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	35	35
TfD	0	0	0	3	3
MfD	0	0	0	5	5
FfD	0	0	0	2	2
RfD	0	0	5	60	65
AfD	0	0	0	5	5

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

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (21 out of 8847 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Mariam Barghouti 2024-11-19 01:24 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:A/I/PIA ToBeFree 17 November 2024 Russian strikes on Ukraine 2024-11-19 00:51 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/RUSUKR ToBeFree User talk:138.64.112.72 2024-11-18 13:20 2025-02-18 13:20 create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector Thori Si Wafa 2024-11-18 05:28 indefinite create Pppery Betar 2024-11-18 01:03 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Fathoms Below 2024 in the State of Palestine 2024-11-18 00:29 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Battle of Bamut 2024-11-17 18:21 2024-11-21 18:21 edit Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Rihanna Death 2024-11-16 20:26 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: per RFPP Daniel Case Justin bieber dead 2024-11-16 20:25 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Daniel Case Template:Infobox airline/styles.css 2024-11-16 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 4651 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II User talk:220.81.134.147 2024-11-16 12:13 2025-02-16 12:13 create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector Amazfit 2024-11-16 11:37 2025-11-16 11:37 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: persistent WP:COI Yamla User talk:118.237.51.201 2024-11-16 09:42 2024-12-16 09:42 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot Sidhant Mohapatra 2024-11-16 05:45 2025-08-23 01:14 edit,move Persistent block evasion Geniac Solomon Etefa 2024-11-16 02:11 2025-11-16 02:11 create enforcing outcome (draftify) of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solomon Etefa Asilvering Pannu 2024-11-15 21:56 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: WP:CASTE RegentsPark Lamba (surname) 2024-11-15 21:53 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: WP:CASTE RegentsPark Mirdha 2024-11-15 21:52 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: WP:CASTE RegentsPark Karel Komárek 2024-11-15 17:43 2025-05-15 17:43 edit Violations of the biographies of living persons policy HJ Mitchell Millennium Dome 2024-11-15 13:54 2025-05-15 13:54 edit Persistent sock puppetry Goodnightmush User talk:61.80.147.98 2024-11-15 09:01 2024-12-15 09:01 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot

RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 433#Closing (archived) RfC: Mondoweiss

WP:RSN (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RfC closure in question) (Discussion with closer)

Closer: Chetsford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Notified: [1]

Reasoning: The following is copied and modified from my post at Chetsford's talk page. I think that Chetsford's close was generally correct, but I think that this aspect is an incorrect assessment of consensus: A few editors suggested that, regardless of outcome, it should not be used for WP:BLPs. No direct reasoning was presented for that, however, some indirect reference to our policies could be divined within the greater context of the remarks of those editors and these suggestions were not really rebutted. I searched the RfC and "BLP" was used six times in the discussion. Only two of those mentions are in relation to the reliability of the source, and as Chetsford noted, neither provided any direct reasoning:

• In addition, based on some of the past statements linked, a use for BLP or politicised situations within the fog or war would be very reckless at best.
• Yeah, I have very little faith in their editorial review which go beyond WP:BIAS and regularly WP:Fringe. At best, they really shouldn’t be used for anything related to BLP, Russia and Israel, at worst (and IMO this part is most likely) a full depreciation may be in order.

The only indirect reference to policy is to BIAS (as FRINGE is a guideline), and Chetsford discounted that argument in another part of the close. I can't really divine[] what other policies these editors may or may not have been thinking about. I'm not sure what past statements the first commenter is thinking about, and without more reasoning, I wouldn't say that this single argument is strong enough to establish a consensus that Mondoweiss should not be used for BLPs just because nobody happened to rebut it in a long discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Uninvolved

• Endorse close Amend While the specifics of BLPs weren't addressed in-depth, it's a reasonable addendum for clarity. They can be used but people should be careful with each individual article...not sure why that's not a blanket statement for every source on Wikipedia. For example, the NYT has published some egregious "journalism", but that doesn't mean it's always wrong on the basic facts. Every source should be evaluated for accuracy on its merits. If I say "Person AB said in an op-ed '<insert quote here'" and then cite it, there's very little reason to doubt that statement is true, but quoting it for purposes of establishing it as something that's true is inappropriate without additional verification. Buffs (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

  Amended: This sounds like a WPian hearing what they want to hear. There isn't a need to add additional steps beyond what we normally do if people are going to abuse that to exclude the contributions of others. I'd prefer to keep it as-is, but I certainly can see that point. Buffs (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Wow...the EXACT reason I said it SHOULD be included was used...#clairvoyance Buffs (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Amend Remove the BLP clarification: 1) Regardless of the sources' reliability, we always them with great caution for biographies of living people. 2) No valid reason was given for why Mondoweiss should be treated differently from the other RS. 3) Such an unneeded clarification can easily be misconstrued to mean that Mondoweiss shouldn't be used for BLP. Just this week, one of the RfC participants used the close statement to claim that we should avoid using Mondoweiss for BLP. Obviously, it ended up in RSN again. M.Bitton (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
• Amend to remove the statement about BLPs. If only two editors made an unsupported assertion and nobody else discussed it, then it isn't a valid part of the consensus. I'm all for interpreting arguments to try and pull a consensus out of the flames where it isn't obvious, but "divining within the greater context" in this manner is a left-field supervote and should be removed. The rest of the closure is reasonable. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
• Amend per M.Bitton and Wordsmith. We already treat BLP with caution, and this issue was not discussed enough to reach consensus. If needed, a new discussion on how to use MW with regard to BLP can be made. Meanwhile, I’m wary of using the ‘average’ value of 2.6 to conclude that option 3 should be reached. Note that since option 2 is essentially the middle ground, option 1 and 3 have the same weight, but option 4 has twice the weight of option 1 when skewing option 2. This doesn’t seem very fair, and then rounding 2.6 to 3 because of this is increasing the unfairness, leading to essentially 13 editors overruling 21 editors. starship.paint (RUN) 03:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  A-men Buffs (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  Two minor points of clarification: I have zero problem with amending per above and, while I can't -- objectively -- read the RfC that way, I would personally be glad to see this outcome.
  That said, I am concerned that some editors are reading the aggressive and misinformed arguments of two relatively new editors on the "anti-" MW side who have attempted, very poorly, to summarize my close and assuming those summaries accurately represent the close. The only closing statements I wrote are this one and this explanatory comment, both of which are much more modest than the way in which two editors are summarizing them to make sweeping changes across multiple articles. To avoid the further spread of this misinformation, I would ask, as a personal favor, that editors attempting to describe my close (regardless of where you land on it) reflect only on the source material, and not the apocrypha it's spawned. To wit:

• "I’m wary of using the ‘average’ value of 2.6" The "average" of 2.6 was never used for anything (and, yes, I realize the incidental appearance of this meaningless number in the close has been fixated upon by the aforementioned editors to make major changes to articles). As per the text of the close rationale, the number 2.6 was simply noted as "indicative but not definitive as per WP:NOTAVOTE" and then immediately discarded as "not clearly learning toward either option" before the narrative analysis began.
• "to conclude that option 3 should be reached" The RfC close reached no such conclusion in any dimension of time or space; in this reality or any parallel reality that the mind of man can conceive or imagine. It stated that no "consensus as to its underlying reliability" emerged which, if anything at all, was a "2" close (but, actually, no consensus).
  

