Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→GargAvinash unblock appeal: support unblock |
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive326) (bot |
||
| Line 820: | Line 820: | ||
::::Other than the edit that removed the statements in question in the lede, before the RFC was concluded, and restored, I've seen no such editing to the article. My issue at this juncture is that the points presented are not being addressed -- ignored. If this is not the place to present arguments, I'll confine the debate to the Talk page. All that is asked is that the facts and sources be considered. Thus far they have been roundly ignored. -- [[User:Gwillhickers|''Gwillhickers'']] ([[User talk:Gwillhickers |talk]]) 05:15, 4 November 2020 (UTC) |
::::Other than the edit that removed the statements in question in the lede, before the RFC was concluded, and restored, I've seen no such editing to the article. My issue at this juncture is that the points presented are not being addressed -- ignored. If this is not the place to present arguments, I'll confine the debate to the Talk page. All that is asked is that the facts and sources be considered. Thus far they have been roundly ignored. -- [[User:Gwillhickers|''Gwillhickers'']] ([[User talk:Gwillhickers |talk]]) 05:15, 4 November 2020 (UTC) |
||
::::: Please stop accusing others of impropriety just because they don't agree with your arguments. [[User:Acebulf|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">'''Acebulf'''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Acebulf|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Acebulf|contribs]])</sup> 23:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC) |
::::: Please stop accusing others of impropriety just because they don't agree with your arguments. [[User:Acebulf|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">'''Acebulf'''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Acebulf|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Acebulf|contribs]])</sup> 23:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC) |
||
== Topic ban appeal II == |
|||
Back in December I requested [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive316#Unblock_request%3A_Steverci a standard offer to be unblocked] after not sock puppeting for a long time, which I was given, though my topic ban remained. After six months, I made [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive322#Topic_ban_appeal a topic ban appeal] which ended with no official consensus, but the reviewing admins agreed that I would need to edit more disputable areas and that I could appeal again in at least another three months. I had been focusing on volume of edits before, so this time I focused on editing in contentious subjects. It has now been over three months and I request that my topic ban be reviewed once again. --[[User:Steverci|Steverci]] ([[User talk:Steverci|talk]]) 19:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:<small>Pinging {{ping|Nosebagbear}} who is the only user that partook in both of the discussions linked above --[[User:Steverci|Steverci]] ([[User talk:Steverci|talk]]) 19:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)</small> |
|||
* '''Support''' largely per [[User_talk:Steverci#Only_warning|this conversation on their talk page]]. They made a mistake, asked for clarification, and learned from it which is the exact kind of interaction I'd hope to see more of. Their edits since the block was lifted have largely been to talk pages which is good, because it shows productive discussion on controversial topics like Trump and racial tensions in the United States. Id' like to have seen more article edits, but everything I've seen so far makes me believe there's little risk in removing the topic ban even given the current Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">— [[User:Wugapodes|Wug·]][[User talk:Wugapodes|a·po·des]]</span> 23:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*I suppose the ongoing issue is that since the last TBAN appeal, where more edits were specifically given as a need, there have only been 50 edits, most of them on Trump's talk page. The editor isn't behaving problematically, and they've clearly demonstrated some form of patience. It's already DS, but we could specifically authorise for the next 6 months the ability for any admin to reimplement the TBAN. Hmm. I'll have a think [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk:Nosebagbear|talk]]) 11:38, 2 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::I recalled the main need being to edit constructively outside the TBAN area. I had also asked you for some sort of quota of edits to ensure this wouldn't be a concern in the future, and received no reply. --[[User:Steverci|Steverci]] ([[User talk:Steverci|talk]]) 22:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*{{u|Steverci}}: Could you please comment in more detail on your plans if the TBAN is lifted? Do you have specific plans to resume active editing in on the topics of Armenia/Azerbaijan more or less right away? Or are you just asking for the TBAN to be lifted in order to be able to edit on those topics if at some point later you do want to do that? [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 12:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::I don't have any immediate plans for certain articles, but I would like to be able to edit Armenia-related articles again. I can assure you I don't intend to rekindle old edit wars within the hour of the ban being lifted. I'll be extremely cautious and use the talk page if I think my edit will cause a dispute, but I wouldn't be doing anything like that right away. I would probably start with making edits where I see they are needed, such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yerevan&diff=958752882&oldid=957872443 vandalism like this] which [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yerevan&diff=964498375&oldid=964482478 no one else noticed for a month]. --[[User:Steverci|Steverci]] ([[User talk:Steverci|talk]]) 22:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::OK, I see, thanks. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 22:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Peer-to-peer VPNs == |
== Peer-to-peer VPNs == |
||
Revision as of 03:08, 9 November 2020
| Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. |
|---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) |
Open tasks
| V | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 23 | 23 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 5 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 15 | 21 | 36 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
- 11 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 7 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 0 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 3 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 105 sockpuppet investigations
- 5 Candidates for speedy deletion
- 6 Fully protected edit requests
- 3 Candidates for history merging
- 15 requests for RD1 redaction
- 57 elapsed requested moves
- 4 Pages at move review
- 24 requested closures
- 132 requests for unblock
- 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
- 24 Copyright problems
Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection
Report
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theresa Greenfield
- Draft:Theresa Greenfield
- Theresa Greenfield
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theresa Greenfield - redirected to 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa
- Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 June 4#Theresa Greenfield - endorsed
- Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 June 15#Theresa Greenfield - no consensus to overturn
- Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 July 11#Theresa Greenfield - no consensus to overturn
This article has had a rough history. It was nominated for deletion and redirected back in May this year, citing notability concerns. The deletion result was challenged at deletion review three times, as noted above. Meanwhile the article was recreated in place (in good faith) by several editors before the redirect was protected by Muboshgu in June. It was then created as a draft in July, which was submitted to AfC and has been declined three times by two reviewers (Robert McClenon and Bkissin). The draft was significantly reworked since the last decline in August and a third reviewer (UnitedStatesian) decided to accept the draft and made a request at RFPP to unprotect the redirect, which is how I came across the situation.
I declined to unprotect yesterday, suggesting that the draft should pass review first and not realizing that UnitedStatesian's request was an attempt to do so, and because they had already asked Muboshgu and they declined, so I said it should be reviewed one more time. In the midst of that one of the draft's editors pinged Robert McClenon, who again said that he would not accept. While discussing that on the draft's talk page and still not realizing that UnitedStatesian was an AfC reviewer trying to accept, I suggested someone else should review (since Robert McClenon had reviewed twice, or three times if you count the comment today, and was clearly becoming frustrated). Two things happened then more or less simultaneously: UnitedStatesian made a new unprotection request at RFPP explicitly stating they were accepting the draft, and Bkissin chimed in on the talk page that they also would not accept. It's currently marked as "under review".
So basically I've dug this hole as deep as I'd like it to go, and would like someone who hasn't already been involved in this to go get a ladder. Everyone's actions here have been in good faith, but we're clearly stuck. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- I am uninvolved, and I do not see any issue. If the article is significantly different from the deleted version (which I have not checked yet) it must be restored (unprotected and moved from the draft); if there are users who doubt notability they can nominate it for AfD. This is how consensus is supposed to work.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Ymblanter, it's in the AFC process, and has been declined a few times. It's under review again now. If it's approved, then you are indeed correct. But what if the draft is declined? Should we move it to mainspace regardless of the AFC review? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- I am the reviewer, and I have made the third WP:RPP request, at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Theresa Greenfield, precisely so I can accept the draft. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- UnitedStatesian, is this a good idea? You've been quite vocal about wanting this to be published. I would hope the AFC review was done by someone uninvolved in this process. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- My only involvement has been in the review: only edit to the draft was adding {{draft article}} to it, no participation in the AfD or DRVs. Of course, the review has required discussion on lots of different pages, as is occasionally the case, so I guess that makes me vocal. That said, as in all cases, if my review is stopped by community consensus that continued page protection is warranted, there are plenty of other drafts that need reviewing and I will of course move on to them. UnitedStatesian (talk)
- UnitedStatesian, is this a good idea? You've been quite vocal about wanting this to be published. I would hope the AFC review was done by someone uninvolved in this process. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- I am the reviewer, and I have made the third WP:RPP request, at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Theresa Greenfield, precisely so I can accept the draft. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- I know that in a situation like this, some editors will say that the answer is clear. I think I see at least two questions where policies and guidelines are not clear, and where perhaps they should be clarified.
- The first question is the role of Deletion Review. The redirect has been salted to enforce a Deletion-like decision. The question is: Should it simply be unsalted in response to a request at Requests for Page Unprotection, or should there be a (fourth) appeal to Deletion Review. The instructions for Deletion Review say that it considers situations where the circumstances have changed since the deletion; but some of the DRV regulars get annoyed at such requests and say just to go through AFC without going to DRV.
- The second question has to do with the interaction between political notability and general notability. It is usually the rule, including at AFD, that political candidates who do not meet political notability are also not considered to meet general notability solely on the basis of their campaign. This is such a case. Greenfield was not generally notable before she began running for the US Senate. So is this an exceptional case where she is generally notable based solely on her campaign? Questions of general notability are decided at AFD. Since this draft is currently in AFC, the instructions for the AFC reviewers are that a draft should be accepted if it is thought that there is a better than 50% chance of surviving AFD.
- A third question, which is not one of unclear policies and guidelines, is whether the reviewer is neutral.
- Those, in my opinion, are three questions that are applicable. I am finished reviewing, but I am not finished expressing an opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- The notability question can be decided only by community discussion, and the only applicable mechanism we currently have is AfD. The article has failed AfD and DRs, and therefore should not be reinstated - unless there are significant changes which can make it notable, or unless it has been significantly changes with new sources added so that notability can be reasonably considered on basis of these sources, which have not been presented to AfD. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, the only relevant question is whether significant enough sources have been added as compared with the AfD. If yes, the article should be accepted, and a new AfD can be opened. If not, AfD should not be accepted (with the understanding that if she makes it to the Senate in a month, the draft immediately gets moved to the main space - but this is irrelevant for the current discussion).--Ymblanter (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Since the old version was redirected, not deleted, the history is visible, and any editor, not just an administrator, can see the version at the time the AfD closed: it is here, with 5 references. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Ymblanter, I see what you're saying, but I find it kind of ridiculously bureaucratic to accept the article just to nominate it for deletion again. At the same time I imagine the best we'd get from another deletion review is relisting the original AfD, which isn't much better neither in terms of bureaucracy nor in terms of moving forward. For what it's worth, this is the article prior to the deletion discussion, versus the current draft (diff, probably not terribly useful). You can see that the draft is expanded substantially from the deleted/redirected article, but does any of the added info address the notability concern? There was a strong sense in the AfD that US Senate candidates are not inherently notable, but do the 62 sources in the draft suggest she is an exception to that general rule? If the only way we can answer that is through a second AfD then I guess that's where we go from here. Can we simply create a new deletion discussion or relist the original and refer to the draft, rather than doing all the work of moving it around? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, indeed, my point is that some community discussion should happen somewhere at some point. It should not be happening here, here at AN at best we can have consensus of random admins whether it is time for that discussion to happen, but we can not seriously be discussing whether Theresa Greenfield is notable. We can only discuss whether enough sources have been added for the article to reasonably stand a chance at AfD. It superficially looks to me that we are ready for this community discussion, though at this point I do not see consensus. But it should not depend on a decision of one person who decides to remove or not to remove protection of a redirect. Administrators do not have any particular say in the content area, and the further process should not depend on whether a user accepting AfC is administrator or not. Concerning the process itself, a new AfD seems to me much better than MfD (for the reasons explained below) and reopening the May AfD (well, if the article is essentially the same, one AfD is enough, and if it is different the old arguments are not relevant anymore), but I am open to better solutions.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- The notability question can be decided only by community discussion, and the only applicable mechanism we currently have is AfD. The article has failed AfD and DRs, and therefore should not be reinstated - unless there are significant changes which can make it notable, or unless it has been significantly changes with new sources added so that notability can be reasonably considered on basis of these sources, which have not been presented to AfD. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, the only relevant question is whether significant enough sources have been added as compared with the AfD. If yes, the article should be accepted, and a new AfD can be opened. If not, AfD should not be accepted (with the understanding that if she makes it to the Senate in a month, the draft immediately gets moved to the main space - but this is irrelevant for the current discussion).--Ymblanter (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Ymblanter, it's in the AFC process, and has been declined a few times. It's under review again now. If it's approved, then you are indeed correct. But what if the draft is declined? Should we move it to mainspace regardless of the AFC review? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
For consistency, perhaps we should treat this the same as Draft:Rishi Kumar, another "local" candidate for a Federal office whose article name redirects to a similar place as Theresa Greenfield. The deletion discussion, as well as AFC comments, determined that the article should reside in draft space until after the election. The same should be applied here. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- The current draft for Greenfield's article lists significantly more coverage in both regional and national newspapers than Kumar's draft. To support analysis (because the current draft lists a somewhat daunting number of sources, some of which are fairly minor), I pulled out a list of ten example sources that contribute to notability at Draft talk:Theresa Greenfield#Greenfield draft status, and I added a couple more here: Draft talk:Theresa Greenfield#Two additional sources. To me, this kind of discussion supports Ymblanter and Ivanvector's points that we need to figure the right way to get to an AfD -- I believe that a better venue for a robust and organized discussion about notability thresholds would be AfD. I believe that even though it'd be a bit bureaucratic to create the article just for somebody to nominate it for AfD, it'd at least be a logical process. Dreamyshade (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- There's always Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, which is where Draft:Rishi Kumar was discussed. I have doubts that this candidate was notable before becoming this candidate, and I am concerned that the existing coverage is nothing more than routine for any federal-office candidate. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see the relevance of MFD. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the draft should be deleted. Draftifying the article until after the election is a possible outcome of an AFD. I don't see the relevance of MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- There's always Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, which is where Draft:Rishi Kumar was discussed. I have doubts that this candidate was notable before becoming this candidate, and I am concerned that the existing coverage is nothing more than routine for any federal-office candidate. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
FWIW, if I saw this Draft article in mainspace I would AfD it. Lots and lots of sources, but zero coverage of her outside of her political candidacy. Obviously, should she win the election... Black Kite (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I just took a brief foray into the draft and right off the bat removed some citations that seemed to have no point other than to make the reflist look impressive. Such articles, if they appear in mainspace, tend to get moved immediately to draft space. There it should stay until the reflist is cleaned up. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- I am involved in the sense that my wife and I have donated to Greenfield's Senate campaign (and about a dozen similar campaigns) recently. But I do not support accepting this draft before the election. We have quite a few years of precedent that we do not accept biographies of otherwise non-notable unelected political candidates, but instead cover these people in neutral articles about the election campaign. In this case, the redirect to 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa is correct. I think that the description of Greenfield in that article could be expanded in the interim. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'll add, as an administrator, that I am not comfortable unprotecting the main space title so the draft can be moved there. I am not getting the sense that the other three admins in this discussion (User:Ivanvector, User:Muboshgu, and User:Cullen) are comfortable with that either. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- What about User:Ymblanter? UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'll add, as an administrator, that I am not comfortable unprotecting the main space title so the draft can be moved there. I am not getting the sense that the other three admins in this discussion (User:Ivanvector, User:Muboshgu, and User:Cullen) are comfortable with that either. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
collapse tangential thread
|
|---|
|
- This is not nearly as complicated as you are making it out to be. You come across an unprotection request, you check whether you would WP:G4 the draft if it were in mainspace. If you would, you decline to unprotect. If you would not, you unprotect. If you don't know, leave the request alone. If everyone leaves it alone, the filer will start a discussion somewhere to achieve a consensus that admins will be comfortable acting on. It is irrelevant how many admins would AFD it or !vote delete. There is no set>=n, where n is the number of admins that can dictate without a need for community consensus whether or not a topic deserves an article. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Let me emphasise: if you would not G4 the draft as soon as it got to mainspace but would require an AFD, you have no authority to stop an editor who has the ability to accept drafts from doing so. G4 is more or less an objective measure. You just have to read the AFD and compare the two articles. Everything else is irrelevant. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- This is related to a concern I've expressed earlier in this process: WP:PROTECT describes protection as being appropriate when there is "a specifically identified likelihood of damage resulting if editing is left open". I haven't seen any threat of edit warring or other damage here -- everyone involved in this discussion has been acting in good faith, being civil, and making efforts to interpret WP:GNG and WP:NPOL in constructive ways for an encyclopedia. The draft article can definitely be improved further, but we don't have a requirement for articles to be excellent before they get created. I don't see a policy basis for using full protection in this way. Dreamyshade (talk) 04:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- The redirect was repeatedly expanded into full article contra AFD consensus between the AFD and the full protection. So, that's the threat. WP:SALT, which is policy, says in its first sentence, that admins can prevent creation of pages. That is what this full protection does. It keeps the redirect (which doesn't have consensus to delete, and also doesn't need to be edited anyway) and stops the full article from being created. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- This is related to a concern I've expressed earlier in this process: WP:PROTECT describes protection as being appropriate when there is "a specifically identified likelihood of damage resulting if editing is left open". I haven't seen any threat of edit warring or other damage here -- everyone involved in this discussion has been acting in good faith, being civil, and making efforts to interpret WP:GNG and WP:NPOL in constructive ways for an encyclopedia. The draft article can definitely be improved further, but we don't have a requirement for articles to be excellent before they get created. I don't see a policy basis for using full protection in this way. Dreamyshade (talk) 04:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see how one AfC reviewer gets to overrule the numerous prior discussions on this. The consensus in the AfD was that the subject isn't independently notable as an unelected candidate for office and should be covered in the article about the election. This is a very common outcome. The issue was taken to DRV three times, each time by someone who had found more news sources which cover her in the context of the election, and each time the discussion declined to reinstate the article. The draft which we now have still doesn't attempt to address this fundamental problem. Yes, there are plenty of news articles, but that's because competitive senate elections always generate news coverage. Essentially all the sources cited still cover her in the context of the election. I suggest we wait until the election, which is just over a month away. If she wins then she will be unambiguously notable, if she loses then I suspect the fuss will die down. Hut 8.5 07:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- This is probably the best outcome we can now come up with.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see "competitive senate elections always generate news coverage" as a counter-argument by itself for WP:GNG - a campaign like this generates significant news coverage because it's "worthy of notice" to a lot of people, because it's important and of interest to a lot of people. I believe a person primarily covered in the context of an election can still meet the notability standards, especially if there's a lot of national reporting and in-depth reporting over a couple years or more. The question to me is whether the current draft Greenfield is there, and AN still doesn't seem to be the right venue for that -- there are a lot of comments here that are essentially AfD-style comments, without being at AfD (including mine). Dreamyshade (talk) 22:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- One key point I feel that I should note is that AfC reviewers don't (and aren't supposed to) act off a "guaranteed to be notable" standard. Instead, if something is likely to pass, we should accept it, and then let the Community review it. Likewise, unprotection requests should work off that basis. Now whether people think it should wait until after the election, I discourage that, but it's viable as a second choice. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- I will restate a few policy and procedure issues that I think are touched on by this case:
Here are three issues that are involved in the question about Theresa Greenfield:
- Should candidates for politically notable offices be considered to meet general notability on the basis of significant coverage of the campaign, if the candidate was not previously considered notable? It has in general been the practice of Wikipedia that candidates are not considered to satisfy general notability on the basis of election coverage, and therefore do not qualify for articles before the election if they did not have them before the campaign. This question arises frequently, and it would be a good idea either to address it on a general basis or to decide that it is always addressed on a case-by-case basis.
- When should a single AFC reviewer be allowed to accept a draft if the same title was previously deleted by AFD? When should Deletion Review be required? The instructions for DRV say that DRV can review deletions when the circumstances have changed, such as new sources or new activities. However, the DRV regulars normally tell applicants not to go to DRV but simply to submit the new draft for review.
- When should a single AFC reviewer be allowed to request that a title be unsalted if the same title was previously create-protected? This question is related to the above, but is not the same.
Robert McClenon (talk) 23:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- *Gets up on soapbox* I think Wikipedia is grossly irresponsible in our election coverage for the role we play in promoting incumbents over challengers. We should have some level of information about candidates for people seeking information about an election. This doesn't need to be done through a full article but could happen through reasonable coverage in an election article. The incumbent will still get a full article as opposed to say a paragraph (or two, maybe three) but our readers deserve to know more about Greenfield than
Theresa Greenfield, businesswoman, candidate for Iowa's 3rd congressional district in 2018
which is what we're saying now.*Gets off soapbox*Why do we create protect articles (SALT)? Because repeated discussions are a drain on the community's time and attention. DRV has said three times that this isn't ready for mainspace. Robert is right that DRV also frequently says "don't bother us go to AfC or just recreate it" but that's after substantially new information or reasonable time has passed. Neither is true in this case. I am all for consensus changing but repeating the same discussion regularly is a form of disruption. This salting should hold. I am thankful that I got the chance to levy one of my biggest systemic criticism of our content in a public forum but other than that don't think repeated discussions are helpful. Waiting until after the election is not so cop-out or thwarting of our process. It is being respectful of the time, energy, thought, and collaboration that has already occurred about this topic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC) - The rule should be that challengers who receive significant national or international coverage (that is, non-local coverage, or coverage outside of the area where they are running) are notable enough for a page. Greenfield would meet that test (most general election US Senate candidates would), but not every candidate for every office would. Lev!vich 01:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- I have some thoughts about this. If we were looking at an open seat, with both candidates not previously having held elected office, we would not advantage any incumbent. Furthermore, the idea that we are giving an advantage to the incumbent because they have an article disregards to an extent the possibility that their article itself may prove less-than-flattering (as people with opposing views often try to insert as much negativity as they can, while those with supporting views try to keep that sort of thing out). We have articles for all U.S. Senators because that is a reasonable barometer of notability, given the power and influence they wield. This includes articles for senators who or elected for a single term and did not run for re-election, so incumbency over an opponent was never an issue at all. We can't treat articles on U.S. senators any differently based on their possibly being challenged by somebody who does not fall into any other bucket for notability. That said, I do think there is inherent notability in a major party nominee for a U.S. Senate seat garnering national attention due to their perceived possibility of winning that seat (or, sometimes, due to other behaviour in the course of the campaign). This, of course, raises a question that has not yet been addressed, which is whether we should then create articles generally on historical losing major-party U.S. Senate candidates who garnered such attention during their candidacy. This is a discussion perhaps best left until the current silly season passes. If we do enact such a standard in the future, than Theresa Greenfield will merit an article at that point even if she has lost her Senate bid. BD2412 T 03:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- A problem with this suggestion is the phrase "major party candidate," which inserts a bit of political favoritism into which candidates may receive articles, and does not account for the fact that the relative strength of a party (or its nominee) varies from state to State. Even if we defer to the political jurisdictions themselves of who is a major party nominee, the Legal Marijuana Now Party is a major party in the State of Minnesota and I don't think that its nominee is notable. --Enos733 (talk) 04:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Major party candidate here is basically shorthand for someone coming from a political party that is able to provide the resources to make a U.S. Senate race competitive, which is what leads to the national press coverage of the subject. BD2412 T 15:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- A problem with this suggestion is the phrase "major party candidate," which inserts a bit of political favoritism into which candidates may receive articles, and does not account for the fact that the relative strength of a party (or its nominee) varies from state to State. Even if we defer to the political jurisdictions themselves of who is a major party nominee, the Legal Marijuana Now Party is a major party in the State of Minnesota and I don't think that its nominee is notable. --Enos733 (talk) 04:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Let me throw these two things into the existing discussion. A 2019 Centralized Discussion on candidate notability was closed with No Consensus, so this is an issue that we have been contending with for years now. Additionally, a candidate not having an article is not shutting out that candidate. In the United States context, we have articles for each state's congressional and state elections. Information about the candidate can easily be added there without creating a separate article. In Parliamentary contexts (Canada more specifically), we have created list articles with basic information about a party's candidates. How many of these losing candidates pass the ten year test in terms of their long-term relevance? Bkissin (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- This is trivial. Does the topic meet the GNG? Yes? Have article. We don't expect coverage of baseball players outside of baseball, why does anyone expect coverage of a politician outside of politics? Hobit (talk) 01:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- What he said. The existing policy to routinely reject articles on as-yet unelected politicians seems absurd to me. If a person gets coverage, I don't care who they friggin' are, or what the context is, if they get stuff like national coverage, then my God shouldn't we have an article on them? Why do politicians get assigned a different standard than other people? You pass GNG, you get an article. End of discussion. You don't pass GNG but you do pass a subject-specific guideline, boom, you get an article. That's how it works for everything else on Wikipedia. That is exactly how it should work for politicians. Anything else is following a rule because it's a rule. WP:IAR is a POLICY! A loose necktie (talk) 02:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Just to respond to the above comment from an WP:AFC perspective (and not as a response to this particular draft), we tend to view such things like "running for a political office" as akin to WP:BLP1E; i.e. if the only coverage of a person is because they ran/are running for office, then they could have dozens of references but it's all about the same event (and is somewhat reflected in WP:NPOL). A notable example I can think of is from earlier this year, where there was a trans politician who (if they won) would have been the first trans politician from somewhere like Maine (or the USA, can't honestly remember); they didn't even make it past the primaries, so despite the relatively large body of coverage the article was deleted ("they ran for office that one time" isn't something that makes notability). You might think we hold this ridiculous standard for aspiring politicians, but we have tons of special exemptions (going in both directions) to either raise up "hidden" groups like educators or keep the veritable flood of bit-playing actors or potential-politicians who never get elected from having one-paragraph permastubs. Primefac (talk) 09:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- I would agree in the case of a candidate who runs once, but after the first time there is a point when they become a perennial candidate, maybe hoping to eventually reach Lyndon LaRouche-level. 2020 is this candidate's second campaign (as is referenced in the draft via significant coverage in reliable sources). Separately, the reference above to the WP:10Y test above is interesting, since there was a Senate election in this same state exactly 10 years ago, and guess what, we have an article on the losing candidate. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- UnitedStatesian, the two cases are not comparable. Roxanne Conlin was a U.S. Attorney confirmed by the Senate, and was also the first woman president of the American Trial Lawyers Association. She is notable for those reasons. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Of those two reasons, neither has an inline cite to an independent source. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- UnitedStatesian, the two cases are not comparable. Roxanne Conlin was a U.S. Attorney confirmed by the Senate, and was also the first woman president of the American Trial Lawyers Association. She is notable for those reasons. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- And how many articles do we have on football players, who all qualify for standalone permastub articles based on subject specific guidelines and whose articles will never, ever be expanded in 10 or even 100 years but also never, ever be deleted, while wringing our hands over allowing people to create articles on as-yet unelected political candidates with ample national coverage and lots of published information, whom we disqualify from having articles because "we just don't do that"? If we cared about permastubs, we'd address it in other contexts. We don't. And we could all stop caring about the politicians if we just followed our own policies regarding what makes a subject notable, and stop applying different rulers to different topics as a means to delete or remove articles on those subjects— I'm all for using them to include, since that is how they were meant to be used. Think of the headaches that wouldn't have to happen! Of the discussions we wouldn't have to waste time on! Like this one! Yay! A loose necktie (talk) 17:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
And how many articles do we have on football players
Usually best not to compare the sphere of interest here to one of the known problem children of the notability guidelines. --Izno (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- "We don't expect coverage of baseball players outside of baseball, why does anyone expect coverage of a politician outside of politics?" Unless and until she is elected she hasn't done anything in politics. She's basically stood up and said "please, please, please let me do something in politics, I would really appreciate it, I have such great ideas", but she's done zip. Giving her an article is not the same as giving a baseball player an article for playing baseball, it's the equivalent of giving anybody who ever wanted to be a baseball player an article. --Khajidha (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- What he said. The existing policy to routinely reject articles on as-yet unelected politicians seems absurd to me. If a person gets coverage, I don't care who they friggin' are, or what the context is, if they get stuff like national coverage, then my God shouldn't we have an article on them? Why do politicians get assigned a different standard than other people? You pass GNG, you get an article. End of discussion. You don't pass GNG but you do pass a subject-specific guideline, boom, you get an article. That's how it works for everything else on Wikipedia. That is exactly how it should work for politicians. Anything else is following a rule because it's a rule. WP:IAR is a POLICY! A loose necktie (talk) 02:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Notified: Draft talk:Theresa Greenfield. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 18:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- This is a good discussion, and I have to get up on my own soapbox here and echo Barkeep49's grand concern above that we're generally irresponsible in our election coverage, but for me it's in the opposite direction of Barkeep's argument. We cover elections in far too much detail. We're supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a newspaper: we're supposed to write basically academic summaries of things that already exist or have already happened, after all the discussion is had (so we're not the ones having it; WP:OR, WP:NOTESSAY) and when things aren't constantly changing, based on reliable sources that review those subjects in retrospect, not as they happen. We're incredibly poor at providing balanced coverage of anything that is ongoing because we're not set up to be objective to current events. We should not write about elections at all until the ballots are counted, in my ideal world, and certainly not while the propaganda machines are in full swing. Maybe this gripe is neither here nor there with respect to this discussion, but since it was brought up now you all get to enjoy my opinion. (/soapbox) There are a lot of quality arguments here on what our guidelines should be, and those are good discussions to have, but there's pretty clearly not a consensus here to restore the article or to do anything with the protection. I think Cullen328's advice to expand her content in the Senate election article is the way forward. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- I agree we cover many ongoing events in more coverage than an encyclopedia strictly would. In an abstract sense the idea of saying "we're not going to cover something until X months/years after it happens" makes sense to me given NOTNEWS/the first pillar. However, that's only in the abstract sense; I can't imagine if we had only begun covering COVID or if we couldn't reference someone's death because not enough time had elapsed. If we're going to start drawing lines about where we need to be careful about covering ongoing events the idea that we're covering elections too much seems like a strange place to start drawing that line. Our articles on elections are poor and serve our readers poorly - they become lists of endorsements and other things that fit nicely in tables rather than prose. But the fact that we do a poor job of it now isn't to say we're over covering it; it's to say we should do a better job of covering them with-in our encyclopedic mission. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- For most topics, a deletion review is final. On this particular matter, we've had several successive deletion reviews and now we've got an appeal to the administrator's noticeboard. As this is purely a content decision, it's simply not open to administrators to overrule DRV here. I suggest that this is closed without result and referred back to DRV.—S Marshall T/C 01:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'll just say it again: there can be no dispute as to if this meets the GNG. And the SNG says: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." We have a huge number of high-quality sources that cover her in massive detail. So from a guideline viewpoint, this is open-and-shut. The problem is that people are trying to create a new SNG and even though they have failed to do so, somehow we still pretend like that SNG exists and has consensus. It's a bit maddening frankly. Hobit (talk) 13:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- You missed a bit: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article --Khajidha (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Certainly. And we'd done things like not have articles on things like "Donald Trump's hands" on that basis. But a person with this much coverage? I can't think of any such case. The GNG is a bit more clear "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." This is clearly way over the bar of the GNG. And yes, we can merge articles still for organizational reasons. But AfD doesn't normally address *that*. The simple fact is, this person easily meets every relevant guideline we have for inclusion. Her case is not unusual. If we don't want articles like hers, there should be consensus that can be found for the general case. But no such consensus exists. Hobit (talk) 16:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Reading that draft, I don't see anything that I would call "significant". She exists. She has a family. She has run for office. But she hasn't really DONE anything, so there's nothing to say about her. --Khajidha (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Erb? First of all, that's not part of our inclusion guidelines. We have articles on people who are only famous for being famous. Secondly, she's done a ton. In the last hour there is reporting on an FEC filing against her [2]. In the last 12 hours there is a story on her leading in the polls against the incumbent [3]. She's been campaigning and the news folks think that is important enough to report on [4]. She was in a debate covered and broadcast by national news [5]. I doubt that 5% of our subjects have done as much. Probably not even done as much as she has in the last 7 days. Hobit (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Still nothing there besides "hey, this lady's running for election". --Khajidha (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- A) Most soccer players are just "hey, this guy plays soccer". Most academics are "Hey this guy is an academic". And she has tons more coverage, include deep bios etc., than the vast majority of either of those. B) who cares? That isn't even vaguely part of our inclusion guidelines. She meets WP:N with more coverage than 90%+ of our bios. You are far into WP:IAR territory. Hobit (talk) 12:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- The difference is the soccer player actually plays and the academic has earned a degree or published a work. Giving her an article is the equivalent of giving an article to anyone who walks into team tryouts or applies to a university for admission.--Khajidha (talk) 03:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm guessing you don't understand US senate elections? It takes a lot of work to become a senate candidate in a competitive race. To maintain the sports analogy, it means you've made it to the playoffs, but might not win the championship. We cover even athletes that have never won a championship. Now it *is* tricky because in some non-competitive races for lesser offices it is pretty much someone just applying. But that certainly isn't the case here. Hobit (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, I understand them and I'm not saying that running an election campaign is easy. But the entire campaign is still just the equivalent of trying out for a team or applying for admission to a university. It's still just "I wanna do something" and not "I'm doing something". --Khajidha (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- And that's not an inclusion criteria in any policy or guideline. Perfectly reasonable WP:IAR viewpoint, but not based in any of our rules. Hobit (talk) 12:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- It's the perfectly obvious reading of the policy. 1) No source establishes notability outside of the election and 2) the coverage of her campaign is simply routine coverage of an election, not enough to establish her notability. --Khajidha (talk) 14:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- And that's not an inclusion criteria in any policy or guideline. Perfectly reasonable WP:IAR viewpoint, but not based in any of our rules. Hobit (talk) 12:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, I understand them and I'm not saying that running an election campaign is easy. But the entire campaign is still just the equivalent of trying out for a team or applying for admission to a university. It's still just "I wanna do something" and not "I'm doing something". --Khajidha (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm guessing you don't understand US senate elections? It takes a lot of work to become a senate candidate in a competitive race. To maintain the sports analogy, it means you've made it to the playoffs, but might not win the championship. We cover even athletes that have never won a championship. Now it *is* tricky because in some non-competitive races for lesser offices it is pretty much someone just applying. But that certainly isn't the case here. Hobit (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- The difference is the soccer player actually plays and the academic has earned a degree or published a work. Giving her an article is the equivalent of giving an article to anyone who walks into team tryouts or applies to a university for admission.--Khajidha (talk) 03:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- A) Most soccer players are just "hey, this guy plays soccer". Most academics are "Hey this guy is an academic". And she has tons more coverage, include deep bios etc., than the vast majority of either of those. B) who cares? That isn't even vaguely part of our inclusion guidelines. She meets WP:N with more coverage than 90%+ of our bios. You are far into WP:IAR territory. Hobit (talk) 12:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Still nothing there besides "hey, this lady's running for election". --Khajidha (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Erb? First of all, that's not part of our inclusion guidelines. We have articles on people who are only famous for being famous. Secondly, she's done a ton. In the last hour there is reporting on an FEC filing against her [2]. In the last 12 hours there is a story on her leading in the polls against the incumbent [3]. She's been campaigning and the news folks think that is important enough to report on [4]. She was in a debate covered and broadcast by national news [5]. I doubt that 5% of our subjects have done as much. Probably not even done as much as she has in the last 7 days. Hobit (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Reading that draft, I don't see anything that I would call "significant". She exists. She has a family. She has run for office. But she hasn't really DONE anything, so there's nothing to say about her. --Khajidha (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Certainly. And we'd done things like not have articles on things like "Donald Trump's hands" on that basis. But a person with this much coverage? I can't think of any such case. The GNG is a bit more clear "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." This is clearly way over the bar of the GNG. And yes, we can merge articles still for organizational reasons. But AfD doesn't normally address *that*. The simple fact is, this person easily meets every relevant guideline we have for inclusion. Her case is not unusual. If we don't want articles like hers, there should be consensus that can be found for the general case. But no such consensus exists. Hobit (talk) 16:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- You missed a bit: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article --Khajidha (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- My apologies for what I am sure are going to be some formatting errors, but I have not extensively used my Wikipedia editing permissions over the years. I was recently shocked to discover that Theresa Greenfield does not have a Wikipedia page; and not only that, but "Theresa Greenfield (American Politician)" is an article that's been created and deleted several times, and "Theresa Greenfield" redirects to a section of the article about the Iowan Senate Race (and that section isn't particularly about Greenfield), while her opponent has a very robust article. This back-and-forth appears to have been going on since this spring, and the election is just over two weeks away. I'm honestly surprised that this discussion largely seems to be circling around notability. Nearly all of the highest level legislative change or stability in the United States comes from the governing power of the US Senate. Having been controlled by one major political party for many years; but with numerous Congressional seats up for election, and many polls showing potential political shifts, there is a chance for another political party to take control of the Senate, with the implications of immense changes in US policy, both domestic and abroad. Only a very few number of US States have the chance to alter their representative political party in the Senate, and Greenfield is the incumbent's opponent in the "swing state" of Iowa. As a Greenfield victory could alter the political makeup of the US Senate, the leading legislative body of one of the most internationally-influential countries in the world, her political career is very notable. There are very, very many news sources - on the local, state, and national levels - citing her campaign; which, as an example, just raised a record amount of money for a Iowan running for US Congress. I've always thought of Wikipedia as a place for unbiased information - the Encyclopedia of the internet - and as authors, editors, & admins - it would seem that we have the opportunity to "balance out the objectivity" with her State's incumbent's article. I realize this is adding some real-world context to a platform that should be neutral of current events, but voters in Iowa started receiving their ballots last week, and the election closes in just over two weeks. They are trying to make their most critical political decision right now, and an objective, unbiased article on this candidate is an immensely important resource. If they currently search Wikipedia, and see the incumbent's robust article and no article for Theresa Greenfield, that is a potential strong influence on their decision-making. Please reconsider unlocking ("un-salting?") this article ASAP so that we can populate it with objective, practical, widely-covered information. Charlie918 (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- "As a Greenfield victory could alter the political makeup of the US Senate, the leading legislative body of one of the most internationally-influential countries in the world, her political career is very notable. " Nope. Her career will only be notable if she wins. "If they currently search Wikipedia, and see the incumbent's robust article and no article for Theresa Greenfield, that is a potential strong influence on their decision-making. " Why would you go to an encyclopedia for this? This is something that newspapers and voter's organizations and such are much better designed for. --Khajidha (talk) 17:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Well I'm afraid there are Wikipedia precedents that are counter to your argument of not being noteworthy until being elected to office. Tommy Tuberville is the nominated Senate seat challenger in Alabama, and has never held public office. He has in fact been the head of several organizations, as has Greenfield. John E. James is the nominated Senate seat challenger in Michigan. He has never held public office, and therefore his only notable accomplishments on his Wikipedia page are that he served in the military and worked for a company. With the nearly daily news articles between city, state, and national news outlets about Theresa Greenfield for the past month, I can't see why these two yet-to-win political candidates are cleanly permitted to have Wikipedia articles, but one of the nominees in one of the most critical "swing states" - a multi-business owner and setting a political fundraising record for the state - would not be notable. This sincerely might just be my misunderstanding of what constitutes 'notability' on Wikipedia. Charlie918 (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Charlie918, Tommy Tuberville is notable for his college football career. James' article may not survive an AfD. