Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	0	44	44
TfD	0	0	0	5	5
MfD	0	0	2	5	7
FfD	0	0	2	1	3
RfD	0	0	19	40	59
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

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

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (43 out of 8840 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin User talk:213.87.102.204 2024-11-13 12:49 2024-12-13 12:49 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:112.169.222.27 2024-11-13 12:48 2024-12-13 12:48 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:187.188.59.169 2024-11-13 12:47 2024-12-13 12:47 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:211.34.182.26 2024-11-13 12:42 2025-11-13 12:42 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:220.93.19.43 2024-11-13 12:40 2025-11-13 12:40 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:77.108.235.237 2024-11-13 12:36 2024-12-13 12:36 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:118.86.237.182 2024-11-13 12:34 2024-12-13 12:34 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:118.172.199.201 2024-11-13 11:57 2024-12-13 11:57 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:138.94.122.200 2024-11-13 11:57 2024-12-13 11:57 create 331dot User:Marine 69-71/Autographs 2024-11-13 06:21 indefinite edit,move Drop protection to ECP since full was never warranted (especially now that Marine 69-71 is no longer an admin) Pppery Portal:Current events/2024 November 10 2024-11-13 05:32 2024-12-13 05:32 edit,move Arbitration enforcement Cryptic Sevens football 2024-11-13 01:48 2025-11-13 01:48 move Move warring. Upgrading protection level after determining that AC sock had moved the article under sp-move protection. Robertsky User talk:117.53.223.10 2024-11-13 01:35 2025-02-13 01:35 create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector Liam Parsons 2024-11-13 01:20 indefinite move Persistent sockpuppetry Ohnoitsjamie User talk:84.107.235.151 2024-11-12 22:09 2024-11-22 22:09 create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector User talk:84.42.74.76 2024-11-12 21:58 2024-11-19 21:58 create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector Territorial Center of Recruitment and Social Support 2024-11-12 20:49 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Jeff Younger–Anne Georgulas custody battle 2024-11-12 20:19 indefinite edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: per RFPP and WP:GENSEX Daniel Case User talk:42.119.93.195 2024-11-12 10:32 2024-12-12 10:32 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:182.229.34.80 2024-11-12 09:47 2024-12-12 09:47 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:219.240.5.188 2024-11-12 09:32 2024-12-12 09:32 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot Chandraseniya Kayastha Prabhu 2024-11-12 08:33 indefinite edit,move Restoring protection by Doug Weller: Community sanctions enforcement Protection Helper Bot Trick Weekes 2024-11-11 19:52 indefinite edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case Battle of Wadi Saluki 2024-11-11 11:03 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato User talk:91.210.238.104 2024-11-11 09:40 2024-12-11 09:40 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot Thori Si Wafa 2024-11-11 07:13 indefinite edit,move Restore salt Pppery Battle of Sumy 2024-11-11 06:58 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Draft:Khashayar Farzam 2024-11-11 06:54 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Daniel Case Battle of Makariv 2024-11-11 06:48 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Chopra (surname) 2024-11-11 06:17 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case 2024 drone attack on Benjamin Netanyahu's residence 2024-11-11 00:58 indefinite edit,move Dr vulpes Template:Infobox galaxy 2024-11-10 18:00 indefinite edit High-risk template or module: 2500 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Creative Commons text attribution notice 2024-11-10 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2501 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II User talk:103.71.101.206 2024-11-10 16:46 2024-12-10 16:46 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot Ireland–Zambia relations 2024-11-10 14:04 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ireland–Zambia relations (3rd nomination) OwenX Jennette McCurdy 2024-11-10 00:03 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/BLP; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan User:MDanielsBot/AIVStop 2024-11-09 22:42 indefinite edit,move Prevent further disruptive editing; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Ọranyan 2024-11-09 21:19 2024-11-23 21:19 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: request at WP:RFPP Ymblanter Ada and Abere 2024-11-09 20:43 2024-12-09 20:43 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Fathoms Below Political positions of JD Vance 2024-11-09 20:38 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement CTOP AP Will log at AEL Ad Orientem Module:Arrowverse redirect category handler 2024-11-09 18:21 indefinite edit Pppery User talk:Qcne 2024-11-09 16:52 2024-11-16 16:52 edit,move Persistent vandalism Widr Template:TextLicenseFreeUse 2024-11-09 16:02 indefinite edit,move Reduce excessive protection Pppery

Unban request from CheatCodes4ever

CheatCodes4ever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Was originally blocked as WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR per this ANI discussion, and has been blocked for socking, and lost talk page access more than once. A repeat checkuser will be useful. (Yamla found no socking in June.) Has requested unblocking at UTRS appeal #62686, and I have restored the ability to edit here for the unban request. User will be able to respond directly to concerns here. I have copied the request over from UTRS below.

Alright, I am trying my block appeal again. Note that due to a small character maximum in this text box, I am going to have to ask that administrators reviewing this and anyone else reading this read my previous unblock requests to hear other parts of the story. I would rewrite the whole thing again but I cannot, so I will do this instead.

Basically, I got blocked from Wikipedia for not being here to build an encyclopedia and abuse of multiple accounts. As I mentioned, abuse of multiple accounts is already covered in previous requests, though I will get onto the NOTHERE reasoning. I was community banned due to my issues with adding sources to pages and creating articles for non-notable subjects. Users had also given me advice before about this, however I did not take the advice very well, which led users to believe I was not here to build an encyclopedia. As for the addition of content without sources, I often forgot to add sources, which was why I often forgot to add them.

Also, for the record regarding sources that I do use but should not, I do now know that I should not use stores as sources as they are considered original research. As for creating articles on non-notable topics, I now understand the general notability guideline (WP:GNG), as the rule is that a topic is presumed to be notable if it has recieved significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject:

1. "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources, creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. This means that meeting this policy does not mean it definitely deserves its own article, but that it is assumed that it does.

2. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. This means that the topic is covered significantly and is not just mentioned trivially (ex. a long paragraph about something is signficant coverage, but solely mentioning a topic is not).

3. "Reliable" means that the sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. This means that sources must have fact-checking by editors and must not be self-published.

4. "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. This means that sources are needed to make something notable, and these sources should be secondary sources.

5. "Independent of the subject" excludes works published by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. This means that things like advertisements, announcements by the subject or someone affiliated, or anything else that is made by someone who is affiliated with the subject.

