Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Total
CfD	0	0	9	4	13
TfD	0	0	1	3	4
MfD	0	0	4	2	6
FfD	0	0	2	0	2
RfD	0	0	36	18	54
AfD	0	0	0	4	4

• 7 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 2 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 7 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 10 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 140 sockpuppet investigations
• 27 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 20 Fully protected edit requests
• 0 Candidates for history merging
• 12 requests for RD1 redaction
• 47 elapsed requested moves
• 2 Pages at move review
• 44 requested closures
• 126 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 13 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (25 out of 8388 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Template:Occupation by nationality and century category header/portal/core 2024-09-14 17:01 indefinite edit,move RFPP request Anachronist Jol Thoi Thoi Bhalobasha 2024-09-14 06:03 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Ogaden (clan) 2024-09-13 20:38 2026-09-13 20:38 edit Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of poorly sourced material. Yamaguchi先生 Galileo Galilei 2024-09-13 19:05 indefinite move Persistent vandalism: per RFPP Daniel Case Template:Infobox cricket tournament 2024-09-13 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2501 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Archive top red/styles.css 2024-09-13 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 3381 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Communist Party of India (Marxist) 2024-09-13 15:28 2024-12-13 15:28 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; up to ECP as semi isn't sufficient; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Anastasia Trofimova 2024-09-12 21:06 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:RUSUKR Ymblanter Halhul 2024-09-12 16:12 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C Kuči (tribe) 2024-09-12 00:06 2025-09-12 00:06 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/EE ToBeFree Russians at War 2024-09-11 18:14 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Flourless chocolate cake 2024-09-11 16:00 2025-09-11 16:00 edit Edit warring by autoconfirmed Valereee Marron glacé 2024-09-11 15:57 2025-09-11 15:57 edit Persistent sock puppetry, ongoing, by autoconfirmed editors Valereee Koi Mil Gaya 3 2024-09-11 05:53 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ad Orientem Koi... Mil Gaya 3 2024-09-11 05:53 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ad Orientem Sarah McBride 2024-09-11 03:33 indefinite edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action under GENSEX Daniel Case Election denial movement in the United States 2024-09-11 02:06 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement CTOP AP Ad Orientem Lisa Cameron 2024-09-11 00:47 2025-09-11 00:47 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:BLPCT ToBeFree Virtuous Pedophiles 2024-09-10 23:46 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Aoidh Elisa Hategan 2024-09-10 23:45 2024-09-17 23:45 edit Dropping to ecp, edit war is between non-ec accounts ScottishFinnishRadish Caleb Alloway 2024-09-10 23:27 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: Confirmed WP:UPE target - approved draft required Ponyo Jaime Macías Alarcón 2024-09-10 23:22 indefinite create Confirmed WP:UPE target - approved draft required Ponyo Anomaly detection 2024-09-10 21:36 2024-09-17 21:36 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan September 2024 Al-Mawasi refugee camp attack 2024-09-10 19:29 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Koch people 2024-09-10 18:55 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case

User:Qwerfjkl and non-admin closures of categories

A week and a half ago, I nominated Category:United States presidents and death for renaming to Category:Deaths and funerals of United States presidents. Earlier today, I moseyed on over to CfD to see what happened. I noticed that User:Qwerfjkl had non-admin closed the CfD as rename…but they hadn’t actually made the move, nor had they even removed the CfD template from the article. And then I noticed that this wasn’t the only CfD like this. As I see it, one or more things need to happen here:

1. Admins need to clean up some of these CfDs, completing the moves that User:Qwerfjkl has closed
2. Qwerfjkl needs to stop closing CfD discussions like that

pbp 18:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

After closing the discussion, Qwerfjkl listed it at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working in this edit, in accordance with the instructions for closers, so it is already flagged for admin action. DanCherek (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is the standard process. It's a shame that only one person is processing that queue right now, and thus a large backlog has built up. When the crats finally implement my RfA I will definitely help clear that queue, and of course any other admins watching this are welcome to join us, but Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive354#WT:CFDW backlog was archived without reply. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I have now cleared the backlog of CfDs needing admin action. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks for doing that. Way to put your new tools to good use :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, and Qwerfjkl should probably put seven days of his life to one side in the nearish future to avoid having to use the {{nac}} template. In the meantime, this can be closed, as the OP's assertion has no basis in policy. SN54129 11:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

The community doesn't think so, per Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Archive 15#Qwerfjkl. But then I passed RfA with many of the same supposedly-disqualifying flaws... * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, not doing an RfA based solely on that feedback isn't reasonable IMO. Pppery's RfA would be a good thing to read over carefully before you proceed, but if the issues raised in the discussion are the only ones, I think you'd be fine. Hobit (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Aman.kumar.goel

Please check the edit history on this link. Aman.kumar.goel has violated 3RR, not assuming good faith, casting aspersions without a shred of evidence and trying to hide his own meatpuppetry. 07:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.34.148.235 (talk)

I won't be notifying the user because he is going to remove this too. 07:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.34.148.235 (talk)

You are a ban evading sock of Oriental Aristocrat. Anyone who can compare these two diffs[1][2] will say the same.