To summarize, this was a "no consensus" close with a relatively modest (and not proscriptive) BLP corollary described by Buffs in this first (now stricken) comment. The fact my loquacious reasoning, intended to promote transparency, instead provided an opening to wedge in battleground behavior is beyond both my control and mandate (RfC closers are not RfC enforcers). Chetsford (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarity...I think... :-) Buffs (talk) 01:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• @Chetsford: - perhaps there has been a misunderstanding, you quoted from me, but I was not referring to your RfC close. I was referring to the below analysis by FortunateSons. I apologise for my vagueness having caused confusion. starship.paint (RUN) 08:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Involved

• I've archived my discussion with Voorts here for ease of review (versus diffs). For what it's worth, considering the contentious topic area involved, I am in full agreement with Voorts that review of the close is appropriate. Chetsford (talk) 07:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
• Amend close to read "and that it should either not be used at all — or used with great caution for biographies of living people." I don't think that the relative silence on the issue should have been construed as agreement with the two editors raising that specific, there was a lot else going on in the discussion besides that, especially since one of those editors appears to have construed the close as a license to remove citations for BLPs. Selfstudier (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
• Amend close to 3 (Gunrel), optionally clarify the statement about BLP requirements per the qualifiers suggested by Chetsford per the arguments made by @Chess and @BilledMammal, which were not sufficiently addressed; also using the votes as an indicator. Acknowledging that I advanced the BLP arguments poorly (and thanking @Chetsford for his generally accurate deciphering of what I meant), I would suggest the following, in the spirit of his comment made here, @Bobfrombrockley here and as a compromise: used with great caution for biographies of living (and recently deceased) people, and not to be used in cases of (a) for statements that, if proved false, would be legally defamatory; (b) for extraordinary claims (c) for analytical statements about the person; (d) for quotes and facts the accuracy of which is contested by RS or the subject him/herself. In addition and as a partial clarification, perhaps e) should be content marked as activism and similar would be appropriate. FortunateSons (talk) 08:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  You're going to need to bolster your opinion more than "we should do what I want", when support for #2 had ~6.5:1 support over yours. This is not the place to relitigate this RfC, IMHO. Buffs (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  I‘m pretty sure you’re off on the math, as I voted 4 (which obviously endorses 3 over 2). That option obviously does not have consensus (and just for the sake of clarity, removal of problematic BLP uses is not backdoor deprecation, the overwhelming majority of MW uses are non-BLP or unproblematic). The straight vote count (as stated by Chetsford) has the average at 2.6, and of the counted votes, 14 votes included at least 3 (including 2 or 3), while 21 did not, of which an overwhelming amount were 3 or lower (please check my math).

  I was unaware that we are not supposed to reference specific points when requesting a reassessment of the outcome, and have struck that part, except in context of the phrasing to avoid (light) plagiarism. Thanks for making me aware, this is one of my first contributions to such a noticeboard :) FortunateSons (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  When giving a list of options (1. Action A 2. Action B 3. Action C 4. Action D and 5. Action E), saying "the average is 2.6 so we should choose option 3" is a horrible misunderstanding of statistics. You are heavily weighting all other actions other than #1 (Example, 20 people !vote 1, 2 people !vote 2, and 3 people !vote 5, the "average" is 2 despite an overwhelming preponderance of people !voting 1...in other words, a 5 is worth 5x a 1). Rounding up only further exacerbates the issue. Buffs (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Second attempt at a more policy-compliant argument, please correct me if this one is also wrong:

  The relevant arguments regarding BLP usage were not addressed, and similar arguments where not fully rebuffed in general; therefore, the section regarding BLP should remain as is, or be alternatively clarified while remaining in the spirit of discussion and close.

  Regarding the status of the entire source, I believe that the arguments made by those voting for „higher than 2“ should have led to a close of 3, and respectfully request that it is amended (as well). FortunateSons (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  "The relevant arguments regarding BLP usage were not addressed" They were addressed. You just didn't agree. Buffs (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Amend per The Wordsmith. My own views on the source aside, the issue of BLP use was barely discussed - there was no consensus on it one way or another, so to assert one in the closure seems odd. The Kip 19:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
• I don't object to the amendment that is being proposed here, because I think it goes without saying that any source where there are serious reliability concerns should be used with extreme caution in BLPs, especially where content is potentially defamatory. While no consensus was reached, given that 15 out of 36 !votes (I think) were for an option higher than 2 and only one editor considered option 1, this is obviously a source with serious reliability concerns. My only worry is that editors will take this amendment as permission not to use extreme caution with the source on BLPs or, worse, that this source has somehow been cleared for use in BLPs, so I hope that editors supporting this amendment will be vigilant in ensuring that we do not use this poor source inappropriately in BLPs. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• Could we get an admin to close and amend this. Consensus seems quite clear. Buffs (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
  • I already listed this at WP:CR for maybe more than a week. starship.paint (RUN) 06:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, I concur that consensus here is to amend the close. Chetsford (talk) 11:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC closure review request at Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#RFC_on_current_consensus_#14

COVID-19 pandemic (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RfC closure in question) (Discussion with closer)

Closer: Chetsford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Notified: User_talk:Chetsford/Archive_41#Notice_of_noticeboard_discussion

Reasoning: The closure was not a reasonable summation of the discussion. #1 closer ignored roughconsenus pointing to "the discursive failures that occurred in this RfC." #2 the closer introduced new alleged concepts such as a lack of WP:RS in the RFC, without noticing a wikilink to a sub-article COVID-19 lab leak theory that contains hundreds of RS as well as an RS explicitly referred to Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#Discussion in which I stated ""Controversies about the origins of the virus, including the lab leak theory, heightened geopolitical divisions, notably between the United States and China.[34]" Note that no editor made an RS claim in the discussion on the oppose side, thus the closer seems to have improperly summarized the discussion and rather than summarizing instead pointing to his own view of lack of RS, MEDRS, and discursive failures (none of which were not discussed in the RFC). When I sought to discuss the close with the closer on their talk page, the closer instead failed to WP:AGF stating "I know it wouldn't be as personally satisfying" and going on to say "we may sometimes feel shorted if our comments aren't recognized." Note, I had not been asking the editor why my "comments aren't recognized", I instead asked the editor to justify their own novel claim that no RS were provided in the RFC. #3 eventually the closer goes on to contradict themselves apparently stating "As already noted in the close, the RfC should have been an easy consensus close to strike #14" as if some procedural failure in the RFC didnt gain such consensus, I suppose pointing the editors vague claim of "discursive failures," rather than the very succinct explanations of many of the editors that participated in the RFC. In summary, the closer has never made any policy, procedural, nor factual explanations in the close nor on their talk page to explain going against consensus, instead suggesting that the RFC be run again and explained "I've reviewed it and decline to reverse." The discussion with closer (and additional information) can be found User_talk:Chetsford/Archive_41#An_odd_close. I adding it here as something is amiss with the template link above, maybe due to the closer archiving their talk page recently. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Uninvolved (COVID19)

This close was within the threshold of reasonable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• I don't recall ever editing that article so I think I'm uninvolved. Will strike if mistaken. The closure looks entirely reasonable to me. Simonm223 (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

