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 three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Total
CfD	0	6	17	104	127
TfD	0	0	1	0	1
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	9	17	26
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 0 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 2 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 2 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 3 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 92 sockpuppet investigations
• 6 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 1 Fully protected edit requests
• 1 Candidates for history merging
• 1 requests for RD1 redaction
• 32 elapsed requested moves
• 2 Pages at move review
• 33 requested closures
• 59 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 33 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (43 out of 7868 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin 2014 Jerusalem synagogue attack 2024-06-19 21:08 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter Shadia Abu Ghazaleh 2024-06-19 19:30 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement WP:ARBPIA; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Battle of Bucha 2024-06-19 12:55 indefinite edit,move Wikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AXXXXK 2024-06-19 08:02 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated ToBeFree J Williams 2024-06-19 04:09 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Writers Against the War on Gaza 2024-06-18 22:02 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case 2024 pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses in the Netherlands 2024-06-18 21:53 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Municipal resolutions for a ceasefire in the Israel–Hamas war 2024-06-18 21:48 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case University of Texas at Austin stabbing 2024-06-18 21:41 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Palestinian sports during the 2023-2024 Israeli invasion of Gaza 2024-06-18 20:40 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel in 2024 2024-06-18 20:38 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter Noam Chomsky 2024-06-18 20:29 2024-06-21 20:29 edit Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: Reports of his death have been greatly exaggerated Muboshgu Reaction of university donors during Israel–Hamas war 2024-06-18 20:28 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case European Union reactions to the Israel–Hamas war 2024-06-18 20:22 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Draft:Akash Anand 2024-06-18 19:30 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated TomStar81 TJ Monterde 2024-06-18 18:16 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Template:Getalias2/core 2024-06-18 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2508 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Getalias2 2024-06-18 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2511 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Jain temples, Pavagadh 2024-06-18 10:32 2024-07-18 10:32 edit,move Persistent vandalism Black Kite Rick and Morty: Go to Hell 2024-06-18 02:13 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate Rick and Morty – Go to Hell 2024-06-18 02:11 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate Rick and Morty: Heart of Rickness 2024-06-18 02:10 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate Rick and Morty: Crisis on C-137 2024-06-18 02:09 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate Rick and Morty: Infinity Hour 2024-06-18 02:08 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate Sukhoi Su-57 2024-06-17 20:07 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Meragram 2024-06-17 17:18 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector Union Council Khot 2024-06-17 17:17 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Ivanvector User talk:Aviram7/Editnotice 2024-06-17 16:20 indefinite edit,move user request UtherSRG Malcolm Vaughn 2024-06-17 05:48 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ad Orientem Talk:Malcolm Vaughn 2024-06-17 05:47 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated A7 article Ad Orientem Timeline of the 2014 Gaza War 2024-06-17 02:28 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Elli DWYE-FM 2024-06-16 21:40 indefinite create Liz DWIP-FM 2024-06-16 21:39 indefinite create Liz Calls for a ceasefire during the Israel–Hamas war 2024-06-16 20:38 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Hashim Safi Al Din 2024-06-16 19:44 indefinite edit,move raising to ECP as requested Daniel Case Module:Category disambiguation 2024-06-16 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2503 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Category disambiguation 2024-06-16 18:00 indefinite edit High-risk template or module: 2502 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II J.Williams 2024-06-16 14:04 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Girth Summit J. Williams 2024-06-16 14:03 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Girth Summit Naznin Khan 2024-06-16 05:30 2024-09-16 05:30 create Repeatedly recreated Billinghurst 2024 University of Pennsylvania pro-Palestine campus encampment 2024-06-16 04:56 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement WP:PIA Chetsford User:Ajaynaagwanshi 2024-06-16 04:02 2024-06-23 04:02 create deleted as inappropriate is exactly that, do not redo the same editing Billinghurst Wars of the Deccan Sultanates 2024-06-15 22:48 indefinite move reinstate earlier protection due to move warring Graeme Bartlett

YARFCCR: Regarding Joe Biden's fingers

• I'm sorry to bring yet another close review here. It's because I've been slowly clearing the backlog at ANRFC, and the stuff that had been unclosed for a long time was mostly pretty contentious. Anyway, a few days ago I made this close, and an editor has very politely and respectfully indicated on my talk page that she feels I might have been mistaken. I invite community scrutiny and, if I have erred, I'll be delighted to self-revert.—S Marshall T/C 17:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

  S Marshall, having only read your statement, the discussion here and on your talk page let me suggest that you are, perhaps, too quick to ask for review of your own closes. As neither of the reviews you recently launched attracted much attention may I suggestion that when you think you've done it right it might be appropriate to let the challenging party choose whether to put it up for review or not. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

  I might be wrong, though. I've closed a contentious, high-visibility discussion, and if a good faith editor feels I've made a mess of it then I think it's right to ask for more eyes on it. We've got far too many discussion closers who respond to approaches on their talk page like they're infallible.—S Marshall T/C 23:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

  You know, S Marshall, since people are apparently challenging these closes partly because they're non-admin-closes, we could get rid of that issue; why don't you try again for admin? Our BLP and flagged-revisions policies are rather stable now, so you wouldn't likely get complaints about that like you did last time, and if you're going around making closes and routinely getting sustained when people object, that's a really solid indication that you'd be trustworthy as an admin. Nyttend backup (talk) 01:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

  Nobody in 2020 has said they're challenging my closes based on whether I'm a sysop, and least of all Atsme, who I've always found immensely pleasant and respectful. When people challenge my closes it's based on their perception that I've misread the consensus or got something substantive wrong. And if being a sysop would have a chilling effect on those approaches, then maybe the difficult cases shouldn't be closed by sysops.

  The beauty of Wikipedia is that we don't do credentialism. Whether you're in a content dispute or a discussion close, you're expected to be approachable, talk to others, be ready to show your working, and submit to the consensus.

  At the time of my RFA, which was eleven years ago, I was still young enough to want to climb ladders. I'm now pushing fifty and I no longer default to ladder-climbing. There is a figure for which I'd go through the week of bullshit and character assassination from the peanut gallery. It's not a small figure. You could start a Gofundme, I suppose?—S Marshall T/C 08:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

  Well, most of the time I see someone challenging a non-admin closure, part or all of the challenge is basically "A non-admin shouldn't have performed this close; it's too contentious". If you're not getting that kind of reaction, that's fine, but not what I was expecting. Nyttend backup (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

  S Marshall, good close, and IMO it's always reasonable to invite review in contentious cases. Guy (help!) 23:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

  I am unaware of any conscientious close which is not challenged to some degree. Sometimes the challenge brings up good points and is accommodated. Other (often?) times the closer stands by their close. That's all as it should be. If S Marshall is going to continue to close contentious RfCs, and I have seen nothing to suggest they shouldn't, having them regularly bring their closes to RfC, rather than coming from someone truly challenging it, is not a good use of the community's time. Peer review is great but three such peer reviews in just over three weeks strikes me as a bit much. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

  You'd get fewer S Marshall close reviews if there were more people going through the RfC close backlog doing the heavy lifting. Just a thought.—S Marshall T/C 08:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

  If this is directed specifically at me I'll note that I spent time yesterday on closes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you! That's a big help, and not just in the labour of closing; it's also making me feel less like King Canute.  :)—S Marshall T/C 14:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• I think this should be overturned. The close did not take into account the relative strengths of the rationales. For example, arguments for UNDUE were successful countered by arguments made later in the RfC. Also, at least one of the No !votes are actually yes votes. For example, BetsyRMadison argues that if this is included the 2019 allegation of neck touching should be included. The funny thing is the 2019 neck touching allegation is in the lead with detail. This means that BetsyRMadison is not opposed to the penetration is mentioned since the neck touching is. Almost all the No !votes falter to make a good policy based argument. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)\

(comment) To: C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) - You misrepresented my "No, the lead should not include" vote, please try not misrepresenting what I say or how I vote on an RfC in the future. The timestamp of my No vote is: "12:47, 26 April 2020." On that date, at that time here is what the lead looked like, "In March 2020, Tara Reade, a former Senate staff assistant of Joe Biden, alleged that Biden sexually assaulted her in a Capitol Hill office building in 1993. A Biden spokesperson said that the allegation was false." My "No" vote has not changed from when I first voted on the RfC. I am still a firm "No." BetsyRMadison (talk) 11:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Perfectly fine close given the circumstances. Not sure why people would think we would put an unproven allegation like that in the lead anyway but there you go. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Ha I completely missed this was the specific sexual assault article rather than his bio. God we have some crap tabloid stuff. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• The interpretation of the discussion's outcome as "no consensus" was in my view the most reasonable view, and the assertion that this results in a return to the status quo ante is correct. The subsequent analysis of what exactly the status quo ante was is also spot on. There is therefore no reason to reverse this close. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse.

It was a good close. Failing that, it was most certainly "good enough" a close.

From a Wikipedia perspective, I believe the close, if it erred, correctly erred on the conservative side, which is to not include details of allegations. This is straight WP:BLP. It is also highly desirable for Wikipedia to keep out of the newspapers, especially on current politics. Wikipedia must not become the source of newspaper information on details of Biden's sexual assault allegation, and there is considerable danger of this with the story going cold, and some people possibly wanting to revive it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, it is false that not mentioning exactly what "sexual assault" means is the more favorable and more conservative option, BLP-wise. The lead should be able to stand as mini-article. If a reader just read the lead section, they would be left to assume that Joe Biden raped her in the "traditional" sense, that he penetrated her with his penis. The allegation is nothing close to that. Reade only alleges that he reached under her close and penetrated her with his finger. Leave that out actually leads to a conclusion that is worse. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The wording in question during the RfC is still present in the body, at Joe Biden sexual assault allegation#Sexual assault allegation. Should the detail be in the lede? The version under discussion had the lede sentence referenced to five sources, three of which made no mention of this detail, two did. There are a number of style problems here, not content. It is tabloid style to lede with salacious details. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. If you really think the detail belongs in the lede, I suggest that you would do better to focus on a better styled lede than to re-litigate the edits of 23 April 2020. The RfC close does not lock content in stone, but is a stepping stone to move forward from. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

It is not tabloid-y to describe the allegation the lead of the article about the allegation. That some "think of the children" argument. There is no other way to say that she alleges he put his finger in her vagina than to come out and just say it. Because that is the allegation, the whole point of the article. However, none of that is relevant to this closure review. The closer still failed to account for the strengths of the arguments. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

As for "The RfC close does not lock content in stone", I tried it this way. Let's see how long it takes before someone cites this RfC to revert my new attempt to describe the allegation in clinical terms. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: Special:Diff/963893057. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Noting here that I've partially read through the RFC and the close, and I'm uncomfortable with some aspects of the close, and also with obnoxious conduct some of of the RFC participants that possibly warrants intervention in its own right. It's late here so I'll look again tomorrow and see if I have anything more specific to say. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 07:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse your close and SmokeyJoe makes very good points. BetsyRMadison (talk) 11:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

S Marshall, maybe try engaging further on your talk page substantively before bringing the next WP:CLOSECHALLENGE to the admin boards. As already mentioned, once a week may be too much. I realize these are contentious closes, but to use myself as an example, sometimes, they simply end like this. El_C 20:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• I'm starting to wonder whether there should be an RfC review page, analagous to Deletion Review.—S Marshall T/C 11:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Maybe. But attempting a substantive discussion with the closer first on their user talk page is an imperative I'd like to see apply to pretty much to any CLOSECHALLENGE. El_C 13:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• I'm pleasantly surprised to see how thoughtful the discussion between yourself and the person on your talk was. Not common you see objections worded so well. I don't think your closure went beyond the scope of the RfC. Respondents, myself included, did not appear to pay particular attention to the specific wording presented in the question, and rather focused on the idea of including further information on the nature of the sexual offence. I believe the scope of your closure correctly addressed the issue. As for scrutiny on whether the decision was correct, I have a bias in the matter, as a respondent, so my opinion would not be particularly helpful. By the way, the reasoning in your non-obvious closures from your RfC close log are a pleasure to read. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Thank you for the kind words regarding my request to S Marshall. A review of his close tells us that he invested a great deal of thought and time into the process and clearly earns our respect and understanding. S Marshall is an excellent editor, and there is no doubt that he wants what is best for the project. We aren't always on the same page, but I would certainly support him in an RfA. My biggest concern over the close was more process-related in that it went beyond the RfC statement which focused only on the graphic details of the assault, not to exclude all mention of it. Another concern I have is NPOV, and the fact that there is no mention of anything related to his controversial behavior in the lead despite it being a high profile controversy that belongs in the lead per our PAGs. The absence of it drew a bit of attention from media per the following examples: Real Clear Politics, The Atlantic, Daily Kos (not reliable but probably read by people who read WP). ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• Like everyone else, I would encourage S Marshall to become an admin. With that said, I have to say I find Atsme's objections to the close persuasive and think we ought to overturn it, taking into consideration the relative strengths of the arguments. As at least one editor above missed, the article in question here is Joe Biden sexual assault allegation, not Joe Biden, and to leave out a basic description of the titular allegation as UNDUE, as many no !votes argued, frankly stretches the bounds of credulity. Similarly, the "it's gross" !votes pretty clearly went against the WP:NOTCENSORED policy. The count was already leaning toward include (18-12, by Atsme's count), so after taking into consideration the above, it seems there is a consensus to include. Regards, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:RS/N#RfC: Fox News

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

---

Due to close later this week. Could probably use a “panel closure” (more than one person) from uninvolved admins. Blueboar (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

If admins want to collaborate on a close, that's welcome of course, but it may not be what happens in this case. El_C 19:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Why not? Blueboar (talk) 19:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

It sounds good in theory, but getting it to happen is a whole other matter. But who knows, maybe this time it'll happen. El_C 19:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• I would just add that it would probably be best if admins participating in such a closing were individuals previously having minimal involvement in topics of U.S. politics, just to avoid any assertion of bias. BD2412 T 19:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• I'd be willing to help close as part of a panel if that's the way this is going. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  Just to clarify given the various calls to have non-American editors hold down the panel, I am American but generally do not edit American politics articles. While it would be good to have some non-American perspectives, I'm not sure that having exclusively non-Americans weigh is necessarily desirable (I could see that playing poorly to the external audience per Sdkb's comment below) or feasible given that a handful of non-American editors have already declined. That having been said, I'm willing to comply with whatever we feel is appropriate regarding the composition of a panel. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• I'd be glad to see a non-US experienced editor (or editors) with minimal involvement in US politics close this, but that's a hard find - a multiple member panel is better in that case to avoid assertions of bias. I don't know too many non-US editors though, maybe ToBeFree, if they are willing? --qedk (t 愛 c) 21:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  Fifty thousand words. Sorry, I can't evaluate that in any reasonable amount of time. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  Good lord, I saw the subheadings but didn't realize it was that long. Guess I found my next book. Primefac (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  Indeed quite messy, Primefac if you're willing. :) @Lee Vilenski and K6ka: if either of you want something fun. That's about all on my closer list, I'm afraid. --qedk (t 愛 c) 19:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