You already know that blocked socks like you are not allowed to edit while everyone else (including me) are required to revert you on sight per WP:DENY. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 07:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Since Aman.kumar.goel is aware of this discussion it doesn't matter any more, but you really should have notified them. It doesn't matter if they remove the notification, they are entitled to per WP:OWNTALK. The whole point of the notification is to make them aware of this discussion, and we assume when someone removes something they read it enough to know what it's about. If they don't, well that's on them. Instead you put the fault if Aman.kumar.goel didn't become aware of this discussion on yourself. Nil Einne (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I think they meant remove the ANI thread. Moot now. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Reading again, I'm sure you're right. Still this illustrates why it was pointless exercise. Aman Kumar Goel was the first to comment on this discussion and within 2-3 minutes although no one notified them so could have easily removed it. I'm not surprised they didn't remove it since experienced editors will rarely remove a thread about them no matter how sure they are it's disruptive or justified unless it's so blatantly bad (e.g. extreme personal attack) or someone else has already removed it. Simpler to just let someone else deal with it and not worry about the WP:INVOLVED aspect or risk making a bad situation worse if you made a mistake. Nil Einne (talk) 09:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Now the user has started WP: FOLLOWING me. Maybe, after seeing the diffs, the admins come to a conclusion that you infact are part of a meat cabal. But that's for the admins to decide. Further, you can't go around accusing people without proof and without filing a SPI. First you accused me of being Liborbital and now are accusing me of being Oriental Aristocrat. Which of the two is it? If you yourself are so innocent, what are you afraid of?? Volunteer for a CU check and let the admins look into your conduct thus far. 39.34.148.235 (talk) 07:55, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

• IP blocked 2 weeks for harassment, per "I have all day to expose you and your cabal". Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

AE stalled

Being worked on: A few other admins have shown up. Thanks! More, of course, are welcome. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

At WP:AE there have been no substantive comments from any admins other than me in the past 5 days. There's 5 open threads, in 5 different ethnonational dispute topic areas, which may have something to do with that. But if anyone has time to wade in to one or two, it would be appreciated. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll try and dig up some time to look into some of them, but I've been severely busy recently. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I've noticed the absence of not only admins but editors as well in areas I do work in. I assume everyone's on summer vacations this month. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Exactly why I'm so active, if you recall what South Jersey's like in the summer. Tourists peeking out of every nook and cranny. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

In my case, a mix of vacation, business, and preparing for the coming semester by avoiding biting off more Wikipedia-drama than I can quickly chew. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I can also attest to it feeling like there are more admin backlogs in the areas I edit than usual, although maybe it just feels that way because I recently became an admin. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Movement Charter Consultations - Firm Need for Additional Feedback

Hello all,

I'm posting more prominently here as I believe a significant portion of the potentially interested community hasn't seen the comms routes taken thus far, and we'd expect to have seen significantly more en-wiki comments than we have to date.

Consultation focus: The Movement Charter Drafting Committee (MCDC) published two additional chapters, and one "proto-chapter": Roles & responsibilities, Global Council, and Hubs. An interim glossary was also published.

Consultation Link: Movement Charter consultation

Direct links:

1. Global Council
2. Roles & Responsibilities
3. Hubs
4. Glossary

There are two action points:

1. Feedback: Every single thing within these published documents is up for questions, comments, advice, criticism, suggestions and more. Please post on the relevant page and, as you would here, suggested solutions with criticism are even more useful.
2. Open Questions: Each of these also has several "open questions" - areas where there isn't a current draft option, but instead several proposed alternatives or open topics we specifically need opinions on. These include things like restrictions on Global Council membership, role in fund dissemination etc etc.

Nosebagbear (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

About 300 articles that fail WP:NOTSTATS

Over the past three years or so, Kkuchnir has been creating articles about the statistical leaders of various college sports teams, totalling nearly 300. From the few that I've looked at so far, it seems that all of these articles have been written from a single source provided on the respective college's website. This goes against at least two policies, WP:PRIMARY and WP:NOTSTATS, and the guideline WP:NLIST.

I recently brought one of these "statistical leaders" pages to AfD (here), which started a discussion that identified some of the issues that I've mentioned above — the discussion was closed with consensus to merge to the main article about the college team. In an attempt to resolve the issue with Kkuchnir directly, I invited them to participate in the discussion several times on their talk page (here). They have chosen not to respond to my messages, which is why I decided to bring this to AN.

Due to the sheer number of problematic articles, I believe it may not be practical to merge them all like at the AfD above, and that a mass deletion may be required. However, I'd like to request assistance from other editors in further investigating this situation and determining an appropriate course of action. Feel free to ping me with any questions. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand why these articles are now problematic, as they have existed on this website for years. There is a history of College football stat leaders and basketball leaders by team and this has not been an issue before. Almost none of the football articles were created by me, and some have been around since 2017.—kkuchnir (sigh) 18:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@Kkuchnir: Unfortunately, as other people have noted below, these are not reasons to keep the articles in their current states. And aside from a few other AfD nominations, I am also unsure why no one has brought up this topic before. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Kkuchnir: I understand your frustration. However, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is generally not an automatic reason to keep (or create) a page, and ultimately, consensus can change on any topic on Wikipedia. Generally, I try to create pages that explicitly cite a few sources that show that WP:GNG or WP:NLIST are met for a topic. Otherwise, a non-subject matter expert might honestly not be able to tell if its a random WP:NOTSTATS, WP:FANCRUFT list or not—then we need to invest time on deletion discussions (or noticeboards). Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 04:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Ugh! This is horrible. kkuchnir has been making these articles for ages, in all good faith, and nobody noticed that they are not encyclopaedic topics. Only now do we see that a huge amount of honest work might be up for deletion. Merging them would be a lot of work and it wouldn't even really solve the problem anyway. My feeling is that the best course of action might be to help kkuchnir to export them out to a compatibly licenced fan wiki before removing them here. That way the work is not wasted and this project can continue independently without anybody there needing to worry about our rules or objectives here. DanielRigal (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

There's an American Football Wiki on fandom.com Nthep (talk) 20:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@DanielRigal: I think this is an excellent proposal. As I also told them myself, I would prefer not to have their good-faith contributions wasted, and this seems like a good way of doing it. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

See Special:Search/intitle:"statistical leaders" for other such articles. Kkuchnir did not create all of them.—Alalch E. 19:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