Also, I will say for the record, I no longer believe that kappaphobia is a notable topic for Wikipedia, as the source I used was anonymous and was also not reliable for medical information. As for not listening to advice, I will say two things regarding that: 1. Until late 2019, I did not read my messages on my talk page. Although I did see some of them through notifications, most of them I ignored, because I did not use talk back then. 2. When I did eventually start reading my talk page messages, although I did read the advice, I admittingly never really took it very seriously. I did read one policy when it was shown to me, though that's about it. Also, as for not using my talk page to appeal my block, I apologise for doing that, but I was asking questions that I thought I might have needed to know before I could appeal. Anyway, in conclusion, I would like to be unblocked from Wikipedia.

carried from utrs. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I still see no evidence of block evasion recently, based on checkuser data. --Yamla (talk) 13:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I thank you. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, I suppose I'll start this off, since it's been three days. @CheatCodes4ever: While your ban appeal, to me, seems to cover all the main points to be unbanned (and indicates to me that you have read the guidelines you admitted you previously did not), I'm curious what your plans are should it happen. What sort of topics do you want to contribute to should you be unblocked? FrederalBacon (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what topics to which I'll contribute, I'll probably contribute to all kinds, but it will probably mainly be music, film, television, and maybe even games. As I said though, I'll probably end up contributing to all kinds of topics. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support Well, at this point, I'm a consensus of one. CU cleared editor that put some effort into their unblock request, and seems to have an interest in editing. Sure, why not, it's cheap. FrederalBacon (talk) 06:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Copying and pasting from WP:GNG doesn't bode well. I understand there's a character limit, but this unblock request fails to convince that the other disruptive behavior will not be an issue (i.e., WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR) and neither do his previous unblock requests. CC4ever has little history of following suggestions or reading instructions thoroughly, for example. I'd also like to see more specific examples of future contributions, and a willingness to start with minor edits instead of creating articles. I'd recommend giving this editor more time to mature, become acquainted with Wikipedia's policies, and become proficient at its user interface. I would, however, lend my support to reinstatement if a more experienced editor agreed to mentor CC4ever, provided that CC4ever also pledged to follow that mentor's guidance. Matuko (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Matuko: I didn't copypaste from WP:GNG, I wrote it myself. Also, the discussion you mentioned happened back in December 2019, which was before I even got blocked, and this entire unblock request was made to show I'm not like how I was back when I was initially blocked. Also for the record, I don't plan on immediately creating an article after getting unblocked, though I do plan on doing it eventually. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 22:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  Also, I don't see how I don't cover why WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR will no longer be a problem. I clearly demonstrated that I had read Wikipedia policies and now understand more than what I used to. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  Your bullet points include exact quotes from WP:GNG that are not in quotation marks. For example:

  1. "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article.

  Because of this, portions of your reiteration of the policy look like copied text pasted to read like your own words. That's the sort of thing I'm alluding to by bringing up the WP:CIR issues. Sure, it proves that you read it, but you might have used quotation marks, formatted it as a block quote, or rewritten it entirely in your own words, a core Wikipedia editing skill. I will happily assume good faith, accept that it was a formatting error, and strike the accusation. Matuko (talk) 00:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Matuko: To specify, I rewrote it in the same way since I don't really know what other words I could use. If you want, next time, I'll use quotation marks, as you mentioned. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 07:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• Regretfully, I oppose. Matuko raises an important qualm with your appeal: while it demonstrates that you have now read our policies, it does not suggest that you actually understand how to apply them. The only problems mentioned in the appeal pertain to sourcing, but I am seeing other problematic behavior like edit warring, and it just generally seems from glancing over your talk page that you don't seem to be able to understand anything that hasn't been directly told to you; that doesn't suggest that you would be able to contribute constructively on your own. Perhaps the most glaring example of competence problems, from just a few months ago, is needing to ask whether or not you can copy and paste URLs. I believe an unblock now would result in you being blocked again sometime soon, and that doesn't help anyone. I understand that you are still a minor; perhaps when you are older, you will be able to engage with the community more effectively. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Compassionate727: I do understand how to apply the policies:

  1. Everything should be cited with a reliable source unless it cannot be challenged. If a source is reliable, it can be used in a Wikipedia article.
  2. Topics that meet WP:GNG can and should usually have an article.

  Also, about copypasting things, I am only starting to learn about that, and it's because I haven't been told about it until I started appealing my block last year. Plus, do you actually expect me to know every single Wikipedia policy? There are a lot, and I would expect most people to learn as they go. If that's not how it works then tell me, but I was not told that either.

  CheatCodes4ever (talk) 07:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  Furthermore, adding to my point (which I now realise can intially be debunked), if you are going to argue "You had two years to learn," keep in mind that as I've said before, it wasn't until November 2019 that I truly started paying attention to what people were saying to me since I didn't start going on talk until then, and I don't think I even started fully reading my talk page until a month earlier. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 07:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Close review requested in AP / BLP article

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

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

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

Comments from uninvolved editors (Laptop controversy)

