturned and reclosed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

So there is no misunderstanding, I'm not taking side on whether FormalDude should or shouldn't have closed, which is an INVOLVED issue. My point is that I don't think any closer that was weighing the arguments could have concluded anything except no consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

FormalDude, given the direction of the conversation here, maybe it's best to simply revert yourself and let someone else close. It doesn't require that you agree with the consensus here, but it shows good judgement to recognize it and simply revert yourself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:36, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Done. ––FormalDude talk 01:50, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment, I participated in the discussion and supported Option 1. I think the argument that FormalDude is involved is borderline - he didn't participate in this discussion, he participated in a slightly different older discussion. I could see the argument to his involvement but I can also see his explanation as to why he felt it was OK. Personally I'd be happy enough to see the close stand, but I can see that several people want to have it be re-closed. However, I do want to opine that if the close is overturned, the action should not be to overturn it to "no consensus," but that it should be reopened to be re-closed by a different uninvolved person and/or group of people. Interpreting the strength and weight of arguments is not a supervote, it is indeed the task of closing a discussion, and it is definitely possible that there was a consensus in the discussion - though, it is also possible that there was not. I did not review every comment and argument. Andre🚐 22:05, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus. wrt WP:INVOLVED, I agree with those saying FD was not. The prior RFC was about the "culture" section, and ultimately agreed with FD's position. If that constitutes INVOLVED, then we would also, logically, have to treat that prior RFC as having an impact on how the current one is closed, and that's not really justifiable. Different parts of the BI website, different circumstances, different editorial procedures, etc. It's an interesting argument, clearly falls in the grey areas, but I ultimately do not see the merits of the pro-INVOLVED argument. However, I do think FD may have dipped just on this side of WP:SUPERVOTE territory with Most concerns were with their clickbait content that is not associated with their news section. That would elevate a particular minor argument above many other substantive ones which were more convincing to either side. I would just chock it up as a hasty close, something we are all sometimes guilty of, but which should be discouraged in general. wrt the closure itself, I read there as being 9 !votes for Opt 1, 9 !votes for Opt 2, 2 !votes for Opt 3. In strength of the presented arguments, I do not see either 1 or 2 as being particularly persuasive over the other to respondents. There were many substantive arguments for Opt 1 (pulitzer prize, multiple in depth substantive factual reporting pieces on hard-hitting topics, the listed mistakes are the same as any other NEWSORG, they correct and acknowledge mistakes, there have been substantial changes in the post-2021 era of reporting, we shouldn't focus on the clickbait headlines cuz HEADLINES), only some of which were answered by proponents of Opt 2. There were many substantive arguments for Opt 2 (numerous administrative failings in the past, some big unsightly gaffes and propagation of misinformation, quid pro quo payments, etc) which were not answered by Opt 1 proponents. Additionally it is important to consider that many Opt 2 !votes were essentially empty agreements with MHawk, or "you can't trust any news media" or similarly empty arguments. Many Opt 1 !votes were essentially "pulitzer=good." On balance, none of these options was able to achieve any substantive consensus of respondents, so the proper closure would be no consensus. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Shibbolethink: Can you point to an argument made by someone besides MHawk in support of Option 2 that showed any evidence of problems with the BI news section specifically (as opposed to just generalization about BI as a whole)? I cannot, but I do see multiple people supporting option 2 who specifically argue about content that is outside of BI's news section. ––FormalDude talk 22:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

  Several Opt 2 respondents pointed out issues with promotion of the Pulitzer as an Illustrative-category prize (e.g. [7] [8]) which diminishes its value, though it is wrt the News section. Several described issues with factual reporting and inaccuracies (e.g. [9] [10]). Is it true that many of those arguments deal with issues prior to 2021? Yes. But it is up to the respondents themselves to dictate whether or not they believe such events just prior to 2021 (i.e. in late 2020) would affect stories and oversight after 2021, if ownership and editorial board have not substantively changed. To discount such arguments for such a reason would be a SUPERVOTE imo. Overall, I can see why you closed the way you did. I think you absolutely closed it in good faith. It was a tough discussion to assess, that's for sure, with many many moving parts. But I ultimately think nocon is where I would have gone, personally. My only humble advice would be to say more in closes like this so as to not give detractors ammunition for closure review. I know that's counterintuitive. But if you say very little in a close, it looks like you didn't consider all the other things. It's a sticky wicket, since saying too much can also get you boned. But in this case, if you had just plain said more about summarizing arguments, it would have been much easier to defend as an overall fair summation of the arguments presented. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

  Pulitzer arguments were evenly matched and relevant. But none of the arguments about factual errors and inaccuracies point to an article from BI's news section. With no proof or evidence of specific problems with their news section, how can you not prescribe less weight to the Opt 2 comments? ––FormalDude talk 22:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