  Happy to help, but anyone expecting a swift close here is incredibly mistaken. It's a HUGE debate! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Perhaps don't make this panel exclusive to admins. There are some very experienced non-admin closers (S_Marshall comes to mind, and he's non-US), and I think including non-admins may be a good idea to avoid controversy. Also agree with the comment BD made about participating admins having minimal involvement in topics of US politics (and related issues). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• I have contributed to that debate as an editor and therefore can't touch it.—S Marshall T/C 22:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Wow, you people are really in love with bureaucracy, aren't you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

No sane uninvolved admin would close this on their own without help.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 13:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I think we tend to underestimate what a qualified closer is eventually willing to do. Many daunting closes end-up, after an above average delay perhaps, getting closed by a single closer. People step-up. This is not a comment about the wisdom (or not) of a panel close in this instance. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

How does a panel close constitute "bureaucracy"? I guess "you people are really in love with collaboration, aren't you?" doesn't have the same ring to it. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 14:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Panel closes aren't bulletproof but (at least IMO) do have more of an effect of "settling" a discussion (at least for a while) than a single closer. It also makes it harder to make ad hominem claims about the closer. It's been largely effective in the times I've seen it employed. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• I'd be willing to be on a panel. I'm American. Other than writing The Lincoln Project, I've mostly stayed out of politics on the wiki. I agree that having at least some (if not majority) non-American representation on the panel would be good. Perhaps Sandstein, Hut 8.5, or Jo-Jo_Eumerus, all of whom I know from my WP:DRV work, strike me as excellent admins, and I believe are all in Europe. If we ended up with two Americans, I'd suggest picks from across the political spectrum (I'll self-identify as left-wing, with a generally low opinion of Fox News). I've done one panel close (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (4th nomination)). -- RoySmith (talk) 14:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

You probably should not have pre-stated your opinion of the source in question while volunteering. Blueboar (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Blueboar, Surely it's better to declare that then to keep it hidden? I anybody feels I can't do a fair close, I'm happy for somebody else to do it. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

In retrospect, I agree with Sdkb's point below that the reason to use a panel is not so much quality control, as perception control. Given that, I'll withdraw my name from consideration. And I'm also thinking having the panel made up of all non-US editors would be a good plan. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll have to decline. I don't fancy trying to sort through 100 pages of discussion on a highly contentious subject, not counting everything else that's linked to. Hut 8.5 17:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I can join the panel (I am not from the US, not involved in the US politics, have not looked at the discussion, and hopefully I am experienced enough), but it will be slow (next to my full-time job I am also involved now into some Wikimedia-related activities which take my time and have a priority). Obviously no problem if there are other people willing to do it.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Though I have disclosed my real-life identity (or at least it is easy to trace), and I do not want to get more serious threats than I am already getting, which probably means I should not be part of the closing panel.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• I !voted in the RfC, but I want to share a few thoughts here regarding process:

1. Yes, the close should be done by a panel. While I think it's perfectly possible that a single dedicated editor might be able to read the discussion and make an informed judgement, no matter what the outcome/how solid their reasoning I would expect them to be immediately challenged, whereas a panel close offers some chance of delivering some finality. So a panel is needed not for ensuring the close be done well, but for ensuring (as best we can) the perception that it has been done well.
2. I think we may be underestimating the amount of external media attention this close may garner — Hemiauchenia is the only one who has brought it up so far that I've seen, but this is the sort of thing that I could easily see being featured on Fox News' nightly programming, so we need to be ready to explain our decisions not just to an internal audience but to an external one. Having 2 million viewers descend on us is not something I'm sure we're prepared for — we're used to covering culture wars but not so used to being the center of one ourselves. To prepare, I echo Guy Macon's suggestion that the RfC be moved to a subpage, which could be protected if needed (if that happens, we should have a banner ready to direct the angry canvassed mob to a sub-subpage where they can vent, so that they don't end up doing it everywhere else on Wikipedia). The closers might even want to write out a separate page for explaining the decision to external audiences that starts with the basics about what a RS is and how consensus works before getting to the decision. Also, there is an increased possibility of threats of harm here, especially if the closers are editors who disclose their real identity, so we should proactively make sure that our processes there are solid (this isn't overreacting — it's what's happened to most people I know who have been spotlighted on Fox).
3. I'm seeing a lot of editors decline above due to the expected workload, which has the potential to set up an unfortunate dynamic where those most committed to thoroughness step aside, whereas those who might be more tempted to skim volunteer. I generally trust that people know the following, but just to state it clearly, please don't let that happen — joining the close means you're committing to reading the full discussion, and you should not volunteer if that's not something you're willing to do.

Regards, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:03, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• I think there should be no opining on the RfC itself in this discussion. Let's limit ourselves to organizing a panel close, or just have a single admin close it. Whichever. El_C 02:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

  El C, absolutely agreed. Enforcing the meta-ness of meta discussions is a perpetual challenge. I'm going to collapse the small bit above. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• RoySmith, thanks for the ping and the vote of confidence. I'm not sure whether I want to be part of such a panel, but if I were, I'd propose the following methodology:
  • In a spreadsheet, each closer assesses each opinion based on how much weight it should carry in the light of Wikipedia policies (e.g., from 0 for pure votes or political rants to 2 for well-reasoned arguments that discuss applicable reliable sources). The three sets of weights are then averaged.
  • The closers also jointly assign each opinion to one or more of the options being discussed. E.g., an opinion such as "first choice 1, second choice 2" could see 75% of the opinion's weight assigned to 1 and 25% to 2.
  • Based on this, the spreadsheet will produce a graph showing the distribution of weighted (and unweighted) opinions across options, which is then used by the closers to assess rough consensus.
  • Because the options reflect escalating degrees of strictness, closers should try to determine the strictest or most lenient option that, together with every stricter or (as the case may be) more lenient option, has the support of, say, two thirds of weighted opinions. It's likely that any such option would approximate community consensus.

Any thoughts on this approach? It would come with the benefit of transparency via the spreadsheet. Sandstein 10:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• While I'm not a big fan of playing numbers with RfCs (they are always about ascertaining consensus after all), a statistical approach to RSN might be in order; the 1-4 scale seems to suggest so, albeit it not fitting with the concept of CONSENSUS as we currently have it. Either way, this could be a valuable metric for validation maybe? There's some drawbacks immediately visible: such as multiple options for different things, fractional answers (I saw one iirc) and lastly, comments with no indicated number. Will they be assessed as "NaN" or coerced to a value, is there a correct approach for the same, all of this is a pretty grey area. --qedk (t 愛 c) 15:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • A potential issue with this scoring is that it seems to imply value in repetition of work. I did not include links to sources in my comment because it would be largely linking to material that other people already did (nevermind the countless times I and others have linked to them in past discussions). Do I have do go back and add a bunch of links already well discussed there to have my !vote count? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Suggestion - for panel considerations, I wanted to mention User:Atsme/Banners#The Closer's Barnstar which was inspired by Serial Number 54129. I looked to see what UTPs were linked to File:Closing-door.gif, and following are the recipients of the recognition so far: SilkTork, El C, JBW, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and mazca. Other excellent versatile closers who come to mind, Emir of Wikipedia, GRuban and Nyttend. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

  Absolutely not. Sorry, if it is true that someone or other once decided I had made a good close of something or other and gave me a "barnstar", then I am glad to have been of service, but closing the monstrosity that is involved in this case is way outside the limits of what I am willing to undertake. JBW (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

  TonyBallioni comes to mind too, but judging by the message on his talk page I'd suspect he might say he doesn't have the time for this currently. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

  As I recall, Tony doesn't believe that a panel of closers is advantageous over a single closer. isaacl (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

  No one else thinks that one of the discussion's vocal participants suggesting closers is problematic? I'm not impugning the integrity of the suggested closers but if one of them participates in the panel and it's closed in favor of this person who suggested that person, it could taint the close. 2607:FEA8:1DA0:1DD6:8C96:BE13:3AB:91B6 (talk) 16:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Responding to ping. I've had a quick look (not read thoroughly and digested yet, but I got the gist) and would be OK with closing this or being part of a panel. SilkTork (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• Sorry, I am unable to commit to this undertaking at the moment. Thanks for thinking of me, though, Atsme. Added: I say this with some regret, as I have never participated in a panel close before, so that could have been interesting. Oh well, maybe next time. El_C 15:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Suggestion: In addition to summarizing the community's consensus, please address the question of the scholarly consensus on the matter. Many sources have been cited throughout the discussion, and they present a more or less unified view on the core issues; whether the community follows or diverges from that view is an important question in and of itself, and so it would be useful to summarize it as part of the closing note. François Robere (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion

*In my opinion, it should just be closed as "no consensus". The community doesn't yet know what to do with it. It would be hard to get a definitive ruling. New comments are still being added everyday, but we aren't moving towards any clear consensus.Talrolande (talk) 13:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC) Talrolande, I suspect the recent evidence of fake pictures may have nudged it over the line into consensus, but who knows. Guy (help!) 15:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC) I suggest flipping a coin. Then run. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC) Ahh, but who will judge the coin? And, who will bell the cat? O3000 (talk) 02:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC) I hope there's RFCs being held for CNN & MSNBC news, of this nature as well. As much as Fox is pro-Republican, CNN & MSNBC are pro-Democrat. GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC) And how is that relevant here? Don't relitigate the RfC here, start the RfC at the appropriate noticeboard if you want to. --qedk (t 愛 c) 19:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC) At least with CNN, that's laughable. They routinely let right-wing, left-wing, and conspiracy theorist nutjobs have time to equally spout crap. CNN is pro-ratings over anything else. That's why I haven't taken them seriously since the 90s. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC) HandThatFeeds, appears CNN took the "never bite the hand that feeds you" metaphor quite literally ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC) Just one note for the closers: the RfC is concerned with the actual news programs on Fox, which are listed at WP:FOXNEWS. Be on the lookout for !votes and discussion that conflate the news programs with the talk show pundits (e.g. Carlson and Hannity), which is not what the RfC is about. JOEBRO64 19:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC) Though one could address both, or simply reject the distinction; both cases should be counted. François Robere (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC) No. And again, let's not use this thread to relitigate the RfC, that's not what it's for, let the closers do their job. --qedk (t 愛 c) 22:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC) The RfC states: Which of the following best describes the reliability of the reporting of Fox News? (as separate from their cable pundits) (emphasis mine) JOEBRO64 23:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break, plus "signup sheet"

So far it looks like the following individuals have said they would help with a close:

• Rosguill
• Lee Vilenski
• SilkTork
• Hobit (maybe, see below)

One more makes five, which (as an odd number) makes for good discussion. I know the RFC doesn't formally end until 7 July, but if a fifth doesn't volunteer by then I suppose I can step back and let the above trio deal with it. Primefac (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Since SilkTork withdrew (see below), for now we have:

• Rosguill
• Lee Vilenski
• Primefac

If everyone is fine with that, I suggest let's wrap this up? --qedk (t 愛 c) 08:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

It's a good panel (it's not a problem if you join and it makes 4), seems like the issue of getting people to close is resolved. Good work on annoying asking people for this, folks! --qedk (t 愛 c) 17:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

What prcedents do we have for five person closes? Personally If we're going to be at three, and as an excercise is something beyond authority lending I think three is the right number, I would suggest that either Rosguill or Lee step out in favor of having Primefac and SilkTork as crats. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

+1 to Barkeep49's suggestion - 2 crats and coin toss for one of the other 2 volunteers. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Crats are good closers. As I said above, the fact that one of them was suggested by a vocal participant in the discussion is a little worrying from an optics point of view. I'm not saying that the closers will not act with integrity! Only that the situation opens the close up to be questioned. Is there someone with a different view in the discussion who could "sign off" on the choice? @QEDK:? @JzG:? Or someone else? 2607:FEA8:1DA0:1DD6:8C96:BE13:3AB:91B6 (talk) 03:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

2607:FEA8:1DA0:1DD6:8C96:BE13:3AB:91B6, not me, I have a distinct view on Fox. I don't want to get involved. Guy (help!) 08:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

No precedent is required, and Primefac simply listed the first three editors to agree to be part of the panel, which is how it's done. If Primefac wants, we can still have 4 closers, it's not a big deal, no point to have anyone step down - at a later juncture, one of them can still back out without having the entire thing fall apart. I don't think the "crats are better closers" really applies here since RfAs and RfCs are completely different beasts. --qedk (t 愛 c) 05:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I asked about precedent because I think we need to be careful about panel closes. A panel is, in my view, appropriate here, heck there's a reason I said two of the closers should be crats. But we need to be careful about when we do panels and it would be a bad thing if the expectation became a five person panel. We have already seen an abundance of RfC challenges recently for one person closes, we don't need more or for them to expand in rare panel closes. So my question about precedent remains - if we've done this a few times before without slipping down the slope I'm less adamant about 3 vs 5 than if we're in uncharted or relatively territory. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

2607:FEA8:1DA0:1DD6:8C96:BE13:3AB:91B6, did you forget to login? It shows you've only made 2 edits, both in this discussion. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I've closed in a 3-person panel and 3 people seem to be a commonly acceptable panel size for community-wide RfCs (also seen 3+ but rarely). Panel closes are more common when contentious, I've seen a lot of big RfCs which are closed by one person, and that's most RfCs, whether "big" or not. Count I'm fine with, but 'cratship is not a suitable measure of RfC-closing experience (and not one we can speculate) since it's hard to quantify a user right as basis for a skill. --qedk (t 愛 c) 16:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Atsme No, I didn't forget to log in. I've made these two (now three) edits, but I've been watching the rfc discussion and this one. You've been very vocal over there at the rfc and now you're suggesting closers for it without disclosing that you've posted in that discussion rather a lot. I think that looks bad and I think that those optics could taint the close. The rfc discussion is important and likely to gain attention outside Wikipedia and I think it's important that the optics look good. JzG and QEDK I wasn't suggesting that you close the discussion. I was suggesting that, to improve the optics of vocal participant Atsme putting forward closer suggestions, you "approve" Atsme's choice. If you and others don't think that's necessary, that's great. 2607:FEA8:1DA0:1DD6:8C96:BE13:3AB:91B6 (talk) 16:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, IP 2607. For future reference, the bulk of my suggestions weren't actually arrived at by me specifically picking them. I simply pointed to what others thought of them based on them being recipients of the closer barnstar. I did specifically suggest 3 other editors who were not recipients of the closer barnstar, but they were simply suggestions to broaden the pool. I'm in no way involved in making the final decision regarding who comprises the panel so it should have no bearing on whether or not I participated in the RfC, which is a bit of a stretch, but there's nothing wrong with covering all the bases. Happy editing. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who replied, JzG was. As for "signing off", I don't think it's required because all the panel members are a) uninvolved with the RfC and, b) uninvolved with the topic area. That's all that's required (and I think it's a good panel, as I said before). --qedk (t 愛 c) 17:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, WP:DAILYMAIL was a 5-member close, though I don't think I've seen any others with that many (I've been on a few 3-person panels). Responding to another comment somewhere above, 3 or 5 is traditionally seen as better than 4 because it means there are no "ties" in opinions (made that mistake with a 2-person close once). Primefac (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• If a fifth is needed and it can wait at least until the weekend, I can be that 5th. I'm American, fairly moderate in my politics, and read a lot of US and international news. I've closed a fair number of contentious debates. I have looked over the discussion and feel it's something I can read and address. I'm a bit more concerned about finding consensus among 5 people and *that* taking a ton of time, but I'm willing to put in that time if needed. I have no problem with it being a close by 3 people however and am only stepping forward because right now we seem to have 4. If someone else is found to be a 5th, I'm more than happy to step back--I've got plenty of other things to do... Hobit (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