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument to make. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Muboshgu, then this is most likely simply a teachable moment for me, and there's probably a well-written explanation somewhere that I just can't seem to locate. For a Wikipedia article about a person, what constitutes "notability?" If I do a Google search for "Theresa Greenfield," there are virtually limitless articles from various print, digital, and televised news outlets about her going back months, nearly daily since her televised debate, with her name in the headline. There are even more articles significantly about her where her name isn't necessarily in the headline (e.g. "SCOTUS battle crashes into decisive Senate race in Iowa," Politico, James Arkin, September 30, 2020). Is the sheer volume of content created specifically about an individual by news outlets not a consideration in determining someone's notability? If not, what is? Honestly thank you for any insights, this is the first time I've been involved in a blocked article discussion. Charlie918 (talk) 03:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Charlie918, apologies if I assumed that you are better versed with Wiki policy than you are. The main notability guideline is WP:GNG, and the specific notability guideline for politicians is at WP:NPOL. The presence of citations alone is not enough as the context needs to be considered. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Muboshgu, many thanks for these links, this is precisely what I had been looking for. My next inquiry may require further source citation. Under the politician-specific guidelines you shared WP:NPOL, it reads, "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline" WP:GNG. In that first page, it is my interpretation that as the final one of two candidates to represent the entire state of Iowa in the American senate, Greenfield passes the "Major local political figures," and while I've previously noted she has significant press coverage, "who have received significant press coverage." In looking at the General Guidelines you linked, there appear to be five qualifiers: (1) Significant Coverage - there are virtually countless articles, hours of taped interview footage, social media, and more that cover Greenfield's political campaign, personal life, and career. (2/3) Reliable Sources - there are many, many articles and news TV segments from city, state, and national outlets covering Theresa Greenfield, so my assumption is that these qualify as reliable sources. (4) Independent of the Subject - these news articles were not produced by Theresa Greenfield. (5) Presumed - this of course seems to imply that even if a subject meets all the criteria, a more in depth discussion may need to occur for the subject to receive an article. Reviewing most of the comments in here over the last five months, it would appear that the majority of these comments seem to support having the article. If the question remains about notability, I wonder if this context is appropriate to apply: The United States government is is one of the most internationally-influential governing bodies in modern times. Within that government, the United States Senate - made up of two representatives from each of the 50 States - is arguably the most powerful, able to enact laws, impeach a president, make treaties, and more. In America's two-party system, simple majority of the Senate means that party will be able to enact their agenda for 2-4 years, and block the agenda of the other party, and thus significantly determine the country's global and domestic policies. In America's current election, there is a chance for the Senate to change party power, with many Senate seats up for election. Based on the political affiliation of the various states' populations, most of these elections are insignificant - people will vote for their party, and their Senate representatives will remain of the same political party. However, there are just five state elections that are qualified as a "toss up," which means due to the near-balanced political affiliations of their residents, determined through a combination of the national census and polling, it cannot be confidently forecasted which political party will win the state. Theresa Greenfield is the Democratic candidate in one of those five states. If the American Democratic party does in fact take control of the Senate in this election, the international and domestic policy changes - including enacting impeachment proceedings for the current president if he remains in power - would be significant, affecting - in various ways and degrees - billions of people around the world. Given this context, and the objective criteria thresholds of Wikipedia, it is my belief that Theresa Greenfield is notable, and should be permitted to have her own Wikipedia page now, not after her potential electoral victory. Thank you for your discussion and patience. Charlie918 (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- How much of that coverage is about her per se and how much is about the election? Consensus on Wikipedia has always been that people who are otherwise not notable do not gain notability just by running for office. That's why this article has been redirected to the election article and that outcome has been endorsed multiple times. Unless and until that consensus changes (and this is not the place to argue that, per User:Spartaz's post below), there is no point in continuing this argument here. --Khajidha (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Khajidha In preparing a draft article on my desktop before learning about the controversial history of this Wikipedia article, I have 21 articles saved in Word with Theresa Greenfield's name in the headline just from the last two weeks. The subject matter is a mixture of reviewing her professional career (as it relates to her qualifications for the role), her efforts and notable events of her campaign, and her personal background (education, family, organizational memberships, etc.). Several lines up, Muboshgu, who made the original redirect and lock - to my understanding - made the case that because Wikipedia articles currently exist about campaigning politicians who are otherwise non-notable is not a considerable precedent in determining if a page about Theresa Greenfield should be permitted; then your reverse argument, that "Wikipedia's consensus is that articles about political candidates who are otherwise not notable should not be published," would seem irrelevant. If a precedent is not to be considered, and only the objective notoriety rules of Wikipedia are to be weighed, then Theresa Greenfield would appear to qualify by those rules. Charlie918 (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- How much of that coverage is about her per se and how much is about the election? Consensus on Wikipedia has always been that people who are otherwise not notable do not gain notability just by running for office. That's why this article has been redirected to the election article and that outcome has been endorsed multiple times. Unless and until that consensus changes (and this is not the place to argue that, per User:Spartaz's post below), there is no point in continuing this argument here. --Khajidha (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Muboshgu, many thanks for these links, this is precisely what I had been looking for. My next inquiry may require further source citation. Under the politician-specific guidelines you shared WP:NPOL, it reads, "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline" WP:GNG. In that first page, it is my interpretation that as the final one of two candidates to represent the entire state of Iowa in the American senate, Greenfield passes the "Major local political figures," and while I've previously noted she has significant press coverage, "who have received significant press coverage." In looking at the General Guidelines you linked, there appear to be five qualifiers: (1) Significant Coverage - there are virtually countless articles, hours of taped interview footage, social media, and more that cover Greenfield's political campaign, personal life, and career. (2/3) Reliable Sources - there are many, many articles and news TV segments from city, state, and national outlets covering Theresa Greenfield, so my assumption is that these qualify as reliable sources. (4) Independent of the Subject - these news articles were not produced by Theresa Greenfield. (5) Presumed - this of course seems to imply that even if a subject meets all the criteria, a more in depth discussion may need to occur for the subject to receive an article. Reviewing most of the comments in here over the last five months, it would appear that the majority of these comments seem to support having the article. If the question remains about notability, I wonder if this context is appropriate to apply: The United States government is is one of the most internationally-influential governing bodies in modern times. Within that government, the United States Senate - made up of two representatives from each of the 50 States - is arguably the most powerful, able to enact laws, impeach a president, make treaties, and more. In America's two-party system, simple majority of the Senate means that party will be able to enact their agenda for 2-4 years, and block the agenda of the other party, and thus significantly determine the country's global and domestic policies. In America's current election, there is a chance for the Senate to change party power, with many Senate seats up for election. Based on the political affiliation of the various states' populations, most of these elections are insignificant - people will vote for their party, and their Senate representatives will remain of the same political party. However, there are just five state elections that are qualified as a "toss up," which means due to the near-balanced political affiliations of their residents, determined through a combination of the national census and polling, it cannot be confidently forecasted which political party will win the state. Theresa Greenfield is the Democratic candidate in one of those five states. If the American Democratic party does in fact take control of the Senate in this election, the international and domestic policy changes - including enacting impeachment proceedings for the current president if he remains in power - would be significant, affecting - in various ways and degrees - billions of people around the world. Given this context, and the objective criteria thresholds of Wikipedia, it is my belief that Theresa Greenfield is notable, and should be permitted to have her own Wikipedia page now, not after her potential electoral victory. Thank you for your discussion and patience. Charlie918 (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Charlie918, apologies if I assumed that you are better versed with Wiki policy than you are. The main notability guideline is WP:GNG, and the specific notability guideline for politicians is at WP:NPOL. The presence of citations alone is not enough as the context needs to be considered. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Muboshgu, then this is most likely simply a teachable moment for me, and there's probably a well-written explanation somewhere that I just can't seem to locate. For a Wikipedia article about a person, what constitutes "notability?" If I do a Google search for "Theresa Greenfield," there are virtually limitless articles from various print, digital, and televised news outlets about her going back months, nearly daily since her televised debate, with her name in the headline. There are even more articles significantly about her where her name isn't necessarily in the headline (e.g. "SCOTUS battle crashes into decisive Senate race in Iowa," Politico, James Arkin, September 30, 2020). Is the sheer volume of content created specifically about an individual by news outlets not a consideration in determining someone's notability? If not, what is? Honestly thank you for any insights, this is the first time I've been involved in a blocked article discussion. Charlie918 (talk) 03:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Charlie918, Tommy Tuberville is notable for his college football career. James' article may not survive an AfD. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument to make. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Well I'm afraid there are Wikipedia precedents that are counter to your argument of not being noteworthy until being elected to office. Tommy Tuberville is the nominated Senate seat challenger in Alabama, and has never held public office. He has in fact been the head of several organizations, as has Greenfield. John E. James is the nominated Senate seat challenger in Michigan. He has never held public office, and therefore his only notable accomplishments on his Wikipedia page are that he served in the military and worked for a company. With the nearly daily news articles between city, state, and national news outlets about Theresa Greenfield for the past month, I can't see why these two yet-to-win political candidates are cleanly permitted to have Wikipedia articles, but one of the nominees in one of the most critical "swing states" - a multi-business owner and setting a political fundraising record for the state - would not be notable. This sincerely might just be my misunderstanding of what constitutes 'notability' on Wikipedia. Charlie918 (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- "As a Greenfield victory could alter the political makeup of the US Senate, the leading legislative body of one of the most internationally-influential countries in the world, her political career is very notable. " Nope. Her career will only be notable if she wins. "If they currently search Wikipedia, and see the incumbent's robust article and no article for Theresa Greenfield, that is a potential strong influence on their decision-making. " Why would you go to an encyclopedia for this? This is something that newspapers and voter's organizations and such are much better designed for. --Khajidha (talk) 17:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
First of all, I have to cop to not having read all the links, so if this has been stated already, my apologies. While on the one hand it rankles that she doesn't have a page, on the other, I get the Notability issue, and I'm a believer in the policy. Still, I remember the AOC situation, and in retrospect, that was a blunder on our part. But if we obey N, where is the blunder? Well, either in the fact that "being a candidate doess not ipso facto make you notable" (for which this is not the right venue, WT:N is, so let's set that one aside right now) or else, we're not taking the right approach.
What about this? We have here, in my opinion, a WP:BIO1E event; Greenfield *is* notable (or rather, the one event is), but not before she was a candidate. Therefore, what? Same thing as for Sandra Bland [noredirect] ⟶ Death of Sandra Bland; so we create Senate candidacy of Theresa Greenfield. Anyone here want to declare that this is definitely not notable? I bet I could drown you in sources for that. Then, Theresa Greenfield gets pointed to that. If she loses, and never does another thing in her life, that will be her obituary. Am I missing something? Mathglot (talk) 02:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa is the article for the "one event" in question. --Khajidha (talk) 03:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- That's a related topic for sure, but not quite the identical topic, and not a BIO1E, but rather a recurring event whose article title could be generated by computer. If that article were entitled, 2020 Ernst-Greenfield Senate election you might have a point, but it still wouldn't be the same topic. Mathglot (talk) 04:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- This is an entirely pointless discussion because this is essentially a content dispute where the policy, precedent and weight of several discussions is not to have an article. This whole thread is simply extended special pleading and asking the other parent. If you think the page should exist then your quest starts at WT POLITICIAN and I wish you good luck with that. Spartaz Humbug! 05:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- I believe this is a quite productive discussion, because it points out that there is no clear and accepted community consensus or clear written guideline for the notability of prominent candidates for high-level office who receive substantial, reliable, independent coverage over time (including significant national coverage). There are a lot of experienced editors here with one interpretation of the guidelines, and a lot of experienced editors with a different interpretation. And this discussion is very diffuse, over several talk pages -- there's also more at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Changing NPOL to include at least some more nominees. Dreamyshade (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- The US election is in a couple weeks? She was deleted because she's only notable for being a candidate, right? Why can't we just keep this deleted, wait to see if she wins, and then have a new discussion after the election? This happens all the time, specifically with US elections, and then once the candidate has officially lost most or all resistance to keeping the article goes away, especially if you give it a couple years. SportingFlyer T·C 12:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- If the person passes GNG and there is no WP:BIO1E issue as pointed out above (the article was deleted at AfD before she received in-depth coverage), there is no proper reason to ban this article no matter how close or far an election is. Oakshade (talk) 06:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Two points:
- Is there an article for every other currently running candidate in every election for US Senate/House seat that is up for grabs this election? (I am assuming we have articles on the incumbents office holders)? If we have them on nearly all of them and hers is an an exception, that's a problem that we should fix. If hers is but many that we do not have, then I fail to see where the problem is. The arguments that show her lack of notability (just running for election is not showing depth of coverage about her directly) have been well presented.
- If we move her article to mainspace, it cannot look like a political ad. The draft presently looks like this with the section on her platform. Her platform can be discussed but it needs to be presented far less as a political position and more neutrality along with any criticism of it. Ideally, the platform should be part of the election article, and only her key policies that she has stood being and discussed at length should be on her bio page. --Masem (t) 14:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Redirect
While this article is in limbo can we at least get the redirect pointed to 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa#Democratic primary so users can easily find the three paragraphs on the candidate there? There's no named section for her so at present it represents a navigational challenge. Artw (talk) 02:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Right now due to the confusion around this article there’s a half dozen venues I could make this request, if this isn’t the right one feel free to point me at the right one, but it seems like an easy move to make Wikipedia slightly less broken in this case rather than fully broken. Artw (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Artw, I've just made the change. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Cheers. Artw (talk) 04:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Artw, I've just made the change. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
IAR
Allow me to quote from black-letter written Wikipedia policy: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." WP:IAR.
In this case, we have this long tortured discussion about particular paths around purely procedural matters, which is preventing the movement of a perfectly valid draft (I'm not saying a perfect article by any means - a valid draft) about someone who is clearly notable as evidenced by literally thousands of high quality third party reliable sources. If a particular set of rules which work in ordinary circumstances have brought us to this absurd state of affairs, that's ok: one of the oldest and most important rules of Wikipedia exists to save us.
If Wikipedia, due to some procedural rules, doesn't have an article on the clear frontrunner in a US Senate race, then it is the rules that are preventing people from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. IAR tells us what to do: ignore those rules. This is policy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Note that User:Francis Schonken made a NAC closure of this discussion[6] and moved the draft to Theresa Greenfield (politician), while Theresa Greenfield is a fully protected redirect. Apart from other considerations (e.g. that IAR doesn't trump consensus, and a close should judge the consensus here instead of misusing IAR as a supervote), this technical issue, forcing Francis Schonken to create a disambiguated page to circumvent the full protection shows wby this shouldn't have been closed and enacted by a non-admin. Fram (talk) 08:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- The "A" in IAR stands for "All" – so I wasn't too selective in which rules I was ignoring and which ones I wasn't (...but there certainly was more than one I was ignoring, although I certainly must have been still very far from ignoring each and every rule this namespace holds). For the record, I was in the midst of filing a WP:RM#Uncontroversial technical requests to get the content to the right place (didn't want to leave the article in a place with an unnecessary disambiguator in its title), but stopped typing that request now. I'd like to invite Fram, or whoever reads this, to do a better proposal for triggering prompt reaction to get this sorted in the shortest delay of time possible. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- An "uncontroversial technical request" to get a fully protected page unprotected so you can get a declined AfC submission, the topic of a lengthy discussion at WP:AN, at your preferred result? That would me a rather severe misuse of the term "uncontroversial"... The better way would be to propose a closure here, get a consensus for it, and then let people implement the close. If there is no consensus to be found, then we are stuck with the status quo. Fram (talk) 08:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- The "A" in the abbreviation of the name of the IAR policy still seems to trip you over. Yes, IAR would usually mean ignoring multiple rules. Anyhow, closure request logged at WP:ANRFC#Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Theresa Greenfield. Thanks for that suggestion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm not claiming that you wouldn't be ignoring all rules when you would post a highly controversial move at the "uncontroversial moves" requests. I'm just pointing out that it would be a doomed effort which would only boomerang against you, as it would be very swiftly rejected and would reflect badly on you in discussions about your actions. WP:IAR doesn't, contrary to what you seem to imply, mean "edits used with this rationale can't be criticized or lead to admin actions against me". Fram (talk) 10:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I understand that. Thanks for reminding. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm not claiming that you wouldn't be ignoring all rules when you would post a highly controversial move at the "uncontroversial moves" requests. I'm just pointing out that it would be a doomed effort which would only boomerang against you, as it would be very swiftly rejected and would reflect badly on you in discussions about your actions. WP:IAR doesn't, contrary to what you seem to imply, mean "edits used with this rationale can't be criticized or lead to admin actions against me". Fram (talk) 10:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- The "A" in the abbreviation of the name of the IAR policy still seems to trip you over. Yes, IAR would usually mean ignoring multiple rules. Anyhow, closure request logged at WP:ANRFC#Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Theresa Greenfield. Thanks for that suggestion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- An "uncontroversial technical request" to get a fully protected page unprotected so you can get a declined AfC submission, the topic of a lengthy discussion at WP:AN, at your preferred result? That would me a rather severe misuse of the term "uncontroversial"... The better way would be to propose a closure here, get a consensus for it, and then let people implement the close. If there is no consensus to be found, then we are stuck with the status quo. Fram (talk) 08:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
While I appreciate Jimbo's concerns, I feel I have to point out the last time an admin "took initiative" and IARed like this, they got desysopped. Specifically, I agree with his talk page comment "I would personally WP:IAR and move the draft into article space, but I believe doing so would simply generate unhelpful press coverage of an unfortunately disappointing failure of the slow grinding wheels of our policies." - or indeed, reams of pages on here and possibly Arbcom from everyone who disagrees. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm with Jimbo on this one. Let's not make the Donna Strickland and Clarice Phelps mistakes yet again. Lev!vich 14:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm with Ritchie on this one. It's all well and good for Jimbo to say "IAR!" from his high perch, but regular editors who use that as a reason to bypass a consensus discussion are going to face harsh criticism for their actions, if not winding up blocked. If Jimbo thinks this is good enough reason, let him do it & deal with the fallout. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- There was an overwhelming community consensus at wp:AN, and an obvious conclusion. She slam-dunk met WP:GNG many times over and per wp:notability that means we need look no further regarding wp:notability. Egalitarianism aside, something that comes from Jimbo has extra weight, and even that was just to expedite (and read the community consensus from a different place wp:AN) what was inevitable, and which had strong community consensus. North8000 (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Towards closure
For reference, the previous discussions: AfD from May, DRVs June 4 (endorse), June 15 ("There is substantial and well-argued support for the idea that we should have an article rather than a redirect here; but it falls short of a consensus to overturn"), and July 11 ("I don't see a consensus to overturn here"). Draft AfC rationales here.
Both sides have been thoroughly argued here and elsewhere. I note this to make clear that even though this particular section of the discussion has been open for less than a day, closing it at this time is justified. There is clearly a time sensitivity here, due to the widespread attention that this matter is receiving.
The key argument in support is that the subject is now notable, due to the press coverage received in the last several months. The key arguments in opposition are that the subject is not notable, either directly citing WP:NPOL or stating that she is "only running for office", and that WP:AN is not the correct venue to decide this matter.
The current draft lists 67 sources, the vast majority of which relate to the present election. Reading through this discussion and the discussion on the draft, the majority view is that they are sufficient to pass WP:GNG. I don't see a need to quote specific arguments here, they have been repeated many times below.
On WP:NPOL, it is undisputed that Greenfield fails to meet either of the
presumed to be notablecriteria. However, many users note that the same section continues:Just being...an unelected candidate for political office does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline.As to forum, it isn't clear what the correct venue would be. WP:DRV could be appropriate, but so is WP:AFC. A recent AfC reviewer noted that
no AfC reviewer can accept this or any future version of this draft unless [an administrator unprotects Theresa Greenfield]. Since non-admin AfC reviewers are unable to accept this draft (even if they believe it should be accepted, as at least one previous reviewer has stated in this discussion), this requires administrative attention.Consensus is that the subject does meet the GNG. NPOL defers to the GNG in the case of unelected candidates. Consensus can change, and clearly it has changed since the AfD nearly five months ago. The move protection should be lifted, and the draft version of Theresa Greenfield should be accepted. The administrator responsible for the original protection has offered to implement this, so I'll allow them to do so.
If users believe that the current version of the article is still unsuitable, then the normal process would be to nominate it at WP:AFD.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Current state of play:
- The current article is at Draft:Theresa Greenfield (in the last few hours it was moved to Theresa Greenfield (politician) and then moved back).
- The AfD was closed as redirect to 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa#Democratic primary on 31 May 2020 (with three deletion reviews).
- Theresa Greenfield is the redirect per above, and was fully protected on 15 June 2020.
It seems Draft:Theresa Greenfield should be moved to Theresa Greenfield after unprotecting the latter. Let's come to a quick decision—I don't see any reason the unprotection and move should not happen now. Johnuniq (talk) 08:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support Johnuniq's suggestion as to how to end this without further delay. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support Given the current state of the election race, the notability concerns from earlier this year are clearly obsolete. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support per the above and per this comment. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support per the above.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 10:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support and also encourage us to think this over afterwards to figure out how this slipped through the cracks to end in such an odd place.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- It's not slipped through the cracks. We have a number of editors who really really think that nominees for elected office, no matter how well covered, shouldn't have an article if that's the only reason they are covered. This has been a long (long) running debate. Hobit (talk) 19:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support per Jimbo. I always wanted to be able to write that. And per my previous contributions to this discussion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose The subject is non notable aside from running for office and even less notable than Kara Eastman.--MONGO (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support per the lengthy comments above. Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per User:MONGO. IAR would only apply if this actually improved Wikipedia. It does not. --Khajidha (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Oppose There is a process for determining the suitablility of articles. That process is not AN. That process has, multiple times, determined that Theresa Greenfield isn't notable, and should not have an article. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- "Theresa Greenfield isn't notable, and should not have an article\" - not exactly the most convincing argument in an AfD I've ever seen, is it? That's why I specifically quoted DGG, who is one of the more sensible admins at AfD, even if I don't always agree with him. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- That's because I'm not making an AfD argument, but instead stating the consensus of the previous AfDs and DRVs. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Noting that AN is one of the places that folks have proposed for DRV outcomes to be appealed ([7]). So this would appear to be as in-process as we get when appealing a DRV result. Hobit (talk) 20:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- That's because I'm not making an AfD argument, but instead stating the consensus of the previous AfDs and DRVs. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- "Theresa Greenfield isn't notable, and should not have an article\" - not exactly the most convincing argument in an AfD I've ever seen, is it? That's why I specifically quoted DGG, who is one of the more sensible admins at AfD, even if I don't always agree with him. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support per above. This has gone on long enough. --Brad Patrick (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. It seems that JW himself is not really sure of the chances of the challenger to be elected at the beginning of the next month. Moreover, it seems that some contributors think that being the focus of some buzz, here at en:wp, will help her winning the race. But, four years later, the pages buzz (part 1) and buzz (part 2) are rather appearing as a pitiful (and failed) attempt to twist the fate. And that, despite their resp. 778 and 2297 references. But, yes, if she is elected, I would probably try to locate Iowa on a map, at least more precisely than "somewhere between Canada and Mexico". Pldx1 (talk) 13:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Consensus has been built previously in the year using long-standing guidelines around notability. Compromises have been attempted (redirect to the election page, incubate the page in draftspace, etc.) but have been largely ignored by a group of editors who have brought this topic up in a number of fora hoping to get the answer they want. I don't see why people can't wait two weeks before moving forward. Throwing out well-established guidelines because you don't like the outcome is sad. Bkissin (talk) 13:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Look at the dates on most of the refs, dude. This is a moving target. "I don't see why people can't wait two weeks before moving forward" - because it will expose WP to complaints about political bias, perhaps? Possibly these will be justified. Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- It's a moving target that will settle down on 4 Nov. Cabayi (talk) 14:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- LOL, Wikipedia is always facing allegations of political bias by people who don't like what they read or don't get their way. Look at the current issues surrounding the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict! To be fair (and insulate ourselves from further claims of bias, we have ruled the same thing in AfD regardless of the candidate or party. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Parnell (Pennsylvania politician), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel T. Lewis, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quinn Nystrom, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Ronchetti and several others from this campaign season alone! But hey, until we determine a new policy on the topic (which given the last attempt, doesn't seem to be able to reach consensus) then I look forward to discussing this with you all in 2024. Bkissin (talk) 15:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- People also scream political bias at the DM/Fox/NYP reliability RfC results. Didn't stop anyone then (not that I disagree with the results, but point remains). "Complaints of political bias" should never be an argument. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Look at the dates on most of the refs, dude. This is a moving target. "I don't see why people can't wait two weeks before moving forward" - because it will expose WP to complaints about political bias, perhaps? Possibly these will be justified. Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support I think back in May and June this article was debatable in terms of notability, but in the last month has received far and above sufficient media attention, not just to the race but to the individual to warrant the article. If that somehow changes, opponents can always bring it back to AfD.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 14:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support Yes, there were previous versions of this article that were reasonable to delete a few months ago, but Greenfield's coverage has massively increased and is sufficient to pass WP:GNG, and this draft is sufficient for mainspace. Dreamyshade (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - I agree with Pppery that this isn't the forum for this decision. It's a decision for the community, not for admins.
- That said, on the basis of WP:NPOL and WP:NOHURRY, Theresa Greenfield (& all other unelected candidates whose notability was first noted after nomination) should remain redirected to 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa (& their respective election articles) until after the election. Doing otherwise dips into WP:ADVOCACY & WP:PROMO and there's nothing in WP:POLOUTCOMES to suggest any other action. Let's see if Greenfield is still notable on 4 Nov.
- As Jimbo said, we need to consider how we ended in such an odd place - a rethink of WP:NPOL in respect of candidates would resolve that, but it's probably best to wait til the Supreme Court has decided the election before getting into that. (Note:I fell down this rabbit hole with Kevin Stitt in 2018 with this AFD. It would be good to see some clear resolution to the questions this time round.) Cabayi (talk) 14:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think you are touching on the right thing. In the U.S., a major party candidate for the U.S. Senate is not the same as a non-partisan local dog catcher. Sufficient reliable sources and media coverage of a party candidate (post-primary, at that) is significant. The candidacy within the context of the article on the election itself is one thing; now that WP is considered a relevant source for information about the election by millions, it should not get wrapped up in this on a repeated basis. It is a clear statement of notability, in this context, that a person is a major party candidate running for one of 100 of the most powerful elected positions in the United States. This should, by definition, satisfy notability requirements. The additional sauce in this instance is that she's _very_ competitive. [8] --Brad Patrick (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)\
- now that WP is considered a relevant source for information about the election by millions Just because people think they can get election information here does not make it our purpose to do that. It is absolutely the wrong place for WP to be serving as an election hub for any country. We'll happily report the results of an election as encyclopedic topic information, but we're not in any type of position to be able to talk about fair coverage of all political candidates and issues on a global basis to make it appropriate to work coverage of political candidates from that angle. It is extremely appropriate to judge any political candidate's article through the eyes of an advocacy concern and make sure that the article is more than just a soapbox for the candidate, which appears to be part of the problem with how Greenfield's article has been presented through its iterations. --Masem (t) 16:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think you are touching on the right thing. In the U.S., a major party candidate for the U.S. Senate is not the same as a non-partisan local dog catcher. Sufficient reliable sources and media coverage of a party candidate (post-primary, at that) is significant. The candidacy within the context of the article on the election itself is one thing; now that WP is considered a relevant source for information about the election by millions, it should not get wrapped up in this on a repeated basis. It is a clear statement of notability, in this context, that a person is a major party candidate running for one of 100 of the most powerful elected positions in the United States. This should, by definition, satisfy notability requirements. The additional sauce in this instance is that she's _very_ competitive. [8] --Brad Patrick (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)\
- Support - it's not throwing out any rules. The topic meets all the policies and the guideline WP:N. In my view the argument that such a candidate should not have her own page is farcical, particularly when compared to the other things we give a page to. This website, this community, has a rule that all schools are notable, all train stations are notable, we have articles about bagel shops and pro wrestlers and porn stars and pizzerias, but not a major US senate candidate? Come on. Don't forget our mission is to share knowledge. Let's not pretend this isn't a topic many people are interested in or that we can't write a policy-compliant article about it. Lev!vich 14:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- But we don't generally have articles about PROPOSED schools or train stations. Or PLANNED bagel shops and pizzerias. Or pro-wrestling TRAINEES. Or people who AUDITION for porn movies. Those are the counterparts to election candidates.--Khajidha (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- TG, a "proposed" Senator, is still more important/notable/worthy of a standalone page/whatever formulation we want to use, than like any high school ever built, or even the most famous porn star. More humans are interested in, and need, knowledge about TG than about any high school or porn star or Pokémon, and all but the most famous train stations. If we're not writing about topics like TG, then what the hell are we doing here? We have an article about every damn road in England. Lev!vich 14:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- "We have an article about every damn road in England" - No we don't, I keep finding new ones to write all the time. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, sure, and when you run out, you're going to clear new roads and write articles about them!
I look forward to reading about Ritchie Boulevard and Ritchie Lane... I hope you name at least one of them Levivich Way. Lev!vich 15:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, sure, and when you run out, you're going to clear new roads and write articles about them!
- Things that "are" are more encyclopedic than anything that "may be". In the only sense in which TG could be encyclopedic, she is just a "may be". --Khajidha (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thats where I disagree. Open a newspaper. She's not a maybe. She's already notable, win or lose. We have more secondary source material to summarize about TG than I dare say 90% of the pages we have on Wikipedia. It's only through contortions (here, the contortion of WP:NPOL) that one can claim she is not worth including in the encyclopedia unless she wins. There is no logic or data that leads to that conclusion. Lev!vich 15:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- She's a "may be" in the sense that she may be elected. --Khajidha (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm saying she is notable even if she may be elected. Her notability does not depend on her getting elected. The secondary source material won't disappear if she loses. If our job is to summarize the world's knowledge, we're not doing our job if we don't summarize the knowledge about TG. It's a hole in our coverage, regardless of the outcome of the election. Lev!vich 15:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I guess we have different ideas about what secondary sources about her means. Because 57 different ways of saying "this lady is running for election" don't impress me as notability. --Khajidha (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- If all the secondary sources said was that she was running, I'd agree with you. But of course they say much more than that. Lev!vich 16:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I've read the draft. Still looks like 57 ways of saying "she's running" to me. --Khajidha (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Well that's a mistake, judging the notability of a topic by the sources that are in the draft. WP:BEFORE and all that. Lev!vich 16:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Well then, what sources should I be looking at? What can you show me that is more than just either "she exists, she's been married twice, and she's a mom" and "she's running for office"? --Khajidha (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Well that's a mistake, judging the notability of a topic by the sources that are in the draft. WP:BEFORE and all that. Lev!vich 16:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I've read the draft. Still looks like 57 ways of saying "she's running" to me. --Khajidha (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- If all the secondary sources said was that she was running, I'd agree with you. But of course they say much more than that. Lev!vich 16:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I guess we have different ideas about what secondary sources about her means. Because 57 different ways of saying "this lady is running for election" don't impress me as notability. --Khajidha (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm saying she is notable even if she may be elected. Her notability does not depend on her getting elected. The secondary source material won't disappear if she loses. If our job is to summarize the world's knowledge, we're not doing our job if we don't summarize the knowledge about TG. It's a hole in our coverage, regardless of the outcome of the election. Lev!vich 15:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- She's a "may be" in the sense that she may be elected. --Khajidha (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thats where I disagree. Open a newspaper. She's not a maybe. She's already notable, win or lose. We have more secondary source material to summarize about TG than I dare say 90% of the pages we have on Wikipedia. It's only through contortions (here, the contortion of WP:NPOL) that one can claim she is not worth including in the encyclopedia unless she wins. There is no logic or data that leads to that conclusion. Lev!vich 15:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- "We have an article about every damn road in England" - No we don't, I keep finding new ones to write all the time. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- TG, a "proposed" Senator, is still more important/notable/worthy of a standalone page/whatever formulation we want to use, than like any high school ever built, or even the most famous porn star. More humans are interested in, and need, knowledge about TG than about any high school or porn star or Pokémon, and all but the most famous train stations. If we're not writing about topics like TG, then what the hell are we doing here? We have an article about every damn road in England. Lev!vich 14:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- But we don't generally have articles about PROPOSED schools or train stations. Or PLANNED bagel shops and pizzerias. Or pro-wrestling TRAINEES. Or people who AUDITION for porn movies. Those are the counterparts to election candidates.--Khajidha (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Wait, now you're moving the goalposts. Before you said 57 different ways of saying "this lady is running for election"
, now you're saying that and she's been married twice, and she's a mom
, and that second part is more than just "this lady is running for election"; in fact, "married twice" and "mom" sound to me like the kind of biographical details that one would find in WP:SIGCOV of a WP:BLP. So I'll tell you what: you set forth the definitive criteria for a source that "counts", and I'll tell you if I have any examples that meet that criteria. Lev!vich 17:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Biographical details fill out articles, they do not establish notability. You can give me all the sources you want that she has been married twice and has kids, but that tells me nothing about her notability. And I don't see anything in that second section beyond "this lady is running for election". Unless there's something super outstanding about her campaign, like collusion with foreign powers, all campaign coverage is just "she's running for office". --Khajidha (talk) 18:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- If your definition of "notable" is "elected", then she is not notable. But my definition is the one in WP:N (at least two GNG-satisfying sources), and that criteria is met. Lev!vich 18:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- No, my definition of "notable" is not "elected". But my definition of notable says that people who simply want to have a job, as opposed to those who have that job, are not notable just because they want it. An applicant to a university is not notable. An academic is. A person who does a walk-on tryout for a sports team is not notable. An active member of that team is. A candidate for senate is not notable just because they are running for senate. A senator is. --Khajidha (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Now that's a red herring. Nobody is arguing that she is notable just because she is running for senate. She is notable because she meets the criteria set forth at WP:N. Lev!vich 18:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- How, then? How is she notable? There is no coverage of her separate from this election. She was not notable before the election and just running for office does not make her notable now, no matter how many sources say that she is running for office. --Khajidha (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- What part of, "She is notable because she meets the criteria set forth at WP:N" is unclear? Again, if you define "notable" as "subject to coverage separate from the election" or "notable before the election" (or "notable if elected"), then she is not notable. But if you define "notable" as "two GNG-satisfying sources" (which WP:N does), then she is notable. Lev!vich 18:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I define notability as "subject to coverage separate from the election". --Khajidha (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Which is a different definition than the one that has consensus (WP:N), and one that we don't apply anywhere else. We wouldn't, for example, say that a senator/athlete/scientist is only notable if they are subject to coverage outside of their being a senator/athlete/scientist. Lev!vich 19:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Did you not see my point above? Being a candidate is not parallel to being a scientist or an athlete. It is parallel to applying to a college or trying out for a team. --Khajidha (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Which is a different definition than the one that has consensus (WP:N), and one that we don't apply anywhere else. We wouldn't, for example, say that a senator/athlete/scientist is only notable if they are subject to coverage outside of their being a senator/athlete/scientist. Lev!vich 19:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I define notability as "subject to coverage separate from the election". --Khajidha (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- What part of, "She is notable because she meets the criteria set forth at WP:N" is unclear? Again, if you define "notable" as "subject to coverage separate from the election" or "notable before the election" (or "notable if elected"), then she is not notable. But if you define "notable" as "two GNG-satisfying sources" (which WP:N does), then she is notable. Lev!vich 18:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- How, then? How is she notable? There is no coverage of her separate from this election. She was not notable before the election and just running for office does not make her notable now, no matter how many sources say that she is running for office. --Khajidha (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Now that's a red herring. Nobody is arguing that she is notable just because she is running for senate. She is notable because she meets the criteria set forth at WP:N. Lev!vich 18:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- No, my definition of "notable" is not "elected". But my definition of notable says that people who simply want to have a job, as opposed to those who have that job, are not notable just because they want it. An applicant to a university is not notable. An academic is. A person who does a walk-on tryout for a sports team is not notable. An active member of that team is. A candidate for senate is not notable just because they are running for senate. A senator is. --Khajidha (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- If your definition of "notable" is "elected", then she is not notable. But my definition is the one in WP:N (at least two GNG-satisfying sources), and that criteria is met. Lev!vich 18:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose as too soon. As with Draft:Rishi Kumar, another candidate who isn't notable outside the context of WP:1EVENT (this election), Theresa Greenfeeld has nothing more than routine coverage for a person running for national office. Wait until after the election; if she doesn't win, she wouldn't qualify for an article here, although her campaign might. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- WP:1EVENT supports having this page. It says,
If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.