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

Long tangential discussion about whether Christians, Muslims, and various other groups should hypothetically be allowed to close certain RFCs ~Awilley (talk) 04:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Your comment about the closer's stated religious beliefs does not seem appropriate or relevant. I think it is possible to evaluate the close without making it personal. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC) Yeah that's pretty messed up BK. The quote on the userpage is "I am a very fundamentalist (in the historic sense of the term) Christian evangelical." What does that have to do with Hunter Biden's laptop? I assume you're suggesting that because many (most?) Christian evangelical voters vote Republican, therefore a Christian evangelical has some kind of bias or COI that should prevent them from closing an RfC about some AP2 political issue? Does your logic apply to closers who have the atheist userbox on their userpage? Because atheists tend to vote Democrat, does that also disqualify them? By this logic, nobody would be able to close anything in AP2. I'm quite shocked to see the suggestion that a closer's religious beliefs are a reason to revert their close, especially when it's a non-religious topic. I think you should strike that. Levivich (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC) If somebody described themselves as a fundamentalist Muslim I dont think they would be wise to close RFCs in the ARBPIA topic area. nableezy - 18:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC) fundamentalist (in the historic sense of the term) is not the same as fundamentalist in the modern sense of the term (our article Fundamentalism explains the difference), and we welcome Muslim and Jewish editors in ARBPIA without question, as we should. It doesn't matter if they're Orthodox Jews or reform Jews, just as it doesn't matter what branch of Islam. Same with Hindus and Muslims in IPA, etc. etc. Levivich (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC) I dont really see what your complaint is with what I wrote, I didnt say somebody who identifies as a fundamentalist Muslim shouldnt edit in the topic area, they should of course be welcomed like any other editor, but rather they wouldnt be wise to close RFCs in the topic area, given that people may question their objectivity. And that would be totally reasonably to do imo. nableezy - 19:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC) At my RfA, some editors expressed concerns that if we legitimized a categorical criticism of editors' fitness to do a particular thing based on their political affiliations, we would effectively be saying the same about religious affiliations. I disagreed with that concern because, well, political and religious affiliations are different things. For one thing, the former is much more a choice than the latter (although ultimately both are choices to a degree). For another, perhaps more importatly, the former is much more directly tied to events "of this world". One cannot infer how someone votes from their religion. One cannot infer what they think of gay people, or abortion, or drinking alcohol, or whether Hunter Biden owned that laptop. Maybe one could reasonably infer some of these from a more detailed exposition of someone's religious views or their membership in a very niche religious group, but not just from I am a very fundamentalist (in the historic sense of the term) Christian evangelical and some references to core Christian doctrine. I know that in my case, there are many ways my lifestyle and politics differ from what might expect if one knew only my religious views (some of which are quite traditional). One can no more infer my political views from my religious affiliation than from my gender or sexual orientation (and talk about a slippery slope there). Point being, if Compassionate indicated a political affiliation on his userpage, this criticism would be fair game (not necessarily correct, but fair game); but saying that religious views disqualify someone from closing a political RfC is a bridge too far, in my opinion. To be clear, none of this is a comment on whether the close was correct, just a rebuttal of this particular objection. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC) I dont think it is disqualifying, I just dont think it is wise. Im not saying perception is reality, but I dont find it that off base to raise an eyebrow at that declaration. Especially given the close actually does align with the views that one might infer, and that the RFC is already tight on the numbers. And btw, BK didnt actually disqualify the user, faulting the close itself for not weighting certain positions less than they feel appropriate, that being the more important thing in the "is one thing" comparison. nableezy - 21:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC) I think the implication was clear. The raising of the eyebrow apparently required it being referenced in a statement regarding the judgement of the closer. As someone incredibly skeptical of any religion, it was a shit take. Arkon (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC) No, sorry, I don't apologise for that at all. This is clearly a very hot-button topic and it should be closed by someone who very obviously doesn't have any baggage over the situation. The closer may be a Biden supporter for all I know but it's the optics that matter, not the actuality. And then there's the closer's comment in the section above, which may lead you in one direction or another. Black Kite (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC) So Wikipedia should have religious tests for certain actions? And are you implying that leftists can't be religious? Besides being "not appropriate or relevant" as Mr Ernie said, I think it's more a violation of WP:NPA. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC) People can keep pretending its a religious test, as though it isnt the fundamentalist part and not the Christian part of it that raises eyebrows, but Sir Joseph would you feel comfortable with a self-identified fundamentalist Muslim closing RFCs in the ARBPIA topic area? Be honest. nableezy - 22:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC) SJ can speak for himself, but if the closes are policy compliant, the religion of the closer is irrelevant. If some bias affects the close, it can then be handled in review and if a pattern emerges, a ban. But to put the ban before any problems simply based on religious views is obscene and certainly not the Wiki way. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC) Someone who edits in a biased manner, should not be closing things in that area. Religion is really irrelevant. If you have an issue with the close, then cite policy reason, as Black Kite did in the second half, but merely being religious, or fundamental isn't really a valid reason. I have an American flag in my profile, does that mean I shouldn't close US related discussions? Sir Joseph (talk) 01:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC) Ill restate the question as you appear to have avoided answering it. Would you feel comfortable with a self-identified fundamentalist Muslim closing RFCs in the ARBPIA topic area? Be honest. nableezy - 02:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC) Yes I have no issues with Muslims editing Wikipedia and closing discussions. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC) Im not sure why you are either answering for Sir Joseph or why you are answering a different question. nableezy - 02:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC) I want to put to bed this viewpoint that religious beliefs preclude participation in a volunteer encyclopedia project. I wholeheartedly reject that notion. Previously I was certain you were on the same tack. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC) Maybe put to bed the ignoring of fundamentalist in that sentence too tho? nableezy - 02:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC) I already answered the question. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC) That has no bearing on the RFC close, which is point I’ve been trying to make. If they didn’t have that tag on their user page you wouldn’t have known. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC) Yeah, thats why you, and SJ for that matter, wont actually answer the question asked. At least El C did, though I very much disagree with him. nableezy - 03:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC) What question? Maybe it got lost with the threaded replies, but I have no issue with fundamentalist editors doing anything if compliant with policy. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC) RE: Would you feel comfortable with a self-identified fundamentalist Muslim closing RFCs in the ARBPIA topic area? — I at least would, though I don't think I've ever encountered one. And I don't really expect to. It seems unlikely that a hardcore religious fundamentalist (which I don't think the closer truly is) would even get to the point of being able to make sound, policy-based closes, though I suppose it's possible, even if not probable. In that sense, it's a bit of a red herring. But in principle, it'd be okay so long as said close conformed to policy and would be well-articulated. Just like it would be okay for a secular Israeli or Palestinian who is an atheist, or an agnostic, a moderate religious Jew or Muslim, and so on. This approach, which is not expressly grounded in policy (quite the contrary) risks users becoming fearful from disclosing their biases or otherwise expressing themselves (appropriately). Which, why should they? El_C 02:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC) Yeah... I voted for Biden; does that mean I should move my !vote to the involved section? :-P Levivich (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC) I didn’t expect you to dig in on this, but since you did, could you give a list of the topics where Christians can’t close discussions? Also, what does being a Christian have to do with Hunter Biden’s laptop? Could a Jew close that discussion? You are now casting aspersions at the closer. Please substantiate your aspersions that they have “baggage” in this topic area. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC) As Nableezy said above, you're concentrating on the religion part, rather than the "fundamentalist" part. If I identified as part of a group that overwhelmingly votes for a particular party in the US, I wouldn't be closing contentious USPOL debates. As also mentioned above, I wouldn't be closing ARBPIA debates if I was Jewish or Muslim either, but that's irrelevant here. Black Kite (talk) 22:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC) Jews overwhelmingly vote for a particular party in the U.S. As do Black people. As do LGBTQ people. This would be a terrifying precedent to set, barring most minorities from closing AMPOL discussions. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC) That's comparing apples and oranges, though, as fundamentalism and politics in the US are inextricably linked. Having said that, I am not saying that declaring a political affiliation, or even just a POV, disbars you from anything, I am simply saying (and this doesn't seem to be getting through, despite the fact I've said it three times now) that when you have a very contentious issue which needs a decision and there may be the possibility that you may be seen as having an interest, it's almost always better to leave it to someone else. Also, to be honest, that discussion really needed an admin, or there was always going to be an issue ... as you can see. Black Kite (talk) 07:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC) fundamentalism and politics in the US are inextricably linked, and they're not in other countries? Race and politics are inextricably linked in the US, too. Black people in the US overwhelmingly vote Democrat; could a Black person close this RFC or would they also have too much, in your words, "baggage"? when you have a very contentious issue this is not a very contentious issue, it's a run of the mill political squabble. you may be seen as having an interest no, that's so weasel-y. What interest does a Christian evangelical, even a fundamentalist (in the historic sense), have in Hunter Biden's laptop? You're the only person who is claiming a connection between Hunter Biden's laptop and Christian fundamentalism. I have yet to understand the connection between the two. Unless the connection is "they vote Republican" -- if that's what you're talking about, please come out and say it plainly, and then explain why the same logic wouldn't apply to Black people, LGBTQ, and other groups like Tamzin pointed out above. By the way, I'm not even sure if the closer is an American at all. If they're a non-American Christian fundamentalist, do they still have "baggage"? that discussion really needed an admin, or there was always going to be an issue ... as you can see An admin of what religion? and this doesn't seem to be getting through Indeed, because you're arguing that religious affiliation creates a political bias or the appearance of one -- that's offensive, and inaccurate. You're advocating for discriminating against closers based on their religious beliefs -- offensive, morally wrong, and a dangerous precedent. It's really, really bad to suggest that the closer's religion (or race, gender, etc.) be taken into account in a close review. Like really bad. I genuinely hope you take the time to really think about what others have written here, and what you've written here, and the implications of it, and that you come to the conclusion that you were wrong to bring up the closer's religion. Levivich (talk) 13:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC) I am wondering if there was any point writing my previous comment, or the one before that, since it appears that no-one is actually reading them. I'll give up there, I think. Black Kite (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC) We've read it, but it doesn't actually address any of the problems with your statement. Your comment's disparaging someone's faith (in any way) is an unreasonable and highly inappropriate remark. That it came from an Admin is not encouraging and exhibits a pretty severe bias. The fact that you stand by your remarks...even more concerning. But I suppose that's par for the course... Buffs (talk) 05:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC) This really isn’t that contentious anymore. It was 2 years ago, but now, per one of the RS quoted in the RFC, “almost no one” disputes the laptop’s authenticity. Apparently those who do are the editors in that RFC. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC) Black Kite, that is awful behaviour. You should retract your borderline personal attack against the closer immediately, not double down, triple down, and quadruple down. Politrukki (talk) 12:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments from involved editors (Laptop controversy)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Geonotice request