  The RFC doesn't end until next week, so I'll put you down as a "maybe". Primefac (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• I hadn't realised that three panel members had already stepped forward before I was pinged. I'll withdraw - there's no need to over-complicate this with having four or five closers. SilkTork (talk) 03:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Michael Kirk edit history

The edit history for Michael Kirk is nearly entirely deleted. In particular it is deleted from page creation in 2009 to 2017 with a 2017 edit stating it was removing copyrighted material and reverting back to the version on May 15, 2014. Yet everything from creation to May 15, 2014 is deleted. I have never seen such a censored and purged Wikipedia edit history.DonkeyPunchResin (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) DonkeyPunchResin, according to the page logs, all of the edits were copyright violations of his PBS biography and had to be revision deleted. -- LuK3 (Talk) 16:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

LuK3 thanks for the reply. That explanation doesn’t make sense to me as the 2017 edit states that due to copyright violations they were reverting back to the May 15, 2014 of the page. Thus, the May 15, 2014 version was not a copyright violation and all prior edits were probably not copyright vios either.DonkeyPunchResin (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

DonkeyPunchResin, I was able to find that particular revision elsewhere, and it appears to largely be a copyvio of these three sources, so the revdel was correct. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 19:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you link to the revision you found elsewhere?DonkeyPunchResin (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

No, linking to a copyvio is not allowed, per WP:LINKVIO. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

The edit of 2017 doesn’t say that the page was reverted to the May 15, 2014 version, it says that ‘This version is based on revision 608622953 dated 00:50, May 15, 2014’, in other words, it was rewritten to comply with copyright. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• I've examined the very first revision. It cites this as its only source, and it's a close paraphrase of it. So yes, it looks to me to have been a copyright violation all the way from then. DonkeyPunchResin, it's always worth asking an admin to check for you before crying "censorship". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • So one edit had a pretty close paraphrase of the source used to start the page ... ok. It still doesn’t explain why the May 15, 2014 version is censored (or deleted ... whatever) when that was the version reverted to after the copyright versions were deleted. And, ostensibly, some of the edits before that would not have been copyright vios and in fact nothing states they are copyright vios. Everything prior to May 15, 2014, is deleted with no reason given. And by censored I meant ... well just what I wrote. I’d never seen a page with that many edit history ‘deletions‘ and I thought it was very odd.DonkeyPunchResin (talk) 07:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
    • It has already been pointed out above that the article was not reverted to this version. This is simply a matter of complying with copyright law, not censorship. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes, the May 15, 2014 version was not reverted to, and every revision that is now rev-deleted (before, after, and including that one) contains copyright violations. And re "I’d never seen a page with that many edit history ‘deletions‘ and I thought it was very odd": If you think something is very odd, just ask in a civil manner rather than throwing around snide accusations of censorship. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC close request for WT:MoS discussion

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

---

Would someone please close this RfC, about the use of "was" vs. "is" to describe defunct periodical publications? A short discussion at the end made it apparent that there is not enough agreement on the outcome to avoid a formal close. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Request

Hi, Please remove PCR from my account. Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 04:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your contributions to the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Review of recent RfC closure (Request for Comment about descriptions of reputation in the ledes of articles about colleges and universities)

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

---

Several editors - including me - have expressed surprise and disagreement with S Marshall's recent closure of this RfC. There has been discussion on S Marshall's User Talk page and the WikiProject's Talk page. I am requesting a review of this closure. ElKevbo (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Closer: I welcome community scrutiny and if I closed that wrongly, then I'm happy to be overturned here. My close stands on three feet, and my close should only be allowed to stand if all three of them are correct.

1) I think that WP:SUBJECTIVE applies to creative works and it is overreaching to apply it to universities. If I am wrong about this, then my close is wrong and should be overturned.

2) I think that it's a discussion closer's role to apply policies, including policies that none of the debate participants brought up. If I am wrong about this, then my close is wrong and should be overturned.

3) I think that WP:NOT, which wasn't brought up by anyone in the debate, favours P1. If I am wrong about this, then my close is wrong and should be overturned.

In the light of the feedback I got last time, I've honestly done my best to defend the close on my talk page :-\.—S Marshall T/C 14:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• That's a very well-reasoned close. If you want it overturned, you're going to need another RfC with more participants I reckon. Guy (help!) 15:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Is this the place where we discuss how wrong the close was or is the discussion already linked above sufficient? ElKevbo (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

ElKevbo, it's the place where we look at the close and see if it's reasonable, which IMO it is. FWIW, I think almost all subjective rankings are UNDUE in leads, as the close notes - that applies to "List of 100 best X" lists, annual rankings and the rest. Objective facts are different: graduate employment rate, for example, or the percentage of graduates from a law school who get a job in the law, those are not subjective. My old school is objectively one of the oldest in the world, but any judgment of its academic ranking is likely to be highly subjective. Guy (help!) 15:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I fail to see what that has to with a RfC that had five of the fifteen participating editors in favor of omitting all mention of this kind of information in the lede of these articles no matter how well supported by exceptionally high quality sources and thoroughly discussed in the body of the article. If you genuinely believe that then you should have participated in the RfC. ElKevbo (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

ElKevbo, I would have participated if I had known it was going on. Guy (help!) 16:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

It was widely advertised; I personally placed notices at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Higher education, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools, Wikipedia Talk:Manual of Style/Lead section, Wikipedia Talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch, and Wikipedia Talk:Neutral point of view. And of course it was also listed with all other RfCs in the places where they're listed e.g., Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All. ElKevbo (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

ElKevbo, didn't say it wasn't. I did not see it though. Guy (help!) 17:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• It really does feel like non-admin closures get far more scrutiny and pushback than admin closures no matter how reasoned or well-explained the closure is.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 15:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I can't speak for other editors or what they do but I would be doing the same thing if an administrator had closed this discussion using the same rationale that has been used. ElKevbo (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

ElKevbo, of course, since you "lost", but it's a plainly well-reasoned close. Guy (help!) 17:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm asking that it be reviewed because it's poorly reasoned. Accusing me of a being a poor loser is a personal attack and you should retract it with an apology. ElKevbo (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, I don't read that as a personal attack at all. SportingFlyer T·C 19:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

ElKevbo, it's not an attack, it's completely normal for people to kvetch about a close that goes against them. Guy (help!) 14:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• I think that's a well-reasoned and reasonable close, based on the stated policies. Could it have been closed differently? Given the low turnout and the less-than-perfect clarity of some relevant policies, yes, someone else could have closed it differently - I'd probably be torn between closing it as option 1 and option 2 myself (though I'd need more time to finally decide). As the decision was so close, I don't think we should rule out a second RfC. If someone decides to start one, I'd suggest some wider (and obviously non-canvassing) publicity would help attract more contributors. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• Seems like a suitable close to me. Certainly not a clear one, and definitely not an easy close. It for sure is not wide enough off the mark for it to be reopened, but a second RfC isn't a problem either. Closer did a good job in my eyes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Lowly non-administrator here, just asking for advice: do you think it might be better to have a simpler "should they be included at all" RfC or "should they be restricted at all" RfC first, and then a secondary RfC second to decide what restrictions/inclusions should be the default consensus, or better to have a similar RfC again just with wider input? Shadowssettle _{Need a word?} 18:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• I can't say the subject especially interests me, and i probably wouldn't have participated, even had i known about the RfC. That being said, i think S Marshall did a very good job with the close. The reasoning is solid, all three feet are firm and make the whole thing stable, and his defence/explanation here and on his talk page is clear, simple, and easy to follow. The close should be upheld; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 18:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• In order to get into the weeds here, I decided to do my own review of the RfC and see where I differed from S Marshall. I think S Marshall got this pretty much right on with one exception: I think there was weak support for P3 and not P1, but I also think that the rest of the reasoning was correct, and that the fact I think there was weak support for P3 actually doesn't change anything about what S Marshall's conclusion of the rule was. Concluding rankings and "prestigious" should not be used to describe schools in the ledes of articles, but describing a school as "Oxbridge" or "Russell Group" or "Ivy League" or by one of its associations reflects the discussion. In any case, a quick search of the word "prestigious" shows it's often used in articles about academics, or about groups of universities - IE Business School was the first one to come up, and that clearly needs editing. Good close overall. SportingFlyer T·C 19:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• Close is reasonable. I agree with Sporting Flyer about P3 though. From S Marshall's statement, it seems like this is borderline no consensus; essentially, we should be cautious in describing prestige and err on the side of saying too little. I think in practice that will be closer to P3 than P1. It's not worth overturning since it's an accurate close, but I would recommend a second RfC (probably advertised at WP:CENT) which is more open ended than a straw poll. The other two options only focused on citations but neglected a lot of other editorial considerations, and using Marshall's close as a starting point to discuss what is acceptable is probably a better use of time. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I am also fine with overturning to no consensus. I don't think there will be much of a difference and would still recommend a second RfC, but others seem to think overturning to no consensus is better which is reasonable. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• I would overturn. The NOT argument is made only by the closer. The reason this is bad is not just because it is an interpretation of just one editor, the closer, so can't be anything like a consensus application, but on the merits it is unsupported except by the closer's ipsa dixit (closers are not suppose to make arguments). The discussing editors, if they had discussed NOT, could point to Encyclopedia Britannica which for Harvard says 'prestigious' in its lead,[1] and its Oxford entry, says 'great' in its lead [2]. It's thus entirely dubious -- and should have been discussed in the discussion and not by the single closer -- that those words are NOT encyclopedic in a university encyclopedia article lead. This is especially so, in light of the discussion that did occur that a lead is suppose to orient the reader, distinguishing the subject per WP:LEAD (distinguishing does often call for an adjective or two), and editors in the discussion did rely on LEAD, contra the close. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • As this is still open, and considering the additional comments below, including by the closer, I would note that overturning is still my position but even stronger. As shown below by, inter alia, Melanie, the closer improperly rejected the consensus of the experienced editors, who had explicitly rejected the closer's preferred choice. Moreover, the logic of the closer's NOT/Promo supervote falls apart on close inspection. If we were to follow the closer's logic, we would have to say alleged "promo" is not allowed in the lead, but it is fine in the body of the article. (More likely the closer has a skewed view of NOT/Promo, which is not consensus, but how could it be as only the closer made that argument.) The close just can't be right (including on NPOV) -- we follow RS in what they say good or bad, and just because the closer does not approve of certain words/concepts that RS use in discussing and distinguishing subjects, we don't ban those words and concepts from parts of whole classes of articles, as the closer would have it. In addition, on SUBJECTIVE, the close is very weak because even if you buy the closer's narrow interpretation of SUBJECTIVE, it does not follow that SUBJECTIVE is exclusive, so that it bans everything it does not explicitly cover -- SUBJECTIVE is not even remotely written so as to force a ban on words/concepts in the way the closer would construe it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus. P2 and P3 are much more similar to each other than P1; I don't see supporters of either of them who listed P1 as their second choice. I see 4 !votes in favor of P1, and 11 against, or only 27% support. In order to find a consensus in favor of something with such a skewed percentage against, the opposing side has to be completely without merit, which is not the case here by any stretch of the imagination IMO. Now, the fact that the arguments presented by P1 supporters are on average stronger is, however, a reason to not declare consensus in favor of the side with 73% of the !vote. Therefore I think "no consensus" is the best outcome. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• I weighted each vote (and discarded one P3 vote) since some users picked multiple options and weighted their preferences, and P3 came out slightly ahead. I wouldn't call it a 73-27% vote, especially with three options. SportingFlyer T·C 05:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• With the caveat that I participated in the RfC, my reading of the consensus is that we should overturn the close. It was (as is true of all of S Marshall's closes) thoroughly considered, but it had two significant issues. Copying my previous comment on them:

First, [the closer] writes that NPOV's WP:SUBJECTIVE section "obviously refers to the works of Shakespeare, Monet, and Bach, rather than institutes of learning". However, the section is titled "Describing aesthetic opinions and reputations" (emphasis added), and although most of the examples are artworks, after providing one it states "More generally, it is sometimes permissible to note an article subject's reputation when that reputation is widespread and informative to readers" (emphasis again added). The "more generally" clearly implies broader applicability.
Second, more numerically, we need to consider that the options are not equidistant from each other, but rather P2 and P3 both favor inclusion of some sort, whereas only P1 opposes it. Thus, the count of !voters who favored some sort of inclusion vs. those opposed was 10 to 5. I could see a possibility of finding no consensus given a count like that, but to find in favor of the 5-person minority would require an unusually strong justification, and I do not see such justification here, especially given the widespread potential ramifications of this discussion.

Regards, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• I'm rather concerned by point 2 of S Marshall's three legs - in an AfD that would raise serious eyebrows, where we prefer closers who see non-applicable arguments participate rather than super-closing on those grounds. I'd always assumed that that held true for RfC closes as well. Were some clear policy not subject to local exceptions violated by all the reasoning I could a NC being warranted, but that isn't the instance here. It's absolutely well considered, but I'd say it's valid, not sound. Weak overturn, pending possible change if individuals think my reasoning is the case with RfCs too Nosebagbear (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• This is absolutely key. Nobody in the debate mentioned WP:NOT, and without that, we've got no prohibition on promotional or advocacy editing. I interpolated it. If I was wrong then my close must be overturned.—S Marshall T/C 09:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse close and thank S Marshall for their work. The reason they get attention here is that they are stepping up and closing difficult RfCs—thanks. Re the RfC issue, in six months another RfC with some realistic examples might be considered—it's all very well to imagine a perfect world where a very reliable source says X is the greatest and that gets copied to the lead, but the implications of that need to be considered in examples. Johnuniq (talk) 03:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn I find two problems with this close and believe it should be overturned. First, he claims “no consensus on the numbers alone” and proceeds to ignore the numbers. But if you actually tally the comments, as I just now did: (correcting my tally since I missed one. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC))

• 14 15 people commented.
• P1 was preferred by 3 4 (one unclear), opposed by 8 (several strongly), 3 did not state
• P2 was preferred by 6 (several qualified with a hedge about sources/wording), second choice for 2, opposed by 2 3 (one weak, one unclear), 4 did not state
• P3 was preferred by 6, second choice for 4, 1 2 (one strong), 3 did not state

It is impossible to see how this discussion could be closed in favor of P1. I would have interpreted it as a choice between P2 and P3, exact wording to be determined by discussion - with P1 having been soundly rejected by a majority of commenters.

Second, he notes that people mentioned NPOV and did not bring up NOT - but then raises NOT and PEA himself as arguments. In effect he was casting a supervote.