None of these college-related articles has any encyclopedic value and all ought to be deleted, whatever the sport (football, basketball, ice hockey, etc). I know there's an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS sort of argument here but from my perspective that's simply a good reason for deleting all of them. Whether any of the similar non-college "statistical leaders" articles have any merit, I'm pretty doubtful but perhaps that's an issue for another day. Nigej (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

They all look the same to me, college or not.—Alalch E. 20:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

True, but best to avoid a WP:TRAINWRECK. Nigej (talk) 20:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, these articles need to go. How did they get through NPP? JoelleJay (talk) 00:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• The issue here is whether these articles pass WP:GNG or WP:NLIST. That outcome will likely vary on a case-by-case depending on the coverage that exists. Importantly, Kkuchnir is not alone in creating such lists. He was simply following precedent set years ago by other users. I think Michigan Wolverines football statistical leaders is the oldest example, having been created almost 15 years ago. I will notify the college football, basketball, and ice hockey projects to see if those members have input. Cbl62 (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for doing that, Cbl62. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• Mass deleting 500 articles of varying quality and notability created over a period of 15 years by numerous different users is absolutely not a good solution. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  Notability isn't relevant here; notability isn't a defense against a WP:NOT violation. Unless an argument can be made for why some of them violate WP:NOTSTATS while others don't, there is no benefit to not dealing with them as a group.

  DanielRigal's suggestion seems to be a good one, and I fully support it. BilledMammal (talk) 01:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  Per NOTSTATS: Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. Taking a look at a randomly-selected article, San Jose State Spartans football statistical leaders, everything is clearly understandable, put into tables, and those statistics which might be a bit more complicated are explained (Total offense is the sum of passing and rushing statistics. It does not include receiving or returns). Explaining the things further would be in my view unnecessary and could begin to get silly (e.g. in football, the quarterback throws the ball. If the receiver catches it, it is called a reception. If he runs after the catch, he gains what is called yards. A team plays games in a season. The following table has those who had the most yards off receptions in a season... is something that might happen if we try to fully "explain" the statistics). BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  That seems to be an argument against all of them violating WP:NOTSTATS (and, by extension, WP:NOTDATABASE); it doesn't justify not dealing with them as a group. BilledMammal (talk) 02:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  If it is (while noting that I haven't looked at a single page in question) - then it sounds like that ends the question of speedy deletion. - jc37 03:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  That alone does not necessarily justify not dealing with them as a group, but going back, my first comment does: Mass deleting 500 articles of varying quality and notability created over a period of 15 years by numerous different users is absolutely not a good solution. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  @BeanieFan11: I agree, deletion would likely cause more harm than good here. Please see the discussion below, we're working on an alternate solution. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  NOTDB requires the context to be from independent sources. Almost all of the prose in SJSU is sourced to the SJSU Spartans media guide, so it still fails NOT. JoelleJay (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  WP:SOFIXIT. And FWIW, I see more references to ESPN than to the media guide in the SJSU article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  How can anyone fix it if there is no independent sourcing to contextualize the stats. And none of the ESPN links are being cited in prose context except for a single sentence about NCAA rules that doesn't even mention SJSU. JoelleJay (talk) 22:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

IMO they clearly need to get deleted in some do-able fashion. North8000 (talk) 02:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd suggest individually nominating say 5 pages related to the popular sports of American football or men's basketball from a Power Five school, and assess those results and underlying arguments first before further considering any mass proposals in this area.—Bagumba (talk) 02:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bagumba: This has already been done to a certain degree. Looking at Kkuchnir's talk page, it seems a few other "statistical leaders" pages have been AfDed in the past. I believe most of them closed as delete, while the one I mentioned in my original post closed as merge. However, merging several hundred articles doesn't seem like a realistic option in this case. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69: On their talk page, I only saw Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michigan State Spartans men's ice hockey statistical leaders. I'm suggesting using football and men's basketball from Power Five schools as the test, as they would be more likely to have coverage, if it were to exist for any sport. —Bagumba (talk) 04:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I also saw only one. And that one did not close as delete, but rather with a consensus to merge. Cbl62 (talk) 04:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bagumba: My bad, I misread the notices. The ones I was referring to were left either by NPP reviewers or by editors who had PRODed an article. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• My take is this: Statistical leaders pages are WP:SPINOFFs from the main program articles -- they can in appropriate circumstances avoid over-burdening the main program articles. That doesn't make them exempt from the requirements of WP:GNG or WP:NLIST. In the case of major college football programs (e.g., Alambama/Notre Dame/Michigan), there is extensive coverage of statistical leaders, but less so for non-major programs. What happened historically is that lists were created for the major programs, and then others began duplicating the format, on the belief (incorrect IMO) that if Notre Dame has such a list, James Madison and Eastern Michigan should too. I suspect that most (but not all) of these lists fail GNG and NLIST and are supported solely on non-independent sourcing (i.e., the school's own web site or media guide). Cbl62 (talk) 03:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Cbl62: I invite you to consider the point made in BilledMammal's messages above: notability and coverage in sources are irrelevant when considering these articles as a violation of WP:NOT. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I assume you and BM are referring to the stats subpart of WP:NOTDATABASE which deals with "excessive listings of unexplained statistics." The better lists (e.g., Michigan Wolverines football statistical leaders) are rich with "explanatory text providing context" which is what NOTDATABASE requires. In other cases, that's a fixable issue by adding narrative context. The real issue here is whether the lists pass WP:GNG and/or WP:NLIST. I suspect most of them do not, and that's the issue that we should be examining. Cbl62 (talk) 03:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Most of the "explanatory text providing context" on that page isn't sourced at all, and the paragraphs that are are sourced exclusively to pure statistics databases or non-independent record books that don't offer any context either. NOTDB is clear that context must be provided by independent sources, and the text sourced to the zero-prose stats list is OR. JoelleJay (talk) 22:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Cbl62: I believe I agree with you on this point; this case might be a bit more complicated than I originally thought. The article you've linked looks nothing like the article which I AfDed, and it wouldn't really be fair to group it together with the others. However, I have to bring up the numbers we're dealing with again. Doing a search for coverage/source evaluation for these many articles is a massive project, not to mention the subsequent expansion of the articles once their notability is determined. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Just because they can't all be deleted en masse doesn't mean there's not a problem. Your post raises a valid issue, but mass deletion is simply not the solution. Cbl62 (talk) 04:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I see a few issues:

1. How to handle existing pages? Can we, at a miniumum, WP:PRESERVE verifiable career leaders of major statistics on the related school sports program page (e.g. career top-10 leaders)?
2. Establish expectations on mass creation in this area. I think the pages were created in good faith, but there are probably expectations we now have in hindsight. This will reduce frustration for page creators, minimizing "lost" work, and the community's time to patrol and nominate pages for discussion.