There is a geonotice request at Wikipedia:Geonotice#Wikiconference:2022/Submissions. Would one of you administrators please attend to it as you are able? Peaceray (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done, thanks to Pharos! Peaceray (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Standard offer request of Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel

The following message copied here on behalf of Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk · contribs) per this discussion. -- posted by — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

To whichever admin(s) see this, I am respectfully requesting a standard offer by the suggestion of another admin by the name of Ponyo. I simply put it as a request to be able to edit on Wikipedia again after eight months away. I was genuinely unaware that my actions two months later of suck puppetry was illegal on the site after seeing other users get away with it; but as six months have passed since then, therefore I put forth the request of a standard offer now. I fully recognise my short temper and hatred I felt for others if they made mistakes or fell short of what I believed were the standards of an article, and I did not find my block unjust. Since then, as I stated in my second block review, I have gone through rehabilitation via minor therapy and simply alone time, been relieved of stresses also applied at the time, and now I feel I am ready to start editing Wikipedia again without verbally attacking anyone for reason why; and I shall harass no more. This is the second standard offer I have made after the first a few weeks ago. The first standard offer was not rejected but was timed out. If whatever in that can be used as evidence for a decision made about this request, it can be found here.

Thanks, Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel 23:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support - It appears this user has made an effort to correct their past wrong-doings and understand that their behavior was inappropriate. With 8 months gone by, I think it's time for them to be given another chance. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 00:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm curious about how you know that they have "made an effort to correct their past wrong-doings"? Do you mean that they have said so? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

    I was referring to their comment saying they've gone through "minor therapy". Sure, they said they did; I don't know for sure. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 02:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I'm sympathetic to this request. I was involved in trying to steward Mikey's first unblock request (now in Archive 1108, here; parallel UTP discussions here). On the plus side, is my gut feeling from numerous interactions that there is a sincere feeling of contritition, fairly biding his time during the block, and an awareness of what was inadmissible before and a conviction not to go there again. On the flip side, I would have hoped to see more activity at a sister project to provide some evidence of change, which we now lack (other than a sprinkling).
  Mikey, I'm not an admin, as you know, but imho if your request is successful this time, and at some point later you run into some stressor and blow up and get blocked again, that's liable to be the end of the story; coming back from another block will likely be extremely difficult to impossible. Given that, do you feel confident you can keep things under control, do whatever you need to do (like take a WP:Wikibreak if needed) to avoid any problems going forward? Mathglot (talk) 03:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
• From Special:Diff/1113160513/1113236493: Primefac (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  As I already said in my first standard offer, I know fully well how to correctly deal with errors of other users or resolve a disagreement over an edit. With minor errors, using the summary box explaining their error would be plausible to use. For a major error, approaching them via their talk page to explain their error would be more plausible; while for an edit conflict, a debate should be carried out on the article's talk page. I have also made consideration that I shall only edit on Wikipedia when I am not in a bad mood as to not provoke myself even more. Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk) 13:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• Having only read what's here and not what initially led to the block, I am given to support. Many people mellow with age or learn to control themselves better, and when Mikey says that he has reflected and done some kind of "minor therapy" (whatever that means) and can now control himself, I am inclined to accept that. I'm not convinced from what I have read that he will be a paragon of calmness, but we have many temperamental editors here, and I think the fact that he has been blocked and had to learn from that how better to behave will make him better adapted to the project than many who skirt the edge of unacceptable conducts; as long as he is careful to avoid editing when angry, I think he will be fine. Besides, we are all called to be gracious to the penitents seeking forgiveness. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  In reply: Just a bit of clarity on what I mean by minor therapy. It doesn't mean I was sat one-on-one with a therapist for an hour every week, but a good friend who is a therapist gave me useful advice. Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk) 15:52, 1 October 2022 (UTC) Primefac (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Closure review of Jerusalem infobox RFC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Some observations:

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

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

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

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

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

WP:ACE Election Commission - Call for candidates

Hello all, qualified editors are invited to self-nominate for the 2022 Arbitration Committee Elections Electoral Commission. Those interested should list themselves on this page. Commissioners are empowered to make binding decisions on unexpected or exception issues related to the election, and some other duties specified in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections/ACERFC decisions to date. This is a single-term position lasting until the end of the December election. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 15:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Just a bump here, a couple of days left on this - volunteers wanted! — xaosflux ^Talk 20:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Oof, 3 candidates as of now. I suppose if that's gonna be all of em, we won't even need an election as they'll all get in by default. Silver lining? But I suppose the last few hours is when the influx usually happens (for reasons that are cosmic in nature). El_C 16:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I may throw my hat in the ring, primarily so the other three can feel slightly better when they're elected and I'm not. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Please do! I will get you votes, by force peacefully. El_C 17:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Your wish is my command! Though I ask only that voters support whomever they think best suited to the position. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Like. I've always voted for non-admin candidates when I thought they had a lot to offer, as Dumuzid does.←[Early campaigning] Sure, they may not know some of the finer technical details of admin work, but they usually have a decent grasp of the broad strokes, plus they bring a fresh perspective. It's unfortunate that this never happened. I suppose if such a candidate wins, though, they'd have to be granted +sysop at least temporarily alongside the other advanced permissions arbs get by default. El_C 18:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Err, why? Unless I've missed something important, it seems like EEC members just sit there and deal with crises if any happen; that makes it sound like the only requirement is a good head on your shoulders. If serving requires special permissions, that sounds like a headache I'd rather not deal with and I should withdraw. (Although, frankly, I'm hoping we get that last-second rush of qualified candidates and I'm not elected anyway.) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Glad to see I am in good company both in terms of candidacy and my attitude thereto! Cheers, Dumuzid (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

User with multiple accounts and "ownership" issues.

User:Kioumarsi and User:H.kioumarsi are the same individual. also, they seem to have an ownership issue with Taleshi_sheep as seem here and here. @Elmidae: you may want to chime in. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Indeed they do - and based on that I suspect this is not much more than a basic misunderstanding of attribution, authorship, and COI on WP. Is there a suitable collection of newbie material one could drop on their talk page? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

They are hardly a newbie... they've been here since 2007. But I can hit them with something from Twinkle, and follow up with some pointers to WP:COI, etc. However, they do have multiple accounts, even though they've not used one in several years. This needs some formal addressing. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

There was no attempt to deceive anyone about the fact that they operate both accounts, so there's no WP:SOCK violation. If this were ongoing, it would be worth asking them why they're using two accounts and encouraging them to disclose this on their userpage, but given that H.kioumarsi hasn't edited in 7 yaers, I don't think even that is necessary. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. I posted a message on their talk. We'll see what happens. Feel free to make a better attempt. XD - UtherSRG (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Shalom and thank you! Kioumarsi (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@UtherSRGI have two accounts, but I have not edited with the "H.Kioumarsi" in 7 years. For technical reasons, I can't deactivate an account or combine two user accounts into one user account. I have mentioned in my profile that I have two accounts. I appreciate it if you kindly remove the big temple from my account. Kioumarsi (talk) 07:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I've removed it. Since you no longer use the H.kioumarsi account, you might consider redirecting User:H.kioumarsi&User talk:H.kioumarsi to User:Kioumarsi&User talk:Kioumarsi to eliminate any further potential for confusion. – Joe (talk) 09:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you more than words can say @Joe Roe Kioumarsi (talk) 14:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of main title and infobox of article

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

---

User talk:Volunteer Marek deleted the entry for Kherson Oblast (Russia) and Zaporozhye Oblast (Russia) for it being "unsourced" and being "hoax" which I do not think is really the point. Yes, it is not recognised, but that does not mean you delete the whole entry and infobox for not "recognising" it. Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

In the discussion of these articles, this user behaves extremely aggressively, and threatens with permanent bans to those who oppose his position. Please restrict this user from discussions and editing articles for a while. PLATEL (talk) 13:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

VM is a bit ott here, 4 of the same revert in a couple hours at Kherson Oblast (Russia) Also see AFD in progress here. If there are issues, raise them on talk. Revert 1 Revert 2 Revert 3 Revert 4 Selfstudier (talk) 14:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

My edits removed unsourced text which presented false information. So yes, WP:HOAX. And yeah there have been some IPs and brand new accounts jumping in to try and restore the fake information. I did revert them since having HOAXes on Wikipedia embarrasses the entire project. Volunteer Marek 14:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Starting New Page

Hello,

I am requesting to start a new page. Ryan Wilson (politican)

thank you KlutheMN

KlutheMN (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

KlutheMN You don't need to request permission to start a new article(not a "page"). You may draft one at Articles for creation, but it will be very challenging. First, they will need to meet the definition of a notable politican. Mere candidates are insufficient unless they meet the broader notable person definition. 331dot (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. A new article will still be created, as there is quite a lot of media, even national, on Minnesota right now. And significant press coverage on this particular race. KlutheMN (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• Draft:Ryan Wilson (candidate for Minnesota State Auditor) was created by a different new user on September 27.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

User making malicious edits.

Anonymous user editing wikipedia page to add frivolous information

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=.30-06_Springfield&action=history

Anonymous user is adding " .306APOCWON " WarRaven (talk) 00:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Content dispute, no administrator action needed. Just guide them to the talk page, start a discussion and ask for references. Canterbury Tail talk 01:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

RfC which may be of interest

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale Valereee (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

XDPOGCHAMPEPEGA

Recommend administrators' review @XDPOGCHAMPEPEGA:'s contrib history, at List of presidents of the United States page & talkpage. As well as editor's own talkpage. Seems to be a case of either WP:CIR or WP:NOTHERE. -- GoodDay (talk) 03:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think they're here to build an encyclopedia. Their mainspace contributions range from obvious bad-faith vandalism to unsourced POV-pushing, and then there's all the fuckery on their user talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Note: they have been notified. (fyi) - wolf 03:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I believe firefangledfeathers has summed up this issue quite neatly. Both long-term edit warring and battleground attitude at List of United States presidents and it's talk page, as well as the must-see-to-believe edits on their own talk page and user page, including a post so obnoxious and hateful it had to be rev/del'd, shows they have no interest in engagement, just telling editors "fuck u" (repeatedly), posting a full copy of lyrics to a Kanye West song, posting their ugly opinions of politics and society, and of course, their off-wiki contact info (as if they're blowing up their account on purpose and so wanna get that out there). None of this behaviour has been about building or maintaining this project or working collaboratively with others to do same. - wolf 03:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

They quit and I blocked them. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 04:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Seems they've returned as a sock, named User:PieceControlLegend. -- GoodDay (talk) 09:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Probably but blocked as not here to contribute. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 13:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Request to overturn or at least limit my topic ban