He comments on the paucity of contributions. That should not surprise anyone given that WikiProject:Higher Education is not a high profile site or on many people’s watchlist. Reopening it now after the rest of Wikipedia has been made aware of it should give a more reliable result. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@S Marshall: Could you please explain more clearly how you reached the conclusion that there was a "weak consensus in favor of P1", when a majority of the commenters (8 out of 14) specifically opposed P1? -- MelanieN (talk) 01:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Certainly, with pleasure.
  I began by looking at the debate at a superficial level and totting up the number of editors in favour of each position, so as to give myself a benchmark. I found that on the numbers, there was no consensus.
  I then proceeded to read the history and background of the debate, so as to understand what was going on. The conclusions I reached were:
  1) The history is remarkably complex and detailed, but I needed to understand all the contributing editors as suitably responsible and experienced Wikipedians; and
  2) A key triggering incident was when editors decided it would be appropriate to allow Harvard University to describe itself as "prestigious" in the lead of its Wikipedia article (a decision apparently based on the Encyclopaedia Britannica's wording); and
  3) Although the debate was certainly begun in good faith and on the basis of what the drafters believed was in Wikipedia's best interests, it nevertheless represented an attempt by a WikiProject to establish a separate ruleset for articles within its own purview. Specifically, it was an attempt to exempt institutions of higher learning from Wikipedia's normal rules about promotional language and advertising.
  I then found myself in an unusual position because none of the editors involved had invoked WP:NOT. Nobody at all had bluelinked it, and I initially wavered about whether it would be right to apply a policy that nobody bluelinked in the debate. I then consulted WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS to see if it contained any guidance about what to do. I found: Wikipedia policy requires that articles and information comply with core content policies (verifiability, no original research or synthesis, neutral point of view, copyright, and biographies of living persons) as applicable. These policies are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. I raised an eyebrow, and then moved on to the final paragraph which states: Per "ignore all rules", a local consensus can suspend a guideline in a particular case where suspension is in the encyclopedia's best interests.
  Now, I've got a longstanding view on IAR from spending so many years reviewing consensus-related decisions at DRV, and it's this: I think that a local consensus to ignore the rules can't be implied. I think that it's OK to IAR if the rule in question has been brought up in the debate, considered by the participants, and explicitly rejected as inapplicable or inappropriate; but it's not OK to IAR silently.
  Then I reflected on Wikipedia's attitude to promotional language in articles. I noted that Wikipedia is very attractive to those who want to use our encyclopaedia to market their products or promote their business, and Wikipedians have had to become highly sensitive to promotion. We tend to take a very hard line on it. I decided that the consensus against any form of promotional language is very old and very strong indeed. Taking those factors into consideration, I decided (rightly or wrongly) that even if the debate participants were oblivious to WP:NOT, it still applied to them. I recognized that this was a potentially controversial thing for me to decide, and therefore I needed to say explicitly in the close that I had made that decision.
  I have reflected on it long and hard since, and I still feel it was the right choice.
  Once I had given myself those directions I re-weighted the votes, and here is where I depart hard from the thought process that you and King of Hearts have displayed here. I understand from what you and King of Hearts have posted that you feel that I as a closer can weigh the votes, but the acceptable range of weights I can give is constrained: in other words, as closer, I'm not allowed to give a vote from a good faith Wikipedian a weight of 0, or 0.001. The acceptable range might be, for example, from 0.5 to 1.5.
  On this point, I simply disagree with you. I think it's possible for a contribution to a debate to be not just diminished, but totally blown out of the water, by subsequent contribution. So for example, in a deletion debate, if Editor A says: "Delete. No evidence of coverage in reliable sources", and then Editor B links a long string of reliable sources that cover the subject, then the weight I would give to Editor A is not 0.5, or 0.3, but zero.
  In the light of this, I gave DGG's contribution to that debate a very high weighting indeed, because it introduced a lot of considerations that previous editors had not reflected on and which were not refuted by anyone else. I think that you and King of Hearts would view the weighting I gave to that contribution as inappropriately high and not within my reach as closer, but on the matter of how much weight is permissible, I respectfully disagree with you.—S Marshall T/C 09:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

totting up the number of editors in favour of each position So in other words, in your initial evaluation of the discussion you looked only at supports - and ignored opposes? I suggest that is an approach you should change from now on. Oppose !votes are every bit as significant as support !votes, sometimes more so. In the future please try to get a sense of what each person is actually SAYING with their comment. As you can see, I tally several types of !vote: "support", "second choice" or "acceptable", "oppose", and “did not state a clear position". That approach clearly shows that very few people supported P1 and a majority opposed it. By tallying only supports, then embarking on your own analysis of policy, you completely missed the clear consensus AGAINST P1. For that matter, even the bare “support” tally of 3 for P1, 6 for P2, and 6 for P3 should have indicated that this was not an inconclusive discussion. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

As a participant in the RFC, I have refrained from commenting here, however, I have to object to your statement that the RFC was an attempt to exempt institutions of higher learning from Wikipedia's normal rules about promotional language and advertising. Per WP:SUBJECTIVE (a policy you yourself have referenced many times in this discussion) "it is sometimes permissible to note an article subject's reputation when that reputation is widespread and informative to readers." Thus, discussing a school's reputation -- positive or negative -- cannot violate WP's rules concerning advertisement and promotion provided the information is verifiable and backed by reliable sources. Calidum 15:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN, I don't find this consensus against P1 that you find in the debate. I start from the point of view that there's no consensus on the numbers and proceed to analysis of the arguments.

Calidum, it is my position that WP:SUBJECTIVE does not apply to universities or institutes of higher learning. When I read it, I can see a rule that with all due respect is clearly meant to apply to creative and artistic works. Although I admire the ingenious arguments and skilful phrasing that you use to contend that it stretches to universities, I see that as quite mistaken.—S Marshall T/C 16:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

If your interpretation were correct that the portion of SUBJECTIVE I quoted applies only to creative works (despite the sentence beginning "more generally"), countless articles across Wikipedia would need to be scrubbed to adhere to it. Antonin Scalia, for instance, is clearly not a work of art, yet we note "he has been described as one of the most influential jurists of the twentieth century, and one of the most important justices in the Supreme Court's history." Nor could we say Sandy Koufax has been called "one of the greatest pitchers in baseball history" and "one of the outstanding Jewish athletes in American sports." And forget about saying Charles Darwin has been called "one of the most influential figures in human history." Calidum 16:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@S Marshall: RE  I don't find this consensus against P1 that you find in the debate. You don’t see it? I grant you, only two commenters put the word “oppose” in bold, so it was necessary to actually read the comments to see what they are saying - but don’t you read all the way through the comments before starting to draw a conclusion? If you don’t, how can you be a closer of discussions? If you had read the comments, here is what you would have found: Both User:WhatamIdoing and User:RedHotPear put “oppose P1” in bold. User:EEng said ~P1, using the ~ symbol for “not” to show opposition, and providing a link to explain it. User:ElKevbo said “P1 is unacceptable”. User:Sdkb said “oppose P1”. User:Dhtwiki said “P1 is too severe and, I would guess, difficult to enforce.” User:Jonathan A Jones described P1 as “a counsel of despair too far”. User:Calidum said “P1 is a non-starter.” That’s eight opposes, a majority of the commenters. You "start from the point of view that there's no consensus on the numbers," but there is. A very clear consensus "in the numbers" against P1. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

As I said: What I see in the numbers is no clear winner; therefore I start the weighing process; and when I start weighing I get to the outcome I did. I don't see it as helpful, or appropriate, to subtract P1 from the range of possible outcomes "on the numbers" before the weighing process starts. I'm afraid that I don't intend to offer any further replies on this point, although I'd welcome you raising anything else that you feel unclear about.—S Marshall T/C 22:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• With regret, I have to agree with overturn to no consensus here. That was a masterpiece of a closing statement and a genuinely noble attempt to wring a consensus out of a discussion; but I just don't think that discussion reached a consensus. While I really get the reasoning used, there is a limit to how one can weight votes, and P1 was explicitly objected to by quite a lot of participants. While I probably agree with P1 personally, if I was going to try and pull a consensus out of that discussion I probably would have leant towards P2 as the explicit compromise position, but I think I might have felt slightly off doing even that. I'm also on record previously as generally objecting to closers pulling out new arguments and policies in closes; as reasonable as S Marshall's genuinely were here, it almost always ends up smelling a bit like a supervote. Really great points were made in the close, but this feels like a discussion that needs more participation. ~ mazca ^talk 20:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments: I think it was a damn fine closing giving a clear rationale, better than most, that actually had policy grounds, and hope S Marshall keeps up the good work. However, one of the "legs" is in dispute. We are to close discussions (when it is needed) by "careful analysis of the discussion". At issue is if an editor (or Admin) can "interpolate". If this is allowed can it be done in such a way to not give the appearance of a super vote. Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Consensus states: Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but neither is it determined by the closer's own views about what is the most appropriate policy and the closer should not personally select which is the better policy. In between these two there can be some confusion: those that flatly contradict established policy but this becomes more clear with: The closer is not to be a judge of the issue, but rather of the argument. This indicates that if it is not brought up it cannot be used even if clear policies and guidelines appear to be justifiable for use. King of Hearts brought up a good point but "IF" comments in a minority of "consensus" are stronger, 'using policy backing', then consensus on a local or project level cannot trump policy or the more broad community consensus. In other words it can't change policy as that would be the wrong place. Even WP:IGNORE (that was not brought up) cannot be assumed and must have clear consensus if contested. Again, there is confusion as noted in the next section (Policy) that states: As noted above, arguments that contradict policy are discounted. There are three named instances that are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus., so apparently some "interpolating" is allowed but narrowly defined. It is my opinion that these two sections need some work. Until then we have to go with what we have until it is changed. -- Otr500 (talk)

• Procedural Overturn by reason of vague instructions leading to confusion, and because contention is high enough to warrant Admin closing. The discussion should be continued for more clarity now and for future discussions. -- Otr500 (talk) 10:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oh, sure. In this like in everything else, Wikipedian guidelines are vague. They're like scripture, in that somewhere in the labyrinthine maze of mutually contradictory rules and guidelines, you can find support for any position. It's true that you can view Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Consensus as directly contradicting WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS if you like, but I think that's the wrong way to understand it. You follow Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Consensus to see if a consensus emerges, and if one doesn't, then thats when you move to WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS. That's the only way I can reconcile the two, anyway. I think it would be a serious mistake to clarify them any further, because when you codify the consensus-reaching process in too much detail, you're also handing an instruction manual to bad faith actors about how to game the system.
  When you say "contention is high enough to warrant Admin closing", I'm afraid I differ from you very strongly. I think that while the discussion here hasn't yet reached a conclusion on whether I was right on this particular matter, it does demonstrate a clear consensus that I may appropriately close difficult discussions: in other words, the community rejects your credentialism on this point.
  To my eyes, the other consensus that clearly emerges is that the outcome should be neither an overturn nor an endorsement but a relisting for a more widely-advertised discussion.—S Marshall T/C 11:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• I greatly respect S Marshall, and in particular his willingness to make hard closes and for his detailed explanation of those closes. But in this case I think I have to agree with MelanieN. The close was a bit too much of his own thoughts and not enough of the discussion that was had. It would have been much better as a comment/!vote rather than a close. As far as admin status goes, I trust S Marshall to make closes like this more than just about any admin. I just think he got this one wrong. Hobit (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • And I think a relist with much broader advertising would be the best way forward. Second best is to go with NC. Hobit (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    • I agree with User:Hobit that holding a second RFC might be helpful. I encourage anyone who would like to do that to stop by WP:RFC and discuss ways of making it clear. For example, "P1", which S Marshall endorsed, could usefully be followed with examples:
      • N Do not say "Founded in 1636, Harvard College is the original school of Harvard University, the oldest institution of higher learning in the United States and among the most prestigious in the world" (which was added to the lead of Harvard College almost nine years ago by EEng, who supported banning statements about reputation and prestige during the RFC)
      • N Do not say "It is highly selective, with fewer than five percent of applicants being offered admission in recent years" (same article, added by RedHotPear last year; "highly selective" is an widely used and objective ranking system)
      • N Do not say "For-Profit U has the weakest entrance requirements, the lowest graduation rates in Country, and the highest debt load among departing students. It was described by Paul Politician, in a lawsuit to strip its accreditation, as 'an exploitative diploma mill created for no obvious purpose beyond enriching its founder'." (that's "ranking" and "reputation", so would be banned even if it's true, and even if the article has little to say about the organization except that its rankings are poor and its reputation is worse)
    • I think that giving specific examples in terms of effects would help people decide whether their votes matched the outcomes they actually wanted to see. I suspect that a rule that says "Do not include USN&WR rankings" would gather more support than "Don't admit that Harvard is prestigious". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

      • First of all, the text I inserted back in 2011 [3] was, in fact, that Harvard College is one of the most presigious in the world, so I really don't know why I'm being dragged into this "prestige" business.
      • That was in the article Harvard College – at the time a complete mess I was taking a machete to (so that today it's no longer a complete mess but merely mostly a mess). At that time Harvard University had said that it was "one of the most prestigious in the world" since at least sometime in 2010, and I'm pretty sure that I simply plagiarized that.
      • I don't know where you get the idea that I supported banning statements about reputation and prestige during the RFC. I flatly opposed P1, and preferred P2 over P3.
      • You're just calling me out because you went to Yale.

      EEng 23:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• OK I'm happy this needs relisting. Please could a previously uninvolved person kindly close this discussion as "consensus to relist for a more widely-advertised discussion", vacate my previous close, and replace it with a pointer to WT:RFC for the drafting discussion that WhatamIdoing suggests?—S Marshall T/C 23:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree with relisting, but oppose a "new RfC". The consensus here is to overturn the close and reopen the discussion - not to abandon it and start a new one. And we should not add interpretation or examples, like the (deliberately ridiculous?) ones proposed by WhatamIdoing. The question should be the same as the one already answered by 15 people, and should not be changed or modified in a way which might oblige previous discussants to reconsider their comments. We should respect all the thought which has already gone into this. So, no pointer to a drafting discussion, no changes in the questions posed. Any discussion can be done in the Discussion section of the RfC. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• No, that's not the consensus here.—S Marshall T/C 00:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Request for review of my AfD close

In the course of closing Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 June 19#2020 Formula One pre-season testing, I discovered that a 2nd AfD was running concurrently with the DRV of the first one. I administratively closed the 2nd AfD. Not surprisingly, my action there has been questioned. I request a review of my own actions; was I correct in closing the 2nd AfD?. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

IMHO, the closure of the AFD was well meant but borne out of overconcern. The DRV was technicalyy still open, but had clearly run its course. No active discussion was taking place anymore. Therefore the second AFD could have been allowed to continue, per WP:NOTAGAIN.Tvx1 15:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Unequivocal yes you were correct from my end, even though I was somewhat involved as a DRV participant and then an AfD pinger. WP:RENOM states Relisting immediately may come across as combative. Immediate second round participants are less likely to listen, and are more likely to dig in their heels. You may be right, but the audience won’t be receptive. The other participants very likely will be thinking that you have not been listening to them. There's no formal rule against it, but I don't think I've ever seen an article sent to a second AfD while a DRV is running. I know we're not overly process-orientated, but that seems basic, and the comments at the second AfD were either "yes, delete" or a dig-in-the-heels why-are-we-doing-this-again. SportingFlyer T·C 18:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Those that were agreeing with the nomination were not simply stating "yes, delete". They were actually builiding a proper case with proper guideline or policy based arguments. The few that actually stated keep during the second AFD did not bring any such argument. They did not do anyhting to demonstrate the merit of the article. Note that durinf the DRV many of its contributors mentioned the weakness of the keep arguments presented during the first AFD as well.Tvx1 17:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Well regardless of the DRV it isn't appropriate to send an article to AfD less than a week after the previous one closed, with no new arguments. WP:RENOM suggests waiting for a much longer period, a month or two. Funnily enough the second AfD was turning into a fight about process instead of the discussion of the article's merits that we actually want, so it would have been of limited value anyway. I get that the people who supported deleting this the first time round weren't happy with the outcome of the first AfD, but the way to deal with that is not to keep rerunning discussions until they come up with the "correct" result. Hut 8.5 19:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• I agree that the process wasn't perfect. But if you put the generall process aside for a moment and approach this specific case with common sense, you'll see that there was a clear preference to delete this article. The DRV, while technically still open, had run its course and was no longer actually active. Thus I question how Wikipedia is helped in any way here by blocking the deletion of this article purely on procedural grounds, even though the community's preference is clear, and thus postponing the inevitable by a month or two?Tvx1 17:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• The previous AfD was closed as no consensus, a result which was just endorsed at DRV. So no, there is no clear preference to delete the article. Hut 8.5 06:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Over the two AFD's there is. And multiple participants in the DRV noted the clear weakness of the keep arguments in the first AFD.Tvx1 12:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Clearly the right decision, but why are we reviewing an AfD close on AN?—S Marshall T/C 16:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Because it was an administrative action I believe. It was not actually an assessment of the discussion.Tvx1 11:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Outing?