—Bagumba (talk) 05:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Some thoughts:

1. What do you think about a mass WP:DRAFTIFY as an alternative to deletion? It would make it easy to restore the content once an article's notability is determined individually (possibly through an AfC review, but I understand if that would be an unfair burden to place an already overloaded WikiProject).
2. No comment, as I don't edit in this topic area. I'd love to hear the thoughts of editors who know more about this.

—TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69: For my consideration, are there precedents for mass draftification that might be applicable for this case? Thanks. —Bagumba (talk) 05:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bagumba: I'm honestly not sure, and I'm not equipped to go digging through talk archives at the moment, as I'm currently travelling. However, I've never heard of any mass DRAFTIFY that would provide precedent here, and definitely not at the scale we're talking about. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Just came across these two RfCs (here and here) which concern the mass creation of stub articles by Lugnuts. The first one is open, while the second was closed with consensus to DRAFTIFY all. The closing comment by GRuban may be very applicable here: "...the motion allows, and even encourages, editors to edit and improve the articles so they can be returned to main space." This does now provide precedent if a similar decision is made here. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 09:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems that Lugnuts create 93,000 articles (presumably many of which were microstubs). They are also now banned. On the other hand, we are talking here about an editor in seemingly otherwise good standing and 300 articles in question. I'll need convincing as to why mass draftication should not be considered too extreme here. Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 09:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bagumba: I don't consider Kkuchnir's standing to be relevant to this remedy, as I'm not proposing to DRAFTIFY as a way of punishing them — I still believe their contributions were in good faith. However, we need a practical method of sorting out which articles belong in mainspace and which don't, and this seems like a viable option. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 10:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I don't see it as punishment either. It's about the content, not the person. Not being much involved in the other cases, I'm not sure if the editor being banned (or their actions that led to it) played a part in the mass handling of their work.—Bagumba (talk) 11:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Per BilledMammal's comment below, I believe Lugnuts' conduct was a factor in the decision. However, the practical alternatives so far for this case being either mass deletion, or doing nothing, I think a mass DRAFTIFY could be the most appropriate solution. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 12:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69: Do you have thoughts on my earlier suggestion to WP:PRESERVE verifiable career leaders of major statistics on the related school sports program page? —Bagumba (talk) 12:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bagumba: If by that you're referring to a merge to the main article, similar to the way the AfD I nominated closed, then I am not opposed to it. That being said, how many articles are we talking here? This goes back to my reply to Cbl62's comment: it could take a long time and a lot of work to determine who counts as "verifiable career leaders". I don't think the DRAFTIFY idea is incompatible with this one. The way I'm thinking about it, the DRAFTIFY could be a quick fix to remove the problematic articles, and then editors can work on the content in draftspace and restore it once it meets notability/NOT standards, whether by a merge or a move. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 13:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

The precedents established by the LUGSTUBS RfC's do not apply here; those only apply to mass-created articles, and my understanding of these articles is that they were not mass created. BilledMammal (talk) 11:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: Thanks for your comment as well as for opening those RfCs. Again I don't mean to apply the conclusions of that RfC to this discussion directly, I was just citing them as past examples of mass DRAFTIFYs. Whether it should be applied in this case is what is being discussed. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 11:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• I'm also sad to see how much work was carried out here that fails WP:NOT, but under 300 could be handled as a bulk nom at AfD if correctly narrowly tailored. In any case, we need a complete list of articles before we can move forward. SportingFlyer T·C 22:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Why is this discussion even here? Is there anything for admins to handle? This is a content issue. --Rschen7754 06:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

There was an intitial proposal for a mass deletion, which would require an admin to carry out. —Bagumba (talk) 06:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Scorpions13256

This Scorpions13256 editing anonymously. After months of pondering, I have finally decided to scramble my password and quit Wikipedia. A lot of bad experiences and realizations online and within the real world in the past couple years led me to this decision. If you are interested, you can message me on Discord. Also, since my (reversible) operation, my mood has been unstable to the point where I am actively always in danger of doing something blockable.

I am posting here to ask for all of my rights to be removed, and thank everyone who made my 6 years of service awesome. 76.248.85.161 (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done. I've taken this request at face value. It's reversible. Take it easy, thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

David Latimer

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

---

User:JasonWeitz created the page David Latimer twice, after which were rejected by staff; user has disclosed to be paid to write the article. Suspiciously, User:Nutchladsa was created solely to revive the article based on Weitz's drafts, with the account abandoned after several edits; Weitz also contributed a photo to the new article. User:AncientWalrus had voiced their suspicion at the talk page, stating that the user might be a sock of Weitz, but it went ignored. A proposed deletion was set up but was rejected due to no consensus. I genuinely believe something is fishy regarding the article's creation and administrative action should be taken on both users. ILoveDCComics (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

ILoveDCComics, neither of these accounts has edited in several months and the article survived a deletion debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Latimer. You could nominate the article for deletion again, but I would recommend a more detailed deletion rationale, with a source analysis. We do not block stale accounts. Also, there is no such thing as "staff" when it comes to reviewing drafts. All that work is done by volunteers. Cullen328 (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Closure review

• Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC_on_draftifying_a_subset_of_mass-created_Cricketer_microstubs
• User_talk:Jc37#LUGSTUBS_2_Closure
  • Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Requests_for_comment/AfD_at_scale#Proposal_16 - the edits in question

So first, I don't think I'm involved in this at all. I don't believe I've participated in any of this.