Editors commonly cite 1EVENT to argue that people aren't notable for one event, but that's not what 1EVENT actually says; for significant persons in significant events, it says the very opposite. It's like making an argument based on the shortcut instead of the actual policy being linked to. We could call it argumentum ad shortcutae, perhaps? Lev!vich 17:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- WP:1EVENT supports having this page. It says,
- Support I wanted to close this. Maybe I'm not brave enough, maybe I just thought it would help to strengthen consensus instead. This is mostly "per Jimbo". The idea that someone could be elected to the United States Senate and not have a Wikipedia article is deeply embarrassing to me, and would constitute a high-profile failure on our part. I'm certainly sympathetic to those calling for clearer guidance on notability standards in these cases—we probably don't need articles on otherwise non-notable people if they're, say, the Republican candidate in Rhode Island, or the Democrat in Idaho. Sure, there are major party candidates who everyone knows will just lose by huge margins and that's all we'll hear from them, but it's abundantly clear that that is not the case with Greenfield. The earlier AfD was fine, if a bit on the zealous side, but circumstances have very much changed since. --BDD (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- "The idea that someone could be elected to the United States Senate and not have a Wikipedia article is deeply embarrassing to me, and would constitute a high-profile failure on our part." Why? To me, that is far from a failure on our part, it is a SUCCESS on the part of democracy. --Khajidha (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- It looks reactive, like our measures of notability are off, which I suppose is the case. It's one thing if there's a freak electoral result—Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was a list entry and only became a stub upon winning her primary—but a Greenfield win would not at all be a surprise. I'm not sure what you mean by such a case being a success for democracy. --BDD (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- The idea that someone who was not notable (and thus didn't have an article here) won, means that "nobodies" can win. And that's a good thing.--Khajidha (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- It looks reactive, like our measures of notability are off, which I suppose is the case. It's one thing if there's a freak electoral result—Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was a list entry and only became a stub upon winning her primary—but a Greenfield win would not at all be a surprise. I'm not sure what you mean by such a case being a success for democracy. --BDD (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- "The idea that someone could be elected to the United States Senate and not have a Wikipedia article is deeply embarrassing to me, and would constitute a high-profile failure on our part." Why? To me, that is far from a failure on our part, it is a SUCCESS on the part of democracy. --Khajidha (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Strong support per Levivich, Ritchie333, Future Perfect at Sunrise, BDD, Jimbo Wales, and others in previous discussions. We don't have a criteria that says someone must be notable outside of running for a political office, as Mongo and Khajidha are attempting to argue above. We do have WP:GNG, which supersedes WP:NPOL, and by that standard Greenfield overwhelmingly passes the bar for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." (There's also been a persistent misapplication of WP:1EVENT, which Levivich insightfully demonstrates above). Greenfield and/or her campaign may not have been notable months ago; I don't have a time machine. But all of us as Wikipedia editors need to be willing to revisit our assessments and preconceived notions as new sources emerge, and unfortunately several of us have not been able to do that. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Strong support. The candidate meets the GNG handily. NPOL itself acknowledges that unelected candidates for political office can be notable per the GNG. While I do personally believe NPOL should be changed so that candidates running in major elections are considered inherently notable, such a change would not be needed for Greenfield's article to be created as the GNG criteria are already met. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Strong support. Clearly way way way over the GNG. And WP:NPOL defers to the GNG. That said, the *venue* could be considered to be a problem. I'll leave notes at the DRV talk page. But yes, WP:AN has been one of the options when asking to overturn a DRV outcome (the other is DRV), so this isn't out of process per se. Hobit (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know. I guess Alvin Greene is some precedent but now that I actually read that article it feels like tabloid material and the thought occurs that we would be better off without it. Haukur (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support. It is absolutely absurd situation that byzantine procedural obfuscation prevent an article on a major party candidate in one of the most closely watched Senate contests. older ≠ wiser 19:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support per above. The draft certainly demonstrates significant coverage in reliable sources, exceeding WP:GNG by a mile. There has been so much poor judgment involving this article. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support per Jimbo, who I'm glad to see has talked some sense into the discussion. Greenfield is clearly notable, and it's embarrassing that it has come this far for the error to be rectified. -- Tavix (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support. BIO1E:
The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified.
None of the invocations of PROMO make sense to me; it is clearly in the public interest to know about these candidates. We may need to revisit the relationship between the GNG and the SNGs after the dust has settled. Enterprisey (talk!) 20:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC) - Question: What if she loses? The argument seems to be that people aren't notable for losing elections. So say we allow the article now, and she ends up losing the election. Is it then deleted all over again, orrr is it just edited to "Theresa Greenfield (born October 20, 1963) is a person who was the Democratic nominee for the 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa."? "Politician" would no longer really apply, and I don't know why the current lead says she's a businessperson at all, nevermind puts it first, she's not notable for it, and neither are the companies she serves as on the boards of, apparently. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see why it would matter. She meets the GNG by a mile. I think people ignore the fact that the GNG doesn't require you to be notable for anything in particular, just covered by reliable, independent, secondary sources. Hobit (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- If you are a political candidate, you are a politician whether you win or lose because you are "one engaged in politics"—you just aren't a "politician" by wikt:politician definition 2 (or what some would call a "career politician"). -- Tavix (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support and do it FAST IAR is not needed for the end result but use it if necessary just to speed up the procedures on this embarrassing situation. And it's no reflection on past actions on this article; everyone was just trying to handle it properly. North8000 (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Please do not make content decisions on the administrator's noticeboard: that's really inappropriate.—S Marshall T/C 21:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Oppose Wanted to sneak this in before closure. She can be adequately covered on the election page - if she loses, she won't have lasting notability, and content shouldn't be discussed here. SportingFlyer T·C 21:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Even if she loses the election, the notability will be lasting with GNG-passing coverage in abundance.Oakshade (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Related AfDs and articles
I think it would be helpful to list other AfDs (current or past) that may be impacted by whatever outcome the above discussion comes to.
- [[9]] Ran for office three times in Ireland (European Parliament, Parliament, and Senate) and failed to be elected all three times. However, in the news since elections for vocal criticism of the Green Party and for advocating that the Green Party not form a government. Article was AfD because she was not elected. Could this deletion be revisited in light of the discussion here? AugusteBlanqui (talk) 11:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John E. James -- active AfD of a US senate candidate who has a meaningful chance of winning. Hobit (talk) 19:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. Mr. James is running for the US Senate in the state that ranks 10th in population, representing more than 10 million people. He will forever be either a US Senator or the guy who lost that Senate race. It's not reasonable to maintain a fiction that rules are more important than ground truth - these candidates are more than a line item on another page.--Brad Patrick (talk) 20:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Draft:Kara_Eastman -- US house candidate in 2018 and 2020. Much smaller race than most US Senate races, but still closely related though the coverage isn't quite as overwhelming. Hobit (talk) 20:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Draft:Al Gross (politician) -- Also a US Senate candidate in a competitive race with significant coverage available (not all of which is reflected in the current sourcing). Dreamyshade (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Gade, the 2020 Republican US Senate candidate in Virginia. -- Tavix (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I would argue that all of the articles that were mentioned are notable. In particular, now that Theresa Greenfield is on the mainspace, Dr. Al Gross is one of the only major party U.S. Senate candidates this cycle without an article, and there is a draft written available about him. This article should be moved to the mainspace, as should the draft about Kara Eastman. The articles about John James and Daniel Gade should stay up at least through November 3. I say this because the voters need to have information about the candidates on their ballots. Narayansg (talk) 22:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I say this because the voters need to have information about the candidates on their ballots.
This isn't an effective argument for inclusion on Wikipedia. If they pass the general notability guideline or any other notability guideline, then they are eligible to have an article (and notability isn't temporary). If they are not notable, simply being a candidate does not make them so. But it's important not to assume the inverse: Simply being a candidate doesn't make them not notable, either. WP:NPOL defers to WP:GNG in the case of candidates. ST47 (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)- It also defers to several elements of WP:NOT: WP:NOTNEWS, WP:PROMO, WP:CRYSTAL, along with WP:BIO1E. It may seem oddly political to oppose these, but I would strongly prefer to not turn Wikipedia into a partisan US-orientated website, and instead allow for articles on people only if they are notable. (We can always cover the candidates on the election page, which will likely be watched by interested parties on both sides of the aisle.) SportingFlyer T·C 22:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- For these draft articles, there's a problem related to the cycle that the draft Greenfield article got stuck in (resolved only with a vote here): there's no avenue for robust community discussion of notability for an AfC draft, because a single AfC reviewer can decline a submission and keep declining it. As a relevant example, I saw that for Gross, User:Narayansg moved the draft article to mainspace a few weeks ago, and another editor moved it back to draftspace as "Doesn't meet wp:npol yet" instead of following a documented community process for mainspace articles where you want to contest notability (like PROD or AfD). So, where to go to discuss whether a candidate like Gross or Eastman reaches the threshold of WP:GNG? I expect that few candidates do, but the exceptions (like Greenfield) are important. Dreamyshade (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Anyone can accept an AfC submission too. If you believe it's ready, you can move it to mainspace. See WP:DRAFTIFY,
It is not intended as a backdoor route to deletion.
andOther editors (including the author of the page) have a right to object to moving the page. If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace and if it is not notable list at AfD.
If there is a dispute over whether something should be in draftspace or mainspace, the page should be moved back to mainspace and the dispute should be brought to WP:AFD. If you can't move it to mainspace due to protection, ask an admin. ST47 (talk) 23:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)- @ST47:, I actually tried to move the Kara Eastman draft and couldn't for the simple reason it already has a history. Is this a common problem? And could you treat this as an "ask an admin" request for the move (even though I don't believe it is a protection problem)? Hobit (talk) 13:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- It's probably not particularly common, but yes, ask an admin, or ask at WP:RM/TR. That one hasn't had an AfD since 2018 and the current version is better-sourced. However, the principal author of Draft:Kara Eastman has requested (through a comment on that page) that it not be nominated again until after the election, I would respect that request unless there's broader support for her immediate notability. ST47 (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- @ST47:, I actually tried to move the Kara Eastman draft and couldn't for the simple reason it already has a history. Is this a common problem? And could you treat this as an "ask an admin" request for the move (even though I don't believe it is a protection problem)? Hobit (talk) 13:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Anyone can accept an AfC submission too. If you believe it's ready, you can move it to mainspace. See WP:DRAFTIFY,
- One guideline that doesn't appear to have been explicitly mentioned above is WP:NOPAGE (aka WP:PAGEDECIDE). If a political candidate is only noteworthy/covered within the context of political candidacy, it is not (erm...) incumbent upon us to have a separate page for that candidacy, given that the individual for-all-time notability of that candidate is marginal, even if coverage of the election itself including coverage of candidates is significant. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 03:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare's Research
- After reading/participating in the discussion around Greenfield, I found myself very curious about which other non-incumbent candidates in the various Senate races have articles. I put together User:GorillaWarfare/Senate races with my results, and figured I'd share it here in case anyone was interested as I was. Many of the candidates have previously held office and met NPOL as a result of their past positions, but I found eighteen biographies of non-incumbent candidates who were not previously elected for office (including Greenfield). Out of that eighteen, four were independently notable for reasons unrelated to their runs for office. Out of the remaining fourteen, there were 9 Democrats, 3 Republicans, and 1 Independent, plus Mr. Willie Wilson in the Willie Wilson Party. They are evenly split gender-wise, with 7 articles about women and seven about men. Edits welcome if I've made any errors. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- Here are the 14 articles listed on GW's page of non-incumbent 2020 US Senate candidates who are not notable outside politics, and how many page views each article received in the last 30 days. Why in the world would we not provide our readers with the verified, neutral summaries of these topics that they clearly are interested in reading?
- Al Gross, I-Alaska ♂, 13,661 pageviews
- Jon Ossoff, D-Georgia ♂, 135,335 pageviews
- Raphael Warnock, D-Georgia ♂, 76,410 pageviews
- Richard Dien Winfield, D-Georgia ♂, 3,000 pageviews
- Willie Wilson, Willie Wilson Party-Illinois ♂, 31,311 pageviews
- Theresa Greenfield, D-Iowa ♀, 17,114 pageviews
- Amy McGrath, D-Kentucky ♀, 155,241 pageviews
- John James, R-Michigan ♂, 88,815 pageviews
- Jo Rae Perkins, R-Oregon ♀, 15,166 pageviews
- Marquita Bradshaw, D-Tennessee ♀, 24,992 pageviews
- MJ Hegar, D-Texas ♀, 197,488 pageviews
- Daniel Gade, R-Virginia ♂, 36,133 pageviews
- Paula Jean Swearengin, D-West Virginia ♀, 24,214 pageviews
- Merav Ben-David, D-Wyoming ♀, 11,236 pageviews Lev!vich 16:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Because providing encyclopedic information is only one traditional function of encyclopedia. Another function is to select notable subjects (for which the information is provided). This is exactly why we reject, for example, purely local coverage or ONEEVENT (which both can generate a lot of interest as well). No opinion on specific individuals listed above.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Personally I believe NPOL should be changed to deem major candidates in Senate races such as Greenfield's inherently notable. I strongly agree with Barkeep49 who said above,
I think Wikipedia is grossly irresponsible in our election coverage for the role we play in promoting incumbents over challengers. We should have some level of information about candidates for people seeking information about an election. This doesn't need to be done through a full article but could happen through reasonable coverage in an election article. The incumbent will still get a full article as opposed to say a paragraph (or two, maybe three) but our readers deserve to know more about Greenfield than "Theresa Greenfield, businesswoman, candidate for Iowa's 3rd congressional district in 2018" which is what we're saying now.
GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)- GorillaWarfare, How is that an argument to change NPOL? Writing more about a candidate in the election article requires no change to NPOL. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, not super clear, those were supposed to be two separate statements. I think NPOL should be changed, and separately I agree with Barkeep's point. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- @GorillaWarfare: US Senate only or all upper house elections in all countries? If the latter, does that mean all unicameral legislature elections as well? "Senior national legislator candidates" in all countries? Lev!vich 18:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- I was referring to US Senate. I admit I'm not very well-versed in other countries' political systems, but I would think any major candidates in elections that are somewhat equivalent in other countries ought to be considered notable as well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Any Republican/Democrat nominee for a Senate race will seemingly always meet GNG. So de facto "inherently notable" ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- I feel like the discussions upon discussions about Greenfield have proven that's not agreed upon, not to mention the handful of AfDs, declined AfCs, and merged/redirected pages on R/D candidates recorded in my user subpage. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Let's put it this way: we can argue "presumed notable" in the lead up to the election, but if the candidate loses and their only notability to that point was being the candidate, deletion or merging back to the election article would be reasonable after the election. There are some races where the incumbent has nearly no chance of losing, so the random challenger from the other party is just because they need to test the waters, and that may be a case that that person would readily meet BLP1E. --Masem (t) 19:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's why I specified "major candidates" in my original point about NPOL. I don't think candidates like the ones you mention, or the long list of candidates pulling in single-digit percentage points of support or less in some of the Senate elections should be deemed inherently notable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Let's put it this way: we can argue "presumed notable" in the lead up to the election, but if the candidate loses and their only notability to that point was being the candidate, deletion or merging back to the election article would be reasonable after the election. There are some races where the incumbent has nearly no chance of losing, so the random challenger from the other party is just because they need to test the waters, and that may be a case that that person would readily meet BLP1E. --Masem (t) 19:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- I feel like the discussions upon discussions about Greenfield have proven that's not agreed upon, not to mention the handful of AfDs, declined AfCs, and merged/redirected pages on R/D candidates recorded in my user subpage. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- @GorillaWarfare: US Senate only or all upper house elections in all countries? If the latter, does that mean all unicameral legislature elections as well? "Senior national legislator candidates" in all countries? Lev!vich 18:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, not super clear, those were supposed to be two separate statements. I think NPOL should be changed, and separately I agree with Barkeep's point. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- What we need to be careful though is that if we make these articles routinely, these cannot come off as supporting their platform, though obviously we do want to document major platform points that a candidate is notable for running for. (A full platform position would be more appropriate on the election page to compare candidates, or if the campaign election itself was notable) Greenfield's section on political positions is a bit too close to promotional but not at a point it needs to be flagged. I just feel that this will be the primary content people will add to these types of candidate articles rather than bio details. --Masem (t) 18:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- This is why I support including all of the information on the election page, such as 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa. I think one of the biggest misconceptions people have about those of us who don't want to have articles-for-all-time on mere candidates is that we don't want the information to appear at all for non-incumbent candidates. For instance, we have no biographical information whatsoever on the minor party candidates for Iowa. The "after the election" really goes against WP:CRYSTAL and our "once you're notable, you're always notable" policies - why not just cover the candidates properly in the context of the election, and have that be the worldwide standard? SportingFlyer T·C 19:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- This. Exactly this. One million times, this. --Khajidha (talk) 22:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Nobody has ever claimed automatic notability simply because they are a candidate, but that doesn't at all mean someone is automatically non-notable due to them being a candidate. Some people do in fact become notable due to their candidacy, like of Greenfield and Ossoff (the first special election). That was the problem with the Greenfield controversy back in June and July - In this case the person was clearly notable but some editors clung to the idea that nobody could become notable only due to a candidacy, not to mention feeling it was "too soon" since a previous discussion (I had warned back in July the Greenfield issue would come back again and again if we don't allow an article and it turned out I was correct). Oakshade (talk) 02:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- That assumes Greenfield IS notable, which is still a question the community disagrees on. If she loses the election there's a very good chance the article could be deleted or merged. There's really two issues here: 1) not providing enough information on candidates on the election page, which there seems to be a hunger for along with general agreement to do so; and 2) at what point someone who is running for office but not otherwise notable becomes notable enough for a standalone article given the numerous issues with having these sorts of articles. SportingFlyer T·C 10:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- If just being a candidate doesn't make you notable, then continuing routine coverage of your candidacy does not make you notable either. You can say "she's running for election" 1 time or 500 billion times, it doesn't change anything. --Khajidha (talk) 11:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Community consensus above shows that Greenfield does meet GNG. If she loses the election, an editor might bring up yet another AfD in some kind of WP:POINT exercise, but the GNG-passing train has long left the station and the community's patience will be beyond thin at that time. Oakshade (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- So, let's look at hypotheticals. If this were an article being proposed about a candidate from the previous senate election in that state, with basically the same sources saying the same things, plus a source for their having lost the election, you would support its existence? Really? I saw lots of people above saying basically saying that we "need to serve the voters". That seems totally wrong to me. We aren't here to serve the voters of this year, we are here to cover this year's election for the people of next year. Or 5 years from now. Or 10. Or 100. If this last round had not resulted in the posting of this article, I doubt anyone would raise the issue 10 days from now if she loses the election. --Khajidha (talk) 17:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- That's a straw man argument as I've never said anything like "to serve the voters" since coming across this issue back in June. Others might have. And to answer your question, yes of course we should have an article about a person who is notable and easily passes GNG as consensus has confirmed even if they lost an election they became notable for just we had the article of Jon Ossoff after he lost the 2017 Georgia's 6th congressional district special election. Oakshade (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Jon Ossoff was AfD'd in 2017, incorrectly closed as a keep (8:4 delete/redirect:keep ratio), and then a mess of a DRV which potentially identified 3 of the keep !voters as SPI but wasn't really close-able as anything other than no consensus. Ossoff is probably the worst possible example you could have given. SportingFlyer T·C 20:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- If it really is a bad example then show us - If you truly feel Ossoff is not notable due to becoming notable only because of his 2017 candidacy that he lost and his current candidacy and, should he lose the upcoming Senatorial election like Greenfield might or might not, continues to be non-notable in your view, then you are always free to AfD the Ossoff article. But honestly that would also come across as a WP:POINT AfD. Oakshade (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- The messy AfD and messier DRV were three years ago. I don't think an AfD would be WP:POINTy, but certainly at this point in the discussion it wouldn't help much, either. We need good guidelines for when candidates are considered all-time-notable. SportingFlyer T·C 20:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- If it really is a bad example then show us - If you truly feel Ossoff is not notable due to becoming notable only because of his 2017 candidacy that he lost and his current candidacy and, should he lose the upcoming Senatorial election like Greenfield might or might not, continues to be non-notable in your view, then you are always free to AfD the Ossoff article. But honestly that would also come across as a WP:POINT AfD. Oakshade (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Jon Ossoff was AfD'd in 2017, incorrectly closed as a keep (8:4 delete/redirect:keep ratio), and then a mess of a DRV which potentially identified 3 of the keep !voters as SPI but wasn't really close-able as anything other than no consensus. Ossoff is probably the worst possible example you could have given. SportingFlyer T·C 20:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- That's a straw man argument as I've never said anything like "to serve the voters" since coming across this issue back in June. Others might have. And to answer your question, yes of course we should have an article about a person who is notable and easily passes GNG as consensus has confirmed even if they lost an election they became notable for just we had the article of Jon Ossoff after he lost the 2017 Georgia's 6th congressional district special election. Oakshade (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- So, let's look at hypotheticals. If this were an article being proposed about a candidate from the previous senate election in that state, with basically the same sources saying the same things, plus a source for their having lost the election, you would support its existence? Really? I saw lots of people above saying basically saying that we "need to serve the voters". That seems totally wrong to me. We aren't here to serve the voters of this year, we are here to cover this year's election for the people of next year. Or 5 years from now. Or 10. Or 100. If this last round had not resulted in the posting of this article, I doubt anyone would raise the issue 10 days from now if she loses the election. --Khajidha (talk) 17:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- That assumes Greenfield IS notable, which is still a question the community disagrees on. If she loses the election there's a very good chance the article could be deleted or merged. There's really two issues here: 1) not providing enough information on candidates on the election page, which there seems to be a hunger for along with general agreement to do so; and 2) at what point someone who is running for office but not otherwise notable becomes notable enough for a standalone article given the numerous issues with having these sorts of articles. SportingFlyer T·C 10:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- This is why I support including all of the information on the election page, such as 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa. I think one of the biggest misconceptions people have about those of us who don't want to have articles-for-all-time on mere candidates is that we don't want the information to appear at all for non-incumbent candidates. For instance, we have no biographical information whatsoever on the minor party candidates for Iowa. The "after the election" really goes against WP:CRYSTAL and our "once you're notable, you're always notable" policies - why not just cover the candidates properly in the context of the election, and have that be the worldwide standard? SportingFlyer T·C 19:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- GorillaWarfare, How is that an argument to change NPOL? Writing more about a candidate in the election article requires no change to NPOL. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- The MJ Hegar article can be summarized as: she is in the middle of a notable life, and additionally, she is a candidate. The Theresa Greenfield article can be summarized as: she is candidate and she is candidate. The only notable thing in her bio, seems to be Jimbo Wales campaigning for her article... but this is not yet covered by Reliable Sources: simply too soon. Pldx1 (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- The bigger issue here is that arguing over Greenfield's notability (and the fact the community is split on the issue) doesn't get us any closer to actually solving this problem, which pops up every two years in the midst of US election season. We need to have this election resolve and then workshop what the actual rule is to avoid having this be a point of contention, the question being: when is a recent candidate notable? SportingFlyer T·C 17:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think that's a great idea. Avoiding doing it just before the election is probably wise, and I don't think there's harm in waiting for election dust to settle to discuss it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- I completely agree with waiting as it avoids any WP:CRYSTAL issues of "well they might be notable..." Considering the fact we typically lack consensus on what to do with these US candidates, maybe it would be better to frame the question as, how do we improve election coverage on Wikipedia? SportingFlyer T·C 21:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, working on this after the election sounds good. I believe both of these questions are worth asking, because they both come up with deeply split answers (especially when working article-by-article): How do we decide when a candidate may have their own article under their name? And related, but broader: how do we set up our policies and guidelines so that elections can be covered in ways that fulfill the purpose of Wikipedia to the best of our capacity and ability as editors? Dreamyshade (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- I completely agree with waiting as it avoids any WP:CRYSTAL issues of "well they might be notable..." Considering the fact we typically lack consensus on what to do with these US candidates, maybe it would be better to frame the question as, how do we improve election coverage on Wikipedia? SportingFlyer T·C 21:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think that's a great idea. Avoiding doing it just before the election is probably wise, and I don't think there's harm in waiting for election dust to settle to discuss it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Now she lost
Now she lost, and her article still does not contain anything significant which could not be in the article on the Iowa senate elections. Shoud it go to AfD again, or can we just move it back to draft?--Ymblanter (talk) 07:43, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Neither, as it is quite hard to judge a candidate's post-election notability on election night. Lev!vich 07:55, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- As per Levivich. Waiting at least 48 hours (if not a week) to consider another merge/delete proposal is certainly called for. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:57, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- We can wait for a couple of days, no problem, but if there is no consensus here to revert the move from the draft she will go to AfD again.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- I agree there will be another discussion; it just won't be a useful one until the presidential election is called. power~enwiki (π, ν) 08:01, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Her article might go to AFD, but she probably won't. :-) Lev!vich 08:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- We can wait for a couple of days, no problem, but if there is no consensus here to revert the move from the draft she will go to AfD again.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Like any mainspace article that has had a decent amount of effort put into it, if an editor believes that the subject may not be notable and can't find sources indicating sufficient notability, that editor would need to nominate it for deletion. WP:DRAFTIFY isn't appropriate for mature articles that have had a bunch of editors and edits over time. I agree with waiting at least a couple days or a week to consider an AfD nomination, especially because coverage of the race isn't over - this article came out a couple hours ago, for example. We'll be able to have a better picture of longer-term notability after journalists have a chance to write up analysis, etc. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:47, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Honestly, take the advice as WP:BATTLEGROUND and wait at least a year to reassess notability. There's no chance it can be meaningfully re-assessed in the near term, and there'd be no reason to re-nominate now, in a day, or a week, except to try to win a battle. WilyD 06:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- It should have not moved out of the draft after three failed DRVs to start with. The argument was mainly that if she wins election (which she was expected to) than everybody knows that Wikipedia failed to create an article on a notable person (who is accidentally also a woman etc). This argument is obsolete for the time being. I also do not see how my behavior is WP:BATTLEGROUND. I do not think I was in any way previously involved with this article except for a pair of procedural comments on the top of this thread. I am just absolutely sure that if she were not an American democrat Senate candidate but a candidate to the parliament of Peru with similar credentials, nothing like this would ever happen--Ymblanter (talk) 07:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- The argument was mainly that she met WP:GNG. The closing statement a couple sub threads up was "Consensus is that the subject does meet the GNG." Lev!vich 07:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- WP:ONEEVENT perfectly describes the sittation, but I do not think we shoule be discussing this here. I said very early in this topic that AN is not a good instrument to look for consensus in these issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- I agree ONEEVENT perfectly describes the situation:
However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.
I'm not sure why you expect an AFD would end up with a different result than the we had here at AN. Do you expect editors will have changed their mind? Or do you expect a different group of editors will arrive at a different result? I expect the same editors will come to the same result. Lev!vich 15:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)- Yes, I think it will be a different group of people. After all, it has already been to AfD and three times to DRV with the decision delete / not undelete.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- She was at AFD in May where there was no consensus that she met GNG at that time, and the three DRVs were in June and July, and found no reason to overturn the May AFD as of that time. Then, in late October, consensus was reached that she met GNG as of that time. Now it's early November. If she met GNG in late October, she still meets GNG in early November. A merge proposal might have some support, but an AFD would be a disruptive waste of time (as would draftification). No matter what happens, we will have a page on Wikipedia called "Theresa Greenfield". The only question is whether that page will be an article or a redirect. AFD is not the place to answer that question. It's still called Articles for deletion, not Articles for discussion. Lev!vich 16:34, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- This also serves to remind us that GNG reiterates BLP1E - we are looking for enduring coverage of a topic, not a blip of news coverage, and that even a prolonged election period run should not be considered "enduring" for our purposes (that is, what is enduring depends on the nature of the topic). Clearly this was being misread if editors took her to be notable by the GNG while as a candidate (there are other routes to presume notability) --Masem (t) 16:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- WP:BLP1E doesn't apply here either, because she does not meet the third requirement:
If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented.
Neither BLP1E nor ONEEVENT apply to US Senate candidates. Each US Senate race is a significant event, and every general election candidate has a significant role in that event. It was not a mistake that editors (like me) !voted based on her meeting GNG. She meets GNG. There are no "but she's only a political candidate!" exceptions to GNG. There is no "enduring" requirement to GNG. (WP:LASTING is part of WP:NEVENT, not WP:NBIO or GNG.) Maybe there should be, maybe GNG should be changed, but any person can read WP:GNG, as written now, and there really is no argument that she does not meet the requirements as written now. Lev!vich 17:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)- Notability requires WP:SUSTAINED coverage (part of WP:N) which ties right back to BLP1E and NEVENT. That's the enduring requirement of notability. It's why a burst of news coverage is not sufficient for notability. --Masem (t) 17:11, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- True, but that brings us back to the main point here: it's really nonsensical to assess notability on October 21 and then re-assess it to judge SUSTAINED on November 6. If she met N (including SUSTAINED, as could be ascertained at that time) on October 21, 2020 based on coverage in 2020, then we are not going to have sufficient information to make a determination about SUSTAINED until, at least October 21, 2021. If she's been covered non-stop for a year, then we have to wait at least one year, and only then can we determine if it was a "brief blip" or "sustained" coverage. This is why I agree that the notion that we should do anything with this article this week is just BATTLEGROUND behavior. There is no logic to making any sort of decision this soon after the election; the only reason anyone could possibly want to change the status quo right now is to prove a point. And that point is: candidates who don't win shouldn't have a page. Everyone needs to let go, in the drop-the-stick sense, of the notion that a person's notability is linked to whether they win or lose an election, and also let go of the notion that the mere presence of an article about a candidate is somehow promotional.
- By the way, Theresa Greenfield is still the subject of more coverage than Donna Strickland or Clarice Phelps. The problem in all three of these womens' biographies is that each woman was judged by editors according to their accomplishments in the eyes of those editors. So, editors say, "she's not notable until she wins the Nobel Prize", or "she's not notable unless she is a named author on the paper", or "she's not notable unless she wins the election". This approach is wrong, wrong, wrong, and it's not our way, and it's not how the guideline N works, nor how our core policies work. We follow sources. A person is notable if the sources say they are notable: whether we think their accomplishments are important doesn't matter at all. Yet some editors continuously try to add these extra requirements: whether it's "won an election" or "played in a professional league" or "published a paper", it's always just some editor's opinion about what makes someone important. But editors' opinions don't count; it's sources that count. This is misapplied in both directions: sometimes editors apply their idea of "importance" to !vote keep when the sources don't exist (football players, famously); other times editors apply their idea of "importance" to !vote delete even when the sources are plentiful (women, famously). Every time we stray from the path of "follow the sources", we should remind ourselves of what we're here for: to summarize secondary sources. Not to decide what's important. In this case, there is no lack of secondary sources about Greenfield for us to summarize. Lev!vich 17:29, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- First, I fully agree we don't need to decide today or next week even on its fate. Let's wait for the election results to finalize and see any fallout from that.
- There is a huge difference with the Strickland case in that we didn't have ANY article for her - no attempt at draft or deletion. Take away the Nobel, she would still have met the NPROF allowances for an article, but no one wrote it, a discovery made when she got named for the Nobel. That's a problem with our volunteer system is that we write articles that really only interest us and not probably what we should write. It is a very different situation from Greenfield where people were making a draft and trying to include it but there were hard questions on notability.
- And there are hard questions on notability when it comes to a candidate in an ongoing an election. WP is now seen as a Search Engine Optimization (SEO) tool blatently used to build up a profile in search engines, and people and corps pay money to try to get editors to make pages to improve their hits. NCORP was recently reworked to try to stall as much of this from the corporate side by making it harder for random corps to get pages. We have to consider the same problems for a candidate in an election that has no other history of note. I mean, we initially have to assume good faith that editors that wanted an article on Greenfield were trying to do in with the intent for an encyclopedic topic, but in the middle of an election in a heated race, some questions have to be raised. (The same issue was at play at the early stages of Phelps article based on the early AFD discussions - lack of third-party sourcing points to more self-promotional concerns). But in the case of Phelps, when this was recognized by the media, they came to the "rescue" to provide addition third-party coverage and establish her as clearly notable for her whole career. Which is a perfectly acceptable route to assuring notability. (This also happened with Strickland too). WP is stuck that we have to be very careful of simply allowing every person that may be named-dropped in sources from having an article since this may be feeding into some system for promotion and marketing and thus must play cautiously.