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

---

What do we think of [4]? I would say this may step over the line of what may be reasonably inferred from a username. Guy (help!) 15:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

It can't really be said transposing one letter is obfuscating their identity on wiki. Unless they think everyone else are idiots, especially when you have an obvious potential COI to anyone who is familiar with the topic. If Hon Salo started editing on star wars articles we wouldn't say 'Nope not a notorious smuggler at all...' Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

this seems like clear outing to me. Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information says, Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. The user does not seem to have voluntarily posted those things.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

 Note: @JzG: Information related to this is now suppressed per the oversight policy. In the future, if you see attempted outing, please refer the matter to the oversight team either via Special:EmailUser/Oversight or by emailing oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org. Please do not post the issue on WP:AN, as that may inadvertently draw more attention to the privacy-sensitive matter (c.f. Streisand effect). Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Mz7, if I was sure, I'd have done that in the first place, as I usually do. Guy (help!) 21:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

JzG, I would recommend even when you're unsure, send it to oversight anyway—the worst that will happen is we say, "Thanks for reporting, but we don't think this crosses the line." Please don't feel it's a waste of our time. Mz7 (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Mz7, sure, but it was definitely marginal this time. Guy (help!) 23:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest the point is there's never a good reason to have a discussion about an actual case. If the edits aren't eligible for suppression then there's no point discussing their eligibility for suppression. If the edits are eligible for suppression, you've partly defeated the purpose by letting everyone know of these juicy details which have no business being on Wikipedia. I mean heck, there's a good chance in most cases posting about it here will mean more people will have seen what is suppressed then would have ever seen it if no one had bothered to say anything even ask for suppression. Even if you're asked for oversight and were rejected and you disagree, it would be better to engage either privately with the person who rejected your request, some other oversighter, or arbcom. Likewise if something was suppressed but you disagree you still shouldn't be discussing these concerns publicly. Discuss privately. If they reverse the oversight then maybe you can discuss publicly if there's still a reason. Nil Einne (talk) 09:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Graywalls Edits bias concern

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

---

I consider myself a novice and welcome your help. I have edited many wiki pages and enjoy finding citations when needed. One post, Horacio Gutierrez, has been extensively vetted, edited, and approved by several wiki editors. Recently, Graywalls began deleting and finding issues with the post. I locate references and pattern the posts I make after other similar posts so that they follows the wiki format. My concern is that Graywalls may have an inherent bias against Mr. Gutierrez (Hispanic). I am not sure if he is a colleague or critic, or? He is questioning the use of great pianist in his post (which has been there for years). I added additional references and the body of work, awards, records, concerts over 4 decades and career speak for Mr. Gutierrez. Graywalls has placed issues with the article once again that has been already vetted. It barely reads like a biography anymore from his continued edits. Yet, he is still finding issues. I believe his posts (all posts on wiki) need to be reviewed. I am sorry to bring this up. But, I am not sure how to get someone to help me. maryphillips52

I have notified User:Graywalls of this thread. — Diannaa (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#User_Maryphillips1952_on_article_Horacio_Gutiérrez which you were notified, and are invited to participate in and I shared the concerns I have with regard to the article. That post is basically a request for others to evaluate for neutral point of view. Graywalls (talk) 14:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't this belong on WP:ANI? The user Maryphillips 1952 complained about this issue on my talk page. The racism clam is very sketchy and really unnecessary.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@ThatMontrealIP:, I started the discussion over there instead of continuing back-and-forth editing any further within the article for other editors to evaluate the statement "considered one of the greatest pianist" in reference to sources presented. This was before they opened the case on ANI. Graywalls (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Graywalls:, This board is also WP:AN, for administrator discussions; I meant shouldn't this be on ANI instead? Yes NPOV is a good place to discuss it, as it seems like a content dispute. On the other hand, Maryphillips1952's promotional long term editing on this subject may be something for ANI.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@ThatMontrealIP:, that's a valid point, but seeing I already started the discussion over there before all, so perhaps starting another one elsewhere would be viewed as WP:FORUMSHOP Graywalls (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

User:maryphillips1952, I would say that it is your edits that stop this reading like a biography, but like an advertisement. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

With regard to Maryphilips1952's assertion that "He is questioning the use of great pianist in his post (which has been there for years).", I am not seeing that being said within in the prose, as of May 20, 2019, so I am not understanding why they're saying it has been vetted by other editors and has been there for years. [May 20, 2019 revision] Graywalls (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

If you go back to 2006 - This is how the post read (editor Davis Kosner) Gutierrez is known for playing that is imbued with a rare combination or romantic abandon and a classical sense of proportion and is considered by many piano connoisseurs to be one of the greatest pianists of the second half of the 20th century. You will need to go back to much later posts to get a full picture of Mr. Gutoerez' post history. I am trying to make an excellent post with your help. Please refer to the entire history of the post. Maryphillips1952 (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

just to skip to the end of this time-wasting, see this post at COIN. The user has a very obvious COI.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Then it's a good thing the article was changed. Can't you see the difference between a neutral encyclopedia article and a promotional blurb, which that was and seems to be what you want? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Catflap08 appeal

• Catflap08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

From user talk:Catflap08:

It has been more than three years that I have been banned from editing the English language version of Wikipedia. Ever since I was still able to edit the German language version of Wikipedia without any major incidents – including rather contentious issues. What I learned from the events leading up to my ban here is that it is a good idea to rethink issues overnight (or maybe even two, three … nights) when engaging in discussions on controversial issues. If this appeal is successful I do not intend to edit Wikipedia proper right away. I am perfectly aware of the fact that I would probably be under close watch and therefore use the time to make use of my sandbox instead. There are a number of stubs that I would like to work on by translating already existing German or Czech articles – only when approved by a majority of fellow editors I would ask for them to be moved into mainspace. Due to circumstances (Corona/Covid-19) I have even less time to focus on Wikipedia so my first steps in editing en.wikipedia will probably be rather small. It is not my intention to comment on past incidents without being specifically asked to do so.

I would note:

• Email and talk page access was withdrawn in June 2019 due to allegations of abuse.
• Most of the complaints were probably by Hijiri88, now indeffed for violation of an IBAN.
• I think the last appeal; was Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive306 § Site ban appeal from Catflap08
• I lost the will; to live about halfway though this lot.

Catflap08 posted an unblock request which I declined procedurally because I think that, given the extensive past history, it's a heavy lift for a single admin. Guy (help!) 19:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Link for the SiteBan
• Okay, I've read the modern stuff and the key bits of the original causes. I have not read every dispute. If we have someone active on de-wiki who could take a look there, that would be appreciated. Post-ban abuse is always concerning. However, I'm interested if there's an indication of major issues with any other editors in the past 2 years or so? If Catflap's primary difficulties were not being able to play nice with Hijiri88 that's concerning, but perhaps makes me more inclined to extend a chance with a risk factor now absent. TBAN should probably remain, with at least 6 months before it can be appealed to ARBCOM (I suppose it could be viewed as community 6 month TBAN that then lapses, leaving just the ARBCOM one). I'm not sure why catflap says "approved by a majority of fellow editors", but if we want a "create only be AfC" that seems reasonable. Willing to consider, but pending various bits of information. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• I have always felt that the ArbCom restriction from way back when was a bit unfair to Catflap, but there was little to be done about it, and the behavior that led to the block (linked above by Nosebagbear) was very unfortunate. But that was three years ago. I support letting Catflap back in. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Back when he was active, most of the problems were related to Hijiri88, I was involved with more of those issues than I care to recall. I want to be clear in stating that I believe everyone deserves a 2nd chance, including Catflap, but it comes with a great deal of hesitation. Blocks are cheap but drama is expensive. While I don't remember all the details (and not willing to drag up the old discussions to refresh my memory), what sticks out most was how Catflap could be a parasite with administrative time. Do I think Catflap is a net positive? Barely, and sometimes, no. Still, if I apply the same principles here that I apply with other editors, then I'm 51% for lifting the community ban that is in place. And obviously this would be a last chance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand I've always thought interaction bans shouldn't become unappealable just because the other person has left Wikipedia. On the other hand, the admin actions leading to Hijiri88's indef block while individually defensible collectively amount to a rather cruel persecution and so I think a UTRS request in six months or so is both likely and has a good chance of success. And if these two editors then start screaming at each other again it'll be yet more needless drama. I'm with Dennis Brown on this one. 51% support. Reyk _YO! 13:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• I'd like some comment from Catflap08 on their use of email Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive304#Use of ticket system by site-banned user to get warning about abuse of email removed? to try and communicate with Hijiri88. While I believe they stopped when asked [5], I question the first email in 2017 and then even more so the one in 2018 which was after the one in 2017 had been responded to and as I understand it concerned edits to the English Wikipedia when they were long site banned at that point. While I understand that Catflap08 may not have been happy with Hijiri88 mentioning them, and IMO Hijiri88 did have a tendency to mention long blocked or banned editors a bit too much, ultimately when your site banned you've mostly lost the right to complain about it. Except perhaps if you feel those editors clearly violate some policy and guideline in which case it would be better to approach an admin or arbcom about that. Complaining to the person who made the comments who you had a long contentious history with when you weren't banned doesn't seem to be a good idea. BTW, in case there's some confusion, I believe the last email was in November 2018. Hijiri88 suggested that Catflap08 may have been using other accounts to email them, but there didn't seem to be good evidence for this Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive310#Remove email access from a sitebanned editor?. Also was Catflap08 really still following Hijiri88's activities here in June 2019, when Catflap08 had been long banned? These sequence of edits do seem a little weird [6] [7], and Catflap08's previous response was shall we say, less than ideal [8]. (The fact that Catflap08 was aware Hijiri88 mentioned them less so since they may have simply not turned off pings for en Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive996#I'm being stalked (maybe trolled) -- anyone know if there's anything that can be done?.) I'm not really sure why Hijiri88 noticed what Catflap08 was up to on the German Wikipedia, but that's a discussion for another place and time. Nil Einne (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Catflap08 response

Transcluded from User talk:Catflap08:

FriendlyRiverOtter appeal, please lift COVID ban before July 8, no real offense

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

---

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1039 —> Proposal (FriendlyRiverOtter)

I’ve successfully edited COVID articles since mid-March. And not a single case of, ‘Oh, I’m going to self-righteously do it anyway.’ Nope, not one.

Nay an edit war to be found.

The whole issue stems from Talk pages. Frankly, I think the problem is that I responded to admins as if we were equal citizens. At least half a dozen different admins made a statement to the effect, ‘not getting the message’ or ‘need to send a message’ or similar. Wow. Watch even one mob movie and that’s a common refrain, as if a clear inferior is not picking up on a hierarchy.

So, the standard is that one must immediately kowtow to an admin?

I hope not, but it sure looks that way. My responses are easily above a threshold of politeness and civility. From my long sports site experience, if someone makes a reasoned argument, I try to make a response in turn, time permitting. I don’t even stack responses to one person when I think of new things. I think it’s just the fact that I made responses at all.

Several people implied that I tend to write long. That one I can take to heart (sports site vice!). I even closed an RfC well before 30 days as a show of good faith.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coronavirus_disease_2019&diff=prev&oldid=960776478
It wasn’t going anywhere, but it does illustrate that you can work with me.

But about a handful of admins wanted to squelch the very content of what I was saying, which is keeping with the header of MEDRS stating “common sense” and “occasional exceptions” and in keeping with our 5th Pillar, that we might want to consider also using primary sources for a new disease like COVID-19 and how we might do so.

So, it’s the content of the speech itself . . .

Well, first off, I think we’d owe an apology to the Chinese government, for all they’ve done is to follow the very human norm in place for generations and generations — hey, if it’s troublesome speech, we’re going to squelch it down. This new-fangled approach of trying mightily to draw a distinction between speech and conduct, well, we still don’t really know how it’s going to fully play out. But I think we should try it here in Wiki.

I might also use the analogy of religion, that if I were a Christian, Muslim, Baha’i, Hindu, etc, I think I could still make positive edits on articles on religion. And/or if I was in a workplace, I could certainly hold in my mind, how I think things should go and the idea that such is currently a minority position.

And maybe it takes a sports site person to say, Hey, you folks are at risk of losing good editors. And an additional thing regarding this business of ‘need to send a message,’ it’s one admin talking to another admin about an editor in the third person, when that editor is right there. And you could just ask them, hey, what do you see the problem as, and what do you see an interim improvement as?

The missed opportunity might be coaching up editors to the B+ level. And usually, a large amount of B+ work handily beats a small amount of A work.

On June 4, I offered:
“So, if I agree, no tricks, to cool it on Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019 regarding speaking in favor of either preprints or primary sources, other than my own single RfC which is still open?”
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=960714376

And I was making constructive COVID edits right until hours of the ban coming down: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_pandemic_in_New_York_City&diff=prev&oldid=961461726

I ask that the ban please be lifted.