I currently have a topic ban on editing anything related to religion or religious figures "broadly construed". It has now been in place over a year. I understand that some of my actions that preceded this were disruptive, overly combative and otherwise unwise. However that was in August of last year. I think it would be reasonable at this time to overturn the topic ban. If people are not willing to do this, I think it should be at least limited to edits directly related to religion, and no longer cover "religious figures" "broadly construed". That wording has lead to people trying to apply it against me in what seems to be ever increasing ways. There was notice on my talk page given about me editing related to the Wood Between the Worlds article when this was its content [1]. I have been called up because I edited in minor ways an article on a political leader, not in elation to anything that related to religion, but because he happened to have been involved in creating documents defining government policy related to religion. The interpretation of some seems to be "broadly defined" means anyone who was an artist who ever created any work that was ever religion, no matter how little of their body of work was religious. I floated an example of someone who did some study at a place training people to be religious leaders, but left there without completion and has spent the rest of their career as a lawyer, government administrator and judge, and someone argued that little bit was enough to exclude. At this point the rule is not functioning to protect against disruption, it is functioning to cause me to have to worry about every broadening interpretations of what broadly defined is. I really think that after a whole year we could just overturn the topic ban, but at a minimum we should limit it to edits that in their substance actually cover religious topics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• I'm currently neutral with respect to repealing part or all of the ban, but I agree that a topic ban that could conceivably be construed to include any person who is verifiably religious (although I'm not aware anybody has yet attempted to do so) is too broad. Especially when, at a glance, the edits for which he was topic banned pertained to Mormonism specifically. On the other hand, I see a history of not getting the point that concerns me. I'll wait until others have commented before assuming a more definite position, but I think at minimum some clarification is warranted, and I'll probably push to narrow it so that marginally notable places in allegorical novels are not included. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  One time someone did attack me for making what I think was a comment on my talk page that somehow related to Mia Love. Love is a politician and political commentator..John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  Johnpacklambert, you are well aware that Mia Love is a very high profile Black convert to the LDS church, that she was featured in a national TV advertising campaign called I'm a Mormon before that church repudiated the "M" word, and that she and a photo of her were highlighted in a New York Times article about that ad blitz. Cullen328 (talk) 00:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

  [2] includes the exchange related to Love.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Johnpacklambert: By "attack", do you mean this question by Cullen328 on your talk page? If so, I fail to see how that could be construed as an attack; an explanation would be appreciated.

  On the subject of Mia Love, she is indeed a politician; however, her religious views feature prominently in the article (and appear to form the basis for her political views). –FlyingAce^✈hello 01:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

  Personally, I believe that when a user occasionally infringes the edges of a very broad topic ban and the edits have nothing to do with the disruption that saw them topic banned to begin with, we should ask ourselves if the topic ban perhaps isn't too onerous before we accuse them of prodding to see what they can get away with. I don't believe an editor should have to read oodles of articles out of fear of violating a topic ban while doing routine maintenance like fussing with categories. Having said that: John, you're really not helping your case here. The point of a topic ban is to send you elsewhere and give you time to cool down and rethink things: that you were watching an article from which you know you are topic-banned (you yourself admitted that you are very familiar with Mia Love from news coverage), and watching closely enough to notice category changes within two weeks of them happening, actively undermines the effectiveness of the ban. Essentially asking someone to help you circumvent your topic ban is also not okay. Moreover, you are not helping your case by distorting the salient issues. You could have frankly admitted that there is a religious connection in some of these topics, that you hadn't realized it when you made the contested edits, and that you would like to loosen your topic ban so that you don't have to worry about unwittingly infringing it when making edits that obviously have no religious dimension or motive. People would have been sympathetic and we probably could have reached some kind of agreement. Instead, you have tried to bury the religious aspect of these topics—did you think we wouldn't investigate and find out? This suggests a battleground, not collaborative, mentality: one more focused on vindicating yourself than reaching an amicable understanding with others. That doesn't work in a project like this.

  I want to emphasize that I believe you are acting in good faith. I see that you noted on your userpage that you have Autism; I do too. Now that I have a fuller picture of the situation, it seems to me that you have been getting in trouble because you don't fully understand how other editors' perceive your behavior, and believe me, I'm sympathetic. Drop a message on my talk page—now, before your next appeal, whenever you want to have that conversation—and I'll gladly go over the unwritten rules with you. But modifying your topic ban before you understand those rules will just land you in more trouble in the future, and I don't want that to happen to you, so I will oppose for now. I want you to know that I have no hard feelings toward you and will gladly support an appeal when I think you are ready; let's work together to get you there. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

• This quote was posted on my talk page recently "Completely forget about trying to define where the boundaries are - simply keep so far away from the boundaries that you can't even see them. The vast majority of people on this planet, and the vast majority of BLP subjects in Wikipedia, have never had any specific religious education, have never had any interest in religion professionally, and have never uttered a word in public about religion. You should be fine with any of those. I would strongly suggest that if a BLP article contains any mention of any religious activity, any religious upbringing, or says anything about religious thoughts or comments from the subject... you would be safer to consider it closed to you. " That seems to be saying I should not edit any article on anyone who was verifiably religious.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
• Short version: I oppose overturning the ban, and apologize in advance for the length of what follows. As someone who politely called this editor's attention to their editing of William Sayle (I assume this is the "political leader" referred to above) rather than just reporting them for a topic ban violation, I think that interaction is an interesting example to cite. That article has the word "religion" in the second sentence of the lead for good reasons, one of which is that the political events occurred in the context of the subject's religious leadership of the Puritan breakaway group that formed a European colony in the Bahamas for religious reasons. I understand why, having been notified of a possible topic ban violation, the editor would want to re-characterize the subject's article as something else, but it's not plausible to think that a ban on editing religious topics wouldn't include one of the pioneers of religious freedom in European colonies. So as far as I'm concerned, this appeal is already based on a mischaracterization of the situation.
  But the baseline problem here, as it has been before (see previous ANI/Arbcom discussions about this editor) is that this editor has fundamental and persistent challenges in applying the concept of "broadly construed" to his own editing, and a history of trying to figure it out by pushing boundaries and seeing what gets restricted. Whatever other purpose it serves, this topic ban on religion is a sort of ongoing test to see whether that problem is still a problem. Obviously it is, as the editor's own comments above indicate. Of course there are two simplistic solutions: one, remove all "broadly construed" restrictions on the editor, on the basis that it is too difficult for him to apply "broadly construed" language to his own editing; two, indefinitely block the editor, on the basis that it is too difficult for him to apply "broadly construed" language to his own editing. The first adds more of a burden on the community to monitor an editor with a long history of consuming the community's time with a recurrent cycle of apologies and topic bans and pleas and blocks and unblocks and second and third and fourth and fifth chances. The second frees the community of that burden, at the cost of losing future edits and making the editor feel bad. I don't think the editor wants the second solution, and I don't know whether the community wants either of these solutions. But in the meantime I oppose lifting this particular topic ban, since it is at least partly serving its purpose of keeping this editor out of editing areas where more attentive and collaborative participation than what they have previously shown is required. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  Knowing there is additional scrutiny during this appeal, after receiving advice to stop testing boundaries, and after receiving advice to stay away entirely from articles that could be about religion at all, the editor responds by editing Jela Spiridonović-Savić, an article in which approximately half of the substantive text is about religion, spirituality, and mysticism in her work. Which, I guess, reinforces my point about a fundamental inability to comply with any restriction that requires interpreting "broadly construed". Indignant Flamingo (talk) 06:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