- That said, there is nothing requiring us to not cover candidates in election article with appropriate redirects to make them searchable topics, which should be the default situation for all major US congress races in the first place. Too many editors focus on wanting a separate standalone article for each topic but this is not a requirement; a topic of weak notability can be fairly covered in a larger topic with more affirmed notability and using redirects to get readers there, serving the same purpose without raising any questions of notability. --Masem (t) 18:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Notability requires WP:SUSTAINED coverage (part of WP:N) which ties right back to BLP1E and NEVENT. That's the enduring requirement of notability. It's why a burst of news coverage is not sufficient for notability. --Masem (t) 17:11, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- WP:BLP1E doesn't apply here either, because she does not meet the third requirement:
- This also serves to remind us that GNG reiterates BLP1E - we are looking for enduring coverage of a topic, not a blip of news coverage, and that even a prolonged election period run should not be considered "enduring" for our purposes (that is, what is enduring depends on the nature of the topic). Clearly this was being misread if editors took her to be notable by the GNG while as a candidate (there are other routes to presume notability) --Masem (t) 16:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- She was at AFD in May where there was no consensus that she met GNG at that time, and the three DRVs were in June and July, and found no reason to overturn the May AFD as of that time. Then, in late October, consensus was reached that she met GNG as of that time. Now it's early November. If she met GNG in late October, she still meets GNG in early November. A merge proposal might have some support, but an AFD would be a disruptive waste of time (as would draftification). No matter what happens, we will have a page on Wikipedia called "Theresa Greenfield". The only question is whether that page will be an article or a redirect. AFD is not the place to answer that question. It's still called Articles for deletion, not Articles for discussion. Lev!vich 16:34, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I think it will be a different group of people. After all, it has already been to AfD and three times to DRV with the decision delete / not undelete.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- I agree ONEEVENT perfectly describes the situation:
- WP:ONEEVENT perfectly describes the sittation, but I do not think we shoule be discussing this here. I said very early in this topic that AN is not a good instrument to look for consensus in these issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- The argument was mainly that she met WP:GNG. The closing statement a couple sub threads up was "Consensus is that the subject does meet the GNG." Lev!vich 07:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- It should have not moved out of the draft after three failed DRVs to start with. The argument was mainly that if she wins election (which she was expected to) than everybody knows that Wikipedia failed to create an article on a notable person (who is accidentally also a woman etc). This argument is obsolete for the time being. I also do not see how my behavior is WP:BATTLEGROUND. I do not think I was in any way previously involved with this article except for a pair of procedural comments on the top of this thread. I am just absolutely sure that if she were not an American democrat Senate candidate but a candidate to the parliament of Peru with similar credentials, nothing like this would ever happen--Ymblanter (talk) 07:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- We need to have a serious discussion about this before doing anything. It should go to AfD, but I think a better result is a merge to the election article - there's no reason to get rid of good information. The real question: is she notable enough as a candidate or for any other reason for her own stand-alone article at this point? I don't think the answer to that is yes, but considering this is going to be a problem over and over again every two years, I don't see the rush to remove it. SportingFlyer T·C 13:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that there is no rush and we should try to work on general principles. To some extent it may be easier to discuss old instances. For a ten year old candidacy where I think there is a reasonable case for merging a biography into an election article see Talk:Alvin_Greene#Merge_with_2010_United_States_Senate_election_in_South_Carolina? Haukur (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- The merge to the election article is probably the smarter move, but I definitely would wait a few days to make sure the results are certified and no other options come up. This does not require a AFD (as no admin action is required for a merge, though to maintain it may require that). --Masem (t) 14:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- If it is merged without reaching consensus first I am sure merge is going to be undone quickly. AfD is one of the instruments to achieve consensus, admittedly not the best one. RfC can be another one.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Except that AFD has been repeated denied as a venue to bring up non-deletion requests because the net result doesn't involve admin action. A merge discussion on the article's talk page is reasonable though. --Masem (t) 16:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- If it is merged without reaching consensus first I am sure merge is going to be undone quickly. AfD is one of the instruments to achieve consensus, admittedly not the best one. RfC can be another one.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Being blatantly endorsed by Wikipedia is not so helpful
This Encyclopedia is supposed to be neutral, or at least is supposed to appear as neutral. Seeing Jimbo Wales campaigning for this article was amusing. And what has been won, except a disgracious scar on our neutral face ? The article was only asserting, in Wikipedia's voice, that the candidate was notable for being candidate, and for being candidate, and maybe for nothing else that can be found. This doesn't appear as having helped her. But let us wait and see if reliable sources attribute any influence to any Wikipedia issued endorsement. Pldx1 (talk) 10:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- If having an article = endorsement, then we endorsed her opponent long ago. Lev!vich 15:28, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- An issue I pointed out is that we should be very careful of these bios looking like political ads. It is important that for a notable politician to identify key issues that they have been known to focus on, but we should not make their bios list out their entire political platform, otherwise you start approaching the endorsement or political ad issue. On the other hand, on election articles, outlining the key issues at play and where the candidate sit is fair game without making us endorse or promote any single one. --Masem (t) 15:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Pldx1, you sound like those folk I see on social media who claim that this or that news outlet is spreading propaganda because they're reporting the news. And after seeing this I'm wondering if you shouldn't be advised of discretionary sanctions in the AP2 subject matter. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Dear User:Drmies. As it can be seen from my contributions, my focus is more about Korean Literature than about American Policy Too. But obvious is only obvious: there are well written stories, and there are poorly written ones. To remain credible, the selection criteria have to be applied evenly. As a side remark, the WIRED article I was referring to is amusingly praising over the hills the Professor in Wikipedia Studies they have recruited. Is smiling so diabolic ? Pldx1 (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- What you are saying here is neither relevant nor clear. I don't know what stories or criteria you are talking about, or what the Wired piece has to do with anything. I don't think you have retracted that odd comment on Jimbo's talk page, and I left you a template with some helpful links, on your talk page. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Dear User:Drmies. As it can be seen from my contributions, my focus is more about Korean Literature than about American Policy Too. But obvious is only obvious: there are well written stories, and there are poorly written ones. To remain credible, the selection criteria have to be applied evenly. As a side remark, the WIRED article I was referring to is amusingly praising over the hills the Professor in Wikipedia Studies they have recruited. Is smiling so diabolic ? Pldx1 (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Pldx1, you sound like those folk I see on social media who claim that this or that news outlet is spreading propaganda because they're reporting the news. And after seeing this I'm wondering if you shouldn't be advised of discretionary sanctions in the AP2 subject matter. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- An issue I pointed out is that we should be very careful of these bios looking like political ads. It is important that for a notable politician to identify key issues that they have been known to focus on, but we should not make their bios list out their entire political platform, otherwise you start approaching the endorsement or political ad issue. On the other hand, on election articles, outlining the key issues at play and where the candidate sit is fair game without making us endorse or promote any single one. --Masem (t) 15:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- I have no opinion about whether we should have an article on this person, but I think the one takeaway that everyone can get from this is that having a Wikipedia article about a candidate makes only a minuscule, if any, difference either way to the vote that they get. I hope that supporters of particular candidates will learn that they should expend their campaigning energy on other things than getting a Wikipedia article, as if it is some sort of prize. A Wikipedia article is neither an endorsement of its subject nor of any opponents, and whether we have one or not should be decided by our policies and guidelines, not any other consideration. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Or, to put it more bluntly, WP:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 18:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's interesting. AOC didn't have an article at the time of her election and won. Nobody reading Donald Trump would vote for the guy, yet look at the election results. I think Wikipedia's affect on elections is overrated. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think this has been Wikipedia's finest hour. First off, a rather hasty discussion on the administrator's noticeboard has overruled deletion review, so now we haven't just got sysops making binding content decisions, we've got them making the decisions in a rush. Second off, we're now deciding that she isn't notable enough for an article because she lost --- even though notability isn't temporary. If we do now decide that she shouldn't have an article, then I think many outside observers would feel that her getting an article in the runup to an election was a political intervention by Wikipedian sysops, instigated by Jimbo. I think it's going to be hard for the community to pretend that it wasn't.I think the learning points from this mess are: (a) if it's urgently necessary for the community to overrule DRV because DRV is wrong, then that discussion should happen at the village pump rather than here, because sysops don't make binding content decisions; (b) post-1932 US politics is unbelievably toxic and it's important to follow the processes scrupulously when we're dealing with it, instead of making up new rules as we go along; and (c) we need a big, centralized RfC about whether candidates in a national election should get articles that reaches binding conclusions.—S Marshall T/C 23:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Is AN not the right place to appeal a page protection decision, a DRV decision, or a close? Lev!vich 00:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think it's the right place to appeal a use of the tools, but I don't think sysops have any special authority to make binding content decisions.—S Marshall T/C 00:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- But if a page is protected from recreation, the use of the tools is required to recreate it. (Indeed, if I'm reading right, a non-admin approved it on AfC but was unable to implement this because of the protection.) So ultimately administrator intervention was necessary. And more generally, deleted page protection is only intended to prevent G4-speedy recreations (or similar unambiguous issues like vandalism.) So technically what should have happened was that an administrator should have immediately unprotected it with no further discussion once the AfC was closed. No administrator was willing to do so (probably wisely given the controversial nature, even if it was technically the correct action to take provided the draft was not a G4 speedy), but the fact is that at that point it was already being decided by administrators. If you want to avoid that then there needs to be hard-and-fast rules when any editor can request that protection be removed from a page that has been protected from recreation - if I read WP:SALT correctly, any administrator can, on their own initiative, unsalt a page on request with no further discussion (DRV is also an option but I believe it's only for if you want to recreate the deleted page specifically.) --Aquillion (talk) 00:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, the fact that the page was protected was the pretext that the closer gave for making a binding content decision.—S Marshall T/C 00:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- The consensus in the AfDs and DRVs was pretty much against having an article until after the election was decided. So in your hypotheticals: if there's an explicit consensus against having an article until such time, nobody should be unprotecting it on their own initiative. It wasn't deleted for notability reasons in the sense that she didn't have enough media coverage, so the general condition for recreation (ie recreating with any number of extra sources, relating to her political run) wouldn't address that concern. The technical matter of unprotection may be an administrative issue, but whether to have an article is really a content one. One that's decided, the technical matter of unprotection is pretty uncontroversial; may as well be at WP:RFPP. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- S Marshall, if someone is unhappy with a DRV close, the place to appeal that close is AN, is it not? Lev!vich 03:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think it should be. Content decisions are a matter for community consensus, and administrators don't have any special authority over content, so the optics of making content decisions here are terrible.—S Marshall T/C 03:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Last time we discussed it, we more-or-less concluded (it was a sparse discussion) that DRV or AN were the two places to appeal a DRV close. Sorry, I'd have to hunt down the link again. I think I included it above somewhere. Hobit (talk) 05:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- I guess what I'm not understanding is: you said this wasn't WP's finest hour. What is it you think went wrong here, and how would having this discussion on a different page (DRV again? VP:PROP?) have resulted in a better outcome? Lev!vich 06:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think it should be. Content decisions are a matter for community consensus, and administrators don't have any special authority over content, so the optics of making content decisions here are terrible.—S Marshall T/C 03:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- But if a page is protected from recreation, the use of the tools is required to recreate it. (Indeed, if I'm reading right, a non-admin approved it on AfC but was unable to implement this because of the protection.) So ultimately administrator intervention was necessary. And more generally, deleted page protection is only intended to prevent G4-speedy recreations (or similar unambiguous issues like vandalism.) So technically what should have happened was that an administrator should have immediately unprotected it with no further discussion once the AfC was closed. No administrator was willing to do so (probably wisely given the controversial nature, even if it was technically the correct action to take provided the draft was not a G4 speedy), but the fact is that at that point it was already being decided by administrators. If you want to avoid that then there needs to be hard-and-fast rules when any editor can request that protection be removed from a page that has been protected from recreation - if I read WP:SALT correctly, any administrator can, on their own initiative, unsalt a page on request with no further discussion (DRV is also an option but I believe it's only for if you want to recreate the deleted page specifically.) --Aquillion (talk) 00:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think it's the right place to appeal a use of the tools, but I don't think sysops have any special authority to make binding content decisions.—S Marshall T/C 00:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Is AN not the right place to appeal a page protection decision, a DRV decision, or a close? Lev!vich 00:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry, we're talking at cross-purposes and I think it's my fault. I agree that AN is where we currently review DRVs. In the light of this episode, I now think it shouldn't be.
I think the discussion since Greenfield's defeat demonstrates that she is not, in fact, notable enough for an article. DRV was right and the AN was wrong. DRV is where we have all the experience and practice at coming to the right choices in these things, whereas AN came to a rushed and expedient decision that, in the cold light of day, looks poor. Even worse, the AN doesn't have a fixed duration for discussions, so the closer could be accused of picking a strategic moment to close (note that I'm not saying that happened: I'm talking about the optics).
I do not think DRV is infallible. There must be a place to review DRVs. But I think that place should be ideally RFC, and if it's too urgent for that, a fixed-duration discussion on the Village Pump. Rushed, ad hoc decisions on the AN are suboptimal.—S Marshall T/C 12:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
User Phil Bridger
For about the last month @Phil Bridger: has been on a concerted smear campaign to paint me as a racist because I have nominated some articles related to subjects in Africa for deletion. Including saying in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Escola Portuguesa de Luanda "I can't help feeling that there is an unsavory agenda here" because of the nomination and saying in this PROD removal "I hope it's not racism." There are other examples of him making similar insinuation also. He did the same thing in Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2020_October_21, where he was fine repeating himself that there was racist intent behind my behavior, but then when I attempted to explain myself and he was asked by other users users about what he said, including @Lev!vich:, it suddenly wasn't the appropriate place to discuss things. He was unwilling to discuss things in the AfD either and I had no way of defending myself against the changeset comments.
He continued the campaign today by posting a message about it on the Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review/Log/2020_October_21 talk page. Where he included a running tally of my PRODs, AfDs, and the continents of where the subjects of them are located. Which is clearly a case of WP:HOUNDING. Since it's specifically targeting me and my changesets. More so because he has not complained about things through the normal, good faithed, channels like my talk page or ANI. Plus, he has been completely unwilling to accept the explanation I gave for my actions multiple times. While he has claimed that he is merely showing "skepticism" about my nominations, it's pretty clear how he is acting goes beyond that and is an intentional smear campaign to make me look bad and get me blocked from nominating articles and in no way was his initial stance to assume good faith like he claims it was, because he has being accusing me of racism for a while now, if not since I started nominating the articles. At this point I'd just like the WP:HARASS campaign to end. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with these points. Phil has given me a hard time from the beginning, and if what this person said is true it's hard to defend. I've had no luck persuading him of anything, not one thing. I want to say this to everyone in the world: Stop accusing people of racism. Just stop it. It helps no one. Second, Don't be Mrs. Kravitz. Do your own work, get your own house in order. Third, if you want more commentary on AFDs and related subjects, click on my name.
Vmavanti (talk) 17:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with these points. Phil has given me a hard time from the beginning, and if what this person said is true it's hard to defend. I've had no luck persuading him of anything, not one thing. I want to say this to everyone in the world: Stop accusing people of racism. Just stop it. It helps no one. Second, Don't be Mrs. Kravitz. Do your own work, get your own house in order. Third, if you want more commentary on AFDs and related subjects, click on my name.
- I'd like to see an explanation for this comment too. If Phil is going insinuate that the OP is being racist, he needs to be prepared for some pushback. It is not acceptable to refer to another editor as
a nasty piece of work
and the attack on Adamant1's English skills was clearly uncalled-for. It's bizarre that the admin who closed that AfD warned the OP but said nothing about Phil's incivility. Unless Phil has strong evidence to support his accusations, he needs to stop judging motives and stick to evaluating the articles. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)- It is precisely my posting of such evidence at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Log/2020 October 21 that the OP seems to be objecting to. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- I must point out that I said that DRV was not the place to discuss behaviour in my very first edit to Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2020_October_21. And the OP's response to my asking why African schools are being targeted has been that the deletion nominations have in fact been of schools in all parts of the world with no distinction being made about where they are. My evidence shows that that is extremely unlikely. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Just another example of keep voters being allowed to say what they like about people while everyone else has to walk on eggshells. Reyk YO! 08:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Drawing battle lines between "keep voters" and "delete voters" is the bigger underlying issue. Darkknight2149 08:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Quite. Most of us who participate in AfD's don't automatically vote "keep" or "delete" but evaluate each topic that we comment about on its merits. For example in the past week I have voted "delete" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allyson Stewart-Allen (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tereza Østbø Kuldova. In the same period have made no "keep" votes. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Drawing battle lines between "keep voters" and "delete voters" is the bigger underlying issue. Darkknight2149 08:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment (sorry for the length, but it got a little off track) I don't think anyone would argue that there are certain people/groups (mainly ARS) have a preference for certain outcomes. Personally, I have no problem saying I'm more on the delete side when it comes to my actions at AfD because that's the purpose in it. Articles that are in great shape that meet the notability guideline just aren't sent there. It's not "articles for keeping the same" or "articles that no one cares about." That aside, it's just a reality that keep voters make less guideline based arguments and more ideologically based ones. For instance citing essays, personal preferences, inherent notability etc. etc. And that having such a mindset, instead of just voting based on belief systems rather then the particular guideline based merits of any one single article, will natural veer into evaluations of the nominator etc. etc. as they get more desperate to "just keep everything." Particular when it comes to people in ARS who have been open about the fact that it's they are in a sort of religious battle to "protect Wikipedia from destruction" or whatever. Personal attacks will naturally come out of such a battleground, self-righteous (not in a derogatory way), crusader mentality. If nothing else out of desperation to "save Wikipedia." Such desperation doesn't allow much for rational thinking. 99% of the attacks are made on nominators also, and it's just a fact that delete voters probably aren't going to attack a nominator. It should also be obvious that no one has a problem or is discussing the people who aren't a problem. It's kind of a deflection to act like anyone is.
- More on topic, I've said a few times that I am currently doing AfDs/PRODs for secondary schools because the notability guidelines around them changed in the last few years, there's a lot of "cruft" around them that needs to be gotten rid of now, and I'm improving lists related to them. I've also made it clear that I'm specifically doing AfDs/PRODs on secondary schools in Africa right specifically because A is the first letter of the alphabet, Africa is the first place listed in Lists of schools by country, and due to my organizational and attention span shortcomings it's just easier to go down the list systematically then pick random countries/schools, loss track of what I'm doing or where I'm at, and never make any progress on anything. So, as I've said repeatedly, I could give a crap less what continent the schools are located in outside of that, but it's purely convivence/time management calculation that I'm working on African schools right now. Therefore, it has nothing to do with racism or anything related to it. I'll probably be on to South America in a few weeks and then someone else besides Phil Bridger (or maybe it will still be him) will complain that I'm being racist against South Americans. The problem wasn't the accusation in the first place anyway, it was the way you went about it and your unwillingness to accept my explanation. It's fine to be skeptical about why someone is doing something. It's not fine using said skepticism to work backwards from your own conclusions and do a smear campaign of someone based on them. While ignoring any rational reasons for what they are doing, explanations by them, and people calling you out for the slander. Which is what you did. Plus, there was the other snide, personal comments on top of it that there was really no reason to make. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for explaining your modus operandi. I am pleased to see that your recent nominations of almost only African schools for deletion is simply an alphabetical accident rather than anything more sinister. I do not, despite your claims to having said it a few times before, recall you previously explaining this in any discussion where I am involved, so I am glad that you have done so now. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Adamant1: This is honestly the type of dividing generalisation I was referring to above. "Articles that are in great shape that meet the notability guideline just aren't sent there." As someone who has been frequenting there a bit more lately, I can tell you for a certainty that notable articles being sent there is nothing out of the ordinary if they are poorly written. I have also observed instances of people taking the nominator's word for it until someone points out the coverage. "That aside, it's just a reality that keep voters make less guideline based arguments and more ideologically based ones" I'm not sure if you have seen the number of low quality fiction-related AfDs, but it has actually been the reverse lately. Many of them are simply subjective declarations of importance, don't understand how notability works, fail to cite a legitimate policy-based rationale at all, straight up ignore certain policies/guidelines (WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN being common ones), or have waved the word "fancruft" around without much (if any) substantiation. The only reason many of these nominations get support is because the same small handful of users has been mindlessly voting "delete" on every one with the same cookie-cutter copy/paste reasons (even on weaker nominations). This often happens faster than outside users show up. The lack of quality control at fiction-based nominations is a big enough issue that I am probably going to propose some sort of reform when my immediate work at User:Darkknight2149/Untitled Hellraiser reboot is finished. That's not to say that there haven't problems with recurring inclusionists as well, but the over-generalisations and approaching AfD with an "us vs. them" battleground mentality (as if Keep or Delete are be-all/end-all solutions) really needs to stop. Darkknight2149 19:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- First, shouldn't this be at ANI instead of AN? Second, Phil Bridger isn't the problem here. Over the past couple weeks, Adamant1 has been "cleaning up" African school articles by removing all unsourced entries and red-linked schools, even if they had a verified reference next to them: [10] That page has gone from [11] to [12] in less than a day. It's not just Ethiopia - Adamant1 removed 8,000 bytes from List of schools in Botswana by only including blue-linked schools in the list, which is neither required nor necessary for lists. While I agree that list needed better referencing, I don't think anyone expected list cleanup to be "delete any school which doesn't have an article." They then PRODed a number of schools, some of which were clearly notable such as University of Bechar, some which aren't clearly notable on their face but are clearly notable with a simple and proper BEFORE search such as University of Bejaia, and a number of secondary schools from over the continent. They have nominated 13 school articles at AfD this month: [13] of which Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Boumerdès closed without a single other user !voting delete. The entire conflict appears to have started with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Escola Portuguesa de Luanda, specifically here which is what Phil Bridger responded to. What we have here is a really bad attempt at school cleanup by Adamant1 (failed BEFORE searches leading to a number of notable schools being PROD-ed or listed at AfD, the school list destruction), a number of users (including myself and Phil Bridger) that a user removing large chunks of African school lists and incorrectly nominating a number of African school articles is biased in some way (I'm satisfied with the explanation that it's the start of the alphabet) and then Adamant1 displaying a general battleground mentality. I'm not sure what the solution is here, but I strongly recommend Phil Bridger not be sanctioned in any way. SportingFlyer T·C 14:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Reviewing these, all the targetted articles seem to be those sourced with only primary sources (from the schools themselves) which per WP:NORG fail notability tests as well as general WP:V policy. They aren't doing anything wrong per se here. --Masem (t) 15:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- I agree the articles are in terrible shape, but to relate this back to the US, if I tried to prod say Hoisington High School or Ellinwood High School I would get wikitazed. Most of the subjects of the articles do appear to be notable. SportingFlyer T·C 15:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Reviewing these, all the targetted articles seem to be those sourced with only primary sources (from the schools themselves) which per WP:NORG fail notability tests as well as general WP:V policy. They aren't doing anything wrong per se here. --Masem (t) 15:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- What Masem said is exactly right. Other people in the AfDs agreed with me that there weren't any usable sources, including people who are usually pretty on the keep side of things. While all SportingFlyer has been able to come up with in most of the AfDs is random trash that doesn't work for notability. Like the Pope writing one of the schools a letter, a newspaper listing the scores of one schools sports team, and a website name dropping one of them in a few picture captions. None of that makes any of them notable. Let alone would it justify Phil slandering me everywhere as probably a racist anyway even if a few of the articles do turn out to be notable. Same goes for the PRODs being removed. Which BTW all of them were removed by a single user. Who wrote an article in his user space all about how secondary schools are inherently notable and should be kept even if there aren't any sources about them available. 100% it's not on me if someone who is clearly bias about secondary schools and has an agenda to keep everything related to them removes my PRODs. I swear the amount of Strawmaning, nominator blaming, and other type of deflecting keep voters when one of their own being called out is completely ridiculous. At least your willing to give me the benefit of the doubt about the alphabetical thing, but it's not helpful to put this on me just because a few articles that haven't even been closed yet might be notable. Especially when it's pretty likely they aren't and I've had plenty of other articles on secondary schools that weren't steam rolled deleted anyway. The fact is Phil should have resolved the issue through normal channels instead of slandering me everywhere, period. BTW, with my removal of entries from lists, last I checked they have to be "reliably sourced" and all of them were sourced with the websites of the schools. Which aren't considered reliable. I left plenty of blue links and even some that had independent references. So, the complaint that I'm systemically removing valid items from lists is yet another strawman. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, about that: for example, you turned a reliably sourced list (this diff into this diff.) Why was it reliably sourced? There were four references at the top of the page, and even though three of them are broken, not only was one not broken, but the broken links were easily fixed. SportingFlyer T·C 20:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- What Masem said is exactly right. Other people in the AfDs agreed with me that there weren't any usable sources, including people who are usually pretty on the keep side of things. While all SportingFlyer has been able to come up with in most of the AfDs is random trash that doesn't work for notability. Like the Pope writing one of the schools a letter, a newspaper listing the scores of one schools sports team, and a website name dropping one of them in a few picture captions. None of that makes any of them notable. Let alone would it justify Phil slandering me everywhere as probably a racist anyway even if a few of the articles do turn out to be notable. Same goes for the PRODs being removed. Which BTW all of them were removed by a single user. Who wrote an article in his user space all about how secondary schools are inherently notable and should be kept even if there aren't any sources about them available. 100% it's not on me if someone who is clearly bias about secondary schools and has an agenda to keep everything related to them removes my PRODs. I swear the amount of Strawmaning, nominator blaming, and other type of deflecting keep voters when one of their own being called out is completely ridiculous. At least your willing to give me the benefit of the doubt about the alphabetical thing, but it's not helpful to put this on me just because a few articles that haven't even been closed yet might be notable. Especially when it's pretty likely they aren't and I've had plenty of other articles on secondary schools that weren't steam rolled deleted anyway. The fact is Phil should have resolved the issue through normal channels instead of slandering me everywhere, period. BTW, with my removal of entries from lists, last I checked they have to be "reliably sourced" and all of them were sourced with the websites of the schools. Which aren't considered reliable. I left plenty of blue links and even some that had independent references. So, the complaint that I'm systemically removing valid items from lists is yet another strawman. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Just to add, there's also this diff from October 14th where Phil called me a lier and said that anything not in alignment with his opinion was "anti-intellectual dumbing-down" of Wikipedia that would lead to it becoming a popular culture compendium. So it should be obvious to anyone that he has said things about me he shouldn't have and that he has a battleground mentality about this. Accusing other users that you disagree with of being liers, anti-intellectual, and saying that they are dumbing-down Wikipedia clearly isn't appropriate. But hey, it's cool because some PRODs were contested...right... --Adamant1 (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, come on. Which is a page from Times Higher Education with a few hundred words of prose and some statistics, primary or extremely trivial? It is obviously neither, so your statement simply was a lie. And how is deleting an article on an accredited, ranked university with over 30,000 students anything other than "anti-intellectual dumbing-down"? Start thinking about the real world, the actual topics of the articles you are trying to delete. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- How about we take a random paragraph out of it, I know, how about "As well as this the university also works to provide a series of recreational facilities in order to foster a strong student culture and identity. A range of cultural, sporting and scientific activities are held throughout the year, celebrating both domestic and international events." Seriously dude, what the hell is not extremely trivial about a school having a range of cultural and sporting activities? WAIT A MINUTE. HOLD THE PRESSES PEOPLE!!! THE SCHOOL CELEBRATES EVENTS. SAVE THE ARTICLE NOW!! @Bring back Daz Sampson: the reason I did the WP:WALLOFTEXTs above is because Phil didn't get it the four times I was clear and concise about the fact that racism had nothing to do with my edits. I swear to Christ this whole thing is just completely ridiculous Strawmaning. You have 17 (17!) instances of Phil saying rude crap down below, but this whole thing is my fault because I deleted a couple of list items that were cited to school websites and wrote a couple of long messages. Seriously. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - I'm with Phil on this one. In Adamant1's second and third WP:WALLOFTEXTs above, they seem to be simultaneously complaining about other users' WP:BATTLEGOUND tendencies, while throwing out wild aspersions about "keep voters". Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- The suggestion that because someone deletes articles in Category:Foo or entries off a List of Foo, means that they are anti-Foo, or it's OK to suggest/insinuate/ask them if they are anti-Foo, is ridiculous. It's the very opposite of WP:AGF. Phil has been too uncivil, too often, recently, towards multiple editors:
- Sep 8: "You are nominating the top schools in Africa for deletion, but ignoring the many run-of-the-mill schools in Western Anglophone countries that have articles. I'm trying to stretch the assumption of good faith here, but I can't help feeling that there is an unsavoury agenda here."
- Sep 8 x2: "Thanks for confirming what a nasty piece of work you are ... And if you really don't have the English comprehension to know what "Western Anglophone countries" means then you are not qualified to be editing an English-language encyclopedia."
- Oct 14: "Just go on an anger-management course or something rather than carry on with this complete lack of self-awareness."
- Oct 14 again: "Just stop telling such lies ... Any statement to the contrary is simply anti-intellectual dumbing-down ..."
- Oct 19: "The fact that you appear to be monolingual doesn't mean that the majority of people in the world are not."
- Oct 19 x2: "+notable, to avoid the otherwise inevitable response from the ignoramus who started this discussion"
- Oct 19 x3: "... I can only conclude that this campaign against African schools and universities is based on something other than evidence - I hope it's not racism"
- Oct 22: "... there seem to be several editors who take delight in finding a reason to delete articles about schools outside the Anglophone West."
- Oct 23: Denying (sort of) that he accused Adamant1 of racism in the Sep 8 comments here (despite making the insinuation yet again in the same comment) and here (arguing purportedly in his defense that the suggestion of racism was made in a different part of the same Sep 8 comment)
- Oct 24: "I actually believe that User:Adamant1 is not being consciously racist, but just that the objective outcome of this work is to exacerbate institutional racism."
Oct 25: "I am pleased to see that your recent nominations of almost only African schools for deletion is simply an alphabetical accident rather than anything more sinister."- Oct 25 x2: "... your statement simply was a lie. And how is deleting an article on an accredited, ranked university with over 30,000 students anything other than "anti-intellectual dumbing-down"? Start thinking about the real world, the actual topics of the articles you are trying to delete."
- Oct 25 x3: "Please think before you write."
- Oct 25 x4: "Luckily (from both sides) I am not you. I am perfectly capable of multi-tasking."
- Oct 25 x5: "It's impossible to hold a civilised discussion about anything when you blatantly deny the obvious evidence." - this one is not so bad, but in the context of all the other stuff he's saying about Adamant (which is most, but not all, of the above), and the fact that it's continuing even today, while this ANI thread is going on, shows that things are out of control.
- Oct 25 x6: "... Otherwise just stop posting, or (and this would be a first) admit that you were mistaken." - same as previous
- And this Oct 25 comment to a just-blocked editor is gravedancing: "It seems, from your sudden change of character shown in this unblock request, that my comment at this page here was correct, in that a block is the only thing that will stop you acting disruptively." Lev!vich 21:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't consider that last one gravedancing, and commenting on an open block appeal not at all. That's a seriously disruptive editor who gaslights about their behavior in unblock requests, and the comment was hardly incivil. Grandpallama (talk) 00:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think that "I told you so" is an OK thing to say to a blocked user, even if, and I want to make this absolutely clear, even if they deserved the block. :-) Aside from that, sixteen is still too much in six weeks. Six would be too much in six weeks. Lev!vich 01:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- It's not an "I told you so," as the previous sentence made clear; you only quoted the second. It's an argument against unblocking, alongside my and another editor's arguments, which the admin took into consideration. Grandpallama (talk) 02:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- In the last six weeks, Phil has accused Adamant1 of: "an unsavory agenda" (#1), being "a nasty piece of work" and lacking sufficient English comprehension to edit enwiki (#2), needing anger management and a "complete lack of self-awareness" (#3), "telling such lies" and "anti-intellectual dumbing-down" (#4), racism (#7), exacerbating institutional racism (#10) (and then denied making accusations of racism in #9),
something "more sinister" (#11), lying and not thinking about the real world (#12), not thinking before writing (#13), blatantly denying obvious evidence and being impossible to hold a civilized discussion with (heh) (#15), and failing to admin mistakes (#16). Phil accused Vmavanti of being monolingual (lulz) (#5) and an ignoramus (#6). Phil accused Telsho of being unable to multitask (#14) and then after Telsho was blocked, posted "Telsho, just a few hours ago you were making edits like this, telling me that I shouldn't comment because of an unsubstantiated report at WP:AN. It seems, from your sudden change of character shown in this unblock request, that my comment at this page here was correct, in that a block is the only thing that will stop you acting disruptively." (#17), which I maintain is an "I-told-you-so". Phil also accused unspecified editors of xenophobia (#8). Altogether, this is a heap of abuse towards three editors, mostly Adamant1. Lev!vich 02:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)- I didn't say anything about the other diffs. I said the categorization of opposing a block appeal by citing a disruptive user's personal attacks as gravedancing is erroneous, because it's not gravedancing. And based upon the subsequent edits at that talkpage, at least one admin agrees. It does make me suspicious about whether the other diffs presented here are also missing relevant context, though. Grandpallama (talk) 04:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- YMMV, but I don't think that one questionable diff negates the validity of the other sixteen. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- I didn't say anything about the other diffs. I said the categorization of opposing a block appeal by citing a disruptive user's personal attacks as gravedancing is erroneous, because it's not gravedancing. And based upon the subsequent edits at that talkpage, at least one admin agrees. It does make me suspicious about whether the other diffs presented here are also missing relevant context, though. Grandpallama (talk) 04:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- In the last six weeks, Phil has accused Adamant1 of: "an unsavory agenda" (#1), being "a nasty piece of work" and lacking sufficient English comprehension to edit enwiki (#2), needing anger management and a "complete lack of self-awareness" (#3), "telling such lies" and "anti-intellectual dumbing-down" (#4), racism (#7), exacerbating institutional racism (#10) (and then denied making accusations of racism in #9),
- It's not an "I told you so," as the previous sentence made clear; you only quoted the second. It's an argument against unblocking, alongside my and another editor's arguments, which the admin took into consideration. Grandpallama (talk) 02:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think that "I told you so" is an OK thing to say to a blocked user, even if, and I want to make this absolutely clear, even if they deserved the block. :-) Aside from that, sixteen is still too much in six weeks. Six would be too much in six weeks. Lev!vich 01:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't consider that last one gravedancing, and commenting on an open block appeal not at all. That's a seriously disruptive editor who gaslights about their behavior in unblock requests, and the comment was hardly incivil. Grandpallama (talk) 00:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Personally, I doubt there is any context where it's appropriate to insinuate other users are racists, xenophobes, Nazis, Etc. Etc. At least not as far as the guidelines are concerned. They don't have a "do on unto others" clause in them. We are all responsible for our own behavior. Personally, I take full reasonability for PRODing non-notable schools and deleting badly referenced items from lists. I think Phil should do the same and take responsibility for his bad comments. Weirdly despite him supposedly wanting to discuss this in the "proper" channels I have yet to see him address anything he's said yet. Instead he's just let you and other people defend him. While throwing in a few more backhanded comments about me in the meantime. If there was a "context" that would excuse his actions, he should be able to point it out. I don't see him doing so though. Let alone has he even acknowledged he said anything wrong in the first place. I wonder why that would be.... --Adamant1 (talk) 05:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Then there's this statement that people who don't show WP:BEFORE enough worshipful reverence must think of themselves as an Übermensch. That word has a lot of nasty fascist connotations, which was likely the point. I for one am tired of !voting delete on some bit of pop culture crap being equated to Nazi book burning. Reyk YO! 22:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- WP:BEFORE is simply a reminder to understand existing policies and guidelines, and consider alternatives to deletion. Regardless of whether or not it is technically a requirement, the policies and guidelines are not as negotiable, including those that state "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page", "article content does determine notability", "notability is not determined by the quality of sourcing in the article", "fixable problems don't amount to deletion", and "Wikipedia is not a final draft". With that mind, I'm struggling to see a good faith reason for someone to have a problem with BEFORE, that doesn't amount to Wiki-lawyering to sidestep scrutiny. Darkknight2149 23:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Wow. It's like he skipped over the whole comparing you to a Nazi thing and made this about how your just unable to handle someone asking you to do a BEFORE. The fuggg. Talk about obfuscation. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- The user in question actually has a history of bashing BEFORE, so my comment didn't come out of nowhere. More pertinently to you, what I will say is that (as uncalled for as some of Phil's statements clearly are), you yourself have demonstrated a battleground mentality throughout this thread and I'm not the only one who has observed this. Matthew 7:3 and all that. Darkknight2149 01:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Well, I appreciate that your at least willing to say "some" of Phil's statements are un-called for. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- The racism accusations, and a lot of the badgering, is certainly uncalled for. Several of the quotes listed by Levivich above are also too personal personal and not at all helpful/constructive. Others I need more context for before I can make a judgement. I agree with Grandpallama that the last bulletpoint doesn't look like gravedancing on the face of it, but maybe others know more about that situation than I do. Darkknight2149 02:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, no comment on the other examples, but weighing in against an unblock appeal by citing a blocked editor's behavior toward you is in no way gravedancing. Grandpallama (talk) 02:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- The racism accusations, and a lot of the badgering, is certainly uncalled for. Several of the quotes listed by Levivich above are also too personal personal and not at all helpful/constructive. Others I need more context for before I can make a judgement. I agree with Grandpallama that the last bulletpoint doesn't look like gravedancing on the face of it, but maybe others know more about that situation than I do. Darkknight2149 02:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Well, I appreciate that your at least willing to say "some" of Phil's statements are un-called for. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- The user in question actually has a history of bashing BEFORE, so my comment didn't come out of nowhere. More pertinently to you, what I will say is that (as uncalled for as some of Phil's statements clearly are), you yourself have demonstrated a battleground mentality throughout this thread and I'm not the only one who has observed this. Matthew 7:3 and all that. Darkknight2149 01:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- If we're going to compile a list of incivil comments from Phil Bridger, surely we should do the same to Adamant1?