What does it even mean to "strike down" a consensus? In this case, that consensus is a documented statement that the lab leak theory shouldn't be mentioned. Does "striking it down" mean removing the consensus statement because it's used to preempt discussion/proposals? Or does it mean finding consensus to talk about the lab leak in the article? If the former, given the way documented past consensus serves to limit present discussion (for good reason, in many cases), I'd think we'd need affirmative consensus to retain it, and not just default to it with no consensus. If the latter, it's worded oddly and it's hard to see that RfC as yielding a clear result. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my reading of the discussion would be that it's attempting the former. —Sirdog (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd say any other editor in good standing reviewing that discussion could reasonably find the same result. I am unconvinced by the challenger that the close is fundamentally flawed. —Sirdog (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn This seems to be a clear supervote and WAY outside what reliable sources state. At this point, any restriction on this viable theory is political in nature and feels very much like the last vestiges of clinging to "no, I can't possibly be wrong". Buffs (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
• Although I don't agree with the restriction, the close is with what could be considered reasonable given the discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
• That's the whole discussion? I was expecting it to be longer when I clicked through. At this point, the close note plus this AN thread combined seem like they are far longer than the actual RfC. The whole thing seems really weird to me, frankly -- why do we have a box proclaiming itself to be "current consensus" if all the stuff in it is four years old? jp×g🗯️ 14:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
• I would probably have closed it differently. The reference to WP:NOTCENSORED is quite a compelling policy-based argument that wasn't rebutted for example. It's also worth remembering NOTAVOTE is an essay, not a guideline or policy, although the ROUGHCONSENSUS guideline does say "Consensus is not determined by counting heads". However the fact I would have come to a different conclusion isn't sufficient reason to overturn the close; for that we'd need to demonstrate the conclusion the closer came to is unreasonable, and I don't think it is. WaggersTALK 14:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Involved (COVID19)

• Comment by Closer: While I personally would like to have seen the RfC close in favor of the RfC proposal , I ultimately closed it as "no consensus" (not as "a consensus against" as, I believe, the challenger thinks occurred).
  As I read it, the challenge seems to spin on four assertions advanced by the challenger which I summarize here to the best of my understanding:

• A belief that (a) ROUGHCONSENSUS is a synonym for Referendum, and, (b) consensus was achieved by process of majority vote.
  In their request for review on my Talk page, the challenger invoked WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS to repeatedly demand the RfC be treated as a referendum or plebiscite and reversed on the apparent basis that the "count" [2] of "votes" [3] (6-4 in favor of the RfC - though challenger claimed it was 7-1 [4] somehow) favored the RfC proposal.
  I repeatedly counseled challenger that this was WP:NOTAVOTE, pointing to our WP:CONSENSUS policy which explicitly describes that a simple majority does not represent the "sense of the community" described by ROUGHCONENSUS in the absence of strength of policy-based argument. The challenger appeared non-plussed by this. Here, challenger goes on to again advance the false premise that "the closer has never made any policy, procedural, nor factual explanations in the close nor on their talk page to explain going against consensus", based on their insistent belief that consensus was achieved by a simple majority headcount.
• A belief that it's the closer's duty to engage in textual analysis of sources presented across the project and the zeitgeist, rather than arguments made in the RfC.
  The challenger writes that "the closer introduced new alleged concepts such as a lack of WP:RS in the RFC, without noticing a wikilink to a sub-article COVID-19 lab leak theory that contains hundreds of RS as well as an RS explicitly referred"
  This, again, appears to be a severe misunderstanding of the close by the challenger. RS was mentioned merely as part of the closer's formulary recitation of facts and summary of arguments made which is a customary and perfunctory part of the close. Nothing involving "RS" was part of the close rationale. (Nor is it the responsibility of the closer to evaluate the alleged "hundreds" of RS. Closes occur based on strength of policy-based argument, not the closer's independent and original evaluation of source material.)
• A belief that geopolitical factors must be taken into account in closing RfCs.
  The challenger explained in the RfC, on my Talk page, and now here, that "[c]ontroversies about the origins of the virus, including the lab leak theory, heightened geopolitical divisions, notably between the United States and China." as an example of an unrebutted argument, apparently in the belief that the lack of rebuttal to this assertion tips the scale in favor of the RfC. But the RfC is the place to argue the application of WP policy. The state of Sino-American relations is completely irrelevant to the application of WP policy.
• A belief that an (alleged) lack of social grace afforded to an editor is cause to overturn a close.
  The challenger explains "the closer instead failed to WP:AGF" in his discussion with the challenger, nested as part of their appeal to overturn. Accepting, for sake of argument, that I did fail to AGF in a discussion on my Talk page with the challenger, failure to AGF in a Talk page discussion is not a rational cause to overturn a close. Closes are overturned due to some failure of the close itself, not as a sanction against the closer when we believe we were not treated with the deference we feel we deserve.

As I repeatedly said, this should have been an easy RfC to pass. Policy (and, frankly, reality) favored it. But those policies were never argued by the participants. For the closer to invoke his independent awareness of policy would be a WP:SUPERVOTE and, moreover, completely unfair as it would deny the opposing side the opportunity to rebut. I suggested to the challenger that if they were to rerun the RfC and remedy the significant defects in their first attempt it would almost certainly pass. They appear to be disinterested in doing that. Chetsford (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

This response by the closer is further astray:

• First the closer continues to refuse to provide a policy explanation to ignore consensus, see WP:NHC.
• Second the closer talks about a nonsensical duty to provide textual analysis of sources. This is laughable. The closer failed to notice there was an RS mentioned in the RFC (and ignored the sub-article as well) and stated these omissions in the close. The closer argued that a lack of RS in the RFC was a justification for the close, and failed to understand that #34 was an RS.
• Third, in responding to this review the closer is confused of even the subject of the RFC. "[c]ontroversies about the origins of the virus, including the lab leak theory, heightened geopolitical divisions, notably between the United States and China." is the exact text in the article at the time of the RFC that is being discussed in this RFC. I was discussing the text of the article, and even put it in quotes. I am confused if the closer even read the RFC at this point. I have never made an argument that any geopolitical blah blah must be taken in to account. Where is this coming from? You will find this exact text quoted verbatim here in the article at the time of the RFC.
• Forth the AGF issues are simply me pointing out that the closer has chosen solely himself to paint this in some sort of personal issue, and continues to not understand the content that was being discussed (see #3). Note I have always been civil to this closer as well as everyone in the RFC, this argument is baseless, a strawman, and an odd response.
• Fifth, RFC participants do not need to argue wikipedia policy nor RFC policy, it is the closer that applies the policy to the arguments offered by the participants. In this RFC we are simply discussing if the RS support the text in bold (that the closer seems to be confused is my words), if due weight should be given to wikilink (a link that is prohibited under consensus #14), and if the consensus #14 on the article was appropriate given the text in bold and the current state of RS.