  • This is a totally unfair characterization of what occured. The article has an opening that states "Jela Spiridonović-Savić (11 January 1890 - September 1974) was a Serbian poet." The categories all talk about being a poet, etc, and one was an 1891 birth category. I read that intro and realized that it did not agree with the listed year of birth. That was all of the article I read before moving it to 1890s births category, since we have a conlict on what exact year this person was born. I did not review the article, which was unwise of me, because this seemed so clear cut, and I was thinking that poets are generally not religious in nature. This was not an attempt to push boundaries, it was an attempt to deal with an issue that had no religious nature, on an article on a poet, which is not an inherently religious thing. I should have delved deeper into what type of poet this person was. I am very sorry for this and have reversed the edit.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Lambert,that was a totally fair and accurate description of your bad behavior. The fact that you argue that you shouldn't even be required to review the entire quite short bio to see if it fell under your topic ban demonstrates you cannot be trusted to edit properly. Oppose any relaxation of existing bans, support site ban. (s) Vivian.

• I am very firmly opposed to the concept of loosening the topic ban until we actually see that they can abide by the various restrictions they are under. He just returned from a 1 month ban for violating another topic ban they are under. That pretty much shows that they are still having issues with figuring out the boundaries of topic bans so I don't see why loosening one would be a good idea. Ealdgyth (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
• Agreed with the above that we need to see evidence JPL can edit productively with restrictions before loosening any. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 01:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Johnpacklambert needs to demonstrate over a lengthy period of time that he truly understands his topic bans and have fully complied with them without any testing of the boundaries. A highly experienced editor should not be constantly claiming to not understand clearly written topic bans and continuing to probe around the edges. Fully comply without any boundary testing for at least six months, JPL. We do not need to waste volunteer time evaluating biographies where JPL tries to claim that the article is not covered by the topic ban and several other editors reply, "Oh yes, it is, per A, B and C". JPL should use a ten foot barge pole to stay FAR away from any such articles. His failure to do so is evidence that the topic bans should stand. Cullen328 (talk) 03:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cullen328 and Ealdgyth, and IF's concern about JPL's lack of understanding of "broadly contrued". Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:29, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose and support 1-year moratorium on any further appeals. The point of the tban is to reduce the amount of editor time spent on JPL. Levivich (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

  Also support siteban per WTT and BK below, and if that passes, also with a 1-year appeal moratorium. Basically, I support whatever the heck it takes to not have to spend any editor time on JPL for at least a year. Levivich (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

• Too soon (non-admin comment) Appeals to topic bans generally are not likely to be accepted if you get caught violating one too recently. I support Levivich's moratorium to give a window for building trust needed for an appeal to have a chance. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose As was pointed out, the editor violated the topic ban during this discussion.[3] I appreciate their point that "broadly construed" could be interpreted so widely that it could include virtually anyone. But the expectation should be that editors and administrators will interpret it in a sensible way. We shouldn't change a decision because we have no confidence that editors will do so. I think too the editor should consider taking up Compassionate727's offer of assistance. TFD (talk) 10:06, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I am very sorry about this, and have rescinded that edit. I think that does go to Fram's point. The article opened stating the person was a poet, and that is all the detail given in the opening, and the way the birth date was presented made it make more sense to categorize in 1890s births than any specific year, so it seemed an uncontroversial edit. I should have reviewed the article in detail and apologize for this mistake.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, but..." can an execption be made for non-religious category editing in articles? Much of their work is correcting, adding, changing... categories related to either years or to migration, which is unrelated to the topic of the article (i.e. doesn't matter if the subject is religious, somewhat religious, or doesn't deal with religion at all). Having to check each article to see if it is related to religion, just to be able to change e.g. "Category:1890s births" to "Category:1891 births", is a nuisance with no benefits (yes, it's a nuisance of their own making, but still...). They should still not edit anything but the categories of such articles, and they shouldn't edit religion-rlated categories. Is such a tailor-made change to the topic ban acceptable, or not worth the hassle? Fram (talk) 10:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

  What Fram suggests makes sense. Still, I think it would have been better to see evidence of constructive editing completely outside of the TB area (say, editing articles about plants perhaps?) before asking for a loosening of the restrictions. I'm not sure a super-duper-mega specific restriction is the way to go, and I don't think it is reasonable to have to describe in minute detail every single scenario where the TB may or may not apply. –FlyingAce^✈hello 18:49, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose" the 'but' RE Fram above is that JPL clearly cant grasp the concept of broadly construed. The problem with editors who have that issue is that defining ever more specific restrictions/exemptions does not help in the long run as it imposes an even bigger burden on everyone else to monitor it (the 'hassle'). The solution that works is generally to impose an even wider restriction (eg, banning from biographies altogether, absolutely no issue with arguing over 'is this person fall into broadly construed then'). Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:25, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The editor clearly shows that he understands the ban ~ That seems to be saying I should not edit any article on anyone who was verifiably religious ~ but doesn't think it's fair (i think). Once he shows that he can actually abide by the ban the community imposed, then we can talk about relaxing it. I'm sympathetic to Fram's suggestion, but i don't believe it to be a useful modification. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 11:49, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
• I oppose lifting the restriction. I looked into JohnPackLambert's editing two months ago as part of the arbitration case and my opinion was that a full site ban was required. Since then, he's spent half of that period blocked and has now raised this request which further makes me believe that he lacks the ability to edit the encyclopedia productively. I therefore would also propose an indefinite community site ban which I suppose should go in it's own section, but lets see if there's any traction or it's just my opinion. Worm^TT(talk) 16:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

  I voted against a site ban when it was part of the ArbCom case. I would now support such a sentiment given the block (I actually expected he would end up blocked a couple of times before it stuck), this appeal, but especially off-wiki evidence about Johnpacklambert. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Barkeep49: I recognize that you can't get into specifics, but would it be possible to summarize in broad strokes what the off-wiki evidence concerns? Is this is about religious opinions that he has expressed off-wiki (which I saw mentioned in one of the ANIs), then I don't really care, but anything involving off-wiki harassment of editors, potential sockpuppetry, or the like would obviously be of great concern to me. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:49, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