- 21 July "It's pretty clear you don't give a crap about the guidelines or doing this the proper way. So, I'm done discussing it."
- 8 September "If you think I'm specifically targeting African's with my AfDs though, feel free to report me for it. Otherwise, go take a long walk off a short pier."
- 12 September "I'd call his 15 line AfDs screeds where he insults other users instead of talking about guidelines an unwarranted overreaction to his fear that these articles will be deleted, but to each his own I guess."
- 15 September "I didn't know a random page in someone's user space was authoritative as to what's notable. "eye roll.""
- 13 October "Hey now, where's the fake outrage about Telecart commenting 16 times? Come on man. If your going to be a shitlord about things, at least have the integrity to be consistent about it."
- 25 October "Everything you said is drivel. Ypu should go find other things to do instead of badgering delete voters with utter nonsense, because its not helpful."
- 25 October "Like I said, let the AfD play out and go find something else to do in the meantime. It will go how it goes without you mouthing off everywhere."
- Now, in all fairness, I don't think Adamant1 is habitually incivil, he just gets easily offended and finds it difficult not to express his annoyance. Nevertheless, I would recommend a close re-read of WP:BLUDGEON. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ritchie333, yup, and Adamant deserves the warning you gave for those comments. Phil's made twice as many comments like that. Surely, he deserves a warning, too? Lev!vich 13:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Now, in all fairness, I don't think Adamant1 is habitually incivil, he just gets easily offended and finds it difficult not to express his annoyance. Nevertheless, I would recommend a close re-read of WP:BLUDGEON. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe it's just me, but looking at this objectively I fail to see how 6 sarcastic comments over a 6 month period (that were directed at a bunch of different users) is even comparably to 17 clearly rude and personally attacking ones in the last month (where most of them were targeting a single user). Sure, if I had said anything even remotely along the lines of "I hope your not editing articles because your a racist" to the same user multiple times over a two month period (even after they asked me more then once to leave them alone), then I'd agree my complaint should just be dropped. I don't think this should be closed without anything happening or be a wash just because I a wrote a comment that ended in "eye role" and sarcastically asked someone to leave me alone who had insinuated multiple times that I was racist though. In no way is my behavior comparable to his. Especially since some of his rude comments, like comparing people to Nazi's, didn't even have anything to do with me.
- Frankly, I find you trying to make our behavior equal so that this can be dropped (without even a warring to Phil) rather weird. Even more so though considering that you called me out for supposedly personally attacking Phil (which was questionable) in AfD, but then for some reason you had nothing to say about his obviously rude comments toward me. Even people in the deletion review agreed that they were rude and that he should have been called out for them. Just like people have agreed the same here. Clearly, for whatever reason you lack impartiality here and your not looking at this objectively. Just like you lacked it in the AfD close and didn't use any objectivity there either. BTW, I would have the same opinion if I had nothing to do with this. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Clearly, for whatever reason you lack impartiality here and your not looking at this objectively. Just like you lacked it in the AfD close and didn't use any objectivity there either.
And this sort of bullshit is exactly why I'd support a boomerang proposal. Grandpallama (talk) 14:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)- @Grandpallama: Honestly, I was just about to strike it out when you commented. I agree it was probably un-called and not necessary. That said, before the AfD he had warned me about my sarcasm on my talk page and then singled me out in the AfD close. So, I have zero problem saying that likely he was judging my behavior in the AfD, and not considering Phil's, based on the fact that he had already given me a warning. Which, while understandable, still isn't being objective. My guess is that you probably would have supported a boomerang proposal even if I hadn't of said it though (again, probably unnecessary, but likely true). BTW, the only thing I've "proposed" is that Phil stop harrassing me and insinuating people are racist. Personally, I could really care less how that's done. If the "boomerang proposal" is that I don't harress him then great, because I wasn't anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Frankly, I find you trying to make our behavior equal so that this can be dropped (without even a warring to Phil) rather weird. Even more so though considering that you called me out for supposedly personally attacking Phil (which was questionable) in AfD, but then for some reason you had nothing to say about his obviously rude comments toward me. Even people in the deletion review agreed that they were rude and that he should have been called out for them. Just like people have agreed the same here. Clearly, for whatever reason you lack impartiality here and your not looking at this objectively. Just like you lacked it in the AfD close and didn't use any objectivity there either. BTW, I would have the same opinion if I had nothing to do with this. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- A large number of diffs were provided by Levivich here, but as I detailed earlier in this discussion, one of them immediately stood out to me as questionable and taken out of context. So I did a little more digging into this "evidence" and found, not to my particular surprise, that the 'evidence' is mostly bullshit.
- Phil questions Adamant1's motivations. At best, that could (weakly) be considered casting aspersions around targeting African schools, which Phil has pointed out in this very thread Adamant1 refused to explain/justify until now
- Levivich condemns Phil for calling Adamant1 a "nasty piece of work", but leaves out what Phil was responding to:
Otherwise, piss off and go take a long walk off a short pier or something
; the Anglophone comment isn't great, but it's what I'd expect in a heated exchange in response to, well, a nasty piece of work - Levivich provides an example of Phil saying Adamant1 should take an anger management course, but ignores the preceding comments, including Bishonen pointing out
Are you always this aggressive in AfD discussions, Adamant1? The article (which somebody wrote, you know (namely me)) is "nonsensical" and "junk" according to you, and now other people's arguments are "transparently ridiculous". Have you noticed that most other people who give their opinion here do so quite politely? Please don't lower the tone.
to which Adamant1 respondedI'm sorry your offended by my feedback that aspects of "your" article don't make sense and are meaningless. Maybe learn from it and create a better article next time. Although, probably you shouldn't if you can't even handle pretty milk toast comments like mine.
- Phil is critiqued for telling Adamant1 to stop telling lies; since Phil then provided direct evidence of how Adamant1 was being untruthful, this is hardly problematic. And the complaint about "anti-intellectual dumbing-down" isn't presented in its entirety, and the context matters:
And of course proper, real universities are suitable subjects for encyclopedia articles. Any statement to the contrary is simply anti-intellectual dumbing-down that would lead Wikipedia to become a popular culture compendium rather than an encyclopedia.
- The monolingual accusation isn't great. On the other hand, context is again important, since Phil is refuting the ridiculous argument that only English-language sources may be used on the English Wikipedia by a user who just said in the same discussion
And if you want to read about German musicians in German, then you can read the German Wikipedia in German.
- Agreed, that's an uncivil edit summary. To the editor who, again, was saying articles about Germans should stay on the German wiki. Which is a pretty ignorant thing to say.
- Again, until this discussion, Adamant1 refused to explain why they were targeting African schools. Which should alarm us, rather than cause us to seek punitive measures against an editor expressing concern. The full edit summary, which explains Phil's ongoing concerns, wasn't shared, either (bolding mine):
the very first Google Books hit for this was significant coverage in an independent reliable source, so I can only conclude that this campaign against African schools and universities is based on something other than evidence - I hope it's not racism
- Phil says "there seem to be several editors who take delight in finding a reason to delete articles about schools outside the Anglophone West", but it's not directed at an editor. So where's the personal, uncivil attack?
- These diffs of 'evidence' are a mess. First, Levivich claims Phil implied racism on Adamant1's part, but what Phil did was ask a question:
Can you please explain why you consider schools in Africa to be less notable than those in Western Anglophone countries, because I still cant see a valid reason for your campaign against them.
; then, Levivich claims Phil did some sort of doubling down on racism accusations based on this text:My comment above was, very clearly if you read it, a rebuttal of the nominator's explicit claim that referring to "Western Anglophone countries" is racist.
. Phil was responding to Levivich's ridiculous attempt, by the way, to recast his comments in that discussion. - This diff is complete bullshit. Phil says
I actually believe that User:Adamant1 is not being consciously racist, but just that the objective outcome of this work is to exacerbate institutional racism.
, explicitly saying he's not accusing Adamant1 of racism, but that Adamant1's actions are troubling in that they help to concretize institutional racism. That's pretty far from evidence of anything but a high level of conscientiousness on Phil's part regarding the state of the encyclopedia and its inclusiveness. - This diff is evidence of what, exactly? Phil's relief that there is a plausible explanation of why Adamant1 has been targeting African schools for deletion?
- Phil again states that an earlier claim by Adamant1 was a lie (the same subject as diff #4), for which he has already provided evidence (i.e., it's not some unsupported aspersion, but a specific accusation backed up by actual evidence) and defends the "anti-intellectual dumbing-down" comment which Adamant1 takes out of context, just like Levivich has done in his list of diffs.
- Phil tells Adamant1 to
Please think before you write.
, which is being presented as evidence of incivility? Give me a break. - Levivich includes Phil's response to (now-indeffed) User:Telsho at ANI, where Phil states he is perfectly capable of multitasking. This already isn't an uncivil comment, but it was in response to this hostile comment after Phil pointed out that Telsho had edit-warred over a speedy deletion tag.
- Levivich claims Phil is out of control because Phil objects to Adamant1's recasting of what Phil said, after removing the context for Phil's words:
You very clearly said "for something to be notable it has to be unique". They were your words, not mine. It's impossible to hold a civilised discussion about anything when you blatantly deny the obvious evidence.
- As I've already said, Phil commenting in opposition to an unblock request is not gravedancing. Period.
- If Phil has been so blatantly uncivil, then it should be easy to find actual examples instead of this nonsense, largely taken out of context in order to make him look bad. Based upon the behavior in this thread, I'd be more inclined to support a boomerang for Adamant1 and a trout for Levivich. Grandpallama (talk) 14:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- How is saying that someone's edits "exacerbate institutional racism" constructive or helpful? even more so in the "context" of him already saying "I hope the edits aren't racist" multiple times before that? Clearly him framing it that way was just an attempt to soften his original thesis that my edits where related to racism somehow so it was more palpable, while not actually dropping "racism" as a talking point. Since he had received pushback about his comments at that point. Just like him saying "I hope" before the word "racism" served the same purpose of connecting my actions to racism without being direct about it. Either way my actions were still being connected to racism. People weren't going to factor in the "I hope" part of it. I know that's the case because multiple people since this started have referenced his comments about me being racist as a way to invalid opinions. Which was totally the intent behind him saying what he did.
- If Phil has been so blatantly uncivil, then it should be easy to find actual examples instead of this nonsense, largely taken out of context in order to make him look bad. Based upon the behavior in this thread, I'd be more inclined to support a boomerang for Adamant1 and a trout for Levivich. Grandpallama (talk) 14:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- It's completely ridiculous to treat the comment like it was somehow a nuanced, substance based critique of how certain things can exacerbate institutional racism. Let alone to act like me and Levivich interpreting it any other way then that is just taking the comment out of context. Personally, I agree with the sentiment behind it. No one is going to argue that certain edits don't sometimes exacerbate institutional racism, but him saying so was nothing more then just a cover to continue slandering me. Adamant1 (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- As I said above, the problem with Adamant1 is "he just gets easily offended and finds it difficult not to express his annoyance". Personally, it seems a bit hypocritical to be offended at an accusation of racism (and which to me seems to be at worst an ill-judged remark than a specific desire to offend) while at the same time calling another editor (not Phil) a "shitlord". I don't favour any action other than just a bit of self-reflection - everybody has bad days and snaps at people. I just don't think it's fair to document one side of the argument's incivility without presenting the other side's too, in the interests of completeness. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- The problem is your cherry picking a few examples over an extremely long period of time to work backwards from your own conclusions. There's plenty of AfDs where people take digs at me and I just don't respond. There's also plenty of times I've been snarky or sarcastic, where I've apologized for it and admitted I was in the wrong. Including in this conversation. Most of the times I've been rude it was directed at a few users whom I have had continuous, repeated problems with. I know those things just don't support your conclusion that I'm easily offended though. Despite the capitulating about "context" being important, it only seems to be when it serves the purpose of a single side. As far as the "shitlord" comment goes, I've never used the term in my life. Someone else in an AfD did though and I thought id try it out. Honestly, I think it's pretty lowbrow, below me, and I regretted saying it. Feel free to ignore that and use it as an example of how I always behave though.
- As I said above, the problem with Adamant1 is "he just gets easily offended and finds it difficult not to express his annoyance". Personally, it seems a bit hypocritical to be offended at an accusation of racism (and which to me seems to be at worst an ill-judged remark than a specific desire to offend) while at the same time calling another editor (not Phil) a "shitlord". I don't favour any action other than just a bit of self-reflection - everybody has bad days and snaps at people. I just don't think it's fair to document one side of the argument's incivility without presenting the other side's too, in the interests of completeness. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Nothing ever gets dealt with and no one will ever get along if the only acceptable standard for a complaint to be valid is that the person making it has to have acted perfectly themselves. I really have no problem with Phil "reflecting" on his behavior. I've done plenty of that myself. Although, I also think a stern warning that insinuating people are racists isn't acceptable should be made and he should at least acknowledge that his comments were inappropriate. That aside, I do wonder why in this instance "reflection" by all sides is the answer, but then it wasn't when you were warning me about attacking people. All I've asked for in most of these disagreements is fairness, consistency, and for everyone involved to be equally responsible for their own actions. None of those things should be that difficult and they should apply here. Period. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
It seems worth underscoring that the main point of contention in this thread was a misunderstanding about Adamant's motivations that seems to have been more or less resolved. Phil should've made more of an effort to AGF or discuss concerns of racism, so this could've been resolved sooner, and Adamant could dial down their approach to AfD a bit, but I suspect there's not much that's going to happen here in terms of admin action and I'm not sure leaving it open will be that productive. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sure, I'll dial my approach to AfDs down from making 7 sarcastic comments every six months to 3 or 4. Also, the next time someone accuses me of racism for over a month and other users of being Nazi's, I'll just chalk the whole thing up to a simple misunderstanding. It's good to know what the priorities are. In the meantime, feel free to close this. As it's pretty clear nothing is going to be done about it (not even a warning) and clearly Phil thinks he did nothing wrong. So, there's zero reason to continue the discussion at this point. All the race baiter apologists can pat themselves on the back for a job well done. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- There are so many accusations here that I can't find the right places in the edit window in the few minutes that I have available now, so I am making my reply here separately. To Adamant1 I would say that I am not avoiding this discussion, but I have priorities in my life more important than editing Wikipedia, such as, today, caring resposibilities for my grandson and my mother, from which I have just got home, and, in a few minutes, I am going to cook dinner and do some housework. I would also point out to Levivich that nearly all of his quotes were taken out of context, most egregiously in the omission of the words "rather than" from "more sinister", reversing the meaning of what I said. Much of that has been taken care of by Grandpallama, but I will try to find time to give a more detailed response later. Sorry for not being a full-time Wikipedia editor, but you will have to wait. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- All I have to say is that it's to bad those weren't your priorities when you were making the accusations. For someone that isn't a full time Wikipedian and has better things to do, you sure spent a lot of time on it. It's not like I've a bunch of time in my life to spend combating what you said or dealing with this either. If you take anything away from this, maybe it should be that accusing people of racism for almost a month straight can be time consuming for both parties, because at this point seriously doubt that it will be that your behavior was wrong. As much as I doubt your going to do any "reflecting" about things. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- That's enough. I explained why I hadn't responded yet, and said I would respond later. A glance at my contribution history will show you that I am not a full-time Wikipedia editor. If you tell me that my grandson and my mother shouldn't take priority then I am not prepared to comment any further. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm fine with that. Really. Except an admin said they were going to close the discussion and you commenting on the discussion after it's closed isn't really helpful. That said, feel free not. I don't really care. Nothing was going to be done about it anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- In the time it took you to write this and this, you could have written, "I'm sorry I accused you of bad faith motives, it won't happen again", and we'd all be on our way. Somehow, I don't think lack of time is what's holding up the reconciliation here. Lev!vich 22:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- That's enough. I explained why I hadn't responded yet, and said I would respond later. A glance at my contribution history will show you that I am not a full-time Wikipedia editor. If you tell me that my grandson and my mother shouldn't take priority then I am not prepared to comment any further. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- All I have to say is that it's to bad those weren't your priorities when you were making the accusations. For someone that isn't a full time Wikipedian and has better things to do, you sure spent a lot of time on it. It's not like I've a bunch of time in my life to spend combating what you said or dealing with this either. If you take anything away from this, maybe it should be that accusing people of racism for almost a month straight can be time consuming for both parties, because at this point seriously doubt that it will be that your behavior was wrong. As much as I doubt your going to do any "reflecting" about things. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Let's set aside the general never-ending battle on AfD, with plenty of blame on all sides for abrasiveness and failure to assume good faith. But the repeated insinuations of dark motives in these African discussions is a step too far. "I can't help feeling that there is an unsavoury agenda here""I hope it's not racism" Casting aspersions is outside the bounds of acceptable behavior. I think an apology for that would be a reasonable way to conclude this. Haukur (talk) 22:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if this is the right place for this, but I was surprised to see that Adamant1 reverted three edits I made where I removed speedy deletion tags they had recently added in good faith, two schools at: [14]
[15] (where the revert also removed references added to the articles and added back unreferenced promotional bits of the article) and [16] (which is a poor article as it stands, and it may not be notable.) I believe I also removed the tag on Creating Our Lady of Lourdes College Mankon which was reverted and subsequently deleted. In my mind none of these articles meet the criteria for speedy deletion even though there are promotional elements to them, though as someone who has edited African articles for awhile it's par for the course, and I even cleaned up the promotional parts of the articles where I could. In the diffs you'll notice an accusation of WP:HOUNDING and a request to "use the contest button," even though it's absolutely not required as I did not create any of these articles. I've also been adding back in information Adamant1 has been deleting using references, since they've been removing a lot of content from African schools articles, but it's difficult work and has turned into a battleground as opposed to the general collegial improvement I'm used to. SportingFlyer T·C 15:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- A quick check of their contribution log also shows they're continuing to speedy clearly notable articles like Diocesan College and Afrikaanse Hoër Seunskool on G11 grounds instead of removing the promotional material. This is not helpful cleanup. SportingFlyer T·C 15:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
From my perspective, the real core of the problem here is an editor claiming to be deeply offended at supposed incivility directed toward him, but who himself has a much clearer history of egregious, unapologetic personal attacks, including in some of the very AfD discussions he's supposedly upset about, and who has demonstrated no qualms about casually throwing around accusations and insults in this discussion (All the race baiter apologists can pat themselves on the back for a job well done
) (Clearly, for whatever reason you lack impartiality here and your not looking at this objectively. Just like you lacked it in the AfD close and didn't use any objectivity there either
about Ritchie) (Sure, I'll dial my approach to AfDs down from making 7 sarcastic comments every six months to 3 or 4
). There's also a history here in the last year of filing long-winded grievances at AN/I about other editors that frequently included personal attacks being levied by Adamant1 in those discussions against editors and admins who disagreed with him: [17][18][19]. There are legitimate battleground and civility issues here, but they're not on Phil Bridger's part, and some of the comments in this discussion should result in a stern warning to Adamant1 (the "shitlord" comment, addressed but not made in this discussion, merits a block all on its own). Grandpallama (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
There are legitimate battleground and civility issues here, but they're not on Phil Bridger's part
Pointing out Adamant1's civility issues (which are real!) doesn't make the inappropriate insinuations by Phil Bridger go away. I would be fine with warning them both, though. Haukur (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe. Some of the provided "insinuations" were actually just requests for an explanation as to why these articles were being targeted. Even if one argues that Phil needs a warning, the degree of incivility (and battleground editing) is far greater, and more widespread, on Adamant1's side. Phil's most significant error was not bringing his concerns to the greater community, but Adamant1's intransigence when challenged could reasonably be expected to raise suspicion. Grandpallama (talk) 09:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- I finally have some time on my hands now, and in the light of Adamant1's "I'm fine with that" above have decided to respond in similar detail to what has been said above, so (mainly to avoid my doing some pointless work) I would ask that nobody closes this discussion in the next few hours. I may repeat some points that have already been made above because I have decided not to to look at Grandpallama's rebuttal above while I am replying in order to give my own perspective. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Adamant1's "I'm fine with that. Really." has shown that it is worth commenting further here. I've finally got a bit of time to myself, so will reply now.
- Firstly a note about the general situation.
- For the last couple of months I have been a little concerned that Adamant1 has been nominating many schools and universities in Africa for deletion. After some accusations of bad faith at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 October 21 I posted my evidence, showing that 95% of school articles nominated or proposed for deletion by that editor in the last three months were in Africa, on the talk page of that discussion, because it wasn't directly relavent to the DRV itself. I included that words "I actually believe that User:Adamant1 is not being consciously racist". That was immediately before this report was raised, and seems to have been its immediate cause. Adamant1, in this discussion, explained what he had been doing here, an explanation that I had not seen before. I thanked him for the explanation and said I was pleased that this edit pattern was not anything more sinister. Then Levivich came along and pinned his 17 theses to the door, mostly taken completely out of context, including reversing the meaning of what I clearly said in that edit.
- Now to the specifics.
- Firstly a response to Reyk's post above, The word "Übermensch" comes from 19th century philosophy, well before the Nazis existed, and is a description of a person who is not subject to the rules that apply to most people. There was no native English word that described what I intended so precisely. Like many other words the Nazis used it for something rather different from its original meaning, but let's not use distorted meanings given by Nazis. I thought we had progressed beyond the "don't mention the war" days when the use of a German word was automatically considered a reference to the Nazis.
- Now, Levivich's 17 points.
- I considered that Adamant1 had a case to answer, because I have seen him nominate many articles about schools in Africa for deletion but very few from anywhere else. Rather than reply to my concerns he waited for well over a month until this discussion had been started to provide an explanation, which I thanked him for and accepted.
- Maybe I shouldn't have used those words, but this was a reply to a comment that I should piss off and drown myself. I am not not going to apologise for that.
- This comment was made in a discussion that was very civilly progressing, but Adamant1 had disrupted by saying someone who has created some of Wikipedia's best content should "learn from it and create a better article next time" and then, in the next sentence said that it would actually be better if she didn't create any more articles. No apology due here.
- In this discussion Adamant1 in the nomination statement said that a profile published by Times Higher Education, which includes when the university was founded, what faculties it has, that it has over 30,000 students and gives its rankings in various areas, all encyclopedic information, was "extremely trivial". I stand by my statement that this is a lie and anti-intellectual dumbing-down. No apology.
- The word "monolingual" is not an insult, or pejorative in any way, but simply means someone who speaks only one language. And I said "you appear to be monolingual" because Vmavanti had given me that impression in this disussion and several others, where he stated that non-English sources should not be used and that the only way for an English-speaker to understand them is via machine translation. There's not even any claim of incivility here, let alone anything for which an apology is due.
- I shouldn't have said "ignoramus" in this summary, and apologise to Vmavanti for doing so. Unfortuately we can't go back and change edit summaries.
- See my reply to point 1. There was a case to answer, but Adamant1 answered it and I thanked him for the explanation. One again, I do not believe that any further apology is due.
- I believe what I said is true, and the main thrust of my comment was that it was a shot across the bows based on WP:COI. This is scraping the barrel, and nothing for which an apology is due, let alone any sanction.
- I don't understand what is being complained of here. All I was doing was, as I have done many times before and only finally got an explanation for in this discussion, asking for one and, in your second link, asking for separate issues to be discussed in separate threads. Nothing here to apologise for.
- No incivility here whatsoever. I said that I don't belive that Adamant1 was being consciously racist. And nearly all of us are guilty of unconscious racism. I'm a white European myself, and am sure that there have been occasions where I have crossed the street to avoid a group of black teenagers in hoodies when I wouldn't have done so to avoid a similar group of white teenagers in school uniform. I'm getting a bit tired of typing this now, but there is no apology due here.
- This one really takes the biscuit. In this edit I thanked Adamant1 for his explanation and said I was pleased that it wasn't down to anything more sinister. How could anyone possibly interpret that as saying that there was something more sinister? Nothing like an apology due here
- See my reponse to point four.
- I responded to Adamant1's comment that for something to be notable it has to be unique. His response was completely disconnected. This was a perfectly valid response to that. No apology.
- This is another "nothing" accusation. I was replying to Telsho's comment "Phil, I would suggest concentrating on your own AN report if I were you". I acknowledged that Telsho probably wouldn't want to be me just as much as I wouldn't want to be him, and pointed out that I can deal with more than one issue. More barrel-scraping for which no apology is due.
- See my reply to point 13. How can anyone hold a civilised disussion when the other party won't repond to simple statements, but goes off on a totally irrelevant tangent? No apology.
- More of the same. No apology due.
- Absolutely ridiculous. I commented on an open block review discussion, and linked ny previous comment on that page because it had been deleted. Certainly no apology here.
- In summary, I apologise to User:Vmavanti for what I said in point 6, but no more apologies, or warnings towards me, are due. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- While I appreciate the apology for #6, the bottom line, for me, is that Phil still believes that if an editor nominates too many Africa articles for deletion or removes unsourced content from Africa articles, the editor "has a case to answer", and so it's OK to suggest or question whether the editor is racist, biased, or otherwise has bad-faith motives (#1, #7, #8). If an editor says a source is "trivial" and Phil disagrees, it's OK to say the editor is lying (#4, #12). If an editor argues against using non-English sources, it's OK to say the editor appears to be "monolingual" (#5). It's OK to say that editors are "a nasty piece of work" (#2), should "go on an anger-management course" (#3), don't think before they write (#13), or are incapable of multitasking (#14), if Phil believes such comments are justified. I don't think any of this complies with WP:CIVIL, particularly WP:IUC and WP:AGF. Maybe Phil is right and I am wrong, and consensus is that these comments do not violate CIVIL. We'll see. For my part, I support a warning that while Phil is entitled to his opinion that these comments are not uncivil, the consensus is that they are, and so Phil should not make any more comments like this in the future. Lev!vich 19:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC) Addendum: I would have supported a warning against Adamant as well, but I believe Adamant has already been warned for the diffs presented in this thread. I see there may be some new stuff below unfortunately, and if so perhaps as SF suggests it should be handled in a separate thread. Lev!vich 19:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't have time to make a considered reply to everything now, but, as I have said above, "monolingual" is in no way an insult, my "a nasty piece of work" comment was made in reponse to an editor saying that I should piss off and drown myself, the "anger management course" comment was made in a civilised discussion that Adamant1 had disrupted with angry edits, "think before you write" was made in a discussion where that editor had clearly not done so, and I did not say that another editor was incapable of multitasking. And where is your apology for point 11, where you completely, 180 degrees, misrepresented what I had said? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- I read #11 not as a sincere comment, but as passive-aggressive sarcasm. I figured if you sincerely believed that Adamant's decisions were "simply an alphabetical accident rather than anything more sinister", you would have apologized for, retracted, and/or struck your previous comments insinuating something more sinister (like #1 and #7); instead, you've said you have nothing to apologize for with respect to those comments. (You actually wrote, "I do not believe that any further apology is due", but I don't think you've made any apology yet, unless I missed it, nevermind a "further" apology.) Nevertheless, if you're saying #11 was a sincere statement and not passive-aggressive sarcasm, then I will WP:AGF that's true; I apologize for suggesting otherwise and I have struck those statements above. Lev!vich 22:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Then stop reading things in that way. Writing, on the Internet or elsewhere, does not come with tone of voice or body language, so things should be interpreted with their plain meanings, with no reading between the lines. I've already explained why I was entitled to ask Adamant1 for an explanation of his actions on 8 September, a response to which didn't come until 25 October after this discussion had started. I make that 47 days, during which Adamant1 made many more deletion proposals and nominations. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- In other words, you didn't AGF about Adamant's intentions until, after 47 days of your making accusations, they started this ANI thread. I apologized to you; you haven't apologized to Adamant. One of the things you accused Adamant of was failing to admit when they're wrong (#16). Lev!vich 20:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- I have explained why, while assuming good faith, I asked Adamant1 for an explanation of his edits on 8 September, and I didn't get a response for 47 days. So those 47 days are somehow my fault? I am responsible for Adamant1 not providing an explanation in this time? And I am supposed to apologise for this? No, no, no. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- I had said multiple times throughout this that my actions had nothing to do with racism. Apparently, just saying something simple like "I'm not racist" wasn't detailed enough for you though. Not that I should have had to say it in the first place anyway. 100% you should apologize when your in the wrong. Whatever the details are or how inadequate at the time you thought "I'm not racist" was when I said it like 5 times. Especially when it comes to something like this. Even if had of never said anything to explain myself ever, you were still in the wrong. Period. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Despite all the "throw stuff against the wall and see what sticks" that has gone on in this discussion, I have never said that you are racist, so saying "I'm not racist" is not a reply to my questions. I simply asked for an explanation of why you were nominating so many African schools and universities for deletion. You provided that explanation 47 days after I first asked and I accepted that explanation. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- True, nor did I say you did. That said though, you did say "I hope this isn't racism", to which one would think me saying "I'm not racist" would be a perfectly acceptable answer. I don't see why it wouldn't be. I'm sure everyone with any kind of integeraty about this would agree with me that it is. I know you said after the fact that you where really making a more generally point about how some edits can add to structural racism and blah blah blah or some such post facto nonesense, but at the time your comments wheren't anything along the lines of "I hope your edits aren't contributing to structural racism." So..Really, your just arguing semantics and being nitpicky about word usage to get around being responsible for your behavior. Likely you'd be doing the same thing no what I would have said to explain myself at the time, because the important thing here was me reporting you. Not the explanation after the fact. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Despite all the "throw stuff against the wall and see what sticks" that has gone on in this discussion, I have never said that you are racist, so saying "I'm not racist" is not a reply to my questions. I simply asked for an explanation of why you were nominating so many African schools and universities for deletion. You provided that explanation 47 days after I first asked and I accepted that explanation. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- I had said multiple times throughout this that my actions had nothing to do with racism. Apparently, just saying something simple like "I'm not racist" wasn't detailed enough for you though. Not that I should have had to say it in the first place anyway. 100% you should apologize when your in the wrong. Whatever the details are or how inadequate at the time you thought "I'm not racist" was when I said it like 5 times. Especially when it comes to something like this. Even if had of never said anything to explain myself ever, you were still in the wrong. Period. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- I have explained why, while assuming good faith, I asked Adamant1 for an explanation of his edits on 8 September, and I didn't get a response for 47 days. So those 47 days are somehow my fault? I am responsible for Adamant1 not providing an explanation in this time? And I am supposed to apologise for this? No, no, no. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- In other words, you didn't AGF about Adamant's intentions until, after 47 days of your making accusations, they started this ANI thread. I apologized to you; you haven't apologized to Adamant. One of the things you accused Adamant of was failing to admit when they're wrong (#16). Lev!vich 20:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Then stop reading things in that way. Writing, on the Internet or elsewhere, does not come with tone of voice or body language, so things should be interpreted with their plain meanings, with no reading between the lines. I've already explained why I was entitled to ask Adamant1 for an explanation of his actions on 8 September, a response to which didn't come until 25 October after this discussion had started. I make that 47 days, during which Adamant1 made many more deletion proposals and nominations. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- I read #11 not as a sincere comment, but as passive-aggressive sarcasm. I figured if you sincerely believed that Adamant's decisions were "simply an alphabetical accident rather than anything more sinister", you would have apologized for, retracted, and/or struck your previous comments insinuating something more sinister (like #1 and #7); instead, you've said you have nothing to apologize for with respect to those comments. (You actually wrote, "I do not believe that any further apology is due", but I don't think you've made any apology yet, unless I missed it, nevermind a "further" apology.) Nevertheless, if you're saying #11 was a sincere statement and not passive-aggressive sarcasm, then I will WP:AGF that's true; I apologize for suggesting otherwise and I have struck those statements above. Lev!vich 22:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- I for one think you are wrong considering the long-term disruption Adamant1 is currently causing (stuff like drive-by tagging of African articles like [20] is continuing unabated and we probably need another thread at this point), but I'm far too involved at this point to have a neutral take on this. SportingFlyer T·C 19:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Levivich: I meant to add the word respectfully into my sentence and didn't. Please accept my apologies. SportingFlyer T·C 19:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- No worries! Lev!vich 19:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Even if Adamant were engaged in long-term disruption, CIVIL doesn't say that we only have to be civil to non-disruptive editors. (And those diffs aren't all aimed at Adamant anyway.) Lev!vich 19:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- I completely agree with that statement, but I also think the contextual reading is the correct one here - I think the civility line has been breached, yes, but I also don't think there's 17 different points of incivility here. SportingFlyer T·C 19:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- I concede there are not 17. I think there are 10 unacknowledged points of incivility here from the last two months (the ones in my !vote); that is, 10 statements that Phil thinks are OK in context that I think are not OK in context, and I think 10 (or even 5 or 3) are enough to merit a warning. Lev!vich 19:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- I completely agree with that statement, but I also think the contextual reading is the correct one here - I think the civility line has been breached, yes, but I also don't think there's 17 different points of incivility here. SportingFlyer T·C 19:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Levivich: I meant to add the word respectfully into my sentence and didn't. Please accept my apologies. SportingFlyer T·C 19:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Continuing the theme of harsh accusations for AfD nominations of articles on African subjects, could someone take a look at this edit? [21] I think this is not okay but I don't want to moderate a discussion I'm involved in. Haukur (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Haukurth: That's... not good, but please make that a separate discussion as no parties here are involved in that, and this is already too long. SportingFlyer T·C 20:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Just to comment on SportingFlyer's accusations about my edits to list articles that he supposedly thinks are problematic. After a little discussion it seems his main issue was that I removed references to New Era (Namibia) in Talk:List_of_schools_in_Namibia#Inclusion_criteria. Which he thought was legitimate and reverted me for removing despite it being a government owned news outlet that has been found by to bias by multiple people investating it. When I attempt to discuss it with him on his talk page he told me not to leave messages there, didn't respond on my talk page when I pinged him there about it, and then criticized me in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools for not trying get consensus for my edits. When again he was the one that refused to discuss it. Plus, he treated me like my opinion that a clearly biased, government owned news outlet shouldn't be used as a reference wasn't valid simply because of the tiff over the speedy deletions. Which were mainly instigated and exacerbated by him. All while using the whole thing as a way to justify Phil's behavior here and to make me look bad.