And whether it’s lifted or not, I plan to continue as a good citizen, primarily working on my edits, but occasionally and constructively talking about what I see as systemic problems or issues. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• It's going to expire in 9 days, why waste an AN thrashing on 9 days? @Guerillero: who implemented the tban. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, 9 days is 9 days, and with COVID heating up, I find myself itching to get back. In addition, if some admins are worried about their fellow guild of admins coming on too strong and driving off good editors, mine’s probably a pretty good case to look at. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 02:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd say pay the $2 (i.e. wait the 9 days). Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, if you withdraw this now, you can go back to the article in 9, closer to 8 now, days. If you leave this open, I'd say there is a 50/50 shot the tban would be extended. Cut your losses please. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 03:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry, no. A long rambling message is not helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 03:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Given that this appeal seems to consist of attacking everyone who had a part in the sanction, no. And if you continue to agitate for the use of non-MEDRS sources for Covid articles when the ban expires, expect a longer one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

  Oh, and I must add that you're being a little selective when you quote yourself as saying "So, if I agree, no tricks, to cool it on Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019 regarding speaking in favor of either preprints or primary sources, other than my own single RfC which is still open?". Your actual subsequent agreement was "I agree to cool it regarding promoting primary sources on COVID talk pages for one month (and probably longer!)". The "one month (and probably longer!)" weasel clause means your actual commitment expires at the same time as your block, and so is meaningless. This appeal is almost a textbook example of not getting it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

There were two statements I made — the above one in my original post, and a second about seven hours later in which I also stated I had closed and archived my RfC, as well as the part which you quote, as well as my plans to continue positive edits in the articles themselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=960781261
And I did make positive COVID edits in our articles for several more days until the ban was imposed, such this one
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_pandemic_in_Italy&diff=prev&oldid=961297979
about schools in Italy. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 03:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• I don't see any encouragement to extend the ban (we have a bad habit of doing that to appeals that don't really warrant them, poorly written as it is). However you attack a wide group of admins (with the likelihood it's them, not you, going down the bigger the pool), and fail to show clear, succinct, evidence that it's warranted. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: thank you for taking a moderate position, and I know I have not made things easy for you. Yes, I have rather put myself in a box. If you could suggest a resolution which preserves respect on all sides, I’d probably be open to that. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 03:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Just as a point of fact: I was one of the editors who called for a topic ban, and I am not an admin. And the opening statement doesn't fill me with confidence about what will happen when the ban is lifted, because FriendlyRiverOtter is still arguing that the words "common sense" and "occasional exceptions" mean that WP:MEDRS can be ignored in the one article where it is the most important, because there's so much misinformation and premature information flying around in this area. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: why would MEDRS regarding Coronavirus be more important than MEDRS regarding heart attack or stroke, for example? (And people have delayed going to the emergency room with these symptoms precisely because of a fear of Coronavirus.) And I don’t think I’ve said, can ignore MEDRS. I think I’ve said, because of the header, carefully and judiciously . . and there’s a big difference. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I answered that question in my last sentence. The word "because" is a big clue that a reason follows. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• File this under the list of "Things you really don't want to say to have your TBAN lifted". RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Is there a chance you made a mistake in your comment? Did you actually intend to ask for your topic ban to be extended rather than lifted? Nil Einne (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Is there a WP:HELLNO for rationales like this? There ought to be one.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 15:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Quite possibly the worst appeal I have ever seen. This actually argues for an extension, not a lifting of the ban. Guy (help!) 15:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I speak for myself, and also for fellow editors who have been driven off. And I’m making the rational criticism that in the absence of conduct issues, an edit ought not be banned for speech. And even more specifically, when admins use the mob-movie language of ‘send a message’ or ‘not getting a message’ or similar, there is probably a rush to judgment and/or rush to punishment.
In fact, I’d like to go back six months on the Incidents archives and see how common an issue this is. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

FriendlyRiverOtter, fill your boots, just don't expect anyone to take your analysis seriously if it's filtered through the set of assumptions we see at the top of this section. Guy (help!) 16:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Need to extend the TBAN Attacking other users while not addressing one's own behavior? Brilliant! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

  Given the response above mine, user is here to "right great wrongs"? Perhaps a TBAN is not sufficient. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: if I were criticizing the actions of one particular admin, that gets tricky. But if I’m talking about a common practice, as I am, that’s not an attack. Or let me ask you. What would you accept as a constructive way to put forward rational criticism of the system? (and I did acknowledge the fault of sometimes writing long.) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 1 (6 month COVID ban) Friendly River Otter

Given the foregoing, propose extending TBAN from COVID-19 related pages to 6 months from the close of this thread. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support (second choice). Guy (help!) 15:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support as second choice behind the proposal below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support as second choice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support if the indefinite ban proposed below doesn't go through. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support only as a second option if the indefinite TBAN is not implemented. Grandpallama (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Second choice. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - All you had to do was wait a little over a week and the TBAN would have expired. If you are willing to stir drama right now, then I doubt it will be different when you return to editing the topic area. Darkknight2149 19:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support (second choice) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 2

Before anyone responds to the above proposal, I propose extending the TBAN from COVID-19 related pages to indefinite, appealable in six months here at AN. We've had far too much disruption from those who won't listen to the way the Community has mandated these articles be sourced, and it needs to stop. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support (first choice). Guy (help!) 15:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support (first choice). OK. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support as first choice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. The diatribes above clarify that this editor has no intention of following consensus. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support as first choice. The level of past disruption and the promise here of future disruption should not be ignored. Grandpallama (talk) 17:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support the appeal shows very clearly that the editor doesn't understand the issues which lead to the ban. You can be disruptive without edit warring or being uncivil. Dealing with situations like this is a timesink for the type of editor we want to keep around. Hut 8.5 18:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Sadly. Part of having a block or a banned removed , from what I'm reading , is having the banned individual show an understanding of why this happened, at the bare minimum and I don't see that at all. Necromonger...ALL Lives matter 18:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support I think this was a thinly veiled attempt to continue to push their cause under the guise of a request to lift their ban early. Seems way too convenient. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support I wouldn't even say thinly veiled. I'd say this was as blatant as it gets.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 19:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Boing!'s rationale. I've looked at the other talk page posts the user has made since the ban, as well as their meandering reasonings above, and it is the same kind of disruption all over again. --bonadea contributions talk 19:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The only cause I’m supporting right now is anti-bullying. Which I recognize immediately from my sports site background (although this is much more gentile and I thank you!) Yep, 10+ persons responding to thoughtful and rational criticism, and basically saying, this person’s no good, get rid of them, that’s bullying.
My main point is that when we jump to “need to send a message,” we jump almost all of the way to a pro-punishment position. And I maintain that that’s a pretty valid point.
By the way, this is why many persons in Third World countries don’t stand up for their legal rights. Because if they insist on rights they technically have, the system will up the ante.
So, we at Wikipedia believe in a democratic model, a de-centralized model. We believe the consensus process is a great way to have more discussion with better listening . . . . . except when it counts and then we don’t. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) FriendlyRiverOtter please see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY regarding your assertion that the community believes in a democratic model. Folly Mox (talk) 22:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you are oppressed as if you are living in the Third World, and we are all bullies. Keep it up, and I predict someone will become exasperated enough to propose that banning you simply from a topic isn't enough. Grandpallama (talk) 22:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Geez Louise, you brought this on yourself with an unnecessary and bellicose appeal of a sanction that was going to expire in mere moments. You could have sat back, kept your mouth shut, and it would all be over, but no, you had to mount your soapbox and speak up for all "oppressed" editors everywhere - what a complete crock! Keep up this mode of behavior and, sooner or later, you'll be site banned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

No, it's not bullying, it's the community enforcing the sourcing requirements mandated by consensus for Covid-19 articles. And it's not "thoughtful and rational criticism" that led to where we are now, it's your belligerent, soapboxing, refusal to accept that consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support, with proposal 1 as second choice. Miniapolis 00:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support (first choice) - The "appeal" really only makes sense when interpreted as a battleground tactic. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support – "I warned you, but did you listen to me? Oh, no, you knew it all, didn't you? Oh, it's just a harmless little bunny, isn't it? Well, it's always the same. I always tell them...." Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 03:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support FriendlyRiverOtter displays a range of attitudes which tend to cause disruption on Wikipedia: self-righteousness, lack of understanding and self-awareness, a desire to attack others, long self-indulgent speeches, a total lack of clue, and an outspoken negative attitude toward admins - any one of those would be a cause for concern, but a combination of all of them is rather worrying. Given the circumstances I agree that FriendlyRiverOtter needs to show some understanding of why they were topic banned before lifting the ban. SilkTork (talk) 08:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@SilkTork: “desire to attack”? I said that this business of “need to send message” is both common and a rush to judgment. It’s certainly not an attack on any particular member. In fact, I’d said bringing up a common practice is at times really helpful for a group.
And “self-righteousness.” Checkmate. That’s the kind of thing, once raised, that anything I say is taken simply as evidence.
Would recent good edits on 2028 Summer Olympics help? I thought the most likely resolution would have been, Okay, you’ve had your say, so be it, yeah, what you bring up might be an issue, we’ll take it under advisement. And outside chance that I’ll help someone else down the road. But, um, . . . obviously not! FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support Best option for a case where no evidence of understanding the problem is seen. Johnuniq (talk) 10:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Jerm

Hello, I would like to have my user rights removed as I will be retiring from Wikipedia in a few days from now, thank you. Jerm (talk) 02:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your contributions over the years and enjoy your retirement. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Jerm (talk) 03:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Mirrors

Are mirrors of Wikipedia supposed to include material from Wikipedia space? I thought they were limited to mainspace articles and talk pages. I ask because of this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Nothing at WP:REUSE or the WMF's TOU seems to limit what content can be reused as long as the licenses are followed properly for the reuse. --Masem (t) 02:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

They are as long as they attribute us. Unfortunately, most people who run mirrors/copy from wikipedia into their blogspot don't attribute us, so time is wasted when searching for copyvios. Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 03:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

That site is a copyright violation of us, since I can't find where they attribute. Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 03:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that site is likely a Meta:Live mirrors based on how quickly it updates. As others have said, sites are free to republish any content copyrighted by our editors contributed here, provided they comply with the licence terms which require (I'm simplifying here) attribution of the contributors (not of wikipedia itself) but also that the licence is listed in an appropriate manner. That site doesn't appear to comply with either requirement, as it says "© 2020 WordDisk" at the bottom with no mention of either the GFDL or CC BY-SA 3.0 licence, one of which they will need to comply with, nor can I see any list of contributors or way to find one. Any contributor of copyrighted content could ask them to comply with their licence terms of they wanted to, and take further action if they failed to. The foundation could theoretically care because of the live mirror issue, but I think they've don't because the amount of network traffic tends to be small as these sites are all obscure. Nil Einne (talk) 14:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Topic ban appeal

Six months ago, I made a standard offer unblock request on this noticeboard. The reviewing admins had generously decided to give me another chance, while still reinstating my topic ban on all broadly construed topics related to Armenia and Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts. Over the past six months, I've been editing articles outside of my topic ban area, and have not engaged in sock puppetry or edit warring. If the topic ban is removed, I promise I will continue to be a productive editor in my topic ban area as well. I understand if there will be any hesitation, given that I've appealed this topic ban before over 4 years ago. However, I'm now a lot older and more mature, and I'm also more familiar with the rules and regulations of Wikipedia. I ask that the administration once again let me prove this not just with words, but actions as well, by removing my topic ban. If there are still any doubts, I would happily accept a 1RR condition in my topic ban area, so that I could further demonstrate I will edit constructively in this field. --Steverci (talk) 02:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Pinging original sanctioning and unblocking admin @Callanecc: Nosebagbear (talk)

• I have some initial concerns, or at least areas of note. Callanecc Steverci has only edited a dozen articles in the six months, with the 25 edits I looked at all being references - I couldn't target more accurately because Callanecc Steverci is completely failing to use any edit summaries at all. Refs are absolutely vital, but for determining whether the editor can edit without causing problems in general text/disputable areas. Callanecc Steverci, could you give some details on what you'd like to edit in the TBAN areas, maybe with an example or two? Nosebagbear (talk) 10:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

  You probably wanted to mention Steverci, not Callanecc--Ymblanter (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

  *self-trouts* apologies to both Nosebagbear (talk)

  I understand your concerns. The last time I tried to appeal a topic ban, Callanecc was concerned that I hadn't been active enough at editing. From what I can recall (and I apologize if I'm wrong), that was the only input I had ever gotten on how to edit while hoping to later appeal a topic ban. So I had tried to make a contribution almost every day. I had thought about making more bold edits in contentious topics to show I can handle them, but I thought getting into any kind of conflict would be considered not editing constructively. Concerning edits TBAN edits I'd like to make, there are a number of vandalism edits I've been waiting to revert such as here and here, but some articles I've wanted to expand and add a lot more citations to are Armenian resistance during the Armenian Genocide, Armenian–Azerbaijani War, Georgian–Armenian War, Turkish–Armenian War, and some smaller related articles. --Steverci (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Steverci, those edits you would like to revert are potentially problematic, but they are not Wikipedia:Vandalism under Wikipedia's definition. As for the listed articles, they do not provide a good impression of moving beyond the need for a topic ban. Have you considered bold work on areas other than Armenian wars and related? There's a lot of work needed on Armenian articles unrelated to various conflicts. CMD (talk) 07:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Nosebagbear specifically asked me for articles related to the topic ban, which includes "broadly constructed" "ethnic conflicts". I'm mostly interested in editing Armenian articles, but also other things. But above I was told that my edits weren't good because they were too safe, so I gave some articles of more potentially contentious subjects, and now you say that it looks bad that I'm appealing the topic ban because I'd like to edit articles related to the topic ban. --Steverci (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood your opening post then where one of the topics you stated was covered in your topic ban was Armenia as a whole, rather than just conflict-related topics. Can you clarify what you take to be the scope of your current ban? I mentioned the above because dropping a topic ban of Armenia would allow freedom to edit a wide range of articles, without being drawn back to areas that bring higher incidences of editing disputes. Desiring to work in less problematic spaces within existing topic bans can be a reason to remove or reduce a ban. CMD (talk) 01:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Generally, one must show they can edit constructively outside the TBAN areas. One must got give the appearance of simply outwaiting the TBAN. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Can I clarify the exact TBAN phrasing as indef TBAN from Armenia and Azerbaijan as well as ethnic conflicts related to Turkey - I don't think Steverci is trying to misconstrue or even being careless on it, just for specific discussion in case a narrowed TBAN is considered as an alternative. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
• Narrow TBAN? I'd be willing to narrow the TBAN to conflicts involving one or more of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkey or factions within them. I don't know if Steverci has any interest in articles on Armenia/Azerbaijan outside of those areas, so it might be a pointless suggestion. I don't think there's sufficient activity to warrant removing the full TBAN on the truly problematic areas at this point. I'd be happy to say that Steverci can appeal in 3 months (whether the current TBAN is narrowed or not), rather than the usual 6, since that could give a decent editing basis - I haven't spotted any particular problems that warrant a long pause time between each appeal. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd be open to either the narrow TBAN or another three months. The former would allow me to clearly demonstrate the TBAN is no longer necessary. For the latter, I'd appreciate if we could define a minimal amount of required edit activity. --Steverci (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with Deepfriedokra here. Tbans are given based on a history of problems. Tbans are lifted based on a history showing there is no longer a problem, and in this case, there isn't enough history to clearly demonstrate that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Template editor

I propose that The Rambling Man (TRM) be granted the template editor user right. His raising of many issues at WP:MPE shows that he has a need for the right. TRM is a former admin, who lost his admin privileges about 4 years ago due to an ARBCOM case. It is for this reason that I feel that any granting of advanced permissions needs to be done with the consensus of the community at large. I believe that granting the user right to TRM will result in a reduction of workload at MPE and ITNC, as TRM will be able to make productive edits in those areas which he currently cannot do. I believe that he will not abuse the user right if granted it. Mjroots (talk) 08:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Cheers. And if any admin is available now, there are a few issues I noted two days ago which are currently live on the main page. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• @Mjroots: please, no half measures, restore the administration rights also. ——Serial ^# 08:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I have added the flag, since it does not require a vote and is clearly needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Actually, as I feared, this doesn't mean I can address the errors on the main page as we speak. Perhaps an admin could help with that please? And Serial Number 54129, thanks!! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Mjroots: As much as I appreciate TRM's contributions to MP and otherwise, all main page elements are cascade-protected, so TPE is pointless. (the correct measure is in what SN said) --qedk (t 愛 c) 08:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, I can't do what Serial Number 54129 suggested. So The Rambling Man will just have to run for admin again. Mjroots (talk) 09:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Not sure how well that would go, but there'd be a support from me - if there's anyone who needs the admin tools for the volunteer work they've chosen to do (and do so thoroughly well), it's TRM. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    • This is why we needed WP:Main page editor. Wouldn’t have had to put TRM through the RfA bunfight. P-K3 (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• As PK3 notes, this is why Valereee and I proposed creating the WP:Main page editor group: TRM is among those who needs this userright. No objections to him receiving template editor, but it doesn't address any of the main page issues; in fact in this use case, it wouldn't help at all. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• Agree that we now have at least one example of where WP:Main page editor makes sense. Hobit (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

  To be accurate, TRM is the probably the only editor trusted enough to have MPE as an ex-admin/crat. --qedk (t 愛 c) 17:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

  Hardly. There are several others, who I am not going to name because this isn't a discussion where anything can come of doing so, but who've done more work with main page content than the vast majority of admins. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).