Seems the closer failed to grasp the RFC and still hasnt bothered to review it. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

"the closer continues to refuse to provide a policy explanation to ignore consensus" I'll just note again, here, that this is a furiously repeated statement based on a false premise. As I have explained many times, there was no consensus to ignore. That's why the RfC closed as "no consensus" (versus "consensus for" or "consensus against"). I appreciate your view that your "count" [sic] [5] of the "vote" [sic] [6] led you to believe the 6 of 10 editors in favor of your RfC constituted a consensus, however, as detailed in our policy WP:CONSENSUS, consensus is not determined by plebiscite and your RfC was not a referendum. I sincerely regret if you were under a different impression.
"RFC participants do not need to argue wikipedia policy" Sure, you aren't "required" to present policy-based argument, but by your decision not to do so, you ended up with the result you got here. Please see WP:NHC: "... after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue ... [if] discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it". Chetsford (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Which editors made arguments that you felt met this criteria "after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue" and why? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by reality? Can you explain what you meant by that? FailedMusician (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

We could start here, but this is only a beginning... Buffs (talk) 20:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I mean it's very clear the actual state-of-the-world does not support a proscription such as #14 and this RfC should have resulted in a consensus to strike it, in my opinion (indeed, #14 should never have been put in place to begin with). And had I been a participant in the discussion, I would have sided with the strike camp. But I wasn't a participant, I was the closer, and for me to close this as "a consensus to strike" when only a bare majority of participants - advancing virtually no cogent policy arguments - supported that would constitute a SUPERVOTE and be out of compliance with our WP:CONSENSUS policy. Suppressing my innate knowledge of the external world beyond WP and deciding on no set of facts beyond what was contained in the RfC, it was clear there was no consensus (as undesirable of an outcome as that is). Chetsford (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I do not concur with your assessment. Majority opinion, professional opinions, WP consensus within the article, general consensus on the RfC, and a host of other options all show clearly that this restriction is wrong and needs to be rescinded. This is exactly the kind of reason we have and should use WP:IAR. Buffs (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

"this restriction is wrong and needs to be rescinded" - I agree with this
"This is exactly the kind of reason we have and should use WP:IAR." - I disagree with this. Chetsford (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment by SmolBrane: In the close, you(Chetsford) stated that “First, several editors in the oppose camp note that consensus can't occur implicitly in this case (the opposite of what we usually observe in WP:EDITCON), since #14 established a clear consensus and the mere presence of content against consensus that may have gone unnoticed doesn't overturn it.”

The presence of content against the formal RfC consensus for six months on a high traffic article (8k views per day!) SHOULD overturn the two year old RfC. That's the whole point of implicit consensus—not to mention that this was the long-standing stable state of the article. TarnishedPath made the same error “Arguing that the content has been in the article for a while is putting the cart before the horse.” Why would we undo a six-month old undisputed edit here? We should not presume that the bold edit went 'unnoticed'--this is not a valid exception w/r/t WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. Implicit consensus has a great deal of weight on a contentious article with 2,200 watchers. The RfC establishing consensus #14 from May 2020 is very old in COVID-terms, and this RfC only had three keep !votes, which means only three individuals wanted to revise the article to a retroactive state—a situation that should require more opposers to stray from the current stable and long-standing state.

Aquillion made a similar error “Sometimes things fall through the cracks even on high-traffic articles”. Bold edits are not “falling through the cracks”, This is again a lack of understanding of policy, and the collaborative nature of the project. Those !votes(Aquillion and TarnishedPath) likely should have been discarded.

Both Crossroads and IOHANNVSVERVS made strong arguments in favor of striking, based on new sourcing and WP:NOTCENSORED respectively. Ortizesp and Lights and Freedom also made strong cases in relation to coverage by sources.

The closer evidently erred “since no actual examples of RS were presented by those making this argument”. As Jtbobwaysf points out, there were three inline citations supporting the sentence about the lab leak. The closer did not correctly assess the policy-based arguments made by the supporters, nor the RSes involved. The current stable state of the article should have had more deference by the closer in light of the comments that were provided. The closer also commented about WP:MEDRS which was mentioned in the May 2020 RfC, not this one, so that stipulation was inappropriate. SmolBrane (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

The "stable state" argument is laughable and HORRIBLE circular logic. The article is stable, therefore we shouldn't change our restrictions. But the reason it cannot be updated is BECAUSE of the restrictions. No restrictions like these should be enacted and held in place when they are demonstrably not in alignment with our five pillars, specifically, NPOV (and with that RS) + no firm rules. Buffs (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your last sentence and I think you misunderstand my position; the lab leak theory was mentioned and linked to for six months prior to this RfC, despite the consensus 14 not being formally overturned. SmolBrane (talk) 01:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clearer. I was concurring with you :-) Buffs (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• Please note that the template link (above) "Discussion with closer" is linking to the user's mainspace talk page however the user recently archived their talk page, could another editor please assist to link to the correct archive link which is User_talk:Chetsford/Archive_41#An_odd_close. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

   Fixed, I think. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Ignoring the massive discussion, the facts are abundantly clear. I went WP:BEBOLD and invoked WP:IAR: [7]. WP:BRD if you feel I'm in error. Buffs (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I went ahead and reverted your WP:SUPERVOTE that goes against the RFC result, and the emerging consensus here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't the closer, so it wasn't a WP:SUPERVOTE. As for the rest, I do not see the same consensus. People here appear to be much more concerned about debating process rather than doing the correct thing by deprecating a "rule" that is clearly not being followed and a clear consensus on both Wikipedia and IRL. The idea that we should stick to restrictions imposed a few months after COVID hit vs what we know now four years later is absurd. WP:IAR could easily fix this and so could anyone with half a brain that isn't fixated on procedural hurdles.

All that said, I was bold. It was reverted (I hold no ill will against anyone for such an action). Time to discuss. Buffs (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Are these "/current_consensus" pages even real?

• The more I think about this whole "official talk page current consensus box" thing, the weirder it gets. Since when do we have a policy or procedure for keeping a set of officially-determined statements about article consensus... on the talk page of an article... separate from actual consensus on the article? And then we have to have separate discussions to change the "official consensus" thing on the talk page, versus just the article? I don't see anything about it in any of our policies or guidelines; I am looking through some talk pages, each of which I know to be a zoo, and seeing if they have anything like this. So far it's a "no" for Talk:Israel–Hamas war, Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign), Talk:Race and intelligence. A title search says that there are, apparently, only thirteen of these pages on the whole site. The first was at Talk:Donald Trump, which seems to have been unilaterally created by one admin in 2017. What in tarnation are these? Are these binding over actual article consensus or actual talk page consensus? jp×g🗯️ 15:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  They appear to be a mutation of the FAQ header sections that articles like Gamergate and R&I do have. However those are used to explain commonly asked questions and are more informative.
  The statement in question is from a talk page consensus (this May 2020 RFC). But how it's stated has led to an RFC on whether to remove a statement from a talk page, which is just bureaucracy. An RFC on text to be included would have been a better solution. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  A good question for this closure is why the bureaucracy was weighted more heavily than the editing. Deferring to editing consensus would be preferable given that an RfC for mainspace content never occurred(to your point). SmolBrane (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Probably because that's how the RFC question was raised. If someone edited content in, was reverted and following discusion the content was kept then the statement would de facto be struck down. This seems a more sensible approach than an RFC about removing the statement from the talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  This RfC was not about removing the talk page statement, it was whether or not the statement was "still valid". Perhaps this is central to the issue. SmolBrane (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  But that is still an RFC about a talk page statement, my point was the framing of the consensus blocks is the cause of such odd discussions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  For pages that have had a lot of RFCs, they are basically a history of RFC results for that page. Here's some other ones. I see nothing wrong with documenting RFC results and consensuses this way. It makes it more organized. The proper way to change an item that has been RFC'd before is to RFC it again. And then we have to have separate discussions to change the "official consensus" thing on the talk page, versus just the article? Normally I think one would change both the current consensus and the article content at the same time (to reflect the result of a new RFC). The two seem clearly linked to me. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Harassing Editors

This user @Saqib is constantly removing the articles that I have created without citing any reliable reasons. Just now, he has moved my article in the draft space Draft:Kashan Admani - Wikipedia. If I have COI, he should prove it. If there is some information that is not reliable, there is Citation needed template available. Perhaps, he is having some agenda to remove the pages that I create. I humbly seek an admin support and guidance in this matter.