But User:BilledMammal‎ seems to think that something I apparently tossed out as a potential idea for part of some other proposed RfC for people to talk about (the rfc of which apparently never happened) awhile back, causes me to be involved. I disagree, as I noted on my talk page. An rfc on drafts is not equal to an rfc on bot-assisted creation or on xfd.

I welcome other's thoughts on this.

Even if you don't think this causes me to be involved, but you think the rfc close should be overturned or re-opened, I welcome those thoughts too. I'm a believer in "many eyes", and "there's always another admin". But I also don't think that someone involved in a discussion should just be able to invent reasons to get a close they may not like, undone.

Anyway, I appreciate your (plural) insight. - jc37 07:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Interestingly, as I re-read that post (which, as I mentioned on my talk page that I didn't recall), it would seem to support deletion after a 30-day discussion - similar to an rfc. So, apparently I'm not against mass deletion in a 30 day or more forum. I dunno, I was "in the moment" reading all of that at the time. I don't recall much any of it now. And I mean that sincerely, not as some sort of "on the witness stand", dodge. I'd have to go through and re-read it all to figure out what I may have been thinking at the time. - jc37 07:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I suppose I should add: I only went to go close this due to it being listed at WP:CR - [3] - jc37 21:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) (comment from involved editor) Thank you for opening this, and for pinging me to it.

I see two issues with this close. First, Jc37 is WP:INVOLVED; they previously advanced the proposal that Group nom AfDs should be for no more than 4 very connected articles. A broad topic, like "math", or "climate change", or even "the Harry Potter franchise", is not considered "very connected" in this case. This proposal is in opposition to the one proposed in the RFC, which proposed draftifying many more than four articles on the broad topic of “Cricketers mass created by Lugnuts”.

They have since argued that they are not involved because this was not technically an AfD, but many editors both in support and opposition to the proposal directly compared it to one; I believe the discussion was too closely related to AfD's for this disctinction to matter.