Administrator changes

Malcolmxl5

John • TheCoffee • Tim!

Creffett → GeneralNotability

DeltaQuad → AmandaNP

CheckUser changes

Bbb23

Interface administrator changes

TonyBallioni

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is in progress to remove the T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) speedy deletion criterion.

Technical news

• Protection templates on mainspace pages are now automatically added by User:MusikBot II (BRFA).

Arbitration

• Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold an RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. The RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC and is open to comments from the community.
• The Medicine case was closed, with a remedy authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Removal of "UK" from location field in infoboxes

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

---

Is there a policy regarding the UK not being necessary in location field for companies, organisations etc. and that the constituent nation i.e. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is sufficient?

For example I changed the location on Deltic Group from:

| location = [[Milton Keynes]], UK to |location = [[Milton Keynes]], England, UK Edit link: [9]

Subsequently user User:IceWelder removed the UK from the location from their edit:

| location = [[Milton Keynes]], England, UK to |location = [[Milton Keynes]], England Edit link: [10]

There a few other articles where this has happened: Rockstar North, Denki. Rather than get into an edit war I instigated a discussion about it and we couldn't come to an agreement on this point. I suggested it might be best to get advice/help from the Administator noticeboards. Discussion link: [11]

Conversely, the user User:Beagel has insisted that United Kingdom be added in full for the Vattenfall UK article in their edit summaries: [12] and [13]

|| location =London, England, United Kingdom

So its all a bit confusing!

I've edited quite a number of articles in the format |location = Place, Nation, UK without any issues.

Some clarification on this would be most welcome. Angryskies (talk) 11:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• No, you want advice from WT:MOS, not an administrative noticeboard, as no administrative action is required. This can be closed now. All the best! ——Serial ^# 11:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Whoops! I'll post over there, thanks! Angryskies (talk) 11:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

No problem, Angryskies  :) ——Serial ^# 11:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

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

TikTok vandalism

I am trying to take a wikibreak, but there is one thing I need to share and request before I do. I've set up edit filter 1071 (hist · log) to track the pages being vandalised by the malicious followers of that TikTok person. It's averaging around 2 edits per hour, with multiple vandals every time a new video is released. It will not be effective in 'disallow' mode. If you have access to private filters, as all admins do, please watch this filter. For other users, if you watch edit filter logs, please keep an eye out for this one. I've been basically semi-protecting any article being edited for a couple of weeks, and blocking many of the users involved (though the latter is probably optional). If admins and EFHs don't watch the filter then it might have to be turned into a public filter, which I'd rather not do, however feel free to decide to do that anyway because it will probably still mostly work. Have fun. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Zzuuzz I'm not sure why an anti-TikTok Troll edit filter should be private. SO when I look at the AbuseLog, what am I going to see? Just a visible FIlter 1071 or a TIkTok vandalism filter description? {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 14:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

You would see the name of the filter which is TikTok vandalism. It's a fair question about whether it's private and I've been on the fence about it while it was being actively monitored. The reasons for it being private are mainly tactical. However, it does rely on a certain level of ahem unsophistication, so I've now made it public, which anyone is again welcome to change. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay so while it's public, let's just hope no TikTokers know about abuse filters. revert block ignore, report to AIV on sight without warnings. {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 22:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think TikTok trolls know how to check (and read) edit filters. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

OK well let's stop before they start going into the "behind the scenes" namespace and find out we are talking about this, and figure out that there's an edit filter and learn to circumvent it. That's why it was private in the first place. {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 05:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Page creation

Hello!

I would like to create a page for the South Korean variety show House on Wheels but, when I try to, I am redirected to the "Permission error" page with the following message: "The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism." Is there a reason this page should not be created? Thanks! - Seokgjin (talk) 15:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Long story, not that interesting. Here, I got you started: House on Wheels. Happy editing! El_C 15:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Backlog at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure

There are threads started in May 2020 at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure which need to be closed. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Sounds about normal, actually. If anything, it is an improvement due to a flurry of activity lately. El_C 16:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

General i-ban question

General i-ban question (not seeking a sanction on anyone, and don't want to drag anyone to AN, so keeping this a general, theoretical question).

WP:IBAN says "Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to ... undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means".

If User A makes an edit, and later User B modifies the wording (but does not remove it) after the iban - in a way that doesn't set off any other alarm bells (like happening frequently, stalking, harrassing, etc.) - are other admins generally considering this "undoing" an edit? It seems to go a little against the spirit, but not the letter. These editors have a pretty extensive subject area overlap, so this will probably come up again.

If it's not OK, that gives a first mover advantage to User A. If it is OK, it gives a second mover advantage to User B. So there is no "perfect" answer. I think both people want to abide by the iban, but I want to make sure I make clear to both of them what the boundaries of it are. So I'm not using the answers I get here to sanction anyone, just explain to them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. I think the spirit of the restriction should be that if said modification is objected to by the corresponding party, it should be seen as having undone that edit, for all intents and purposes. El_C 18:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

But self-reverting should be enough. I do not recommend sanctions for that. El_C 19:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The trick, of course, is then "how does Editor A indicate that they object"? They can't talk to Editor B. They can't follow BRD. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I think a note to an uninvolved admin should be permitted as a go-between. But each case or possible pattern of cases, to be evaluated by its particular circumstances, of course. I just have not encountered anything like that before, so whinging it will probably be part of the process. El_C 20:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@El C: that's kind of what I'm scared of; that I'm going to become the go-to arbiter of "particular circumstances". I'm a big fan of winging it, I may try to come up with rules for a new kind of Floquenban, and see if they'll both agree. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• If there is an iban in place, the second editor shouldn't have modified the first editors verbiage, as they probably do not need to be editing the same articles. The first can get an admin to ask the second to revert his modification. And is just one reason I hate ibans. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Dennis Brown: In this case (I know, I said I wouldn't get specific) both editors have already edited a very large percentage of the pages in the subject area. Avoiding articles the other has already edited isn't feasible. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

  Dennis Brown, rather than editing the other user's text, they should propose an edit on Talk and then if it has consensus someone else will do it - and if it doesn't, there's no risk of a revert triggering an IBAN violation. Guy (help!) 12:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• It depends on the edit entirely. If User B is correcting obvious spelling or punctuation errors as part of general improvements to the article then that shouldn't be a problem. If they have adjusted the words to alter the meaning, then that could be a serious violation and a sanction may need to be applied. If the minor spelling improvements are a single or very occasional instance, then probably best ignore it. If they are frequent or focused then it could be a deliberate attempt to game the system and annoy User A and a warning would be appropriate. Without an actual edit to look at then you'll have you use your own judgement. If unsure, and if not wanting to create drama, then send a diff of the edit(s) in a private message to an admin you trust. SilkTork (talk) 01:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • • One of the problems of an iban. It's like a bad divorce where the judge just tells the couple to divide it up yourselves, but don't talk to each other. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @SilkTork: I agree about context mattering in general. It hasn't been frequent, I do not think this was a deliberate attempt to game the system; if it was, I'd have blocked. I don't plan on sanctioning anyone this time, just trying to come up with guidelines for both of them for next time. I am afraid you're right, and if it happens again someone is going to come to me to decide if it's "serious enough" to be an i-ban violation. Ugh. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
• My understanding has generally been that there is a bit of a first-mover advantage; if Editor A has substantively edited a page before Editor B did, then editor B needs to stop making substantive edits to the same page. IBANs can get ugly, but sometimes they are absolutely necessary (speaking as someone with respect to whom another editor has a one-way IBAN), and this is only way I can see to maintain fairness. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Stalking?

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

---

Someone is WP: stalking stalking me on Wilipedia and this should be worrisome to all. My IP address is been followed around by unknown editor(s). I leave it at that. Swiss romulus (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

We need a lot more information than just this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't know about their edits as an IP, bt their talk page shows problems with edit warring and copying within Wikipedia w/o attribution. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I think a boomerang might be due here this link sheds some light on the IP address he's talking about (look specifically at the section labeled "Banking") Necromonger...ALL Lives matter 20:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• If you aren't going to name names, provide diffs, and put a notice on their talk page, you are asking for sanction yourself. You've already wasted enough time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hi there, my take is that he's referring to me, as mentioned in this edit, where he also calls me an "(Israeli) Stalker". That's after I reverted a couple of his changes and warned him for edit warring. The anti-Israeli/Jewish theme also spans other edits, such as this. Apologies for the wording, but this user seems delusional. UCaetano (talk) 02:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Upload request for protected file

I am trying to upload a new, higher-quality version of File:Bastard‼ Heavy Metal, Dark Fantasy vol01.jpg, but I am blocked from doing so (I assume because of the page's title). What should I do? — Goszei (talk) 06:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

As it's non-free and uploaded under fair use rules, we deliberately only use a low-resolution version of artwork such as this (as you can see in the comment in the licensing section). A higher-quality version is possibly not appropriate. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: Oh, I am aware of the NFCC low-res criterion. It's just that I wanted to upload a low-resolution rescale from a scan with better lighting/colors from the Kindle version. — Goszei (talk) 04:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah, OK, that's good - I'll leave it for someone who knows how to solve your problem. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Goofdawg

• Goofdawg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This looks a lot like a sleeper sock, but regardless, I have blocked as WP:NOTHERE because I cannot work out what the hell he thinks he's playing at. Example: [14]. Anyone who thinks they can sort this out without needing to maintain a block, is most welcome to lift it. Guy (help!) 12:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

JzG, I was actually trying to work out what the heck was going on myself when I saw your block. It was the edit on Serial Number 54129's page that caught my attention and then I saw the edit war on Paul Scholes. Has been reblocked now with TP access revoked so think the ship has sailed. Glen 12:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Based on the edit pattern and the specific content they were trying to add, I'm certain they were a sock of User:Riku maina, but that's not a metaphysical certainty without an IP check. – PeeJay 13:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Well done. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

PeeJay2K3, if you feel they're the same person it might be worth flagging it with {{uw-agf-sock}} tags on each of their talk pages so it's on record if they reappear. Just my 2¢. Cabayi (talk) 10:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Konli17: with his disruptive editing

This user keep changing topics according his own point of view. For example "Syria" into "Rojava", or "Turkey or "Southeastern Anatolia Region" into "Turkish Kurdistan" as if these things are even a country, not even a historical region, it's like calling Tabriz is a city in Iranian Azerbaijan instead of Iran. Ins't this disruptive? This user has ongoing disputed with different users in different pages, please check his history. Sometimes, he also adds some tricky stuff meantime his editing, which the source doesn't even talk about. Beshogur (talk) 13:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The second sentence of the Tabriz article says it's in Iranian Azerbaijan. Konli17 (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

East Azerbaijan is a province, administrative division, so your suggestions are not valid. Beshogur (talk) 15:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

East Azerbaijan Province is very much a province and administrative division. However, it makes its appearance in the first sentence of the Tabriz article, not the second, detracting somewhat from the validity of your argument. Konli17 (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Here is good examples [[15]] [[16]],where he deletes large sources information. You can see what his POV is. Shadow4dark (talk) 14:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Doomer1557

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

---

Hello. I think we need an administrator to help @Doomer1557: on how to properly sign his posts. As I understand it, english isn't his first language & so his posts aren't in UTC. This isn't a big emergency, but it does get confusing for others. GoodDay (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

And as they're now signing their posts, there's nothing to be done here, though it's really fucking tempting to get a boomerang out. I'm seeing GoodDay in far too many places making an utter bloody nuisance of themselves. I suggest they devote more time to content and less time (as in, no time at all) to their pseudo-administrator oar-sticking-in shit which is not their strong point. Nick (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Motion: Genetically modified organisms (July 2020)

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

David Tornheim's topic ban from glyphosate, imposed as a discretionary sanction on 28 July 2016 and amended on 23 April 2019, is rescinded.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion: Genetically modified organisms (July 2020)

Grove music online

I was told when I got access to Grove Music online through the Wikipedia Library that it was a requirement of using it that you had to cite references to it like this, for instance - <ref name=Grove>|title=Prophète, Le|author= Huebner, Stephen|access-date=8 July 2016, with the "ref brackets of course. of course. That added a note which said "subscription required". I used it for years, very useful, no problem, grateful for the facilty. Nothing in the footnotes ever came up in red. Suddenly yesterday and today this cite of GroveOnline has been changed somehow and the "subscription required" notice has vanished, instead a note in red has taken its place saying "access-date= requires |url=". Someone appears to have changed it somehow because of this discussion [17] at Template talk:GroveOnline, which is completely over my head, I don't have a clue what they are talking about. Now a bot run by PBS is gong though every article which was cited to GroveOnline "the old way" taking out the access date, also not replacing the "subscription required" notice, leaving an edit summary Remove access-date from GroveOnline because there is no url paramter and possibly some other changes on hundreds of article pages I maintain. My question, other than "why in the world are they doing this" is, I was told that "subscription required" notice must be included when GroveOnline is cited. has that changed? I really hate these kinds of mass changes with fussy little stuff that clog up my watchlist, at times like these I wonder why I bother to edit WP.Smeat75 (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