P.s. he has a history of being accused of harassment and this time, I believe it is important to look deeply into his behavior and put a stop to it. Aanuarif (talk) 12:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I concur. It's become imperative for someone to intervene and examine my edits and conduct. I've been facing numerous attacks across various forums lately and truthfully, it's becoming quite bothersome. I can either defend myself against these accusations or fix articles. This needs to be addressed promptly. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Saqib, you shouldn't draftify old articles, so please just self-revert that one. You'll need to make a detailed case for whatever's been happening to you if they don't appear to be independent incidents. However, it's likely also that these are just independent editors bringing cases against you because they have each been emboldened and misdirected by the existence of previous complaints. Working AFC/NPP in high volume is another way you can get a lot of new editors confused and angry with you. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Usedtobecool! Appreciate it.

Hi @Saqib! I don't want to get into a dispute with you. I have respectfully accepted your suggestions and will continue to do so, provided they are in good faith and not based on assumptions. Aanuarif (talk) 12:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool - I moved the draft back to the main NS. I initially draftified it because the majority of its content was contributed by @Aanuarif and the BLP appeared to be PROMO and relied on non-RS. Instead of nominating it for deletion, I thought giving the creator a chance to fix the issues would be more appropriate. However, I've come to realize that draftifying old articles isn't the right approach. I might take it to AfD. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it's sometimes frustrating when you come across articles you think are too poor for mainspace but there isn't an easy way to rid of them. Unfortunately, comes with the territory, as you are finding out, especially when working in third world topics, where you rarely find another editor also familiar with the area to back you up. You can remove serious BLP problems and get an admin to help you enforce that removal without much hassle. Most of the other problems, sometimes you can do something about, sometimes, you have to learn to be able to ignore and forget about for your own mental wellbeing. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

At what age does an article typically reach a point where it's shouldn't be draftify ? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

90 days. – Joe (talk) 19:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Cheers Aanuarif, glad to hear you're open to hearing out Saqib's concerns. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

• I am not actually an admin, so I fear I've already taken too much space in this thread. But I wanted to leave some parting thoughts.
  To Aanuarif: I would caution that just because there are many complaints on a user's talk page does not necessarily mean that that is a bad editor. Most admins' talk pages are filled with complaints from other editors and all kinds of accusations, of bias, of incompetence, of prejudice, and so on. So, sometimes, it can actually mean the person is doing good work.
  To Saqib: Most COI/UPE editors produce poorly referenced, promotional articles but so do newbies. One of my first articles was speedy deleted as spam even though all I had done was follow Wikipedia's own suggestions in good faith to translate an article from another Wikipedia. So, in your first response, you almost always have to allow for the possibility that it's a good faith editor accidentally producing subpar content due to inexperience. Secondly, even when you're reasonably certain you're dealing with an actual spammer, it's best to keep that to yourself until you are ready to make a proper case backed by evidence in the proper venues. Makes for a more pleasant environment all around. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool Sure, I've just started NPP so I don't have much experience dealing with UPEs yet. I've interacted with COI editors before but UPEs are new territory for me. I'll definitely take your tip going forward. In this case, I haven't filed any complaints against @Lkomdis or @Aanuarif. Actually, they're the ones who lodged complaints against me. OK you might be wondering why I called @Aanuarif a UPE. Let me break it down here. @Aanuarif were adding WP:OR and WP:PROMO to Waqar Zaka's BLP. When I raised concerns on their tp last month, they suddenly became inactive and stopped editing WP altogether. So, was I wrong to suspect they might be a UPE? --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

And @Aanuarif has been actively editing this BLP since 2021. Here's the thing. In 2021, they removed well-cited material (probably because Zaka didn't like it) and then added PROMO using unreliable sources. Added his achievements using unreliable sources. Added more PROMO, More, More, More and the PROMO goes on. I removed PROMO and unreliable references in 2017, again in 2020 and once more in 2024. In between, I made several edits to clean up the BLP. The point is I've been neutral back in 2017 and I'm neutral still in 2024. BUT, @Aanuarif and @Lkomdis accusing me of being a UPE. I'm seeking an answer from an admin on how to deal with @Aanuarif who has been adding PROMO themselves and now has the audacity to call me a UPE instead.--—Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Usedtobecool, i just saw this and wanted to share my opinion. Few days ago, Saqib nominated one article Shuja Asad on which i voted keep, then instantly he followed my editings and harrased me. He tagged my article Abu Aleeha with notability tag [8] and for proving his instances, he even tagged other articles which was linked to Abu Aleeha with notability tag although those articles were not created by me. The tag was instantly removed by another senior edior [9] By searching his work, i found out that he is harrasing many Pakistani wikipideans and eventually found out this page where i thought to share my opinion. Libraa2019 (talk) 14:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I understand pointing fingers at UPEs without strong evidence can stir things up in the community, but honestly, if you take a peek at their contributions, it's pretty clear they're up to some shady business. It seems like they're all just covering for each other. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

It's very interesting that someone who produced Draft:Mohammad Jerjees Seja has joined the chorus of editors with grievances against Saqib. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

That promo article does'nt mean that i am not allowed to join such group and if you have not noticed, i have not moved that draft to main space neither urge to edit that draft because i understood my wordings and tone in that article was wrong and i dont mind after its deletion neither recreated it as i am not UPE who will be affected. Libraa2019 (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@Saqib You should present an evidence, not assume. If you are alleging someone of shady business, you should present a proof. Now you are at the receiving end of your stuff, you are Aanuarif (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Saqib! By analyzing your edits i too believed that you are an experienced UPE, just saw the level at which you are defending Waqar Zaka at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waqar Zaka (3rd nomination) & other Pakistani politician articles (may be they have paid you) as your area of interest is only Pakistani politics. Anyways i dont want to put allegations on someone without proper evidence like you do. Libraa2019 (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Saqib, as you know, I was the first one to respond to the parallel thread at ANI pointing out that you maybe are being targeted by bad actors. So, you know where I stand. My point was/is, like many new editors, including other editors involved in this thread, your report takes the form "This editor or group of editors are up to something. You can clearly see it from their contributions. Admins, please investigate." The problem is admins are not investigators. You would have to be insanely lucky to get someone else to investigate the issues that you have identified when you yourself give so little to go on. As the person most familiar with the case and the one most affected by it, you should be the one to investigate and write up a proper report that uninvolved editors can easily follow and uninvolved admins can easily action. There is no admin assigned to work every thread at AN or ANI skipping none. So, if there's a thread that's a mess without proper evidence presented, it's likely all admins are going to skip over that section completely, or at least wait for someone to bring something that's easily actionable. That's all I wanted to convey. You have now added a few diffs, that's on the right track. But there are so many threads about this in so many places and multiple editors who've complained against you, multiple editors you've complained against in turn, it's still a big mess. If I have the time, I will try to see if there's enough of a pattern for a sockpuppetry investigation. But at this moment, the ANI thread looks the most promising. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Great tip! I'll start making reports as suggested from now on. I never thought about it before, but now I've realised I do need to put in some effort to gather evidence and provide diffs because admins aren't here to investigate. Got it, point noted. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Remember how backlogged SPI usually is, so when you present them with a case that has really strong diffs (ABC made the same edit here as prior sock DEF, or same edit summaries repeatedly), or multiple examples for behavior. Remember that some things will be common across lots of accounts, for example the mobile edit or mobile web edit tag - those usually aren't anything definitive. CU's will absolutely help, but when you give them everything on a platter, it's an easy one for them to look into. When it's going to take time (and I'm certainly guilty of making filings where I know it will take time), they might skip the case and instead take 3-4 easy ones in the same timeframe.