Second, the close presents no justification (although I did ask the closer to provide one, if they were unwilling to overturn the close); it merely asserts that there was no consensus for the proposal, but there was a consensus to handle the articles individually. While consensus is not determined based on voting, when a closer closes against the majority position - in this case, approximately 60% of editors supported the proposal - they are expected to justify why the arguments against the proposal were stronger than the ones for the proposal. This isn't the first time recently we have seen this issue with a close by Jc37; in July they reverted their close of another discussion after a review at AN; AirshipJungleman29 made the comment Obviously overturn per above and ask the closer to review WP:CLOSE—"A good closer will transparently explain how the decision was reached." A two sentence, one line close for a 200kb+ discussion is simply not the expected standard. It appears to apply to this close as well. BilledMammal (talk) 07:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• As I was pinged by the above, my thoughts: I have no opinion on the discussion itself, but on the manner it was closed. A ~400,000 character discussion being closed with a summary of a single paragraph? Seriously, what the actual hell? A good close engages with all aspects of the discussion, and explains the closer's reasoning. This is not a good close, this is not even a mediocre close. If this is the expected standard of work on Wikipedia, then we have some very serious problems indeed. For that reason, Overturn and reclose (uninvolved)—this shoddy work cannot be allowed to stand, and jc37 needs to take a serious look at their suitability for closing discussions—this is now twice (EDIT: thrice, see FormalDude below) in less than a month. I have closed RfCs four times shorter with four times as much reasoning (Example). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
• Vacate (uninvolved) and allow someone else to reclose. Providing barely any explanation for controversial and long discussion closures would appear to be Jc37's modus operandi. Yesterday I had to ask them to expand their close of this RfC, which had 146 comments from 45 different editors, and barely a sentence long closing summary from them. I second AirshipJungleman29 in that I have no thoughts on the Village Pump RfC, other than that it deserves a much better closure from someone who is able to reasonably articulate how they reached their decision. ––FormalDude (talk) 13:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• As is not uncommon for a closer, what may seem obvious when they are writing may not always be obvious to the reader. I don't think Jc37 has quite realised that this is a them problem, not a Wikipedia problem, and that they should take steps to fix it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• (comment from involved editor) On a pure headcount basis, this discussion has similar support % to the first LUGSTUBS. I feel like any close that closes differently than that discussion did needs to address why this is different to the first discussion explicitly - whether that be weight of argument or some other factor. casualdejekyll 14:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  As someone who is not familiar with the topic area, could you please link the first LUBSTUBS? Loki (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  WP:LUGSTUBS - although I can see why you wouldn't expect that link to work, we don't usually link RfC's that way. BilledMammal (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  any close that closes differently than that discussion did needs to address why this is different to the first discussion explicitly - Why? AfDs don't connect to other AfDs. An RfC about an infobox doesn't have to say why it's different from other RfCs about infoboxes... That just seems like a way to synthetically raise the bar. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  These two do connect. That's my entire argument. casualdejekyll 00:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• (comment from involved editor) I am not going to comment on the actual substance of the closure, other than giving more detail in a closure is (almost?) never a bad thing. I will state though that whatever it's merits, Jc37 comments on the RfC that didn't end up happening don't come close to making them involved in the mass draftifcation RFC. Thryduulf (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  True enough. If one writes too much, they can hear about it, and if too little, the same. I typically have no problem expanding on/clarifying a close explanation. - jc37 20:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• (comment from involved editor) I do believe this is the correct closure (of course I would), but I also think that more text and explanation in the closure would be appropriate (for example, the prior two closures of the prior discussion relating to this had massive close comments). Also, the fact that jc37 commented two years ago on a discussion distantly related absolutely does not make them an INVOLVED editor here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  FYI, eight months, not two years. And I wouldn't consider it distantly related; the cancellation of that RfC directly lead to WP:LUGSTUBS, and jc37's proposal would have prevented LUGSTUBS if there had been a consensus for it. BilledMammal (talk) 15:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  Actually, that assertion is completely false. If you really want to use that quote from the past, then quote it: "AfDs for mass deletion of articles (more than X in a single nom) should have a 30 day time frame, similar to an RfC." - Which is what you did. It ran, what, a month and a half? So please stop miscontruing what was stated. - jc37 04:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  OK, eight months. I still think its silly to declare one involved for something like this, considering he didn't even remember it (So, I don't remember that at all. I'll go see if I can find what you're talking about.) BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  An editor is not involved as long as they don't remember their involvement? Levivich (talk) 16:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  Yes and no. The reason INVOLVED closes are a bad thing is that someone who is involved is not (or can appear not to be) neutral. If someone genuinely has no recollection of having participated in a related discussion previously they are not knowingly biased towards one outcome. Of course unintentional bias is always possible, but that's not really affected by whether someone remembers their previous activity or not. Another factor is that admins acting in good faith do try and avoid acting when involved, and if they can't recall participation in something that's a sign that it might not be as relevant to the discussion as you think it is. Thryduulf (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  Confirmation bias more than just possible. People are most biased about things they don't realize they're biased about. The suggestion that a person's recollection or self-assessment is a good indicator of their bias is just silly and well-refuted by the field of psychology. Levivich (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• (involved/supported) Overturn.
  • First, it's a sub-par closing statement, it doesn't summarize the discussion or the arguments, it doesn't weigh votes, it doesn't explain how the conclusion was arrived at. (See WP:ACD.) Poor closing statements by Jc37 have unfortunately become something of a pattern now, that we've previously seen at the WP:NOT closure (overturned) and more recently the PragerU closure mentioned by FD below (challenged), and I found another deletion-related short-closure from 2021, linked below.
  • Second, the closer is involved with the RFC proposer. Jc37's NOT closure (linked above) was challenged and reverted by BilledMammal (among others). See User talk:BilledMammal#WP:NOTDIRECTORY closure. Jc took BM to ANI for that, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1134#Reverting a close. When someone reverts your close, challenges your close, and/or you take them to ANI for it, and/or the close is overturned/reverted, you shouldn't then close, a month later, another RFC that same person started. Totally, hugely, involved. Jc shouldn't close any BM-started RFCs in the future.
  • Third, the closer is involved with the topic area. Going backwards:
    • Jan 2023: commented: "Maybe we need to take another look at how subjective GNG is, if we're going to continually see it merely being repeatedly used as code for WP:IDONTLIKEIT."
    • Dec 2022, 6 edits at WP:ACAS workshop, including proposing "Proposal 16", making a proposal that is essentially an alternate proposal to WP:LUGSTUBS/WP:LUGSTUBS2 (another method for handling mass creation/deletion) (this is the one mentioned in the OP).
    • A year ago, made 14 edits to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing/Workshop, the Arbcom workshop about the deletion case. In that 2022 deletion discussion, Jc wrote things like:
      • how references to essays should be weighed by a closer (did Jc do that in this close?)
      • ""How much is enough" shouldn't even be a discussion to have. And the idea that a topic needs to earn being a standalone article is ridiculous."
      • ironically, "It is, unfortunately, becoming more and more common for closers to just rely on commenters' assertions (and really, just "vote-count" bullet pointed comments), when deciding which way to close a discussion rather than actually assess the entire discussion and current policy."
      • Also ironically, arguing that AFDs are "buried in some back room in Wikipedia-space" and should be moved to more-visible locations like article talk pages
      • "We should avoid being impatient to delete."
      • The common complaint about lack-of-BEFORE: "I've seen more than a few nominations in which the nominator rather clearly didn't bother to do BEFORE ... I think we need better ways to try to establish whether due diligence was done before a nomination."
      • A possibly self-fulfilling prophecy: "the all-to-common steps: a.) An editor makes mass edits b.) The editor is asked to stop ... i.) the discussion is (not surprisingly) a messy trainwreck, so no closer determines there is a consensus j.) fait accompli."
      • Arguing that if mass-creation requires BRFA approval then "This should apply to mass tagging of afd/prod, as well."
      • And last but not least:

        I'm just going to note that I find it rather ridiculous the amount of time wasted on whether a piece of information "deserves its own article". Whether we separate information into separate pages or list it all into a single scrolling page, is merely a matter of presentation. What the blank does "notability" have to do with presentation? Zero. Notability is about inclusion of information in Wikipedia, not how that information is presented. I realise that some seem to feel that notability should include how information is presented, but in so doing, we're creating issues where none should exist. It all seems rather counterproductive.

    • In 2021, closed another discusion that proposed adding to WP:SNG "Mass creation of short or stub articles based on simple lists or database sources that would pass an SNG is strongly discouraged", also with a one-sentence close (it's really a pattern... funny, if that one closed differently, we might not be here two years later...)
    • In 2020, suggested "we just restrict "notability" rationales for deletion, to biography articles".