- People sit here and handwave away my comments that there's aconcerted, intentional targeted measures being taken by certain users against other as me just "taking things out of context" or me not assuming good faith. The way SportingFlyer has intentionally created problems were there wasn't any, to then use them here to make me look bad and as a tool to invalidate my opinions, is exactly what I'm talking about. At the end of the day, none of the things I have done are actually problems outside of a few people making an extremely big issue out of them, Phil included, just to make me look bad. While I appreciate that Phil accepted my explanation after the fact, I agree with Levivich that the problem is me having to explain it in the first place, or face accusations of racism. Same goes for SportingFlyers divisive nonsense. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- "None of the things I have done are actually problems" is a judgment that is probably best made by other people. It's nice that you approve of your own actions, but I would like to see some secondary sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
At the end of the day, none of the things I have done are actually problems outside of a few people making an extremely big issue out of them, Phil included, just to make me look bad.
Your recently blanked talkpage strongly suggests otherwise. Grandpallama (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)- People delete messages from their talk pages all the time and the guidelines say it's acceptable. Plenty of people revert messages I leave on their talk pages. I could really care less if they do. I thought the talk page was a little long, hard to follow, and the conversations seemed done with. It's not like people can't just look at a past version of my talk page. Once again, it's another thing that perfectly fine for everyone else to do and that the guidelines are perfectly OK with, but then is somehow nefarious and wrong to do simply because I'm the one doing it. Toughpigs, I meant specifically in relation to the thing with Phil, which from what I've seen everyone including him has agreed me editing Africa related articles wasn't a problem, and the thing with SportingFlyer having to do with the government ran news sites. Last I checked my last message wasn't and this complaint isn't about anything else. Both of you are really reaching. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Blanking your talkpage itself isn't the point, as my comment made perfectly clear. The fact that it was full of uninvolved editors and admins expressing concerns about your behavior and edit warring (until you blanked it), completely contradicts your claims that nothing is wrong with your edits and that only a few people are concerned. Grandpallama (talk) 14:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- People delete messages from their talk pages all the time and the guidelines say it's acceptable. Plenty of people revert messages I leave on their talk pages. I could really care less if they do. I thought the talk page was a little long, hard to follow, and the conversations seemed done with. It's not like people can't just look at a past version of my talk page. Once again, it's another thing that perfectly fine for everyone else to do and that the guidelines are perfectly OK with, but then is somehow nefarious and wrong to do simply because I'm the one doing it. Toughpigs, I meant specifically in relation to the thing with Phil, which from what I've seen everyone including him has agreed me editing Africa related articles wasn't a problem, and the thing with SportingFlyer having to do with the government ran news sites. Last I checked my last message wasn't and this complaint isn't about anything else. Both of you are really reaching. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- People sit here and handwave away my comments that there's aconcerted, intentional targeted measures being taken by certain users against other as me just "taking things out of context" or me not assuming good faith. The way SportingFlyer has intentionally created problems were there wasn't any, to then use them here to make me look bad and as a tool to invalidate my opinions, is exactly what I'm talking about. At the end of the day, none of the things I have done are actually problems outside of a few people making an extremely big issue out of them, Phil included, just to make me look bad. While I appreciate that Phil accepted my explanation after the fact, I agree with Levivich that the problem is me having to explain it in the first place, or face accusations of racism. Same goes for SportingFlyers divisive nonsense. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone has agreed you editing African articles hasn't been a problem. Let's take a look:
- I first noticed this issue at Deletion review, which I frequent. Both AfDs were odd to me. The first one was the attempt to overturn a keep to a no consensus, which I've advocated for before (it does matter) but nobody in the AfD apart from Adamant1 wanted the article deleted. The other AfD and slightly more difficult DRV featured Adamant1 mischaracterising sources that were presented in the AfD. I noted the result was incorrect in my DRV participation, long before I got involved here.
- On 24 October I stumbled into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SOS Sheikh Secondary School and ended up noticing Adamant1 had made 10-11 AfDs regarding African schools (along with one Italian school.) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mater Spei College is still open, so this argument isn't as strong, but Adamant1 again tried to knock out the sources I had presented, even though there's significant coverage from multiple reliable Batswanan newspapers.
- I ended up voting !keep on all but one of the AfDs Adamant1 brought forward since I thought all of the subjects were notable. I didn't think this was necessarily disruptive, but African schools can be hard to research and my assumption was that not a lot of time had been spent on before searches. Not all AfDs are closed yet, but it looks as if Adamant1 responded to every single one of my keep !votes, which was very frustrating. The exchanges led to responses like this one. Keep in mind I !vote delete 60% of the time and keep less than 30% of the time.
- Adamant1 has so far responded to five out of the seven keep !voters at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parktown Boys' High School. Frustrated, I commented that WP:BLUDGEONing was occurring. SportingFlyer T·C 00:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- I discover this discussion on the 25th and look through Adamant1's contribution log and notice they have indeed been removing lots of information about African articles and been making some bad PROD/speedy nominations. I ask at WikiProject Schools to make sure I've got the process right because I don't want to have my work deleted, revert the removed schools at List of universities in Zambia and clean it up, making sure every school is sourced (there were some schools which needed to be cleaned up!) Adamant1 leaves a message on my talk page with a lecture. By this time I've been explaining myself for a couple days to Adamant1 on AfDs and I know WP:IDHT likely applies and ask they don't post to my talk page any further, but rather discuss content issues on the talk page of the article. In the next edit my request is ignored and I am accused of wikihounding.
- I clean up List of universities in Liberia without any issues.
- I notice four speedies that are incorrect, remove the tags, and add references. Adamant1 edit wars and reverts the removal of the speedy deletion tags and claims I am not removing them in good faith, even though I improved a couple articles in the same edit as the revert. After two undos, I eventually disengage and VQuakr comments that the "speedy wasn't good even before it was contested" here. GB fan unprods another which leads to a discussion on GB fan's talk page in which GB fan is very patient in explaining correct speedy deletions. I end up adding references to the articles. One was subsequently deleted after the revert, which I only noticed after the fact - it's since been restored and is currently at AfD.
- Adamant1 starts PRODding articles instead of speedying them. They prod both Herschel Girls' School and Heritage Academy (Pietermaritzburg) in a span of two minutes - Heritage Academy says "reason for proposed deletion" as the reason for its proposed deletion. I remove the PROD for Herschel and add some references. It is flagrantly clear no before search was done based on the ease of finding sources and the number of edits which preceded the PROD.
- Adamant1 tags Hilton College (South Africa) with a notability tag. It is quickly and correctly removed. They threaten to add it back before having some common sense here. Other tags were also poorly added and quickly removed. Some others remain. I haven't explored most or all of them as to not escalate things any further
- There's also some discussion over at Talk:List of schools in Namibia which really doesn't make any sense at all - I'm trying to figure out exactly which schools are being removed/aren't referenced properly so we can keep them in the list and it's starting to go around in circles.
- All of this has happened since this AN discussion was opened. I recommended that ANI (not AN, but here we are) was a better place for behavioural problems regarding Phil Bridger at DRV, since it was diluting the discussion a bit. It does not include the since-blanked discussion on Adamant1's talk page. It also doesn't include what's already been said above in one of his interactions with Phil in which he was warned by Ritchie333 at the original AfD.
- Part of the issue here is that this part of the wiki does need to be cleaned up - African pages are a little more difficult, because what might be reliable isn't, what looks unreliable might be, and sources are often a little bit harder to search for (though many of these articles aren't that bad.) Further complicating things are that not all of these edits are incorrect, but such a high number of them are deletion-orientated when they don't need to be, or cite policy incorrectly in doing so. I'm not arguing I've conducted myself perfectly throughout all of this, but many users besides myself have needed to clean up the clean-up you're doing, and it's exceptionally difficult to work within the rules when it seems as if Adamant1 makes up whatever rules they like in order to achieve the result they seem to want, which is content deletion through cleanup. I have no recommendations at this time, but I do believe sanctions are in order. SportingFlyer T·C 00:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- "nobody in the AfD apart from Adamant1 wanted the article deleted." It's slightly disingenuous to characterize an AfD that only had one vote as if there was more to it or that there was a clear group of people that were against it being deleted. Like, if I had a discussion with someone on my talk page and you characterized it as "everyone disagreeing with me", the wording is just misleading to make it sound like more people where involved in the discussion then were. From what I remember Phil didn't vote. The same goes for your assertion that I was "mischaracterizing sources", just because I interpreted them different then Phil did. Last time I checked, people can disagree on the quality of sources.
- I don't see what your point is about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SOS Sheikh Secondary School. Except that I disagreed with you about the quality of sourcing. Which, again, I'm allowed to do.
- I don't disagree with you about sourcing being hard to find for subjects related to Africa, Etc. Etc. So, I don't get what your point is. Except that I responded to something. Which again, I'm allowed to do. Could I have been a little nicer about it? Sure, but I've already said I can be overly sarcastic sometimes and that I will try to work on it. Notice though, that originally I said that a source didn't discuss the school and you responded by saying "You've nominated quite a few African schools for deletion in a short time frame." How was your response at all relevant or appropriate? Especially considering you knew the stuff with Phil was going on.
- "I discover this discussion on the 25th and look through Adamant1's contribution log and notice." You also said on your talk page that you were going to "review" my edits. there in lays the problem and why I said you where hounding me. It's not appropriate to look through other users contributions to "review" edits you think they did wrongly. Period. As far as WP:IDHT, I supposedly "refused to get the point" in an AfDs about sourcing. Which then meant that I couldn't ask why you were reverted the edits I had made to some lists? That's your big reason for not discussing things when you should have. Your justification amounts to "It's cool I reverted a bunch of his edits and wasn't willing discuss things, because he thought the sources I provided in an AfD weren't good." Seriously dude.
- No problem there.
- It was your personal opinion that the speedies were incorrect. I actually had a couple of others deleted that you didn't screw with. So, likely they weren't "incorrect" and you were using circular reasoning to work backwards from your own conclusions. "I removed the speedies. So, the speedies must have been incorrect" isn't really an arguement. I reverted you twice. That wasn't edit warring. I didn't "claim" you weren't not removing them in faith either. They were removed in bad faith because you removed them after you said you where going to review my edits and then went through my contribution history to find things to revert. Which you admit to. That's not a "good faith" thing to do. Also, I wouldn't call GB Fan being "patient" when he attacked me multiple times for not knowing how speedy deletions work, when I was making a good faithed effort to figure out what the specific problem was. Maybe that's just me though.
- "Adamant1 starts PRODding articles instead of speedying them." People can PROD articles. Even if they get removed. Like Reyk said, "People will try and tell you that getting your PRODs declined too often is felonious conduct on your part, but nobody actually believes it." There's definitely no guideline that someone can't PROD articles. I didn't "start" PRODing articles after you came along either. I've been doing it for a while now. So, it's a non-issue that your imagining is one. I guess you just didn't browse through my contribution history enough to know that I had done PRODs before.
- I don't feel the need to address this one. Except to say people add and remove things all the time. Again, there's nothing controversial about that. The person who removed it added a few sources, and I'm good with that. So, I reverted myself. I just hadn't noticed that the user had added the sources. It happens. That's not having "common sense." I don't generally side with people who freak out over a notability template being added to an article. Good job being hyperbolic though.
- Likely the discussion started to go around in circles because you kept asking me the same question over and over. When I had already answered you pretty clearly like 5 times already. Things tend to go in circles when you keep asking the same question to someone. I don't get what's clear about "I'm removing items based on the guidelines." Frankly, it's rather odd that your using your inability to understand the guidelines as way to illistrate that I'm acting inappropriately.
- I already addressed "the since-blanked discussion" thing above and it's a non-issue anyway. It's slightly bizarre and ham fisted that people are treating something that is extremely routine, OK by the guidelines, and done all the time as an issue. Mostly, it's just extremly weak fooder for the narrative that I'm a bad editor or whatever.
- I agree with this. Clearly there's work that needs to be done on articles related to Africa and there's inherently problems with sourcing Etc. Etc. Reverting people who are trying to improve things isn't the way to deal with the problems though. I don't agree with your last part though. I don't see anything in what you've outlined be sanctionanble. Your main point seems to be that I disagreed with you about some sources you added to AfDs and that I blanked my talk page. Big whoop. Neither of those are sanctionable and the whole thing is really vague and rather try hard. Feel free to be more specific and cite an actual guideline that I violated though.
- Personally, I think you HOUNDING me, which you fully admit to doing, should be sanctioned. Since the guidelines are pretty clear it's not OK to look through someone's contributions so you can "review" their edits. With my behaivor, Ultimately it seems like your argument and that of everyone else who thinks I did anything wrong, comes down to IDONTLIKEIT. Which isn't sanctionable. There's also the important point that you not liking it led to you slandering me here repeatedly. Doing so wasn't OK either. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Proposal for Adamant1
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
You know something, Adamant1, if every time you argued or disagreed with someone on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parktown Boys' High School, you improved the article instead (whether adding sources, copyediting or reorganising) you'd be praised for cleaning up African schools and regarded as a great editor. Instead, you've now got a reputation for being argumentative and disruptive. So I think we're at the point where we need to think about sanctions.
- I would like to propose that Adamant1 is topic banned from all deletion discussions about schools, broadly construed. This allows him to continue improving articles (which includes removing unsourced and questionable content, which I don't think anyone has an issue with as long as there's consensus that it is questionable) while removing his disruptive influence. Your thoughts, please Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- And to think that I thanked you for improving an article I PRODed. Here I thought we were making progress. harumph. How disappointing. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose- this strikes me as punitive and retaliatory. I wouldn't want a precedent set that coming to AN or ANI with a legitimate complaint, as this was, will get you punished. If there's an ongoing issue with Adamant1's edits, deal with it later if it continues to be a concern. What this looks like is administrators closing ranks and doling out retribution because someone's gotten too uppity. Reyk YO! 11:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't see any legitimate rationale provided for such a draconian reaction to what I see as a legitimate complaint against another editor. This proposal appears vindictive and petty. I am also concerned that, as an admin, you think this is OK. Especially as you appear to have had a number of run-ins together. Not the standard I expect from a good admin. HighKing++ 13:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think it's perfectly okay for admins to have an opinion, and for editors to disagree with it. Chill. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't disagree that its perfectly OK for admins to have an opinion. But the basis of adminship is that those editors are held to higher standards and trusted to make good decisions and use good judgement. This isn't a good example for you. It looks petty. It looks vindictive. More importantly it demonstrates poor judgement, personal bias and is below the expected standard for an admin. Also, tagging on the passive-aggressive "chill" with a similar edit summary doesn't look good either. You should withdraw this proposal and take a step back. HighKing++ 13:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think it's perfectly okay for admins to have an opinion, and for editors to disagree with it. Chill. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I remain persuaded that Adamant1 is the problem editor here (or, at the very least, the more problematic editor, by a significant degree) and that most of the diffs provided by editors concerned about Phil Bridger were either taken ridiculously out of context or fail to demonstrate the problem they purport to. However, it's not clear to me that a TBAN on school AFDs is what is needed here, because Adamant1's behavior isn't particularly confined to school AFD discussions. Grandpallama (talk) 15:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Grandpallama: how come my supposedly problematic behavior isn't just being taken out of context? --Adamant1 (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Because you are reproducing and confirming it here and in other discussions. Grandpallama (talk) 17:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Uhhh, kind of like Phil reproduced his claims of racism in multiple discussions? --Adamant1 (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Because you are reproducing and confirming it here and in other discussions. Grandpallama (talk) 17:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed. There's a table of their recent activity at another discussion. This shows that, before schools, they were trying to delete colleges and universities and, before that, it was hospitals. And then there are topics like Matriculation in South Africa which would generate tiresome arguments about "broadly construed". I reckon it would be better to start with all proposed and speedy deletion activity because it doesn't appear that they are doing them right and such activity is less visible than AfD. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Andrew Davidson: in last two weeks before this recent tiff I had 12 articles speedy deleted for promotion, of which five where done in the couple of days leading up to the problems, and 99% of the PRODs that were removed in the last few days where done so by the same two users that I have problems with. Necrothesp, who has an article on his talk page all about how school articles should never be deleted under any circumstance, removed ten of them. I also had two articles speedy deleted during this whole thing. So, clearly your analysis that this is on me for not doing them right is wrong. My PROD record was perfectly fine before I was target by a few users with personal biases. Also, my success rate at participating in AfDs is generally high. Higher then yours in-fact. So, your clearly wrong about this. I'd be perfectly fine with your judgement if my PRODs were removed by non-involved neutral. Saying I don't know what I'm doing though just because someone who wants to keep every school article removed my PRODs is simply circular and faulty reasoning. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oof. Another discussion, ongoing, where again there are insults and casual casting of aspersions by Adamant1. Grandpallama (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- I find it rather bizarre that you wrote a message saying I was making insults and casting aspersions in a discussion I hadn't even participated in yet when you wrote it. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Grandpallama: how come my supposedly problematic behavior isn't just being taken out of context? --Adamant1 (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think that what's needed here is a throttle, rather than a topic ban. This editor is zealous and keen to clean up the encyclopaedia, which I admire, but he's removing so much content, so quickly, that it's threatening to overwhelm our capacity to scrutinise and, where appropriate, challenge his decisions. This whiffs a little of a blitz and the outcome could be a fait accompli. Can we cap the bytes of content removed, and the number of AfDs started, in any one week? And can we please do it without all the ABF and name-calling?—S Marshall T/C 15:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Although I usually review my edits pretty good before making them, if an admin that wasn't Andrew Davidson or Ritchie333 where to leave a polite message on my talk page asking me to slow things down a little I'd probably do so, because I think it's probably a fair critique in certain ways and I have better things to do with my time then waste it on this endless back and forth about everything. That said, if I was limited in how much I could edit, I feel like it would just encourage the kind of hazing and ganging up on that I have been a victim of. Plus, some users just make a lot of edits and it doesn't seem like there is a clear (or fair) line as to what is to much. If the line is largely dependent on say SportsFlyer's ability to find trivial sources to railroad my AfDs (which seems to be the critique when it comes to how much I'm editing), then I don't think limiting my edits would be fair or a good solution. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
if an admin that wasn't Andrew Davidson or Ritchie333 where to leave a polite message on my talk page
Actual responses to other admins who politely post on your talkpage: [22][23][24] Grandpallama (talk) 17:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)- Of course I meant directly in relation to this since it's a critique that I slightly agree with. Whereas, in at least one of your examples I didn't agree with an admin adding on to an already existing pile on by adding non-constructive comments to the discussion. Which, last time I checked, is my prerogative. It is my talk page. Thanks though. Wait a minute though, aren't you against people taking things out of context?--Adamant1 (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Although I usually review my edits pretty good before making them, if an admin that wasn't Andrew Davidson or Ritchie333 where to leave a polite message on my talk page asking me to slow things down a little I'd probably do so, because I think it's probably a fair critique in certain ways and I have better things to do with my time then waste it on this endless back and forth about everything. That said, if I was limited in how much I could edit, I feel like it would just encourage the kind of hazing and ganging up on that I have been a victim of. Plus, some users just make a lot of edits and it doesn't seem like there is a clear (or fair) line as to what is to much. If the line is largely dependent on say SportsFlyer's ability to find trivial sources to railroad my AfDs (which seems to be the critique when it comes to how much I'm editing), then I don't think limiting my edits would be fair or a good solution. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose any sanction(s) whatsoever since both parties both have their own share of responsibility in how events have degenerated to this. I believe editors, both old & new, experienced & inexperienced should be able to very much freely report incidents they aren’t pleased with without the subconscious fear of a boomerang. Celestina007 (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
I believe editors, both old & new, experienced & inexperienced should be able to very much freely report incidents they aren’t pleased with without the subconscious fear of a boomerang.
If one raises a report at a noticeboard, their behavior is also open to scrutiny. Grandpallama (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Open to scrutiny, sure. I have no problem with that. I've said I could be little less sarcastic and I think the critiques of it are perfectly reasonable. There's a clear difference between scrutiny and retaliation though. This seems more retaliatory then anything else. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - victim blaming makes us all look like a bunch of assholes. Lev!vich 15:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- That's a clearer personal attack than any of the diffs you provided in this thread about Phil Bridger. Grandpallama (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Haha, yeah right. Lev!vich 16:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- "People who disagree with me are victim-blaming and look like assholes" is pretty much the definition of a personal attack, so yes. Grandpallama (talk) 17:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sure except that's not what I wrote. Lev!vich 17:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- "People who disagree with me are victim-blaming and look like assholes" is pretty much the definition of a personal attack, so yes. Grandpallama (talk) 17:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Haha, yeah right. Lev!vich 16:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- An intentional miss quote made by someone that claims Phil did nothing wrong because everyone was just taking him out of context. Classic. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- That's a clearer personal attack than any of the diffs you provided in this thread about Phil Bridger. Grandpallama (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose does not address Adamant1's battleground behavior, which I think is the root of their side of the issue. VQuakr (talk) 16:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support but only temporarily, maybe for a week or two. A pause for thought or 'throttle', perhaps, as suggested above. Clearly Adamant1 has a credibility problem in that he came bellyaching to AN, when he himself has been doing the same - and often worse - than what he's complaining about. He also could have nipped all this in the bud by offering the alphabetical story at the outset. I also think Levivich's partisan contributions have been strikingly unhelpful. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I am partisan: a proud, card-carrying member of the Civility at AFD Party, which is why I recently supported sanctions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1050#Uncivil and bad faith behavior of User:Bring back Daz Sampson. Lev!vich 19:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, people saw straight through your tendentious WP:CHERRYPICKING there, just like they have here. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 23:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Feel free to point out where I accused another user of being a racist for a month straight. I'm not really sure what I could have done that's worse then that either. definitely blanking my user page and disagreeing with other users about the reliability of sources isn't and that seems to be the crux of what I'm being accused of doing. At least from what I've seen so far. yeah, and I guess I used the word "crap" six months ago or something. Which apparently Ritchie333 thinks is a more egregious sin then race batting. Go figure. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Listen we all know it's "live by the sword, die by the sword" on here. If I get involved in a dispute or heated discussion on content I know I can't run to the admin noticeboard telling tales, pointing fingers, holding half an onion to my eye and generally carrying on like an offended pantomime dame. Unless I'm squeaky clean myself - if not then it's sure to blow up in my face. I like you as an editor (only based on what I've read here) because you're honest and wear your heart on your sleeve. The fact that you're obviously genuinely unhappy about what you perceived as an allegation of racism goes in your favour too. I just wonder why you're incredulous that Phil looked through your edits and asked you about them. I mean, we all make editorial decisions on here all the time, and yes, we're all accountable for them. So far from being verboten, these sorts of difficult questions are absolutely necessary. Essential, even. Otherwise how would we stop a real racist from running amok? How will we confront and roll back the notorious systemic bias plaguing the whole project? My honest assessment from a neutral position is that you could and should have put the matter to bed with your alphabetical explanation right at the beginning. Phil (and everyone else) has accepted that immediately in good faith. You chose not to do that, perhaps because you thought you could use faux indignation as WP:BATTLEGROUND ammunition; then come here and have Phil hit over the head for it! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 23:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- I appreciate that. My main problem with Phil was that he didn't just ask me about it until I filed the complaint. He's shown zero willing to even acknowledge that he could have handled things better to. I would have been totally fine with him if he had of left a message on my talk page when this all started asking why I was editing so many articles related to Africa. That's not what he did though. If he had of, I would have just answered him and and there wouldn't even be this whole thing right now. Me and other nominators are almost constantly attacked in AfDs. Including routinely being accused of racism. I've been accused of it a number of times myself and it was a month long thing with Phil that only ended because I reported him. The fact is that delete voters and nominators have to walk on shells. While keep voters can act as backhanded and rude as they want. Phil is just one cog in that unbalanced machine. But I had gotten to the point where I wasn't going to just take it anymore. Like you said, reporting people doesn't really help, but it at least sends a message that I'm not going to just accept being demeaned or whatever. It's sometimes good to air things out in the public to. Even if nothing materially in the moment comes out of it. What's the saying, "democracy dies in darkness" or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Listen we all know it's "live by the sword, die by the sword" on here. If I get involved in a dispute or heated discussion on content I know I can't run to the admin noticeboard telling tales, pointing fingers, holding half an onion to my eye and generally carrying on like an offended pantomime dame. Unless I'm squeaky clean myself - if not then it's sure to blow up in my face. I like you as an editor (only based on what I've read here) because you're honest and wear your heart on your sleeve. The fact that you're obviously genuinely unhappy about what you perceived as an allegation of racism goes in your favour too. I just wonder why you're incredulous that Phil looked through your edits and asked you about them. I mean, we all make editorial decisions on here all the time, and yes, we're all accountable for them. So far from being verboten, these sorts of difficult questions are absolutely necessary. Essential, even. Otherwise how would we stop a real racist from running amok? How will we confront and roll back the notorious systemic bias plaguing the whole project? My honest assessment from a neutral position is that you could and should have put the matter to bed with your alphabetical explanation right at the beginning. Phil (and everyone else) has accepted that immediately in good faith. You chose not to do that, perhaps because you thought you could use faux indignation as WP:BATTLEGROUND ammunition; then come here and have Phil hit over the head for it! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 23:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per S Marshall and VQuakr, who I think have identified the actual issue here. SportingFlyer T·C 20:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Question: the proposed deletion discussion topic ban seems unlikely to gain consensus. Is there a general feeling that something should be done here? As near as I can tell, Adamant1 seems chomping at the bit to fight with effectively everyone, and frankly I haven't seen any evidence of the introspection from them that would be necessary to more productively channel their energy in a civil, collaborative way. VQuakr (talk) 22:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hardly. I'd rather this be over with. I was done with when the thing with Phil went no where. If Ritchie333 hadn't of started this new thread everyone, including me, would have been on to other things. I don't think me commenting in a AN about me in the mean time is fighting with anyone though. Last time I checked people can do that and I've been relatively civil. Apparently according to Grandpallama I was insulting people in this and casting asperations, but he made the comment before I even participated in it. So.... --Adamant1 (talk) 06:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Your assertion about your participation in that conversation, starting yesterday, is demonstrably false in light of my comment about it being made today. This is pretty indicative of your shaky relationship with the truth. Grandpallama (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Grandpallama: I don't get what your saying about "that" conversation. In this one, that was started by Ritchie333, you where like the fifth person that posted and said "Oof. Another discussion, ongoing, where again there are insults and casual casting of aspersions by Adamant1" and I hadn't posted on this new discussion yet at that point. I assume by "another discussion" you mean this one, the one that Ritchie333 opened and that we posting on. Otherwise, I don't know what else you'd be referring to. But sure, I have a shaky relationship with truth because of what you said. While the your one that's intentionally miss-quoting people and saying I'm insulting people in discussions I'm not even involved in. Right...I'm actually probably the most honest person here, because the facts are on my side, I have nothing to hide, and unlike most everyone else I'm willing to take responsibility for my mistakes. So, there's zero reason I would need to lie about anything. You on the other hand...Apparently, not so much..--Adamant1 (talk) 06:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- I was obviously referring to the linked discussion. Grandpallama (talk) 14:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Grandpallama: I don't get what your saying about "that" conversation. In this one, that was started by Ritchie333, you where like the fifth person that posted and said "Oof. Another discussion, ongoing, where again there are insults and casual casting of aspersions by Adamant1" and I hadn't posted on this new discussion yet at that point. I assume by "another discussion" you mean this one, the one that Ritchie333 opened and that we posting on. Otherwise, I don't know what else you'd be referring to. But sure, I have a shaky relationship with truth because of what you said. While the your one that's intentionally miss-quoting people and saying I'm insulting people in discussions I'm not even involved in. Right...I'm actually probably the most honest person here, because the facts are on my side, I have nothing to hide, and unlike most everyone else I'm willing to take responsibility for my mistakes. So, there's zero reason I would need to lie about anything. You on the other hand...Apparently, not so much..--Adamant1 (talk) 06:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- If Ritchie333 hadn't of started this new thread everyone, including me, would have been on to other things. I do not believe that is true, as evidenced by your bludgeony and WP:ICANTHEARYOU behavior (examples here and here) while this discussion at AN was ongoing. VQuakr (talk) 00:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Your assertion about your participation in that conversation, starting yesterday, is demonstrably false in light of my comment about it being made today. This is pretty indicative of your shaky relationship with the truth. Grandpallama (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hardly. I'd rather this be over with. I was done with when the thing with Phil went no where. If Ritchie333 hadn't of started this new thread everyone, including me, would have been on to other things. I don't think me commenting in a AN about me in the mean time is fighting with anyone though. Last time I checked people can do that and I've been relatively civil. Apparently according to Grandpallama I was insulting people in this and casting asperations, but he made the comment before I even participated in it. So.... --Adamant1 (talk) 06:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support at least a temporary TBAN - It absolutely is not punitive. Based on Adamant1's persistent battleground mentality, broad one-note generalisations about "keep voters" (and bizarre claim that notable articles are never nominated), and his attitude both here and discussions such as this (where he started off explicitly accusing users of having an agenda for removing his prods and then walked it back when these users were named and tagged). Adamant1 is unlikely to edit constructively in deletion-related areas for the time being. If there's anything WP:AFD could use less of, it's combative "us vs. them" behaviour such as this. I am also not opposed to some sort of sanction for Phil Bridger if he continues to cast aspersions about racism. Darkknight2149 22:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- I meant clearly notable articles like Star Wars. Comments like that where I'm taken completely out of context are exactly why I'm defensive sometimes. Everyone else gets to say whatever the hell they want and miscutrue what I say, but then I have to walk on egg shells or supposedly I have a battle ground mentality. But then no one else ever does. Just like in discussions such as this where I was pretty clear it wasn't pointed at anyone and Andrew was the one that made it personal. For all anyone knows I could have been talking about someone that removed my PRODs a year ago or some crap. Not that it had anything to do with him but Necrothesp, who removed 10 of my PRODs related to schools, has an article on his talk page all about how articles of schools should be kept no matter what. So, it's not that ridiculous to say someone people, like him, have agendas. He clearly does. It's not a bad thing that he does, we all have priorities, but it did mean some of my PRODs got removed that I don't think should have been. I don't see what's wrong with commenting on the fact that he removed my PRODs because he thinks schools articles should be kept. That's all I was doing. No one seems to have the decency to show me good faith or to consider the context of my actions though. Yet they endlessly badger me about how I'm suppose to show people good faith and consider the contexts of everyone else's behavior.
- I fully agree that AfDs could use less "us versus them" behavior, but it never gets called out or dealt with when it's coming from a keep voter for some reason. Andrew has constant problems with other users, nothing is ever said or done about it. Phil insinuated I'm a racist for a month and he doesn't even get a warning. ToughPigs makes completely unnecessary snide remarks in his votes all the time. There's not a damn peep out of anyone over them. At least your fine with Phil being sanctioned if he continues to cast the aspersions. He doesn't even think it was wrong though and your cool with the sanctions in the future if it happens again. Whereas, I've been more then willing to say I could be a little less sarcastic and that I will work on things. Yet, despite that, for whatever reason your still cool with me being sanctioned. How come you don't want the same allowances granted to me that your giving Phil? --Adamant1 (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- You opened your post with "Me and a few other editors have repeatedly had PRODs that we placed on articles removed by serial PROD removers that have a clear agenda to either keep almost everything or make it an extremely difficult uphill battle for anything to be deleted, because supposedly the PRODs where "controversial."" before asking if users can be sanctioned for prodding. Then when another user pinged everyone who had recently removed your prods, you claimed that you were speaking broadly and wasn't referring to any specific user or situation. That's contradictory. Darkknight2149 00:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- How is that contradictory? I didn't name anyone specifically in the original post. I don't have any clue who the people that were serially PRODing other users PRODs are either. I never claimed I did. A few people have just said it's happened and I thought it would be helpful to clarify. So I asked a question about it. The reason I phrased it the way I did though is because I didn't think the question would have worked if I had of just been like "hey, can people who remove a lot of PRODs be sanctioned for it?" or whatever, because everyone want's things to be specific. I was just attacked in my AN above this because I use the word "seems" in my AfDs sometimes. Since supposedly that's to vague and non-comital of a word or some crap. So, I was trying to be specific enough without pointing the finger at anyone because it was a general question. No matter how you phrase things people are going to make an issue out of it. So, I guess I should have just implicated a bunch of people in something they didn't have anything to do with just so how I did phrase it wouldn't be used against me later. Just between you and me, there were people that I was thinking of, but it's not like I remember who the hell they were specifically. I didn't even remember that Atlantic306 had removed a couple of my PRODs until Andrew posted the table and I thought Necrothesp was another user. So, I couldn't have even pointed the finger at anyone if I wanted to. Not that I did, because again it didn't have anything to do with any single person. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- You specifically claimed (as demonstrated above) that serial bad faith deprodders were removing your prods specifically, in addition to the prods of "a few other editors". Then someone posted your prod log and tagged all of the users that have removed your prods. Since then, you have been insisting "Oh, I wasn't talking about any situation or any person in particular" after directly stating that serial deprodders were targeting your prods and asking if serial deprodders can be sanctioned. That is the contradiction and we can all see what you originally typed. Denying it makes you look dishonest and is more likely to turn it into a bigger issue than it would be otherwise. Darkknight2149 02:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- How far back does the table go? I've been editing Wikipedia for like 5 years now. You think I've only done PRODs in the last month or that they are the only users who have ever removed one of my PRODs? Seriously dude. The nonsense ad hominem crap I deal with. From people who spout off about AGF to. Christ. This crap isn't black and white like your making it out to be either dude. Sorry I didn't put a ton of thought into how every damn word would sound or spends months getting every single letter of it perfectly right before I posted the question. My bad. Lessoned learned dude. Next time I'll be sure to have you look it over first. So you don't try to make me out to be a lier latter because it's not phrased exactly how you think it should be. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) In other words, you actually were referring to a specific person(s) or situation(s), but just not a recent one? I'm not going to reply to you anymore. I don't see what that will accomplish. Instead, it would be more constructive for me to post the full exchange for everyone's context. Darkknight2149 02:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- No. As I've said about 100 times now it was a number of things. I really don't see why that's so how hard for you to get. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) In other words, you actually were referring to a specific person(s) or situation(s), but just not a recent one? I'm not going to reply to you anymore. I don't see what that will accomplish. Instead, it would be more constructive for me to post the full exchange for everyone's context. Darkknight2149 02:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- How far back does the table go? I've been editing Wikipedia for like 5 years now. You think I've only done PRODs in the last month or that they are the only users who have ever removed one of my PRODs? Seriously dude. The nonsense ad hominem crap I deal with. From people who spout off about AGF to. Christ. This crap isn't black and white like your making it out to be either dude. Sorry I didn't put a ton of thought into how every damn word would sound or spends months getting every single letter of it perfectly right before I posted the question. My bad. Lessoned learned dude. Next time I'll be sure to have you look it over first. So you don't try to make me out to be a lier latter because it's not phrased exactly how you think it should be. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- You specifically claimed (as demonstrated above) that serial bad faith deprodders were removing your prods specifically, in addition to the prods of "a few other editors". Then someone posted your prod log and tagged all of the users that have removed your prods. Since then, you have been insisting "Oh, I wasn't talking about any situation or any person in particular" after directly stating that serial deprodders were targeting your prods and asking if serial deprodders can be sanctioned. That is the contradiction and we can all see what you originally typed. Denying it makes you look dishonest and is more likely to turn it into a bigger issue than it would be otherwise. Darkknight2149 02:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- How is that contradictory? I didn't name anyone specifically in the original post. I don't have any clue who the people that were serially PRODing other users PRODs are either. I never claimed I did. A few people have just said it's happened and I thought it would be helpful to clarify. So I asked a question about it. The reason I phrased it the way I did though is because I didn't think the question would have worked if I had of just been like "hey, can people who remove a lot of PRODs be sanctioned for it?" or whatever, because everyone want's things to be specific. I was just attacked in my AN above this because I use the word "seems" in my AfDs sometimes. Since supposedly that's to vague and non-comital of a word or some crap. So, I was trying to be specific enough without pointing the finger at anyone because it was a general question. No matter how you phrase things people are going to make an issue out of it. So, I guess I should have just implicated a bunch of people in something they didn't have anything to do with just so how I did phrase it wouldn't be used against me later. Just between you and me, there were people that I was thinking of, but it's not like I remember who the hell they were specifically. I didn't even remember that Atlantic306 had removed a couple of my PRODs until Andrew posted the table and I thought Necrothesp was another user. So, I couldn't have even pointed the finger at anyone if I wanted to. Not that I did, because again it didn't have anything to do with any single person. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- I fully agree that AfDs could use less "us versus them" behavior, but it never gets called out or dealt with when it's coming from a keep voter for some reason. Andrew has constant problems with other users, nothing is ever said or done about it. Phil insinuated I'm a racist for a month and he doesn't even get a warning. ToughPigs makes completely unnecessary snide remarks in his votes all the time. There's not a damn peep out of anyone over them. At least your fine with Phil being sanctioned if he continues to cast the aspersions. He doesn't even think it was wrong though and your cool with the sanctions in the future if it happens again. Whereas, I've been more then willing to say I could be a little less sarcastic and that I will work on things. Yet, despite that, for whatever reason your still cool with me being sanctioned. How come you don't want the same allowances granted to me that your giving Phil? --Adamant1 (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
The exchange at the prod discussion.
|
|---|
|
Me and a few other editors have repeatedly had PRODs that we placed on articles removed by serial PROD removers that have a clear agenda to either keep almost everything or make it an extremely difficult uphill battle for anything to be deleted, because supposedly the PRODs where "controversial." When 99% of the time they were the only ones that had a problem with it and when articles went to AfD, most of the time they were deleted without incident. So my question is, what constitutes a "controversy", is something "controversial" if one person who has an agenda takes an issue with the PRODs, Is there a line where if someone is systematically removing PRODs due to their agenda and to make things harder for other people that it becomes abuse of the system? --Adamant1 (talk) 05:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 The article Name of page has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why. While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons. You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing
|
Oppose reluctantly, because I agree with VQuakr and believe the behavior here of Adamant1 would be more appropriately addressed with a short-term block.Changing to Support based upon the overwhelming battleground evidence increasingly on display in this discussion, and especially on the basis of this nastiness toward Bishonen. If this is what Adamant1's AfD participation is like, then the project would be better off limiting his access to it. However, I continue to think a block for persistent battleground behavior would be more appropriate. Would also recommend that Adamant1 is long overdue to read, absorb, and internalize the ideas expressed at WP:BLUDGEON. Grandpallama (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)- Comment — @Grandpallama, it isn’t a bludgeon when editors attempt to defend themselves, especially if they feel they are being quoted out of context or their words misconstrued, @Adamant1 appears to be simply defending their-self from what they may believe to be falsehood. I see the conversation is now tilting towards Prodding??? Prodding which is arguably the most useless method of deletion & that someone may get in trouble for semi-indiscriminate Prodding is just nonsense. The consensus is leaning on no sanction/action be taken on Adamant1, which imo is the correct course of action. Honestly this back & forth is doing the project no good. Both parties involved should take responsibility for their actions, acknowledge their shortcomings, promise to do better next time & just move on. Why prolong the drama? It seems as though the older & more experienced we get, we tend to develop an affinity for unnecessary prolonged drama. Celestina007 (talk) 08:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- The bludgeoning is a separate issue than anything to do with Phil Bridger. See this AfD as an exceptionally recent example - it is unfortunately not a unique example. SportingFlyer T·C 09:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Seriously? This whole thread is a textbook example of bludgeoning. Adamant1 has responded to almost every single post from almost every single editor. One is expected to defend himself, but creating massive walls of text repeatedly is precisely the problem with bludgeoning. And, for the record, Phil Bridger is the only one here who has been quoted out of context, and whose behavior was brought to the board, and yet he has managed to keep his posting to a reasonable amount. Grandpallama (talk) 14:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
The consensus is leaning on no sanction/action be taken on Adamant1
is an incorrect statement, by the way. Consensus is leaning toward rejecting this proposed topic ban, but a number of the opposes have said it's because a different sanction is more appropriate. Grandpallama (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Grandpallama: If I counted the numbers correctly you've commented twelve times in this and I've commented 14. Remember to that this is about me, I have right to explain things, and your not obligated participate. Also to compare, most of those messages where directly responding to people who asked me questions or to elaborate on something that someone had miss-quoted me or blatantly got something wrong. So they at least directly related to the discussion. Whereas, from what I can tell you've gotten in like 2 (?) off topic tiffs with Lev!vich, you made the whole comment about me insulting people in the beginning which served no purpose except to be hyperbolic and add fuel to the fire, and I'm sure there's other examples.