Also, consider that you don't always need to reply to every post, especially if you're making the same (or almost the same) point you made earlier. Trust admins to pay attention to that - you look better sometimes for knowing when not to reply, especially if it just increases the drama level. And to second what others have said, you're doing good and you're listening and improving. Keep it up! Ravensfire (talk) 22:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

The OP has been directing toddler-level comments toward Saqib at various AfDs: [10], [11], [12]. They should probably just be indeffed per NOTHERE or CIR or something like that. We don't need to indulge such foolishness. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, isn't there a sockfarm going after Saqib for their work with new page reviewing? It could be one of those again. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

LilianaUwU, Yes it is. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, Saqib is WP:BLUDGEONING in multiple WP:AfD. He's conveniently defending his articles and nominating article of other users, accusing them of being a WP:SPI when there's no such evidence has been identified. He has set a narrative about users like BeauSuzanne, Aanu Arif, Me and then kept repeating it in different talk pages, discussions, AfDs to prove us somehow a WP:Forumshop. 182.182.29.217 (talk) 09:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  The IP range 182.182.0.0/17 has been CU blocked with the instruction to "log in to your account to edit". -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Boomerang

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

---

I have discovered that Aanuarif is an undisclosed paid editor. I have sent the evidence by mail to Rosguill because they have actioned my reports in the past. If another admin is interested or willing, I would be happy to share it. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Support indef: No surprise here. @Saqib, don't get discouraged by the harassment, you're doing a good job. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Friendly reminder that per WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE The community has rejected the idea of individual administrators acting on evidence that cannot be peer-reviewed. and private evidence of UPE should be sent to the paid editing queue (paid-en-wpwikipedia.org) or an individual checkuser (if appropriate) who would then need to send it along to the queue if acting on it. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I think there's enough publicly available evidence of harassment of Saqib to block without consideration of the private evidence. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:OUTING lists admins multiple times as a group to send private info too. I guess the way to consolidate the two then is to say that editors can send evidence to admins who should forward it to functionaries rather than act on it.

I have forwarded the email to Firefly but since they've not edited since before I did that and the policy appears to say they would have to forward it again to paid-en anyway, I have now sent it to that queue as well. The most pertinent bits don't even need to be private, I don't think, but will wait for functionaries to make the call. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

And to the absolute surprise of nobody, emails sent to nebulous mailing lists get lost to the void, while Saqib continues to be harassed and Arif asks where the evidence is. So, here's the non-private part of the evidence:

1. Aanuarif is Aayan Arif, per their self-disclosure at User talk:DragonflySixtyseven/Archive30#Request for review.
2. Someone with the same name has published this advertisement for their Wikipedia services: link
3. Articles listed on that advertisement as their prior work were created by Aanuarif: Dream Station Productions, Carma – The Movie and so on. Some articles in the list were created by other accounts with edit counts in the low hundreds, which is also true of the accounts that have showed up recently to complain about Saqib, including the latest, Fatam50.
4. Aayan Arif and musiciansofpakistan, the site that hosts the advertisement, have also been cited a bunch of times in our articles, at least some of them by Aanuarif.[13]

— Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Usedtobecool, Now, let's take a closer look. Firstly, all those articles listed on the Blogspot website are about NON-notable subjects. I didn't nominate all of them for deletion because it might seem like I'm harassing @Aanuarif, by targeting all their creations. They even created a page on Babylicious and Waqar Zaka was one of the producers of this film. This suggests that @ Aanuarif and @Lkomdis have possible connections because both are targeting me due to the Waqar Zaka BLP. Moreover, one of the BLPs listed on this Blogspot is Sara Haider, which was created by Renamed user 864c542a23313621 (talk · contribs) and heavily edited by @Aanuarif. I just took a look at their creations, and they focus on the same area as @BeauSuzanne. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

The link to the blog page now says the page does not exist so I am assuming it's been taken down but here is the archive. S0091 (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Support indef. I agree with Phil Bridger above me, there's enough public evidence of Aanuarif et al harrassing Saqib that there's no need to even bother with the UPE claims. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if Aanuarif was a sock. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger Hi! You can clearly see that Saqib has been harassing users and this is not new for him. If you want to count me in undisclosed paid editor, I would love to see the evidence. However, there is clear evidence available of Saqib harassing users by deleting their pages. Recent being Dream Station Productions, Kashan Admani (which he moved to drafts just because I had created it), Natasha Khan (Pakistani singer), Kami Paul, Wahab Shah and countless others. How would you rate that behavior? I appreciate him for his contributions on Wikipedia but certain actions on one individual does fall into harassment. I would love to hear what you have to say here. Aanuarif (talk) 11:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Aanuarif, Don't blame me. It's your own actions that have made it easier for me to catch UPE here. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Nominating articles for deletion and moving to draft space is in line with Wikipedia policy. It is not harassment. Saqib is not an administrator, so doesn't even have the power to delete pages. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Support indef per the UPE evidence Usedtobecool provided above. S0091 (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

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

About the articles

Thanks for blocking Joe Roe. In the past, AN has found consensus to nuke UPE articles via consensus here. Saqib had concerns about the reliability of sources and the notability of topics way before the actual evidence for UPE was found. And he'd already nominated a bunch of them for deletion, perhaps not all. What's people's thoughts on deleting articles created by Aanuarif? I don't think it's fair to put the onus on good-faith editors to prove they are not worth retaining. AFD is also a bit of a lottery, and has even lower and iffy participation in third world topics. Many of Saqib's AFDs already see a disproportionate amount of participation from new accounts and IPs. I will make a list if there's interest. Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Usedtobecool, If there's a prior consensus to nuke articles created by confirmed UPE, I'd appreciate seeing that. And I concur with your assessment. For instance, take a look at this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We Are One (global collaboration song). The article appears to be a clear PROMO created by @Aanuarif. I nominated it for deletion, but some editors, whose opinions I respect, seem to misunderstand how GNG works. I'm concerned that these paid articles might end up being kept. It seems they've secured paid placements in several Pakistan RS, which fail under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Another example is Talk:Maha Ali Kazmi#COI tag (May 2024), created by Fatam50 (talk · contribs), likely a sock of @Aanuarif. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

And yes, I didn't nominate all of the @Aanuarif creations for deletion. It's not because they meet WP:N, but because these articles have some coverage in RS. I had a fear that some editors may question my rationale for AfD'g these pages when there's already coverage. I remember some editors have already accused me of acting in bad faith in some AfDs. They might not be aware of WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Sometimes, @CNMall41: has to explain WP:NEWSORGINDIA to them. I can say for sure that our Pakistani UPEs are gaining expertise. They understand they need coverage in RS to create WP articles about their clients and they're doing exactly that. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