  It's not that there's anything wrong with expressing opinions about mass-creation/mass-deletion, or there's anything wrong with having prior closes challenged or even overturned, but if you've been expressing opinions for years (regardless of whether they are "pro" or "anti," "inclusionist" or "deletionist"), don't close a big pump RFC about it, especially with a too-short close, and don't close an RFC started by an editor who recently challenged another closure of yours, especially if you went to ANI over it, especially if the close was overturned. Jc should vote in, not close, RFCs about article creation/deletion. Levivich (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  I got as far as Maybe we need to take another look at how subjective GNG is, if we're going to continually see it merely being repeatedly used as code for WP:IDONTLIKEIT - So now someone is involved if they've, what, talked about notability? In a random AfD about a comic book island? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  For those who don't know, the 2020 AFD and 2021 SNG discussions I linked are part of the many deletion discussions (including the JPL-related threads which Jc also commented in but I didn't quote above) that led to the 2022 WP:ARBDEL (where Lugnuts was sitebanned, and Jc's participation is quoted above). ARBDEL launched WP:ACAS (also quoted above) and ACAS led to WP:LUGSTUBS and we're here about the closure of WP:LUGSTUBS2. So these aren't just JC's opinions about notability or deletion in general, this is Jc participating in ARBDEL, ACAS, and other discussions that are the direct precursors of LUGSTUBS; this isn't indirect involvement, it's direct involvement, for years. He's as involved as I am. Levivich (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm just guessing, but it sounds like your argument is similar to the one where people have suggested that a member of a wikiproject shouldn't close discussions on the topic of the wikiproject, or that people who block people shouldn't close discussions about blocking. Or even that people who have commented in RFCs about blocking, shouldn't block people.

I've been working in and around XfD policy, and discussions thereof, for a very long time. And really, around Wikipedia policy and guidelines a very long time.

And to say that I believe in the consensus model on Wikipedia, would be putting it very mildly.

Anyway, all that aside, I do think you're mischaracterizing (to be charitable) some of the above. But I don't think it's worth the time parsing all of your comments. I think I'll just say: You're welcome to your opinion", and move on. - jc37 20:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm saying (1) if an editor has a dispute with another editor that they escalate to ANI, they shouldn't close an RFC started by that other editor, (2) no one who participated in ARBDEL or ACAS should be closing LUGSTUBS RFCs, and (3) this close should be overturned per 1 and 2. Levivich (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

...plus the closing statement. Levivich (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• I think we need more comments from uninvolved editors on this review. casualdejekyll 17:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse this was a reasonable close and the closer was not involved. And yes, I did !vote oppose on the proposal. Which I'm sure invalidates my opinion in the eyes of the people attacking the close(r) here. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think your opinion would be less likely to be viewed as invalid if you explained why you think the close was reasonable and the closer was not involved. Kind of ironic that a lack of explanation is a main reason for why we're here in the first place. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  It was already explained above why the closer was not involved; if you didn't accept that explanation then you won't accept my restatement of it. And I see no point in spending my time going over an in-depth review of the reasonableness of the close because these discussions always go in favor of the deletionists (and if not, they just object to the close like they did here), but I'm still going to raise my voice in objection so they at least can't claim unanimity. But don't pretend that a lack of explanation is the main reason why we're here. There's no way that a 'no consensus' close of any length would have been accepted without a fight, and everyone here knows it. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  While I am not going to endorse the language used by Lepricavark (as I think it is too harsh), when I saw the close was not in favour of the proposal the first thing I did was to look at the closer's talk page for the objection. Thryduulf (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  It is possible for it to be true that both a closure of no consensus would always be controversial, and that Jc37's closure is problematic. An objection being expected does not automatically make it invalid. I myself have no skin in the game whatsoever regarding the RfC, yet I still find Jc37's close to be quite lacking. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  You are rebutting a point that no one has made. Sure, the close could be problematic, although I don't agree that it is. But there was zero chance of any 'no consensus' close being accepted. And once this close is vacated, there is very little chance of another admin wanting to face the wrath that will surely come after another 'no consensus' close. The deck is stacked in favor of one side of this debate primarily because they have shown themselves willing to overwhelm the other side and everyone in the middle. Perhaps my language is harsh, but in the current climate a good deal more harshness would be warranted. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• Vacate I am involved, but considering how contentious this was and is, any mere tinge of involvement is enough for me to suggest that self-vacating may be prudent here, and someone completely uninvolved should review and close in time. I'm not sure if it could be closed differently, but I haven't specifically reviewed on those merits. SportingFlyer T·C 22:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
• Close was not WP:INVOLVED. This was contested on the basis of involvement, and the evidence about involvedness is just thus far unconvincing. Not going to try to prove a negative, but I did reply to one of the walls of text above. [participated/opposed] -- Adding: but elaborate the closing statement please. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  This was contested on the basis of involvement - This was contested on two grounds. Involvement, which Levivich has presented extensive evidence for, and a patently inadequate close. BilledMammal (talk) 00:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Vacate <uninvolved>. Obviously we don't expect the closer to write a novel, but in a discussion of this nature, giving some indication of why you found no consensus is definitely necessary. What weight did you give the various !votes? What arguments were policy-based? What arguments weren't? It may well be that the outcome is correct (I haven't read the discussion thoroughly enough to have a firm opinion either way), but we can't really evaluate that until we have a better explanation of the closer's reasoning. I think that's a sufficient reason to vacate, so I'm not going to comment on the INVOLVED aspect at this time. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• (Uninvolved) Vacate as the closer provided no rationale whatsoever. Should a restriction on further closures by this editor be considered if this is indeed the second time their close has to be vacated at AN within a month? Charcoal feather (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• weak endorse and request the closer put more time into closing statements in the future. It's a reasonable outcome from the discussion. It doesn't provide the reasoning that got there. Sometimes you don't need that reasoning, sometimes you do. This should be an obvious "you do". At the least counting the !votes and summarizing the arguments is needed for a discussion this long and this close (in terms of numbers and policy). Hobit (talk) 02:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  (This isn't so much about your specific comments (which I of course thank you for), you just provided a spot I could respond : )

  I've read all the comments here, and I keep re-reading my close. And I've re-read the past closes by Bradv and GRuban.

  And I'd be happy to clarify the close. But honestly, looking at the above, I'm not sure what people specifically actually want clarified.