  The off-wiki evidence isn't something sent to arbcom so in that sense it's not secret, but is protected by the OUTING policy. I am concerned about trying to summarize it too much without being able to link to it because I feel that gets into ASPERSIONS territory. Bottomline is that I think those postings, along with this appeal, suggests that Johnpacklambert has good intentions but can't understand the community's concerns about his editing in a way that would let him be a productive editor. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

  I am a very productive editor who has tried to improve the encyclopedia. I do not think it is fair to judge me for my expressions of frustration that I have put elsewhere. I have said things like "this ban was started because of x", but have generally acknowledged that x is only the starting point, and that my overall actions in relation to the issue were too combative and are what really lead to the ban. I maybe have not always worded those statements as calmly as I should have. However Wikipedia has no expectation that every mention to it be editors elsewhere abides by Wikipedia rules. I do not believe any of my statements outside have been such that they would reasonable be considered in considering what I do inside Wikipedia. I have spent the last year mainly going back through birth year categories sequentially. Most of my edits relate to Manual of Style compliance, fixing categories, adding missing categories, changing the way a birth place is described to agree with what the way the birthplace would be described based on the time of birth. The edits that have ended up being with problems with the ban have been accidental, and I have tried to reverse all of them as soon as I can see them. I am perfectly willing to continue doing this editing. Are there other articles and other topics I would like to edit, but I cannot. Sure. Did I hope that I could edit in some way those articles if the topic ban was overturned? Sure. But topic bans are not meant to regulate thoughts or desires, only actions, and I have tried my hardest to abide by the topic ban as it exists. I have tried my hardest even when I complain on facebook or other places about it to make sure that I acknowledge that it came about because of actions on my part that were disruptive and worse. I may not have always done that as much as I should have, but I have tried to make it clear that my explanation of the starting point is complicated by the fact there were a lot of disruptive actions on my part before we got anywhere further. Anyway, the truth is that right now if I could get this topic ban overturned I would edit a punch of articles that only say someone was born about a certain year but are in a specific year category to be in a decade birth category, and a bunch of other articles that I have seen where someone was from place A but lived a long time in Place B, but it is not categorized or not well categorized I would change. However I have no list of what these articles are, I just know I have seen a lot of articles in my review that had these issues in categories to address but I did not address because of the topic ban. I have not tried to make any list of edits I would do once the topic ban was lifted. I wish I had never even started this AN discussion. I have tried to be a productive editor of Wikipedia. I hope I can continue to do so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

• Full site ban. Tban was offered in lieu of full site ban last summer, to free up the timesink this editor has become for the community in religious and religous adjacent articles. Editor has circled around the edges near continously in the last 13 months, racking up multiple blocks for violations. Because their entire reason for editing WP is to edit about religion. Editor has proven to be a timesink when not under a tban, and a timesink when under a tban. Loosening the tbans restrictions to let them edit some parts of religious articles and persons will just be a first step for them to argue that the rest of the tban is just as onerous for them. Because their entire raison d'etre for being here on WP is to edit religious articles. No matter where you set the line, they will be there trying to skirt it, arguing for its removal, racking up blocks, and dragging dozens of other editors into the quagmire. Just let it end. Heiro 17:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
• Can I request to close this with no action so that we can avoid these ever increasing attacks on me. I do not think it is fair to argue to more stringently enforce this ban because of something that is related to another ban. Also, the claim that my entire reason for being here is to "edit religious articles" is clearly not true. I have spent the last year making huge amounts of edits which relate to things other than religious articles. I have had a few cases where I accidentally and inadvetently made edits related to this ban. They have not been intentional. I am not sure what this mention of "off wiki evidence is", but I do not see any justified way to restrict my actions on Wikipedia based on what I may have said in other forums. Wikipedia restrictions apply to actions on Wikipedia, and cannot reasonable be extended to restrict people based on what they may or may not have done in totally different forums.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
  • As far as I know the only edit I have made since I was allowed to edit Wikipedia again that was problematic was the one mentioned above, that I have both apologized and reversed. This does not seem to be the type of edit that it is reasonable to ban someone from editing Wikipedia for. This is the first time I have ever made a proposal at AN. I did not realize that merely making such a motion would be treated as grounds for punishing me. I have really tried to abide by this topic restriction. I was not trying to be disruptive. I did not know that making such a motion would be seen as grounds for proposing these much more restrictive solutions. I do not think this response is justified. I have tried to avoid editing any article that comes under the "religious figures broadly construed" rubric. For example multiple times there was an article on an artist who I wanted to add or edit categories based on when they were born or other topics clearly not related to the subject of the topic ban, artists who specialized in painting contemporary to them political leaders or still life paintings, but I still dug down through the whole list of their works to ensure that there was no conflict. I have been trying to check and double check articles when I think there might be a conflict and to err on the side of caution. I have tried this over and over and over again. Occasionally I make mistakes, but when they are pointed out to me, or when I realize them before they are pointed out to me, I quickly and completely reverse these edits to avoid any problem. I am very sorry I made this nomination and wish I could have done it a different way, but I do not think banning of editing is justified because of it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Resignation of Donald Albury

I am resigning from the Arbitration Committee with an effective date of December 31, 2022. I am announcing my resignation now in order to allow the election of someone to complete the second year of my term through the annual election process that will start shortly.

I have not been contributing to the behind-the-scenes work of the committee, which is not fair to the other members of the committee (although they have been kind enough to not mention that to me). While I have not been contributing to that behind-the-scenes committee work, I have found that the time I spend reading e-mails and the project pages that are relevant to the committee's work is more than I enjoy spending. I have decided that I just want to go back to being an editor who occasionally performs an admin action.

I wish to thank everybody who voted for me last year, and hope you are not too disappointed that I am not completing my term. I also wish to thank my fellow ArbCom members for their support of, and patience with, me. My exposure to the inner workings of this part of the governance of the English Wikipedia has been reassuring to me about the durability and fairness of such governance. Donald Albury 18:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Resignation of Donald Albury

Global ban for Александр Мотин

Per the Global bans policy, I’m informing the project of this request for comment: RfC/Global ban for Александр Мотин. - Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 03:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Russo-Ukrainian War ECP Proposal at ANI

There's an extended-confirmed protection proposal at ANI for the Russo-Ukrainian War topic. Bringing it up here since AN is the usual place for these. 46.97.176.101 (talk) 06:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Update: Proposal passed. Looks like we're still logging at WP:AEL#Eastern_Europe but with the WP:GS/RUSUKR shortcut added to those log entries. Works for me. El_C 18:50, 7 October 2022 (UTC)