You can consider mass draftifying the pages created by this UPE that haven't been draftified in the past. The community seems fine with draftifying COI/UPE articles. This may be easier than AFDing each one, and still gives them a chance to be salvaged if the page happens to be notable. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, That would work for me as well. However, I recall drafting a PROMO BLP created by @Aanuarif|, but after @Usedtobecool objected to it, I had to revert my changes. But If it's safe to draftify creations of @Aanuarif, I'm inclined to do so, as they pertain to non-notable individuals and are PROMO in nature, relying on paid placements coverage in RS. And definitely, once refined, we can move them back to the main NS. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Colmedy and Consistant Disregard of Rules

User:Colmedy has been consistantly warned about their edits on the Mac Tonight Wikipedia page (see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Self-Published and Unreliable Sources on Mac Tonight). Following Archival, I pinged him on his page, citing the guidelines broken and a plea to stop their disruptive editing (User talk:Colmedy#Use of Unreliable and Self-published Sources). Colmedy has continued to violate these rules (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mac_Tonight&diff=prev&oldid=1222645245) after being warned by users like SounderBruce and myself, who both warned him twice. XCBRO172 (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Rules are there to be broken. I'm trying to read through the user talk page discussion and previous ANI thread and just seeing a wall of quoted guidelines. Could you please explain, in your own words, why you think Colmedy's edits to Mac Tonight are disruptive? – Joe (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I believe they're being disruptive due to using unreliable sources, rejecting the colaberative nature of Wikipedia and accusing others of instigating edit wars (see Talk:Mac Tonight /Please try not to remove any of the information presented/Overuse of Maintenance Templates/This article may contain excessive or inappropriate references to self-published sources. Please help improve it by removing references to unreliable sources where they are used inappropriately.) XCBRO172 (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I am open to the collaborative nature of wikipedia, but i disagree with deleting large chunks of the page, especially without explaining it. Some stuff was from youtube (uploads of commercials and stuff), but those sources and info have since been removed. Im new to wikipedia, and its tough to actively learn how to improve a page without actual feedback on which areas had the issues. Deleting large chunks of properly cited stuff is arguably more disruptive. Colmedy (talk) 01:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

That is a relief to hear, I also don't want this to blow up into a major thing; just please listen to those who know the rules, which as I have stated before are that excessive detail, as well as trivial information should be avoided. XCBRO172 (talk) 02:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

From what I can see, User:Colmedy seems to be highly interested in this character and including all the information possible about him. To that end, there is a lot of detail here that is simply not encyclopedic or could be significantly better summarized. There is space however to contain much of the basic information.

For example,

"Between 1997 and 1998, McDonald's sponsored NASCAR Hall of Famer Bill Elliott with Mac Tonight featured on his car. In 2016, the Mac Tonight theme was McDonald's driver Jamie McMurray's Chip Ganassi Racing No. 1 Chevrolet SS throwback scheme for Darlington Raceway's Southern 500."

could be summarized as "From 1997 to 1998, McDonald's sponsored a NASCAR vehicle featuring the character"

I don't see a problem with his point of view, however, something I'm not seeing is any discussion on the talk page. User:Colmedy has asked several questions without reply/explanation. Based on the editing pattern, there seems to be a low-speed edit war in progress. All parties would do well to use the talk page and settle their differences of opinion in a civil manner. Buffs (talk) 03:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know, this sounds like the sort of obsessively referenced detail that has made Wikipedia the greatest reference work in human history. It might be trivial and silly, but it's not false, and if it's sourced I don't see why we should take it upon ourselves to cull it. jp×g🗯️ 21:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

While the information that Colmedy introduces may not be false, they are extremely poorly sourced often being youtube archives of old advertisements by random people with only a couple hundred views on the high end, which fall under Wikipedia:NOYT. XCBRO172 (talk) 06:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, some of the information they added was accurate and I could confirm and possibly significant enough to be added to the "Legacy Section" that being "Mac Tonight was featured as Strong Bad’s Halloween costume in the Homestar Runner cartoon 'I Killed Pom Pom'," which ironically was not sourced. XCBRO172 (talk) 06:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Seems to be self-referenced in the sentence, but a link would be helpful (if applicable) to the primary source. I question whether that is notable Buffs (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Peace Love10 is at UTRS

Peace Love10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was AE banned and lost TPA for "WP:ECR violations, canvassing and, (vile) personal attacks". I bring this here to see if there is consensus to restore TPA and carry request here for consideration. Please see UTRS appeal #88074 . Please see user talk for details. Thanks, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The block reason was "WP:ECR violations, canvassing and, (vile) personal attacks", but the reason for TPA removal is unstated and appears to be along the lines of "just... just too frustrating to deal with". No additional ECR violations, canvassing, or personal attacks happened after the block. They just kept ignoring advice and saying and doing clueless things. Normally I'd say that TPA removal was a bit bitey, and favor restoring it, but in this particular case... I'd probably have gotten frustrated too. After seeing the UTRS request, I don't have high hopes for an unblock. They just don't seem to be understanding anything. Maybe if one admin took time, and other admins and editors left it alone, some progress could be made. But who would be up for doing that with this editor, and how would you even keep kibitzers out? What area would this editor even want to edit until they became extended confirmed? Floquenbeam (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I have no objections if people want to restore talk page access. I strongly oppose unblocking, though. Egregious personal attacks, blaming others, etc. Reading through the UTRS request, I don't even see Peace Love10 retracting their personal attack. They appear to believe it was accurate albeit rude, they just accept that if they make another such attack, they'd be blocked again. I don't believe this user would be a net positive. Again, though, no objections if people want to restore talk page access. Note that ScottishFinnishRadish is the original blocking admin. --Yamla (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, ping @ScottishFinnishRadish: for consideration of restoring TPA for user to request unblock here(or at the AE place for that). -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Go for it. No objections here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

• Restoring TPA, at least temporarily, is probably okay, but reading the UTRS appeal, I think it may be pointless. I wouldn't unblock based on that appeal. Seems to be a lack of clue, and a lack of effort. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• Annnnnd as user claims to need a translator to edit in English, I advised them to edit in a language for which the do not need a translator. As I already recused due to my inability to be objective, it would be best if someone else decide on bringing over what we've got or closing with the sandard offer. Best.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not saying the egregious attacks don't exist, but it's hard to assess when they are all blocked from view. Likewise, the talk page appears to be filled with "Wait, what did I do?" kinds of comments. While that is common for people who are disruptive, it's also common for noobs. I'm not at all interested in unblocking without a clear rationale, but I'd also like to know more details. I understand redacting some things, but I find it unrealistic for "us commoners" to make an intelligent decision without the facts. Could we at least be vague about what was said? "removed profane remarks about another user IAW WP:BLP" or "redacted libelous remarks about user:ABC"?