- For whatever reason (the reason is actually pretty obvious, but I'll leave it up to other to deduce on their own), there is often a tendency by certain (grifter? maybe that's a harsh word, but I can't think of another one) users to hijack certain discussions, say pretty unconstructive things to stir the pot, and then to criticize people who were originally in the discussion and that's it directly related to. For things like them being arguementive or calling the amount of times they have commented bludgeoning. When in reality the grifter (again, for a lack of a better word) has comment more or equal amounts to them (12 to 14 in this case) and were really the ones being arguementive (your side tiffs with Lev!vich, clearly hyperbolic statements, Etc. Etc.). Which, in case it isn't obvious, is exactly what your doing. It's a rather insidious and exploitative way to participate IMO. Especially since your rarely if ever involved in disagreements I get in not directly related to this and I hardly interact with you in AfDs or the like. For whatever amount I think SportFlyers is just on his campaign against me for nothing else except to cause me problems, at least there's actually articles, AfDs, and other things that his behavior are directly related to. For you it seems more like it was just a good three days to miss quote Lev!vich and stir the pot in things you have no direct vested interest in or something. So you went with it.
- (BTW, Feel free to criticize this as a wall of text to. I don't really care. It take the amount text it takes make a point, there's no hard limit on the number of characters a message can contain, and the whole criticism is rather low hanging fruit anyway. Your free to just not read messages you think are to long or to not participate in discussions where you think someone is "bludging." Despite being accused of having a battle ground mentality or whatever, there's plenty of discussions where I do just that. I'm sure you can to.) --Adamant1 (talk) 16:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
For whatever reason (the reason is actually pretty obvious, but I'll leave it up to other to deduce on their own), there is often a tendency by certain (grifter? maybe that's a harsh word, but I can't think of another one) users to hijack certain discussions
What reason? Quit casting aspersions, state whatever it is that you're implying, and back it up with a diff. Grandpallama (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)- I don't have to back up pretty obvious things like that with a diff. It was a general thing anyway. Not that I don't have examples though, but hey why not practice what you preach for once and AGF that I'm basing it on something instead of needlessly continuing this? I don't need to provide diffs for every thing I say anymore more then anyone else, including you, does. For instance, you didn't provide one when you said I was insulting people in a discussion I wasn't involved in. That said, I'd like to see a diff where Lev!vich said "People who disagree with me are victim-blaming and look like assholes." Don't feel obligated, but you did say I'm the one that's lose with the truth (without providing a diff to back it up to). Last I checked intentionally miss quoting someone doesn't seem very truthful or honest. Nor does going off about how others should provide diffs for things when you don't. I'm not jumping through arbitrary hoops other people don't. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
For instance, you didn't provide one when you said I was insulting people in a discussion I wasn't involved in.
False. I commented on the discussion in the link which Andrew Davidson provided, which is one in which you had been heavily commenting.I'd like to see a diff where Lev!vich said "People who disagree with me are victim-blaming and look like assholes."
Right here. Opposing a proposal on the basis that supporting it is victim-blaming and makes the victim-blamers look like assholes is, ipso facto, calling the proposer and the supporters of said proposal assholes. According to you, though, this is anoff-topic tiff
, and this discussion is about your, and Phil Bridger's, behavior.I don't have to back up pretty obvious things like that with a diff. It was a general thing anyway.
No, actually you do. You responded to me, referencing observations I've made about your editing behavior in this thread, and insinuated I'm a 'grifter' with some sort of agenda of my own (ironic, given that you are at this noticeboard to object to insinuations about your motives):For whatever reason (the reason is actually pretty obvious, but I'll leave it up to other to deduce on their own), there is often a tendency by certain (grifter? maybe that's a harsh word, but I can't think of another one) users to hijack certain discussions
. What is my supposed 'reason' here? If you're going to cast aspersions, back up your words with evidence. Grandpallama (talk) 08:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- So what if you were commenting on the link he provided? It didn't seem like it at the time and it still doesn't, because that wasn't a new conversation and you said the one you were referring to was. Even if you were referring to the link though, your comment was still completely unnecessary, didn't add anything constructive, and was totally just meant to add fuel to the fire. Just like almost every other comment you've made. Which was what my point was and isn't dependent on what conversation you were referring to. So get over it.
- (BTW, Feel free to criticize this as a wall of text to. I don't really care. It take the amount text it takes make a point, there's no hard limit on the number of characters a message can contain, and the whole criticism is rather low hanging fruit anyway. Your free to just not read messages you think are to long or to not participate in discussions where you think someone is "bludging." Despite being accused of having a battle ground mentality or whatever, there's plenty of discussions where I do just that. I'm sure you can to.) --Adamant1 (talk) 16:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- As far as Lev!vich goes, you directly quoted him as saying "People who disagree with me are victim-blaming and look like assholes." Which was just wrong because he never used the word "me." You can't just add words to a quote that weren't a part of what the person originally said and not expect push back for doing it. That one is totally on you. Either quote exactly what someone says or don't quote them. Period. Yes, the back and forth about it was an off topic tiff. Like you say, the discussion is about mine and Phil's behavior. Which last time I checked doesn't include you beefing with Lev!vich on the side.
- "No, actually you do." No, I actually don't. I'm not obligated to provide anything or even participate in this discussion for that matter. So don't boss me around. I'm supposedly the one with a battle ground mentality, but here's Grandpallama bossing other people around and continuing an argument that I suggested he end. Go figure.
- I'm not here to "object to insinuations about my motives." I'm here to counter the clear cases of people misconstruing my actions and to answer questions people ask me. That's it, and I have every right to do so. I didn't even know about this discussion, and wasn't participating in it, until someone pinged me. Honestly, I could really care less about it. If I do get blocked I'll probably laugh at the absurdity the whole thing and go spend my time in better ways. Not once have I said anything else either. 100% all I care about is that this is done fairly and that people don't lie about me. That's it. If I deserve to get blocked for my actions though, cool. It will be squarely on me. Like I've said several times, I have no problem taking responsibility for my actions and I have. I'm not taking responsibility for things I didn't do though and I'm not going to be blocked for them either. At least not without correcting things first if it does come to me being blocked. I'm sorry that you have such a problem with that. I'd like to think we aren't authoritarian's here and that people can speak at their own trials. Maybe I'm wrong though. Since you treat me like sticking up for myself is some egregious sin. So sue me for doing it. I'm done with this discussion. Hopefully this time you are to. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: After originally saying that users with a bad faith agenda keep removing his prods ([25]), then swearing multiple times that he didn't say that after they were tagged (see the exchange above and at [26], [27], [28]), then claiming that he was only talking about prod removers from a long time ago ([29]), Adamant1 has now changed his story for the third time and is directly accusing Necrothesp (one of the users tagged) of having an agenda. The constant flip-flopping is why I stand by my Support vote for now. Darkknight2149 19:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Darkknight2149: Where did I say that Necrothesp had "a bad faith agenda" in that discussion? The last time I checked the word "agenda" is rather neutral. Especially compared to accusations of racism. Which some people in that discussion were totally fine with and fed into. You continuing to read negative connotations into the word so you can beat a dead horse is really just showing a lack of AGF. I suggest you put down the stick. In no way is using the word "agenda" a blockable offensive. You continuing to treat it that way is ridiculous and just makes you look petty. I'm sorry I committed the grave sin of responding to someone who pinged me. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- I am trying to stay out of this debate, but this personal attack on Andrew D is not acceptable. For the record, I have never considered blocking Adamant1. To forestall a potential argument about bias, I should mention I disapproved of Andrew making a personal attack about two months ago in the same manner. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- I find him constantly talking down to me and other people in AfDs not acceptable. That specific comment about him having a plan to get me blocked was specifically in reference to his comment in the AfD for Matriculation in South Africa where he said "The nominator should please expect more opposition if they continue on this path." Which was in reference to me nominating articles related to Africa and it was said about the same time he made his comment here about the nomination and it "generating tiresome arguments." When it ended up closing as a merge. In light of that and his almost endless backhanded behavior everywhere, I think what I said was justified. Clearly someone who says they are going to oppose me, or anyone else, for nominating articles that get merged has personal issues they need to deal with. Also, his comment was very threating in tone. Which shouldn't be acceptable. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- To clarify, the point about expecting opposition refers to the statement in Wikipedia:Proposed deletion that "PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected." I removed Adamant1's PROD of Matriculation in South Africa and would do so again. The AfD endorsed my position that deletion was not appropriate. Adamant1 continues to try to delete such educational topics and continues to encounter opposition. The point is that they should not be using the proposed deletion process for this as it is only for uncontroversial cases. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Andrew:, I had zero problems with the PRODs "being removed" I had a problem with your attitude about it and you treating me like doing PRODs is some great egregious sin. Same with the AfDs. I had like 12 PRODs that were deleted right before that without issue or it being controversial. It only become an issue because you and a few other people decided to make it one. Then you badgered me about doing the AfDs. When your the one that wanted them. Atlantic306 removed 4 of my PRODs, what I did there? Absolutely nothing, because Atlantic306 didn't make a big fat stink out of it and didn't act condescending like you did. Same for the other like 3 people that removed my PRODs that I had zero issue with. Supposedly according to you and Darkknight2149 I had such an issue with Necrothesp removing my PRODs, but I couldn't even remember who he was until you posted the table. Your just acting like I have personal problems with certain users to deflect from that fact that you do. PRODs are a tool Wikipedia gives people to have articles deleted. That's not on me. Get over it dude. Your whole "Adamant1 continues to try to delete such educational topics and continues to encounter opposition" comment is exactly the problem. There's nothing wrong with doing AfDs for "educational topics" and there's zero reason that me or anyone else should be receiving "opposition" for doing them. Just like no one should be receiving "opposition" doing for AfDs about hospitals. Which you also took an issue with, got really snooty about, and caused a bunch of problems over Etc. ETc. Because your, and a few other users battleground mentalities (and you clearly have one) is the problem here. Especially yours. Just to illustrate, in the last month I've done 18 AfDs for schools. 18 isn't that much. It's clearly not enough to justify the "opposition" you and other people are having about it. definitely it's not enough for people to start claiming I'm I'm trying to wipe the continent of Africa off the map due to racist intent. Again, if your opposing someone doing an AfD about every other day and are acting as petty as you have been about it, clearly you have issues that you need to work out. I'd also go as far to say you probably shouldn't be involved in AfDs anymore until you do. 18 AfDs over a month and a half period, most of which have resulted in delete when they totally should have been (which is really your issue), is a non-issue. You targeting and attacking me over it is completely ridiculous. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333: There seems to be plenty of that to go around. Adamant1 also accuses me of "reading negative connotations into the word so you can beat a dead horse" while adding "I'm sorry I committed the grave sin of responding to someone who pinged me", but the irony is that I likely would not support any sanctions if he hadn't continued to dig himself into a deeper and deeper hole. The constant walking back of his previous statements, the battleground mentality, the lashing out and bludgeoning, the veiled accusations. Someone actually defended him against bludgeoning above, and you would think that would be the perfect segue to cut back and demonstrate that these concerns are not valid. Instead, he has continued to reply to every comment with even more aggressive (often dubious) responses. Sometimes the best defense is to say nothing at all. Darkknight2149 11:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- The problem is Adamant1's boundless battleground behavior, expressing aggression and self-pity in every single post, and showing no capacity to step back and let anyone else have the last word. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- ToughPigs, I'm civil to people who are civil to me. Period. It's not "expressing aggression and self-pit in every single post", which is just completely hyperbolic, to correct people when they intentionally misconstrue what I say. It also leaves out how much of an aggressive battleground mentality everyone else, including you, has about this. Often times, way more then I do. I can't even ask someone for a source in AfD so I can use it to improve an article without someone coming at me slanted about and treating me like I committed some great sin. Things that should otherwise be none issues are constantly blown out of proportion by people for absolutely no reason. Like you an issue for two months over something completely ridiculous like me using the word "garbage" to describe sources or Darkknight2149 total lack of AGF by needling me repeatedly over a completely neutral word "agenda." BTW, I also get thanked a lot by users when I push back at the way people treat me. So, really, it's all a matter of perspective and what your "slant" is. But clearly people feel pushed around by people like Andrew and they appreciate me calling out people who do it. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yup, that was the self-pity. Thanks for providing such a good example. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Only because no counter example or explanation is ever valid and the only acceptable thing is to shut up and take it. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- WP:PEPPER suggests some alternatives between posting too much and shutting up. Lev!vich 22:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- And I use them. One post is to much for people like ToughPigs though. Unless their the ones doing the posting. Like Grandpallama accusing me of WP:BLUDGEON when he posted the same amount I did. I'm not going to bend over backwards to accommodate people like him and ToughPigs who don't care about following the standards that they are saying everyone else should follow though. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- More self-pity, refusal to take helpful advice, accusations and personal attacks. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Like with ToughPigs, me and him went at each a couple of times. When I tried to work it out and stop the bickering he ignored me and continued doing it. Yet now I'm supposedly the one exhibiting battleground behavior. He repeatedly took jabs at me in AfDs and then didn't stop when I asked him to, and now he's acting like this about things. And any pointing out of his behavior at all is dismissed as a personal attack, arguing, or displaying self-pity. Screw that. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- So that's how that works out. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Like with ToughPigs, me and him went at each a couple of times. When I tried to work it out and stop the bickering he ignored me and continued doing it. Yet now I'm supposedly the one exhibiting battleground behavior. He repeatedly took jabs at me in AfDs and then didn't stop when I asked him to, and now he's acting like this about things. And any pointing out of his behavior at all is dismissed as a personal attack, arguing, or displaying self-pity. Screw that. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- More self-pity, refusal to take helpful advice, accusations and personal attacks. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- And I use them. One post is to much for people like ToughPigs though. Unless their the ones doing the posting. Like Grandpallama accusing me of WP:BLUDGEON when he posted the same amount I did. I'm not going to bend over backwards to accommodate people like him and ToughPigs who don't care about following the standards that they are saying everyone else should follow though. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- WP:PEPPER suggests some alternatives between posting too much and shutting up. Lev!vich 22:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Only because no counter example or explanation is ever valid and the only acceptable thing is to shut up and take it. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yup, that was the self-pity. Thanks for providing such a good example. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- ToughPigs, I'm civil to people who are civil to me. Period. It's not "expressing aggression and self-pit in every single post", which is just completely hyperbolic, to correct people when they intentionally misconstrue what I say. It also leaves out how much of an aggressive battleground mentality everyone else, including you, has about this. Often times, way more then I do. I can't even ask someone for a source in AfD so I can use it to improve an article without someone coming at me slanted about and treating me like I committed some great sin. Things that should otherwise be none issues are constantly blown out of proportion by people for absolutely no reason. Like you an issue for two months over something completely ridiculous like me using the word "garbage" to describe sources or Darkknight2149 total lack of AGF by needling me repeatedly over a completely neutral word "agenda." BTW, I also get thanked a lot by users when I push back at the way people treat me. So, really, it's all a matter of perspective and what your "slant" is. But clearly people feel pushed around by people like Andrew and they appreciate me calling out people who do it. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- The problem is Adamant1's boundless battleground behavior, expressing aggression and self-pity in every single post, and showing no capacity to step back and let anyone else have the last word. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- I find him constantly talking down to me and other people in AfDs not acceptable. That specific comment about him having a plan to get me blocked was specifically in reference to his comment in the AfD for Matriculation in South Africa where he said "The nominator should please expect more opposition if they continue on this path." Which was in reference to me nominating articles related to Africa and it was said about the same time he made his comment here about the nomination and it "generating tiresome arguments." When it ended up closing as a merge. In light of that and his almost endless backhanded behavior everywhere, I think what I said was justified. Clearly someone who says they are going to oppose me, or anyone else, for nominating articles that get merged has personal issues they need to deal with. Also, his comment was very threating in tone. Which shouldn't be acceptable. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Close this- it's clear that nothing productive will come from keeping this open any longer. Reyk YO! 00:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support sanctions The longer I think about it the more I believe that Adamant1 is simply trolling. See the unbelievably fruitless discussion on Talk:List of schools in Namibia. --Pgallert (talk) 07:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Well that's pretty rude and bad faithed of you. Your the one that went off about how there should be consensus on it in the first place. Of course, you threw in a lot of personal insults, waffled a lot about it, bossed me around, and just generally acted unreasonable, but still. Reverting someone and forcing them into a discussion, and then using the discussion you forced them into to argue they should be banned is a little mediocre. I'm just trying to build the consensus that you said I had to have before I could edit the article. It's pretty mean and hurtful to call that trolling. You shouldn't just throw a word like that around indiscriminately. Especially when I'm taking my time as a volunteer of this fine encyclopedia to try and work things out. It really seems like that's not what you want to do. Which, frankly, I'm rather saddened by. And to think, I even put my precious time into doing an RfC for a source we disagreed on and yet supposedly I'm just trolling. Such a bummer. Where in this disagreement have you done an RfC on anything? Where I ask you, where? What was trolling about me doing one? --Adamant1 (talk) 07:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - whilst Adamant1 does come across quite strong and maybe 'over the top' at times, it's quite clear that their edits are in good faith and such action is not needed in my view Spiderone 11:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Oh and look, Darkknight2149 is still adding to it even though it's already been closed. I find it slightly weird and rather WP:HOUNDING that you keep posting links to discussions I'm having that your not a part of. The only thing that would motivate you to do so is if you where going through my edit history to find things to point out. Which, last time I checked is rather unsavory and against the rules. I'm allowed to ask admins questions. Just like I was allowed to the question on the PROD discussion board that beat into the ground over nothing. So, I suggest you put your personal issues in check, stop targeting me, and move on to other things. Instead of trying to cause problems where there isn't any. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Drmies's talk page is on my watchlist. Proposed Deletion is on my watchlist. WP:AN is on my watchlist. I have also shown a great deal of restraint in ignoring much of your flippant, gratuitous, and often self-defeating responses.
- Let me be frank - You were let off the hook easily, yet you couldn't resist continuing the fight on another thread. You were told outright "OK, so it's other people's fault, is what I still hear. I don't think you can claim that somehow you are being discriminated against; in fact, we are all too inclusive of people who can't drop the snark--if that's how you and the people around you speak. I got a few things to do so I'll be short: if you're in a hole, stop digging." You refused to drop the stick. You were told "I'm going to give you a completely unsolicited piece of advice, and you would do well to listen to an uninvolved editor, for the first time since you opened the AN thread: Drmies will not appreciate you exporting your bludgeoning to his talkpage. He's already given you an incredibly strong, overt hint with his comment about digging holes. You should embrace having escaped sanctions and move on as quickly as possible." You still refused to drop the stick. In fact, you replied with this, which wasn't very smart. Even now, the one constant is your
battleground mentalitycomplete refusal to take a hint, no matter how subtle or upfront. - If you do not change your behaviour now, someone will file another proposal against you in the future and it will be a lot more successful than this one was. That's the final advice I have to give you. Darkknight2149 06:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Honestly, I have zero problem with that. I'd just like this to be done with and I'm sure everyone else would to. If you think that means opening another complaint because I committed the Egregious sin of asking a closing admin to explain something better that I didn't understand so I can avoid problems in the future, then that's on you and you should do so. Otherwise, I think it should be dropped and you should leave me alone. You taking one sided quotes out of context just to try and make me look bad and so you continue this isn't helpful though and it's clearly hounding. Like I said, I should be able to ask an admin a question without being retaliated against or threatened for doing so. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oh and look, Darkknight2149 is still adding to it even though it's already been closed. I find it slightly weird and rather WP:HOUNDING that you keep posting links to discussions I'm having that your not a part of. The only thing that would motivate you to do so is if you where going through my edit history to find things to point out. Which, last time I checked is rather unsavory and against the rules. I'm allowed to ask admins questions. Just like I was allowed to the question on the PROD discussion board that beat into the ground over nothing. So, I suggest you put your personal issues in check, stop targeting me, and move on to other things. Instead of trying to cause problems where there isn't any. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
French Revolution
Talk:French Revolution (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
I am posting this here rather than at WP:ANI because there has not been any conduct violation, but I am requesting administrative attention because things have been difficult there for about a month. The main content dispute is whether a paragraph on American influence should be kept in the lede. It appears to be agreed that a discussion about that is needed in the body, but the question has to do with what is due weight in the lede. There was a discussion at WP:ANI a few weeks ago that ended with a boomerang, but that is in the past.
I tried to help by formulating a Request for Comments. I also tried to open a second DRN thread, whose only purpose was to formulate one or more RFCs, but there was a well-meaning and misguided effort to divert discussion from the RFC to the DRN. I then had to fail the DRN in order to allow the RFC to continue on the talk page. There was a flurry of concern and confusion within the past 24 hours when a change was made to the paragraph in question. It appears that it has been agreed that the RFC is still running and will run until 27 November. I don't think that any immediate administrative action is needed at this time, because it is agreed that the RFC will run for the standard thirty days. We know that what we want in a discussion of the French Revolution is to avoid having to use the guillotine. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- That sounds like an accurate assessment to me, and a call for profile-raising, and watchful waiting, both of which seem like a good idea. Also agree that nothing is needed at this time. Thanks as ever for your good offices. Mathglot (talk) 05:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- I'd suggest posting notifications of the discussion to seek further views at WT:HISTORY, WT:MILHIST and WT:FRANCE if you haven't already done so. Nick-D (talk) 07:46, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- User:Nick-D - User:Mathglot posted neutrally worded notices of the RFC at those projects. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Jeez, is this still going on?
–MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 08:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- I am also surprised that this ball keeps rolling. I await the result of the RfC, hoping (naively) that once it is resolved, that the subject is never brought again. Acebulf (talk | contribs) 00:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- So far the arguments for not including the statements in question have not been very reasonable. We have the usual claims of not-enough weight, which at this point doesn't hold much water considering all the sources that have covered the American involvement prior to and during the French Revolution. There is also the argument that this idea is not covered in a selection of encyclopedias, which by itself, doesn't amount to anything in the scholastic world when we, again, consider all the scholarly works written by French and other scholars. The (many) points that support keeping the statement in the lede have largely been ignored. As such, there has been next to no reciprocal discussion. Just claims. The decision to keep or delete should be based on the soundness of the arguments, and thus far, the arguments to delete are not very compelling when all the facts and sources are considered. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think that a better place to argue for or against the inclusion of a paragraph in the lede of an article is the talk page of the article, unless you are calling attention to disruptive editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Other than the edit that removed the statements in question in the lede, before the RFC was concluded, and restored, I've seen no such editing to the article. My issue at this juncture is that the points presented are not being addressed -- ignored. If this is not the place to present arguments, I'll confine the debate to the Talk page. All that is asked is that the facts and sources be considered. Thus far they have been roundly ignored. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:15, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Please stop accusing others of impropriety just because they don't agree with your arguments. Acebulf (talk | contribs) 23:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- So far the arguments for not including the statements in question have not been very reasonable. We have the usual claims of not-enough weight, which at this point doesn't hold much water considering all the sources that have covered the American involvement prior to and during the French Revolution. There is also the argument that this idea is not covered in a selection of encyclopedias, which by itself, doesn't amount to anything in the scholastic world when we, again, consider all the scholarly works written by French and other scholars. The (many) points that support keeping the statement in the lede have largely been ignored. As such, there has been next to no reciprocal discussion. Just claims. The decision to keep or delete should be based on the soundness of the arguments, and thus far, the arguments to delete are not very compelling when all the facts and sources are considered. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- I am also surprised that this ball keeps rolling. I await the result of the RfC, hoping (naively) that once it is resolved, that the subject is never brought again. Acebulf (talk | contribs) 00:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Peer-to-peer VPNs
If I find an IP being used by a peer-to-peer VPN (P2P VPN):
- How long do I block it for?
- I've heard some variant on "one week, then if it's still being used after that, two weeks, one month, two months, and so on", but I want to check.
- What block message do I use?
- {{Blocked proxy}} may be close enough, but I don't know if a VPN-specific (or P2P-VPN-specific) template is merited.
- Do I only block it if it's made edits? Only disruptive ones?
- The method I'll be using might turn up IPs that haven't (yet) been used to edit Wikipedia.
Enterprisey (talk!) 22:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- (1) sounds fine but I have little experience blocking proxies; (2) if you're going to be blocking a lot, you may want to create a template, but whether it's worth it depends on the scale; (3) if you're sure it's a proxy, I don't think you need to wait for it to edit since we proactively block open proxies. — Wug·a·po·des 23:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- I would broadly agree with your suggestions for all of them.
- P2P VPNs can be, by their nature, quite fleeting. Blocking initially for a week is very reasonable, there's a very good chance it'll have switched by that time anyway. Escalating blocks as you describe is the usual way of solving disruption from an IP we'd otherwise expect to be dynamic, and it probably works perfectly fine for this too.
- {{Blocked proxy}} basically covers the idea. If you're going to do this systematically, then a slight variant of that basically just describing the specific situation might be reasonable, but ultimately the block is for the same reason. A P2P VPN is by its nature sometimes indistinguishable from a Tor-style open proxy.
- You probably know this better than most. If your method is likely to reveal IPs that would be used similarly to the Tor-style open proxies we already routinely block, then pre-emptively blocking them is probably fine. If you're doing this via some other method that may pick out more proxy types without such a solid history of disruption, then something more cautious might be called for, but I can't personally envision a major difference in how we should handle these.
- Ultimately, unless there's some major technical difference I'm missing, the world of P2P VPNs has substantial similarity to the concept of open proxies as we describe them. ~ mazca talk 00:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- I'm just going to agree with exactly what Mazca said above. Most of these I block will just be with 'vandalism', 'block evasion', or even 'anonblock' as the reason, instead of instigating the whole blocked proxy template (which can often end up confusing). I'd also suggest looking at past proxy bot BRfAs for ideas. Depending on the method, you might find fake IPs, already-blocked IPs, or even mainstream ISP proxies used by regular editors, and so I think caution should be exercised here and there. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:38, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, darn - I forgot to also ask what block settings I should use, or if I should just copy settings from Twinkle or one of the proxy bots? Enterprisey (talk!) 08:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Well, a lot would say a hard block, which is generally what the proxy bots do, since the aim is to stop sockpuppets using the proxies. However, it's difficult to generalise too much. If you do that with residential (or mobile) IPs, especially if blocked for any length of time, it is likely you will get innocent collateral. For example, the proxy bots will never adjust a soft block into a hard block, because this has proved problematic in the past (again, have a look at the BRfAs). In reality, most of this type of dynamic IP vandalism relies on IP hopping, and editing with accounts are fairly rare, and so a soft block will often suffice. Really, it depends on the networks and types of IPs you're looking at. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Committed identity / SHA-512 as a channel for phishing
At WP:Volunteer response team ticket:2020102910005751 a user requests an password reset based on offering to tell someone the {{Committed identity}} (passphrase for the SHA-512 hash) they posted on their userpage some years ago. The other claims are that this person lost password and no longer has email account access. There have been no edits to the account in 4 years. The request is suspicious for lots of reasons. My judgement is that there is no way this person could provide the passphrase and that they are phishing for access to an old well established account.
Associated with the Committed identity process there are few instructions for how anyone is supposed to get a password reset with a committed identity except to post on this noticeboard. I tried to elaborate at Template:Committed_identity/doc#Password_reset and started a discussion at Template_talk:Committed_identity#Documentation_of_how_to_use_this.
I wanted to post here because I expect if anyone else tries this, they too get directed to English Wikipedia admins. If anyone wants to review the process then post to that template's talk page.
Also, who has the ability to assign a new password to a new email address? English Wikipedia admins do not have this ability, and I question whether it is even within English Wikipedia's power to make policy on this. By the transclusion count there are 2700 instances of this template. To what extent is it even viable as a channel for regaining account access? From the talk page of that template, "Just wondering: Has this ever worked?" I think the answer might be no.
This user who writes in claims to have the passphrase to generate the hash, as I said. Who here checks this, and how can I send the phisher into that process? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:34, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Bluerasberry: we don't have the technical capability to reset passwords, they can try to email ca(at)wikimedia.org, or file a phab request. — xaosflux Talk 00:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed, that is the correct venue for restoring access to an account. --Izno (talk) 01:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Bluerasberry: also to answer your question, there is 0% guarantee that a password reset will ever be honored. I do seem to remember a case where a committed identity was used locally for a resysop, and it certainly could help for a password reset if the account never had email set up and had been offline for many months. — xaosflux Talk 01:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- What do "a user requests" and "The other claims" mean? Are you saying there are two different people trying to claim the same account? Do you know if the account ever had admin privileges? If so, someone trying to take it over might hope that would make it easy for them to become an admin in due course. Johnuniq (talk) 02:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Kind of a tangent, but this thread made me reconsider how I use committed identities. I wrote a bit of a how to for my new strategy at User:Wugapodes/Committed identity. Using key pairs is probably overkill for most purposes, but it provides a way to give an arbitrary challenge to someone claiming to be me. — Wug·a·po·des 05:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- This seems like an easy thing to handle. Just post a cut and paste reply saying that all claims of identity based upon committed identity / SHA-512 will be ignored unless they contain a passphrase that resolves to the correct SHA-512 value. If the passphrase[30] is sufficiently long they have one chance in
- 13,407,807,929,942,597,099,574,024,998,205,846,127,479,365,820,592,393,377,723,561,443,
- 721,764,030,073,546,976,801,874,298,166,903,427,690,031,858,186,486,050,853,753,882,811,
- 946,569,946,433,649,006,084,096 (I have a really good calculator) of getting it right.