  I do prescribe less weight to Opt 2 comments, absolutely. I think the argument, as a whole, was balanced slightly in favor of Opt 1, but not enough to swing it from no consensus to consensus in favor of Opt 1. Additionally I think the factual reporting concerns re: COVID-19 hospital preparation actually is a news section article. [11] That article, in and of itself, seems innocuous. But it suffers from failures to fact check what it says are "reported" figures. In that sense, I do agree in part with critics of BI's reporting. I don't think it's enough to call it "unreliable" but I see why they were concerned. That article basically just takes a powerpoint presentation from 1 or 2 guys and reports it out without much investigation or analysis of the validity of the claims therein. The 2013-2014 issues (e.g. Snowden) are definitely red flags in favor of Option 2, but they are also quite a bit removed from the current editorial staff. I would weigh these extremely lightly in comparison to Opt 1 arguments. Like I said, I think it was, on balance, closer to Opt 1 than Opt 2, but not enough to call it "consensus in favor of option 1" from my own personal reading. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for elaborating your point for me, I see what you mean. ––FormalDude talk 23:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus. Clearly, per discussion here and at the actual RfC. There was no consensus for the closure, as it was. Curiouser and curiouser... Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:50, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
• Seeing as the closure has now been withdrawn by the closer, should this thread be closed? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Attention needed at Talk:Lion Capital of Ashoka

I'm here to recommend a procedural close of this RfC. I am not a party to the dispute, but rather one of about a dozen FRS bot-notice respondents. To any admin or experienced community member wishing to undertake this close, you should be prepared to spend a significant amount of time, as the talk page has been made an utter mess by the disputants. I have responded to over a thousand RfC notices via FRS alone in the last ten years or so, and yet I don't know that I have ever seen as bad a case of two-way WP:Bludgeoning and stonewalling on any other talk page. To wit:

• The two principle parties to the dispute have contributed between them well more than 95% of the content of the relevant talk page threads; in the present RfC they each have made somewhere around 30-45 posts each, and the majority of these are large walls of text. The other FRS respondents have contributed perhaps 20 comments between us--every single last one of which has been replied to by one (and usually both) of the two disputants multiple times, thoroughly drowning out all other input with their pedantic bickering. Looking at the talk page revision statistics, we can see that these two both have more than 130KB of contributed talk page content each, and 320KB between them. For comparison, I am in third place with 18KB, and the average among the respondents is probably somewhere around 5KB.

• Heightening the issues is the fact that the vast, vast majority of the content of their debate is borderline relevant to the content determination at best. There is heavy influence of WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR on both sides. One of the parties probably could have prevailed very early on in this discussion simply by sticking to a straightforward policy argument regarding synthesis, but instead both have advanced tedious, long-winded arguments that often foreground their perceived personal knowledge and opinions on the sources. Both seem to regard themselves as non-scholar experts on the topic and this seems to mostly have become a grudge match to see their preferred interpretations of the facts prevail. Because of this, any efforts at compromise or principled resolution by following guidelines fail to move either one of them an inch towards the other's position, or any third-party suggested resolution.

• These two have been asked repeatedly by at least four respondents to stop bludgeoning the discussion, and told that they have more than sufficiently made their positions known, and that their behaviour is clearly disruptive and destroying any chance of a consensus outcome, but they both seem utterly incapable of not engaging with eachother in constant tit-for-tat broadsides. The posts of one of the two in particular contain significant evidence of WP:OWN, as well as comments that are at least borderline WP:PA (and certainly WP:AFG violations at the least). But both crossed the WP:DISRUPTIVE threshold long ago and have been told as much. They simply either don't care, or just cannot pull out of this armchair expert dogfight.

I'm aware of the extent of this debate because I have been pinged back by one or the other of these two repeatedly over the last few weeks, and have thus ended up making repeated efforts to referee the matter and build some sort of bridge to a middle ground solution--or at least try to get them to make some limited factual concessions to one-another. Other editors have made similar efforts. It has all been utterly and completely fruitless and I don't have any hope remaining that leaving the RfC open will accomplish anything other than further waste the time of respondents. Unfortunately, if the discussion is closed now, I can't see how the result can be anything but a "no consensus" determination. I'm not 100% enthusiastic with that outcome, because I think forcing the status quo version by default will favor the party who has arguably been the more obstinate and disruptive of the two.

But this is a giant waste of community effort. It is now effectively impossible for new voices to enter or have an impact on the discussion. I brought the matter here rather than ANI because I felt the closure of the discussion by an experienced closer (and ideally an admin) is the simplest solution and I don't have the inclination (nor the time in the coming days even if I did have the desire) to make a case for action/sanctions against the disputants--nor do I think that discussion would be productive. As such, and because no action is being sought with regard to any party, I have opted not to notify them of this request immediately, so that the closer will have time to review the relevant threads without being bombarded by further commentary. If anyone feels this is a breach of the noticeboard rules, please feel free to notify them with my thanks: I will not be able to respond further to the matter personally for at least a couple of days, which makes the timing here awkward, I will grant. But again, I thought this should be seen and addressed sooner rather than later.

In any event, my apologies to whoever has to clean this mess up, but I'm just about to take a hiatus for a few days, and I didn't think leaving this thing live for any longer was in the article's or the community's best interest. Edit: For the record, I've had no previous experience of, nor interaction with, either of the previously mentioned parties, that I can recall, previous to the present RfC. (just realized that is probably worth mentioning). SnowRise ^{let's rap} 12:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

• Wow. I think the best course of action at this point is to close the RfC and reopen it with a strict word/post limit on those two editors. I don't think it's reasonable to expect someone to close that mess. Hut 8.5 12:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Requesting some reviewers at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist

There are several unreviewed requests that are auto-archived by ClueBot everyday and I'm tired of edit-warring with it. Can an administrator please review them and accept or decline them as appropriate? Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 12:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)