This is the primary reason I stopped using cite templates many years ago. I just add the citation information manually to avoid this problem. I recommend you do the same. Viriditas (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Smeat75, what happens if you paste the url into ProveIt? Guy (help!) 00:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The bot is changing them all and I'm not techy enough to intervene. Smeat75 (talk) 00:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I could be in over my head and not know it, but from reading through the discussion I think the reasons for the change in template were sound. However, when templates are changed and those changes cause working references to become broken, we need a better response than "user error". The user did not error in making a reference that, at the time, worked. I know that other kinds of templates get changed regularly and yet they don't end up showing up at AN with the same frequency as changes in reference templates end up here. So let's keep improving ref templates but also, and this is where I back-off in hopes that people better qualified than I pick up the baton, let's improve our process around what happens when improvements to reference templates break things. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Better yet, let's make very, very, very sure that the benefits which will come from changing a reference template are worth the inevitable problems the change will cause. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, 100%. There should be no shame in backing out a change that has unforeseen effects, and there should be way more discussion and testing before changing widely-used templates. Guy (help!) 10:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I can't find a BRFA for this operation. It is being run from User:PBS-AWB which should cause a ping. Can someone block that bot until this is sorted? 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:C4FC (talk) 07:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's a bot, it's an alt account using AWB. Guy (help!) 10:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I ran WP:AWB manually the actions were not taken by a bot. See the recent discussions on Template talk:GroveOnline as to why this was necessary given the desirable reasons for changing the template. However in simple terms I broke nothing. What I did was to remove an error message. Almost all the citation templates and their wrapper templates will give an error message if someone adds an "access-date" parameter to a citation that does not have a url link. The whole point of access-date[s] is to inform a reader when a web page was accessed as a warning that the current content of the page may have changed sine it was cited. There is no point in adding an "access-date" parameter to a citation that has no url. Recent changes to the template means that all the instances of {{GroveOnline}} which had an "access-date" parameter were now displaying an error message:

{{GroveOnline|title=Traviata, La||access-date=3 July 2020}}

produces:

Sadie, Stanley; Tyrrell, John, eds. (2001). "Traviata, La". The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (2nd ed.). London: Macmillan Publishers. ISBN 978-1-56159-239-5. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

So for example Revision as of 00:14, 22 September 2018 by user:Smeat75 added the citation:

{{GroveOnline|title=Traviata, La|author= Parker, Roger|access-date=21 September 2018}}

The AWB script (Revision as of 17:34, 2 July 2020) changed it to

 {{GroveOnline |last=Parker |first=Roger |title=Traviata, La}}

The reason for also changing the "author" parameter to "first" and "last" is because it is standard to split name (rather than the kludge using "Parker, Roger" as a string in the parameter "author") and allows the long citation be be cited in the standard short format using the {{harv}} templates. In fact across the 660 articles there was a mixture of "first-names second-name" and "second-name, first-names" sometimes in the same citation. The reason for placing the names first and the title after them is it makes finding and or (in a reference list) alphabetically sorting on author easier. This is also the order in which the template displays the parameters (WYSIWYG).

Now to address the subscription required. If there is no link to the online subscription service then no subscription is required—instead, if one is rich, one can purchase the book (published 2001) or use a library. On the template talk page (see above) there is a discussion about whether, if there is a url parameter, to rely on the standard citation templates' red padlock (which is also used at the Grove web site), or continue with a subscription postscript. Opinions on the talk page differ, however if no consensus to remove the postscript, for those templates that have an online link, it can be reinstated.

The primary reason for making the change is that there are currently 3 different and overlapping templates {{GroveOnline}} {{Cite Grove}} and {{Cite NewGrove2001}}. The intention is to merge all three (starting with {{GroveOnline}} {{Cite Grove}}). The first step of which was to alter the oldest one, {{GroveOnline}}, so that the script was converted from calling {{cite encyclopedia}} directly into using the Lua template wrapper. This move most of the script complications down into the standard Lua code. For example the GroveOnline script prior to the change had 41 line now it has 11 line and far more functionality. -- PBS (talk) 14:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Just a note from the Wikipedia Library team that we don't require any particular citation formatting if you get access to content through the library. We previously had some text on the signup pages which unfortunately implied a requirement but was just our best attempt to provide an example of a full citation per the then best practices. See a previous discussion on this in the VPP archive. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Further to what PBS says above, yes you could go out and buy Grove Music (published in 2001) or use a library but Grove Music online is part of Oxford Music Online and when you have access to that you also have access to " to search The Oxford Dictionary of Music and The Oxford Companion to Music". Further the online version is constantly updated, it's not the same as the book published in 2001, just last month for instance "We are pleased to have added 3 new articles, 12 new images, 67 revised entries, and refreshed data for 4 entries for this site update." So how am I supposed to cite it now? It worked perfectly well before these (completely unnecessary imo) changes messed it up.Smeat75 (talk) 14:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

As it happens, before I went through the pages that did not have URL, I went through those that that did adding a full citation including the date and checking the link to the Grove online site. Those examples can be found in:

• category:Wikipedia articles incorporating the GroveOnline template with a url parameter‎

I also added some to six other templates using "doi" and "id" see:

• category:Wikipedia articles incorporating the GroveOnline template with a doi parameter‎
• category:Wikipedia articles incorporating the GroveOnline template with an id parameter‎

So you can use those articles to see how to link the article to the website and how to date them correctly. -- PBS (talk) 14:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Never mind, I'll just do it manually from now on as Viriditas and not use cite templates. I thought you were supposed to as a condition of having access through the Wikipedia library. I don't have an effing clue what a "template with a doi parameter" or an "id paraamter" is and could not care less, I edit articles on MUSIC because readers come hear to learn about MUSIC not all that technical bollocks.Smeat75 (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Changes at the WikiEd Foundation

The WikiEd foundation formally announced a reduction in scope in how WikiEd will be supporting students for the coming year at the education noticeboard. As student editors can impact a number of administrative areas and functions I thought that announcement might be of interest to some editors who frequent this board and not that one. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Someone moved a Userpage

Can any admin see this. This user has been moved by some autoconfirmed user with some 600+ edits. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 03:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Aaqib bhai, Dr-Taher is a global renamer. Presumably the user whose page was moved had requested a username change. Best, M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 04:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

That's what the edit summary says, "Dr-Taher moved page User:Nasreen Zahid to User:Fatima Al Khalidi: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "Nasreen Zahid" to "Fatima Al Khalidi")" --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

3nk1namshub

• 3nk1namshub (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In attempting to understand 3nk1namshub's frankly bizarre behaviour I found this [18], which may perhaps identify a root cause. Regardless, having reviewed their edits I am pretty confident that Wikipedia is going to be bad for their mental health (and the evidence suggests that they are also going to be bad for ours) so I have blocked per WP:NOTHERE. If anyone feels that they can fix this through kindness and patience then they are more than welcome to unblock. Guy (help!) 09:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse block. I am fine with having them address problems through the venue of an unblock appeal, if they're serious about continuing to contribute. This level of vitriol falls well bellow expectations and require significant correction. El_C 10:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse, recommend standard offer. Six months working on other wikis will allow them to demonstrate that they can beahve collegially.
• Standard offer, 6 months constructivity other projects. (Last I looked, they had an active unblock. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• I have a great deal of sympathy with this user's cause. The Signpost page which they are talking about is, frankly, disgusting, and I can clearly understand why a new user would feel that it absolutely should be deleted post-haste, not being familiar with the consensus process. However, we do, of course, have a consensus process, and neither AN nor the user's talk page or user page is the place to question an existing consensus. I think it ought to be questioned why the discussion at WT:SIGNPOST was closed so soon, even with the incivility issues, but I do not object to the block itself; it is clear that they have been extremely uncivil, and whilst I might quibble about the consistency with which a block might or might not be applied for those same actions, I think the decision that has been taken here is a good one. That being said, I think an unblock should be considered after a short period of time (shorter than the standard offer, certainly); I don't think the editor is here with an intent to be disruptive. Perhaps I'm taking WP:AGF to an extreme here, but I think they are genuinely trying to make the encyclopedia better, albeit the case that they clearly need to consider the way that they do that, and the way that they interact with other people. If they were to continue being uncivil after an unblock, then an indef without standard appeals would be warranted. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  And I would agree with Naypta were it not for the s aforementioned edit summary. Taken as a whole, 3nk1namshub needs to calm down. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Deepfriedokra: That's understandable, for sure. I think it's worthy of note that the user did later try to post an apology for that after their 24 hour block for it expired, but reasonable people can disagree on whether or not that is sufficient to make up for it. I wonder what RandomCanadian thinks is appropriate, seeing as they were the target of the abuse in this case - please don't feel you have to reply to this ping if you'd rather not, though, as I appreciate this is a difficult subject. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 12:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  Nothing difficult at all. Taken as a whole, 3nk1namshub is not ready for a collaborative environment. Perhaps six months from now, they will be. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Deepfriedokra: I do, however, wonder if they deserve this kind of gravedancing? I suggest not; it's childish, unhelpful mockery. In my book, even if it were true, anyone who thinks it necessary to say that on the user's own page is demonstrating extremely poor judgement. ——Serial ^# 12:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  I have removed the offending comment. And will warn the user about this sort of thing being totally unacceptable. El_C 12:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks, El_C, no need to make this worse than it has to be. ——Serial ^# 13:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  Serial Number 54129, absolutely. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. El_C 13:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  Hell, I'd have suggested blocking the one who posted that comment since it's clearly not their first disruptive salvo against the indeffed user, and considering that they just "lol"ed off the first warning, there's no indication that they plan to stop.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 14:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  Hell, and that’s why you’re not an admin, lol. And where’s the indication I plan to continue? I’ll answer for you; nowhere. End of discussion. Good day. – ².O.^Boxing 14:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Personally I think this could have been discussed prior to a block, but that notwithstanding I'm inclined to agree with Naypta. Either we can try a 2-week time-limited block and see their behaviour on return; alternatively, stick with the indef but use 2 weeks or a month as the functional base time for unblock discussions instead of 6 months. I'm tempted to go for the latter as the unblocking admin will probably need to have a fairly lengthy discussion to work out whether the editor has had a chance to consider, as well as setting up any editing restrictions appropriate. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Nosebagbear, preference for the latter. El_C 13:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Edward Colston

I not so concerned, but I have a feeling that there maybe an editor on username and logging out to edit from an IP. I have a feeling there is something a little fishy, could be just me, thought I post here just in case. Govvy (talk) 13:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, that's on me. I've restored the indefinite semi that got interrupted with my previous full protection. El_C 13:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Cheers, sometimes I think some people have some kind of political agenda on these types of articles. Thanks again. Govvy (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Anytime, Govvy. El_C 14:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Image competition?

• Joy Ayara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I noticed this user adding very large amounts of images to articles, almost all of which were poorly formatted without captions, at high rates of speed, with an edit summary including "#wpwp #wpwpng". After asking the user (see this thread on their talk page) and some asking around, I found out that this is apparently related to a contest at meta: m:Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos. There are apparently cash prizes for quantity of images added, with very poorly spelled out rules. This seems like a pretty terrible idea just begging for low-quality dumping of images into articles without understanding how to do so correctly or appropriately. I don't know how widespread the problem is or if it's worth setting up an edit filter, but others may want to be aware of this. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

There's a whole bunch of them doing it. Thought it might have been a sock-farm at first, but I guess a competition for doing it sounds more likely. Érico (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another one. There have been others on my watchlist in the last 48hrs or so. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

It's a bit of a pain, you'd think they would at least add a guideline on the quality of images? Completely random images and unnecessary ones are being added to bring up the count. I personally agree with Deacon Vorbis, it is quite a terrible idea. I suggest perhaps suspending the competition until some proper rules about the quality and type of images that can be added are created, as well as saying that poor and low-quality images will not be counted into the competition. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I've also noticed this on my watched pages, especially as non-free images are being uploaded. Here is another uploader: Eluwa Stephanie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Both the edit filter and suspending the competition sound like good ideas. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Add edit filter blocking those hashtags sounds like it could be urgency. In the meantime, how does one get a meta-organised competition to stop? It's outrageous that there was no notice, or warning, here. Pinging User:T Cells who, while inactive here, seems to have had a role in its organisation. ——Serial ^# 14:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

And there you have it. Turns out that T-cells is none other than User:Wikicology, whom some might remember as frequenting these parts. Specifically, this board. ——Serial ^# 14:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129:, I've put a notice on Meta, they seem to be quite active there. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Cheers Berrely, I meant to but got distracted by the WC saga...again  :) ——Serial ^# 14:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I thought Wikicology was already site banned? LSGH (talk) (contributions) 14:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh dear. This edit summary has been showing up at RC all day. I do not know if the most recent site banner has indirectly led this group of accounts to upload images. I checked a few of those, and they could appear to be of less than ideal quality. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 14:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Sock-farm? Lol, no. It's a annual campaign that occurs on all wikis. First, the images that I add to the articles are adequate. Second, as sysop at Commons I know the copyright rules very well. Anyway, If adding appropriate photos to articles is a problem here, it certainly won't be for me, because in hundreds of other wikis this work will be welcomed. Regards, Érico (talk) 14:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

This is some of the poorest content organisation I've seen, I mean, what did they think what did they think was going to happen? This was literally begging to occur, giving a cash prize to add any images to a site with 6 million articles that anyone can edit — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Apparently, the account Joy Ayara was created two years ago, but began editing only two days ago. It would be quite unusual to participate in the campaign at such an unusually fast edit rate and suspicious manner of editing. Could there be other sleeping socks around? LSGH (talk) (contributions) 14:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Érico: are you saying that these additions will be welcomed? Irrelevant and useless images that offer no use to the reader? — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I definitely didn't say that. My actual quote: the images that I add to the articles are adequate [...] in hundreds of other wikis this work will be welcomed. I am not referring to other participants, but to me, because I was mentioned above (by user Lugnuts). Érico (talk) 14:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

If you search mainspace for #WPWP #WPWPUIL there are loads of examples of not just crappy images, but the hashtag being inserted into the article itself. Ffs... ——Serial ^# 14:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Here is another uploader: Hormorkunmy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Again, the account was created in 2018 but edited barely anything until two days ago. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 14:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Before people rush to judge the whole competition, how about some data? The spot check I just did returned 9/10 productive additions. I don't doubt there are lousy images being added and people trying to game the system for prizes, just as there are people who game everything about Wikipedia and add lousy content all the time. Every competition we do, edit-a-thon, upload drive, etc. results in some amount of undesirable content ... and a lot of desirable content. it's when it's more trouble than it's worth that it merits some sort of intervention. And for that I'd expect to see more than a handful of anecdotes. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

There are likely hundreds of accounts that have been created just to enter this. Deacon Vorbis highlighted this, where they have literally just taken a photo from the lead and put it in the infobox. This is inevitable, if there is a prize, people will willingly put useless content into articles to get it. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: most contributors are probably submitting and adding good photos, but 9/10 is still a lot, just look at the damage 1 person has done. Unless some proper guidelines are made, this will keep happening. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

likely hundreds of accounts that have been created just to enter this - sooo a competition brought hundreds of new contributors, most of whom are adding content productively. This is... not a problem. FWIW I don't disagree with having clearer guidelines. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)