- After someone proves their identity, the password reset should also advise them to pick a new committed identity / SHA-512 passphrase and update their user page with the new hash. That way nobody can get it by threatening or bribing someone at the W?F. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- I just always assumed I would send the passphrase to the ArbCom for sorting. Has the requestor presented the passphrase? That's all it should take for an unblock. Lost email access? SOunds like they've nee to create a new account and identify the old account as such. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Bluerasberry: ArbCOm, met hinks. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- I met hinks once, in Niagra Falls! Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 04:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Just had a look at the ticket, I'm almost 100% certain this is a scammer/phishing attempt. Probably best to ignore. -FASTILY 21:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Non-administrator comment: I'm pretty familiar with the password reset procedure. The MediaWiki interface intentionally has no interface allowing to change password of someone else - it's too dangerous in case someone's credentials are compromised. It needs to be done via the commandline and as such, the only entity that can do so is the sysadmins. The Trust and Safety team is responsible for evaluating all password reset requests, and any such requests can be forwarded to ca
wikimedia.org. Best, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 06:55, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
For the record, I have informed Trust and Safety about this incident, and they will take any necessary actions. Some nonpublic details are in the ticket, available to OTRS agents. Best, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Re1ny.Dev
- Re1ny.Dev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I have blocked Re1ny.Dev from mainspace for six months, due to persistent addition of badly sourced content relating to sexuality, especially to WP:BLPs. Please review / unblock / reblock / adopt as you see fit, this is one of those cases where there's probably no one single good outcome. I have no objection to any change to this block. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- I'd like a damn good explanation for this edit, putting what is basically whacking material on one of the most important figures in remembrance of the Holocaust should be done only by established editors and then with extreme caution, and this edit is a complete and utter BLP violation. So, on the surface, it seems to be a good block. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think six months is quite long for a first block (and for an infrequent editor) but it is a serious offense. I think the block could be lifted once they acknowledge they won't repeat this behavior. Liz Read! Talk! 00:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- I just noticed that this was a block just from Article space but not Article Talk space. In that case, I think this is a fair block that will allow the editor to show they can contribute positively. Liz Read! Talk! 00:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Liz: That's the thing about the infrequent but disruptive editor. They might not even notice a shorter block. And of course, any block is appealable if the blockee can show they have remedied the problem behavior. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- I just noticed that this was a block just from Article space but not Article Talk space. In that case, I think this is a fair block that will allow the editor to show they can contribute positively. Liz Read! Talk! 00:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think six months is quite long for a first block (and for an infrequent editor) but it is a serious offense. I think the block could be lifted once they acknowledge they won't repeat this behavior. Liz Read! Talk! 00:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Another editor has started an RfC to restore some of the material: Talk:Cavetown (musician)#RfC on aromantic and transgender identity. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- {sigh}, That is patently false. From their edits it looks like the only thing they tried to add was “transphobic” which is not in the proposal at all, and never was. Gleeanon 04:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- TLDR correction/expansion for pedants: Another editor (Gleeanon409 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has started an RfC[31] to restore material that was removed as a direct result of Re1ny.Dev attempting to insert "transphobic" using an unreliable secondary source and a primary source where Cavetown specifically denied being transphobic. As often happens in these cases, once attention was drawn to the page in question it became clear that there were other claims, not made by Re1ny.Dev, that are had clear WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT problems. So far the consensus is to exclude the material that Gleeanon409 wants to include. There is some disruptive behavior by Gleeanon409 (bludgeoning[32][33][34][35][36], making major changes to the RfC question after multiple people had commented[37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45], a general battlefield mentality[46][47][48]), but IMO nothing so far that requires administrator intervention.--Guy Macon (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Likely violating CANVASS, this is third posting thread to try to elevate claims Cavetown’s self-identifying as aromantic and transgender, as noted in reliable sources, is unworthy of inclusion. It’s blindingly obvious the information will be included, and only a matter of when. Gleeanon 19:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- WP:IDHT. It has been explained to Gleeanon409 multiple times by multiple editors that the question is WP:WEIGHT, not reliability of sources. Yet Gleeanon409 keeps repeating their "as noted in reliable sources" mantra without addressing the undue weight issue. The ongoing fight with User:Masem at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Moving forward is also troubling. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Appeals of locked + blocked accounts
Dear English Wikipedia administrators,
I'm Martin Urbanec, one of the Wikimedia Stewards. It looks like it is not clear whether an appeal made by user who is both locked and locally blocked should be resolved first by the stewards, or by the local administrators.
It is the steward's understanding that a global lock in such cases is ultimately inherited from local actions, and that the stewards will always grant an unlock request, if it comes from an established community body, such as the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee, or English Wikipedia administrators. While we can technically unlock users who are currently locally blocked to allow them to fill a local appeal, we think those unlocks should be always on temporary basis, and just for the purpose of filing an appeal. Furthermore, temporary unlocks are harder to coordinate, so we like to avoid them as much as possible.
However, a temporary unlock makes sense only for cases when the appeal procedure is only on-wiki. In case of English Wikipedia local blocks, the appeal can be resolved via WP:UTRS. As such, we do not think an temporary unlock is warranted – as the user doesn't need to access the account for filing the appeal. We would prefer if the English Wikipedia administrator handled such appeals first, and let the stewards know via m:SRG to unlock the account, if appeal is successful.
I hope this message makes sense. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. This is by no means set in stone, but an attempt to handle those cases in a coordinated way.
On behalf of the Wikimedia Stewards,
--Martin Urbanec (talk) 15:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Huh? I thought a global lock trumped a local block? Guy (help! - typo?) 22:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- @JzG: Well, technically, yes. A global lock means an account is unable to login, so all local blocks don't matter - the locked account can't do anything, as no one can log into it.
- However, that's only the technical side of things. According to stewards' policy, stewards do not override consensus. If a project wishes to let an individual in, they should be free to (unless the individual is globally banned by the Foundation or the global community - those cases are relatively rare through). I never witnessed a steward to reject an unlock request if it comes from an administrator/ArbCom – the local projects know best whether an individual should get another chance. Best, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 01:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Martin Urbanec, could you give a ballpark estimate about how often this comes up? A couple of times a year? A couple of times a month? A week? I'm just curious how big of a problem this is. Liz Read! Talk! 00:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Liz: I'd say a couple of times per quarter, through I didn't collect any hard data about this one. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 01:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Martin Urbanec, any example accounts? Every global lock I have checked has been an obvious troll. Guy (help! - typo?) 01:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- m:List of globally banned users? Or were you asking about global unlocks based on a local admin/arbcom's request? —Cryptic 01:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Martin Urbanec, that helps a lot. Knowing that it occurs around ~12-15 times a year is a manageable situation. Liz Read! Talk! 01:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Martin Urbanec, any example accounts? Every global lock I have checked has been an obvious troll. Guy (help! - typo?) 01:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Liz: I'd say a couple of times per quarter, through I didn't collect any hard data about this one. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 01:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Martin Urbanec: Gah. We at UTRS have been summarily sending appeals from the globally locked back to y'all. It's a Catch-22. We send them to you; you send them to us. Generally, these have been appeals that were declinable on their own lack of merit, without the global lock in place. A few must never be unblocked because of the nature of their behaviors. UTRS is less than ideal because it occurs, by design, outside of the community purview. Perhaps we need to change the way we do things. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Martin Urbanec: Have you anyone in particular in mind? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's pretty much Catch-22. The last case I remember that eventually prompted me to send this message is the one that is in UTRS #36598. That one looks like unsuccessful anyway, but there was at least one case when the ArbCom accepted an appeal of a locked account, and the stewards unlocked it to let them back. Don't remember the details, I can look it up if interested. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 01:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed. For the like I'll prompt them to more fully address the block reason until they have something reasonable, and then carry it to WP:AN.
But what then, assuming a successful block appeal at AN?--Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed. For the like I'll prompt them to more fully address the block reason until they have something reasonable, and then carry it to WP:AN.
- Yeah, it's pretty much Catch-22. The last case I remember that eventually prompted me to send this message is the one that is in UTRS #36598. That one looks like unsuccessful anyway, but there was at least one case when the ArbCom accepted an appeal of a locked account, and the stewards unlocked it to let them back. Don't remember the details, I can look it up if interested. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 01:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Here is an example, not one that turned out well, but it can still be used: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive321#Unblock request review for AlexanderHovanec
The user was blocked here for copyvios, BLP vios, socking, socking and more socking. The were also blocked on Commons and then flooded UTRS. Those 3 things led to them being globally locked. They requested an unblock here, which was never going to happen. But, for the sake of argument in this thread, let's say they were able to convince us to unblock. What was the point of the global lock? A Global Lock is reasonably easy to obtain:
Accounts that have been used only for vandalism or abuse on multiple wikis and are actively vandalizing now or obviously are otherwise being disruptive on multiple wikis are candidates for a global lock. Please include links to block histories or other evidence of abuse on other projects, and indicate where the account is still active.
This tells me it is too easy to globally lock an account, and maybe local consensus should be reached to ask for it in the first place. Otherwise, a global lock seems to be nothing more than a bow on the box to make it look pretty, i.e. punitive rather than preventative. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 06:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)- @Bison X: A global lock is frequently applied to an account which does not have any positive contributions at any wiki they're contributing to. That is usually accompanied by local blocks. The lock in this case prevents the abuser from spreading to more wikis. However, there are cases when a local project decides to give someone a second chance. That cannot be anticipated. Applying the same argument, one could say "What was the purpose of the block if it was removed after all?".
- Ad explicit consensus building, that's not really a way forward. Since February 2020, I locked about 25k accounts, and all the stewards together locked about 75k of accounts - that means more than 200 accounts locked per day. A global lock is almost exclusively applied in clear cut situations. For situations that are not clear, but there is a need to remove editing privilege from an individual globally, there are global bans as well. Best, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 12:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Ah yes, AlexanderHovanec (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I carried that request to WP:AN and it was declined. Actually, @Bison X:, this is not an example of what we are talking about. He can request unblocking at UTRS anytime after the standard six months. He is not banned at UTRS with no avenue of appeal. (See also UTRS appeal #30637, UTRS appeal #30600 and UTRS appeal #30529.) He placed a UTRS ticked after the debacle at WP:AN. He is not one of the problem, cyclical, abusive UTRS appeallants. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Help
HI there I hope you are well.
Can you be king enough to help me with this article im working on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Janith_Wickramage
Thanking You Best of health
Wtlipnikki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtlipnikki (talk • contribs) 11:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Wtlipnikki You don't ask what specifically you want help with, but you should ask at the help desk. 331dot (talk) 11:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- t risk of being mistaken for EEng --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Good one, DFO. Speaking of risk...did you notice Ringo's attempt to preempt obscurity - could he be EEng?
Atsme 💬 📧 13:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Good one, DFO. Speaking of risk...did you notice Ringo's attempt to preempt obscurity - could he be EEng?
- t risk of being mistaken for EEng --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Wow. Speaking of "quiet desperation" with one's song unsung. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
See also Draft:Janith wickramage.--Auric talk 09:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
is this vandalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=General_Department_of_Education_of_Isfahan_Province&diff=986841789&oldid=986412313 Baratiiman (talk) 14:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Triple_powers_(Iran)&diff=next&oldid=975762066 Baratiiman (talk) 14:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Not by my rather precise definition, although it might be seen as disruptive. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- The first page was deleted in fawiki but the second page still is in fawikiBaratiiman (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- i was going to make a replica of this for iran Template:K-12 Education agencies in the US Baratiiman (talk) 15:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- The devils advocate https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Government_of_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran&diff=prev&oldid=986841274 Baratiiman (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Talk:General Department of Education of Isfahan Province#Talk
- @Baratiiman: You are required to notify any editor whose work you discuss here. Did you do so? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- i did now Baratiiman (talk) 17:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Iran politics and prior discussion listed there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Now that I'm notified that this discussion is being opened, I would like to ask those who are going to take a look at this, take the fact into consideration that User:Baratiiman has so far opened such threads about me on a daily basis and on almost everywhere:
- Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 164#Economy of Iran
- Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 163#Pahlevun
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive416#User:Pahlevun reported by User:Baratiiman (Result: No violation)
- Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 196#Isfahan
- Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 196#Economy of Iran
- Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 196#Fashion in Iran
- Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 85#Recheck
- Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1078#Third opinion
- Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1080#Politics in Isfahan
I believe User:Baratiiman has a right to disagree with my edits but this mass filing of complaints without trying to build a consensus is not constructive. He has been previously warned by other editors that this behavior is harassment and he should stop it ([49], [50], [51]). Pahlevun (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- By the way, if User:Baratiiman had asked me before making a complaint here (which he did not), I would have said that Triple powers (Iran) was a content fork of Politics of Iran. I have explained him about the other edit at Talk:General Department of Education of Isfahan Province. Pahlevun (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- lmao teahouse isn't a noticeboard and if i was a hyperactive editor i would have absolutely no problem getting checkedBaratiiman (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- By the way, if User:Baratiiman had asked me before making a complaint here (which he did not), I would have said that Triple powers (Iran) was a content fork of Politics of Iran. I have explained him about the other edit at Talk:General Department of Education of Isfahan Province. Pahlevun (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- User:Baratiiman should stop laughing his ass off, and read the room. They are one more ridiculous noticeboard filing away from being given a 1-way interaction ban.
If (as I suspect, but cannot prove) this turns out to be importing a dispute from fa.wiki to here, then I support an indef block on Baratiiman.Add: looking at the SUL tool, it looks like this is NOT an imported dispute from fa.wiki. The i-ban warning stands. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Floquenbeam He is saying Isfahan Governorate should be a redirect to Interior ministry of iran is this cool? how is this cool? what's special about US education departments that isfahan department of education page lacks what is he talking about scholarly views in Iranian government page Baratiiman (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Baratiiman: That is a content dispute. you need to resolve the issue about the notability of the Governate at either Talk:Isfahan Governorate or the talk page of the interior ministry. As for your comparison to US education departments, the issues probably hinge about coverage in independent reliable sources, but that is a content issue, not a matter for administrative attention. —C.Fred (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Floquenbeam He is saying Isfahan Governorate should be a redirect to Interior ministry of iran is this cool? how is this cool? what's special about US education departments that isfahan department of education page lacks what is he talking about scholarly views in Iranian government page Baratiiman (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- What about the iranian governmentBaratiiman (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Baratiiman: How does the Iranian government factor into this discussion about editors' behaviour? —C.Fred (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Iranian government pageBaratiiman (talk) 04:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
More forum-shopping, now at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Follow-up to. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Backlog at CfD
| V | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 23 | 23 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 5 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 15 | 21 | 36 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
There is a huge backlog of 194 nominations at WP:CfD. Most of these discussions should be relisted, starting with the oldest discussions, but I will list at WP:ANRFC the ones that appear to have reached a clear consensus. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- @LaundryPizza03: Please don't spam ANRFC with CFD discussions; that's not what that's there for. I offered to help and no-one reached out to clarify. :^) --Izno (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Eh, I decided to stop at the end of September. There are too many open CfDs after that. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- You didn't specify what exactly is unclear about the instructions. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- The whole damn thing is a hot mess. --Izno (talk) 13:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- If you can believe it, the backlog is at a bit of a low point compared to where it's been the past months. The past half year, I think the lowest point it was at was like 50 or so, which is still a backlog. I have been wondering about perhaps inviting some people who have experience closing CFDs to produce a shortened guide (maybe like a Q&A of some sort) in order to possibly recruit more admins to help out here. bibliomaniac15 19:02, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- I suggested this at WT:RFC but: maybe CfD should allow a broader range of NAC closes like TfD does (incl delete closes)? Just spitballing. This hasn't been a problem at TfD seemingly, and it's been in place there for 2 yrs. May well lower the backlogs at CfD too. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Uncontroversial CfD NAC closes are welcome, the results should be reported at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working--Ymblanter (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- I've thought of helping out at CfD but have also found the instructions overly complicated. Maybe they need to be like that but they are daunting. Closing a discussion is straight-forward but it's handling the aftermath that is confusing. Liz Read! Talk! 22:20, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Uncontroversial CfD NAC closes are welcome, the results should be reported at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working--Ymblanter (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- I suggested this at WT:RFC but: maybe CfD should allow a broader range of NAC closes like TfD does (incl delete closes)? Just spitballing. This hasn't been a problem at TfD seemingly, and it's been in place there for 2 yrs. May well lower the backlogs at CfD too. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- If you can believe it, the backlog is at a bit of a low point compared to where it's been the past months. The past half year, I think the lowest point it was at was like 50 or so, which is still a backlog. I have been wondering about perhaps inviting some people who have experience closing CFDs to produce a shortened guide (maybe like a Q&A of some sort) in order to possibly recruit more admins to help out here. bibliomaniac15 19:02, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- The whole damn thing is a hot mess. --Izno (talk) 13:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think the biggest single thing that could be done her is actually making WP:XFDC work properly at CfD. There is so much manual work for every close, especially when you don't have access to CFDW, that I quit closing because of it. --Trialpears (talk) 08:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- re CFDW, perhaps Danny's Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion/Working#Lowering_protection_and_nacs suggestion could be reconsidered? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- That is a non-starter because it would be tantamount to giving non-admins access to the delete button. If you want to delete things, you need to start an RfA. -- Tavix (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Well, an access list was proposed, not giving everyone the ability. But XFDC being able to copy closes to the CFDW talk page automatically, to be manually added, may also be an improvement I suppose. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- The "access list" should strictly be admins only, who are the only ones who have been properly vetted to be able to delete things. -- Tavix (talk) 16:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- This would be a great opportunity for those editors whose names would be on the list to consider an RFA ... power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- The "access list" should strictly be admins only, who are the only ones who have been properly vetted to be able to delete things. -- Tavix (talk) 16:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Well, an access list was proposed, not giving everyone the ability. But XFDC being able to copy closes to the CFDW talk page automatically, to be manually added, may also be an improvement I suppose. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- That is a non-starter because it would be tantamount to giving non-admins access to the delete button. If you want to delete things, you need to start an RfA. -- Tavix (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- re CFDW, perhaps Danny's Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion/Working#Lowering_protection_and_nacs suggestion could be reconsidered? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Can I use Template:Pp-office-dmca on my sandbox for testing purposes? --Oscar012723487 (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) The documentation for {{pp-office-dmca}} says that it’s not supposed to be used as a bluff, so the answer is probably no, even if you’re using it for testing purposes. Maka⭐(talk) 21:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
AIV Backlog
Could an Admin please have a look at the WP:AIV backlog. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- It looks like the bot is also slow to clean up the page. —C.Fred (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Big oops
Well, it took me nearly nine admin years but I finally broke something I don't know how to fix. While I meant to delete an image related to Celebrity Juice, I accidentally deleted the article itself. I tried to restore it (all 1,458 revisions), but am getting a database error. Whelp! -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Wikimedia Steward speaking :-). I'll take care of it. Best, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you! And we shall never speak of this again...-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hypothetically, would it have been possible to do a piecewise history restore? Like only restoring ~100 revisions at a time or something? GeneralNotability (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- That's what I did. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- In a word, yes. I've had to do that before; generally you can get away with ~500 revisions at a pop (if the server kittens are happy). Primefac (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hypothetically, would it have been possible to do a piecewise history restore? Like only restoring ~100 revisions at a time or something? GeneralNotability (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you! And we shall never speak of this again...-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Restored — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:32, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks :-). --Martin Urbanec (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Martin Urbanec and JJMC89: I've also restored the Wikidata item. Sometimes I find it helps to restore just the most recent revision first ... a page refresh/reload used to help too, but not so much in the past few months. Graham87 04:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Currently abusing talk page further while blocked. Needs revocation. --94.73.36.0 (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- TPA revoked — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Ongoing POV and disruptive edits
However consensus on the page Arameans after 2 RFC's about the status of the page being inadequate was reached. user:Mugsalot keeps making disruptive edits and was also the only person during both RFC's to oppose it.
Yet the user still reverts edits back under the term 'reverted vandalism' to show himself as the goodguy. Kikkererwtje (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- No consensus was reached to support restoration of an incredibly poor edit. Please note accusing user is being investigated as a sockpuppet (1). Mugsalot (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Consensus was reached for a seperation of the ancient and modern group. The current page is going about the modern people and a new page about these people their history will be created and also stop making personal attacks, besides me 4 other uninvolved users voted for a seperation of ancient and modern people, while you being the only one to oppose this.Kikkererwtje (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Request for help with CBS Sunday Movie
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"Longtime" editor Mrschimpf keeps adding original research and unsourced text (basically nonsense about CBS's scheduling methodology) and refuses to discuss this on the Talk Page. He makes mathematically impossible claims, such as the idea that movies have to run under 2 hours but yet CBS adds a sitcom if a movie can't stretch to 2.5 hours with commercials. I have already pointed out to him that CBS scheduled Ferris Bueller's Day Off for 2.5 hours and Star Trek Beyond for 3 hours, thereby two instances where movies run longer than the supposed 2-hour limit. Thank you for your assistance!136.49.157.251 (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- I've moved on from this specifically so I don't breach WP:3RR and because there are more important things here to edit than arguing about the scheduling of a limited-run television film block that nobody will care about once the pandemic has ceased and regular CBS program scheduling/series production has resumed. I already told the IP as such after their last reversion, yet they continue to belittle; this is in no way anything that needs to be posted on AN (though 136. didn't leave notice of an AN post on my talk page). Nate • (chatter) 23:35, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Why do you ignore comments on an article's Talk Page and blithely continue making unsourced, erroneous additions?136.49.157.251 (talk) 00:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- I acknowledged in an edit summary I read the talk page and used the link you gave there to assert the scheduling. Once again; done editing this, so belaboring this is pointless. Nate • (chatter) 01:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Well, as a "longtime" editor, you know a disputed edit should be discussed on the Talk Page instead of making constant, useless edits. Your behavior amply demonstrates that you deserve to be reported to the administrators.136.49.157.251 (talk) 02:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- I acknowledged in an edit summary I read the talk page and used the link you gave there to assert the scheduling. Once again; done editing this, so belaboring this is pointless. Nate • (chatter) 01:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Why do you ignore comments on an article's Talk Page and blithely continue making unsourced, erroneous additions?136.49.157.251 (talk) 00:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- This hardly is an issue for AN, IP: for future reference please see the many ways disputes can be resolved. Though @Mrschimpf:, I don't think it would hurt for you to get involved in the talk page, communication is required. I also do question the value of using a tv schedule as a source (or the fact that the info in contention appears entirely unsourced). CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Which is why I've ended my dispute with this; there's no point in belaboring the point or the schedule overall. Someone please close this so we can all move on (I tried to and have, five hours ago). Nate • (chatter) 02:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
IP block exemption?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can an administrator familiar with collateral damage from IP blocks take a look at the recent discussion at User talk:Sumit banaphar? This is not one of my areas of expertise. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Cullen328 - I've sent you an email. SQLQuery me! 04:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WP:PERM backlog
It is requested to Admins to please have a look at the long pending WP:PERM backlog. Thanks NewWikiLover (talk) 06:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- The main backlogs seem to be AWB, PCR, and Rollback, though there are misc. requests in other sections as well. I'm going to work through PCR and Rollback, but if anyone has more experience with AWB I'd appreciate the help. — Wug·a·po·des 02:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, I've had my fill. There's still a lot of AWB requests, and a handful of Autopatrolled, Page Mover, and NPR requests outstanding. — Wug·a·po·des 04:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Courtesy @Primefac: as they have handled AWB requests earlier. 42.110.211.81 (talk) 04:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- @JJMC89, Anarchyte, and Rosguill: Thanks 42.110.211.81 (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, been busy, will likely hit later. Primefac (talk) 12:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- @JJMC89, Anarchyte, and Rosguill: Thanks 42.110.211.81 (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Courtesy @Primefac: as they have handled AWB requests earlier. 42.110.211.81 (talk) 04:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, I've had my fill. There's still a lot of AWB requests, and a handful of Autopatrolled, Page Mover, and NPR requests outstanding. — Wug·a·po·des 04:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Restore
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, could you please restore this page and move it to my sandbox? Thanks in advance. Patriccck (talk) 12:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Request access to create article
|
Hello, Please read here, I am not fluent in English but I always tried my best to be effective And I have good activities For example, please check the Kashmar article. Please give me this access because I deserve it, I'm very interested in creating a template And note that I used to only create templates And I had no problem and lost access! Thank you for helping me M.k.m2003 (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
|
Hello, please read here. I applied for permission to create the article But without any archiving, please check M.k.m2003 (talk) 12:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- I added the original discussion in the above collapsed template for ease of access. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 01:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Admin impersonator
There is a newly registered user named Empire of Grammar (talk · contribs) who pretends to be a Wikipedia administrator on his user page. For instance, this user replaces fair use licenses to public domain (diff, diff) and removes whole sections from articles (diff); his capitalization changes are also questionable (diff, diff).--Russian Rocky (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- As usual, the admin impersonator turned out to be a sockpuppet. Blocked. ST47 (talk) 21:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- I say we should get revenge by having some administrators impersonate sockpuppets... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- I say we should get revenge by having some administrators impersonate sockpuppets... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Can an edit filter be set up to prevent that admin template from being added to non-admin pages? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- No but one preventing non-admins from adding it to any page would be technically feasible. Take it to WP:EFR if interested to take it further. --Trialpears (talk) 08:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Nominate a violent action against Joe Biden in many wikis [55]. He was banned in viwiki, afwiki, mrwiki. Alphama (talk) 18:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- The user is globally locked.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Admin eyes needed at Talk:Joe Biden
The article Joe Biden had to be full-protected due to vandalism. There are currently half a dozen "full protection edit requests" on the talk page. I am involved so I can't respond to them. If some admin could come by and take a look it would be appreciated. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Something big going on with him? Will have a look. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- There is a hell of a lot of trolls turning up, should the talk page not be semi-protected or something? Govvy (talk) 23:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- My inclination would be to let the whining continue for 48 hours without responding to it (ignore it, except for blatant attacks). Perhaps remove junk every 12 hours per WP:NOTFORUM or whatever. However, if it gets worse, semi-protection would be desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- I've removed some of the more blatant threads that were clearly NOTFORUM. Sadly 48 hours isn't going to be long enough, this is going to continue for weeks. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- That's optimistic. But no more than 8 years or so, I'd say. ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- I got curious: Lists_of_state_leaders_by_age#10_oldest_serving_state_leaders. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Whats that, 100 edits over eight hours, with half probably forum'ish? Not the end of the world, bombshell stuff I thought was going to happen, but ye, I wouldn't be surprised for a high profile article like this one to be targeted for quite a few years! Govvy (talk) 10:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- I've removed some of the more blatant threads that were clearly NOTFORUM. Sadly 48 hours isn't going to be long enough, this is going to continue for weeks. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- My inclination would be to let the whining continue for 48 hours without responding to it (ignore it, except for blatant attacks). Perhaps remove junk every 12 hours per WP:NOTFORUM or whatever. However, if it gets worse, semi-protection would be desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- There is a hell of a lot of trolls turning up, should the talk page not be semi-protected or something? Govvy (talk) 23:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
The talk page isn't being vandalized right now, just flooded with opinions saying that we can't call him "president-elect" until the electoral college meets and votes. Those are good faith opinions and we can deal with them; there is good consensus on that issue. The same changes would probably be made to the main article if it was unlocked, and that might be a reason to keep it locked for at least another day or two. While it is, we will continue to need uninvolved admins to respond to valid edit requests. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Continuing racist comments from IP 98.228.253.244
Hi, I posted yesterday [[56]] about a racist comment from IP 98.228.253.244, which stated that critics of the anti-Semitic writer Kevin MacDonald should be dismissed as "hilarious" because they have "Jewish surnames". IP's original comment for reference: [[57]] At that time I was told to issue a warning to the user but that further action wasn't necessary. I did issue a warning (level 3 derogatory, which seemed like the appropriate one given the hugely inappropriate nature of the comment). Today however the racist comment was restored by the IP along with a statement doubling down on this user's racist views: [[58]] This seems to me to be a clear violation of WP:NAZI and grounds for action. I am less concerned with suppressing the comment than with blocking the user (of course temporarily since it's an IP) from making further racially derogatory statements which could contribute to a hostile environment. Thanks. Generalrelative (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks very much! Generalrelative (talk) 01:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Negative contribution
I noticed that this User:GorgeCustersSabre has issues with IP-users, as he always reverted their edits at once without even check them. For instance, in this article Razane Jammal, he reverted edits to keep imdb sources and others related to fixing the references. However, I would like to ask someone to take a look at the edits, and to write that user that his contribution here is only negative as he only reverts edits and does not write anything. 118.217.90.121 (talk) 09:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- I edit in good faith. Please assume the same. You make a generalisation on the basis of very few edits. Check my tens of thousands of edits. I edit pages by IP addresses and regular editors. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 12:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- This is a LTA sock puppeteer. Let me know if more IP editors show up, and I'll block them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Full protection and certain politicians (you know the ones)
I hate to bring this to AN and start a dramafest, but how long are we gonna keep Joe Biden and Donald Trump full protected? Clearly there is a lot of disruption happening right now, but we can't keep them full protected forever. We have to drop them back to ECP at some point, but is that tomorrow? Next week? Next month? January? Unless extended, Trump's full is set to expire tomorrow, but Biden's is indefinite at the moment. This had been being talked out at User talk:Oshwah, but numerous admins and regular editors have expressed a combination of support and dismay and I think this has surpassed what can be discussed on a single user's talk page. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Other creative solutions about how to allow editing but prevent disruption are welcome, such as Awilley's suggestion to temporarily remove the 1RR restriction to allow regular editors to undo bad edits more effectively. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Questions: (1) Why not ECP now? Just how many compromised/gamed accounts have there been? Too many to block? (2) Why not PCR now? Lev!vich 23:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- No comment on ECP, but PCR is counterproductive on articles with high edit rates because every time an IP or non-AC account edits, we get a massive backlog of unreviewed changes as it also holds up subsequent edits by any non-PC reviewer. — Wug·a·po·des 23:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
such as Awilley's suggestion to temporarily remove the 1RR restriction to allow regular editors to undo bad edits more effectively
-- well, aren't they already exempt per:WP:1RR restriction: [...] Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism. Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)- That's a good point, but there are a lot of unhelpful drive-by edits that fall short of being vandalism or violating a clearly established consensus. Take this one for example. It's not quite vandalism (sources exist to support it) and I don't know that there's a clearly established consensus not to call Trump a "conspiracy theorist" in the Lead, but it's obviously Undue weight and it forces another editor to burn their 1 revert of the day to undo it. ~Awilley (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Questions: (1) Why not ECP now? Just how many compromised/gamed accounts have there been? Too many to block? (2) Why not PCR now? Lev!vich 23:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Donald Trump is now back to EC protection. Thank you, User:GorillaWarfare. About Joe Biden, I realize that full protection was necessary because of horrible image vandalism, and I congratulate User:Oshwah for swift action. But there is another way to deal with image vandalism: when this happened several times to the Trump article a few years ago, it was fixed by adding an abuse filter against uploading images. Maybe that could be installed on the Biden article, and the article reopened to normal EC editing? I really don't think full protection for that article is acceptable for more than a few days. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- MelanieN, [59] GW had dropped it but then put it back to full because folks immediately started edit warring. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- An edit filter to prevent adding file links or changing the infobox images on an article seems feasible and not too performance impacting. GeneralNotability thoughts on EF idea? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- This is currently in place. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Zzuuzz what filter is this? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Was it in place on Saturday? Because if so, from what I understand it didn't work. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- It's been actioned since. The filter is actually this one - findable to those who have access. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Is there really a reason to have this as a private filter? I mean, unless you're doing something hacky to detect what is an 'image', it shouldn't really be possible to bypass it just knowing the regex? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- In my humble opinion, yes it should remain private. You can guess roughly what it does, and I don't think you'll be improving on what's already there. Most filters tackling advanced vandalism are 'hacky'. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- I've found it and on review agree that it should remain private. Don't want to say much more per WP:BEANS. — Wug·a·po·des 23:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think ProcrastinatingReader is trustworthy, so I'll explain the situation a little more to them privately (but yeah, not here, BEANS), agree it should be private. I see it's been reactivated since the last time we had to fire it up, so I've got MusikBot set up to ping me on IRC when someone trips it. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Is there really a reason to have this as a private filter? I mean, unless you're doing something hacky to detect what is an 'image', it shouldn't really be possible to bypass it just knowing the regex? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- It's been actioned since. The filter is actually this one - findable to those who have access. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Was it in place on Saturday? Because if so, from what I understand it didn't work. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Zzuuzz what filter is this? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- This is currently in place. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Just weighing in since I was the one who placed full protection on Donald Trump. I was hoping reverting back to ECP would suffice after the 24 hour sysop protection expired, but an edit war started up. That said, it was way less of the nightmare flurry of editing we were seeing yesterday, and it was mostly about one specific issue which is being sussed out on the talk page as we speak, so I'm cautiously optimistic that ECP will be sufficient tomorrow after the protection expires again. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Just stating up front in case I am not around later that if there is some agreement to drop the protection on the Donald Trump article back down to ECP, I have no objections to my protection being changed. I'd just ask that whoever does it makes sure they're available to have eyes on the page for a little while after in case the disruption reoccurs, as it did earlier today. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- @GorillaWarfare:, I'm willing to give it another shot. I can keep an eye on the article for the next few hours. In terms of the edit war that caused you to immediately re-protect the article, I agree it wasn't ideal especially coming right out the gate like that, but I think we can tolerate some reverts like that. In the grand scheme of things it's really not that important whether we have "|successor = Joe Biden" in the infobox at any given moment. ~Awilley (talk) 02:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Just stating up front in case I am not around later that if there is some agreement to drop the protection on the Donald Trump article back down to ECP, I have no objections to my protection being changed. I'd just ask that whoever does it makes sure they're available to have eyes on the page for a little while after in case the disruption reoccurs, as it did earlier today. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think this is a productive discussion, especially since I really have no clue what's been going on besides needing to answer edit requests. Having indef fully protected that article myself a few months ago, I completely understand the situation Oshwah's in and don't envy it. IMO the status quo seems to be going okay---I've noticed about 3 to 5 admins including me trying to regularly answer edit requests---but obviously I'd prefer if people could improve the article without our intervention.
That said, it's a highly visible BLP and any disruption right now would be very bad; I would rather we be too cautious all things considered. I think we should let full protection stay for a day or two more, and then try ECP. If disruption occurs again, immediately full protect. Lather-rinse-repeat until we can have ECP without problems.(edit conflict) — Wug·a·po·des 23:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)- EEng along with Iridescent's quote below convince me otherwise, especially now that we have a filter set up to prevent the worst of the vandalism. I think we should unprotect sooner rather than later, and devote our admin resources to reverting and blocking rather than filling edit requests per WP:5P3. — Wug·a·po·des 00:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- To quote Iridescent [60]:
This is just the kind of article where we need people to be able to edit all the time, since for the next four years it will need to be constantly updated. Full-protection is an absolute last resort for articles (at the time of writing this is one of only two articles in Category:Wikipedia pages protected against vandalism); what full-protection does is hand over control of one of Wikipedia's most important articles to the tiny handful of people who have both admin status and enough interest in the topic to want to edit it. If I didn't think it would provoke a wheel-war, I'd remove the existing protection without a second thought; I think it's totally inappropriate.
- Our proudest moment should be that we maintained at least a semblance of "anyone can edit" (anyone who's extended-confirmed, anyway) on the new president-elect in the midst of all this confusion. EEng 00:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- I've lowered the protection on Biden with the proviso that anyone who thinks I'm wrong can restore full protection without consulting me. No need to worry about wheel wars on this one. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
2020 Arbitration Committee elections: self-nominations now open
Eligible editors are invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections. Self-nominations will close on 17 November 2020 at 23:59 (UTC). Mz7 (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
GargAvinash unblock appeal
GargAvinash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) GargAvinash has submitted an unblock appeal as follows:
I started editing Wikipedia 6 years ago (I guess) when I was in school (class 8). I created two pages (Pt. Ramprakash Mishra and Roshni Mukherjee). I didn't know anything about Wikipedia's Notability policy. I created those pages because I was associated with them. Both were teachers. I didn't give attention to the warnings that time because I knew nothing about Wikipedia. After blocking of the account User:Kumargargavinash I created another account User:ADPS but this account was again blocked due to sockpuppetry. Again in October 2019 I created this account and started editing. I was learning the policies of Wikipedia. I was creating articles and learning more about editing process. Then I also got Autopatrolled right. I enrolled at NPP school. User:Rosguill was teaching me. During that learning period, I read carefully about sockpuppetry and concluded that blocked users should not create new accounts to edit. Then I declared at my NPP school's talk page that I have two previous account blocked. Then User:Rosguill opened a thread at Administrator's Noticeboard and community decided to block me again. Now requesting unblock after 6 months. Now Community can see my edit behaviour of my all accounts and can decide whether to unblock me or not. — GargAvinash talk 19:44, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
As a CU, I see no evidence of socking within the CU period, and would be willing to unblock, but as this block was the result of community discussion, I don't think policy allows this without getting community consensus at AN. I'm thus bringing this here. Any admin can close this and unblock if there is a consensus without needing to wait for me. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support unblock. (Link to blocking discussion) As there's no indication that they have done any socking since the block, I think it's worth giving them another chance. Schazjmd (talk) 01:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Strong support I wasn't even fully on board with the original block. It looks like they've complied with the standard offer and I think we should give them another chance. — Wug·a·po·des 01:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support glad to see that they've returned. signed, Rosguill talk 02:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support unblock The editor has demonstrated that they know what they've done wrong, and appears to demonstrate a willingness to edit constructively according to policy. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)