  The numbers? No, I'm not going to do that. Consensus isn't a counting of heads, and saying that there were 60-some bolded votes that said this and 40-some bolded votes that said that, is wrong.

  Re-list all the arguments, essentially retyping out the entire discussion? No. The discussion is already there for people to read and it's a pretty lengthy one, at that.

  What's odd to me is this is an overall "No Consensus" close. So it's really isn't so much about what people agreed upon, but that they didn't agree, and never came to consensus to agree to do what was proposed. Even many who supported either did it weakly or with caveats.

  The part where I said there was "consensus" - that "something" should be done - was pervasive throughout. Very few liked the current situation, but they didn't like the proposed solution either. So, as a closer, I noted that, and suggested a way forward.

  I'm not sure what else there is to say.

  If you read GRuban's close, he states:

  • "I'm trying to fill some pretty big shoes here; I'm an experienced editor, and have closed maybe 100 RfCs, but Bradv is not only an experienced editor, but also an experienced administrator, so it takes quite a bit of hubris to think I can do a better job, and I won't be surprised if there is another thread on WP:AN after this asking that my close be also reopened. But I am still trying hard so that there is not."

  To me, that seems like someone expecting to see WP:AN, and he even closed in support of the nom!

  Anyway, I'm not afraid of AN. The community is the community. We all act as an extension of the community. And here is where I get to hear what the community thinks. And I welcome feedback. I'm not perfect. No one is.

  But anyway, if someone still wants a "fuller close" that isn't just a whole lot of words added for the sake of adding words, I'm all ears. And happy to help. - jc37 04:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• involved Vacate. A) This was a patently insufficient close for such a monster discussion. B) I wasn't really convinced by the original "involved" rationale, but after seeing Levivich's evidence, particularly Jc's bringing BilledMammal to ANI for his challenge to Jc's close just a month ago, I think that's actually just as strong an argument to vacate the close as (A) is. JoelleJay (talk) 02:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  Which isn't what happened. They decided to repeatedly revert the implementation of a close they didn't like and so I brought it to AN/I. And it was stated by others (not just me) that that was inappropriate. I presume they heard that and life goes on. I didn't bring it up, because I prefer to forget about such stuff and move on. It's when others won't stop or let things go where I may have to make a choice to disengage with them. But I haven't had that experience with BilledMammal. So there was no reason to think anything untoward of them. AGF aren't just a few letters we toss around. It's a way we operate at Wikipedia. And I will assume good faith about you or anyone until given evidence that I shouldn't. Are you suggesting that there is evidence that I shouldn't AGF of BilledMammal? - jc37 04:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  Small correction; I reverted once (twice, if you count the second revert that I self-reverted - either way, much less than "repeatedly") the implementation of the part of the close that went beyond the scope of the RfC and thus wasn't within your discretion as closer to implement. In retrospect, I should have just taken to AN, but at the time I felt that the close was so blatantly beyond scope that reverting the implementation was an appropriate action. BilledMammal (talk) 04:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Change to the Functionary team

Following a request to the Committee, the CheckUser and Oversight permissions of bradv (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) have been restored.

For the Arbitration Committee, Primefac (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Change to the Functionary team

49.190.249.131

49.190.249.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), especially Talk:Shaking beef#Page Mover Turaids or using edit summaries to name me and express their opinions on me. 49.190.249.131 just casually picked up the discussion where 49.190.240.37 left off, which makes me suspect it may be the same person, also because the style of communication with other editors they disagree with is very similar. And there already was a report on 49.190.240.37, where a suspicion of sockpuppetry was expressed by a third-party editor, but was not pursued any further. Please advise on how to proceed. Turaids (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Nice attempt at trying to get me banned. It's called replacing a router. That other ANI became inconclusive and no further discussion was needed because all parties stopped getting involved. Funny how I brought up your edits removing Thai and Vietnamese dishes and cultural cuisine and then you yourself create and further edit in articles of other cultural dishes but not doing the same merging and page moving activity you have done to those Thai and Vietnamese dishes. 49.190.249.131 (talk) 04:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

BTB Electric

Please review the article about BTB Electric. If it is accurate and meets the requirements, could you help me move this article to the main space? User:Ging Ging 90/sandbox to BTB Electric. Thanks Ging Ging 90 (talk) 00:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Alleged Racially Biased Editors/Administrators For A Certain Wikipedia Article

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

---

There are two editors named Doug Weller and Hipal who appear to harbor racial bias because they are constantly edit waring with other editors on the Tariq Nasheed wikipedia page. There are several users who post reputable links and according to the page history, User:Doug_Weller and User:Hipal constantly removes those links. Yet they allow sources from websites like Refinery29 that has ties to white supremacist groups. It appears that these editors could possibly have ties to that site and others. They are violating the Neutrality policies with the article. 65.57.178.10 (talk) 01:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy link Tariq Nasheed. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

IP blocked for personal attacks and probable block evasion. Acroterion (talk) 01:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not familiar with Hipal, but the idea that Doug Weller "harbors racial bias" is one of the most ludicrous charges I've even seen on en.wiki. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  If you look at the talk and edit history, there does appear to be some type of racially motivated selective editing and censorship. Many sources from Black media outlets are dismissed and removed. And all the people who post neutral source links are accused of being sock puppets and their texts have strikes put through them. And User:Doug_Weller appears to be the ringleader of that suspected racial censorship. And that should be investigated. 216.250.210.88 (talk) 03:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  I find that Highly ridiculous and untrue. Untamed1910 (talk) 03:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

The IP is probably a sock of User:Fijiwahwah. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Unresponsive

Hellohello124 (talk · contribs) is having WP:TCHY issues. It's getting boring having to repeatedly revert their edits. Can a block be applied to grab their attention? Cheers. – ².O.^Boxing 02:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)