I support restoring talk page access. Buffs (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

 Comment:: @Deepfriedokra Just curious, why are you giving us an appeal link if we can't view it?thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 18:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I could have been clearer. I needed more admins to look at that ticket and make a decision. Then I saw where they were using a translator which misstated what they were trying to say, and that's why they were in the mess they're in. Which mooted the whole question. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Weak support: I'm fine with them having TPA again due to an unexplained removal, but if they abuse it, it should be taken away again. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 18:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• I have declined Peace Love10's unblock request on the basis of their stated lack of English proficiency, although I did tell them that I would copy a future appeal to AE if they are able to constructively edit a different language Wikipedia. As such, there isn't any reason to reinstate their talk page access at this time. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  What about TPA? I'm not seeing anyone objecting to that. Buffs (talk) 22:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Robert7277 impersonating as an administrator

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

---

Just thought I'd put this here... User:Robert7277 is impersonating an administrator on their userpage and moved a draft submission to the mainspace with absolutely no permission to do so; they've improperly used the "Misspell" reason to state that they "approved the page to the mainspace." Probably worth mentioning that the subject of the article, who seems to fail WP:NBLP, paid for the article to be created as disclosed by the creator's talk page. Requesting for somebody to take a look. Thanks, B3251 (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

5 days and already an admins! Impressive! EvergreenFir (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Very! 🙂 B3251 (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete the page, blammo-nuke Robert7277 (if not for their mercenary editing than for disruption from impersonating an administrator) and watchlist the article and draft titles for more of this chicanery. That seems to be the best route here. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Seems to consistently use the potted edit summaries incorrectly, as almost all of their edits have consisted of ill-advised wikilinking in articles (perhaps to become autoconfirmed). Deor (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Exactly ten edits before going on to make problematic edits. Bingo. B3251 (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Post-close comment. There are several reasons to block this editor but moving a page to mainspace without permission is not one of them. Nobody has to ask for permission to do anything. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, neither is having "I am an admin" on one's userpage when one is not an admin (removal generally suffices). Primefac (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I consider it disruptive if they're using it as an appeal to authority in an attempt to get their bad edits to stick, as appears to be the case here. The individual problems aren't an issue for blocking; them combined is. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 20:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Create protected page

Please redirect glownigger and glowniggers to List of slang terms for federal agents. Thanks, RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

On the basis of which reliable sources? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

It looks like there are a few in the article, although frankly, the article itself is kind of terrible -- is there really a reason to have this as a standalone article and not a section in another? jp×g🗯️ 22:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger, this one, already in the /pol/ article. Thanks, RodRabelo7 (talk) 22:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @JPxG, who commented while I was writing my previous comment. RodRabelo7 (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Your source looks fine, but I am here inclined to let someone else deal with the work of creating the article; this week I already had one guy on the internet post a giant angry screed under my real name, on account of my opening a thread on a noticeboard tangentially related to another thread that mentioned a right-wing politician earlier this week. In that case, the administration of the message board was kind enough to hide the thread from public view after a couple days of arguing, but I do not currently feel like futzing around and finding out in re creating a page with the title "glownigger". jp×g🗯️ 21:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Done. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC closure by inexperienced editor

Normally I would not do this, but I have concerns over the closure of Talk:Francis Scott Key Bridge (Baltimore)#RfC: Past or present tense for the bridge by Charcoal feather (talk · contribs), not the least that one of their closure statements is factually wrong, namely that they falsely claimed that a majority of participants agreed the bridge meaningfully exists, when in fact opinions were split 50-50. I request someone much more experienced with closing close discussions like this to take a second look.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't particularly understand what makes this case so unique that it requires you to ignore Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures and open this without speaking to the closer first. Nil Einne (talk) 02:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I did not see that page linked from WP:RFC. Thanks, this can wait until they respond here or on their talk page.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Re: Opinions were split 50-50 I counted 9 – 13 excluding the last participant who I editconflicted with. Charcoal feather (talk) 02:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

While Charcoal feather is a relatively inexperienced editor, it is always a good idea to approach an editor on their user talk page before coming to a file a noticeboard complaint. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

You did not count correctly, especially as some of the editors in favor in the original discussion did not explicitly comment.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this is a weird closure that should be left to a more experienced editor. It should therefore be overturned. (Disclaimer: I'm involved in the discussion.) LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Reopen, Uninvolved editor: Charcoal feather's closure looks premature - the fact they edit conflicted proves that they did not wait for the discussion to run its full course. There were still new comments coming in that could have influenced the decision. The fact that they're an "inexperienced" editor (I wouldn't class 700 edits as inexperienced but ok) doesn't really matter much to be honest, but the closure should have only been done after few or no new meaningful comments were coming in (especially for such a divided discussion). —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 16:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Matrix: Eh, the RFC template had expired, the last comment was made a week ago and the discussion was listed at WP:CR. I wouldn't call it premature. Charcoal feather (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Facepalm I read all the comments in the discussion with the month "April" as "May"... reevaluating my position with the new information, the closure actually looks fine, I see a rough consensus (13 to 10) for present tense and I doubt the consensus would have changed much more with extra time. I don't see anything that contravenes WP:RFCCLOSE. Endorse, —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 17:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• 13/10 is more in the "no consensus" range. Absent a detailed closing statement/rationale for weighing some comments differently than others, the closure seems bad. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
• IMO the closure looks OK. At most one might argue that it borders on "no consensus". But if contested, this is not the right venue. North8000 (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  Actually this is technically the right venue per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE (see section "Challenging other closures"), but OP should have probably talked to Charcoal feather beforehand. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 16:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Redirect creation request

Hi, please can an administrator create a redirect from On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? 🦜 to Stochastic parrot? The title blacklist is preventing me from creating it, but it (including the parrot emoji) is the full title of the academic paper referred to at the proposed target (see also On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? 🦜 (Q105943036)).

All the best ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 01:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Brigadier Bhupesh Singh Hada.jpg

Unsure how to untangle this mess, Vijaysingh00786 tried to create an article on this file page, as well as on their user page. Thanks, will notify editor of this discussion. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Local file deleted. Nthep (talk) 09:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Admin for sale?

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

---

I got this email today. The message is cropped and the bolding was added by me: "Hi there, I hope this message finds you well. I'm _______, a seasoned Wikipedia Administrator passionate about crafting impactful narratives. With over a decade of experience, I specialize in assisting individuals and businesses like yours in establishing a lasting presence on Wikipedia, the world's leading information platform.

Ever thought about showcasing your accomplishments and contributions on the influential stage of Wikipedia? I navigate the intricacies of Wikipedia's guidelines, ensuring your story meets the platform's stringent standards. What sets my approach apart is the inherent resilience of entries created under the supervision of a Wikipedia Administrator – they stand stronger against scrutiny and time.

I understand the unique challenges of getting pages published on Wikipedia and have a proven track record of guiding experts like yourself through the process. By collaborating, we can ensure the accurate portrayal of your journey and secure its place in the annals of Wikipedia's knowledge repository.

Understanding Wikipedia's communal editing and content standards can be daunting. This is where my expertise shines. As a Wikipedia Administrator..." The aspect that is surprising to me is that this person is supposedly an admin. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Nothing new, see Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you're not saying who the e-mail came from?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Did they have access to your email address or did they use the form to contact you? M.Bitton (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

This is exactly what AndyTheGrump was saying. In the scam reading, a line says ...some of the scammers falsely claimed to be Wikipedia administrators or employees of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF). You should be thinking why admins? Then another says it all: If someone contacts you with such an offer, it is a scam. I don't see any much purpose why an admin will do something like this, of all such, have time for that. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Question about edits consisting in content removing

Hallo. I have got a question for administrators. I have noticed that since a while a recently registered user has started removing tons of text from the pages about Star Wars. Have a look at the histories of the pages about: Darth Vader, Chewbacca, Yoda, C-3PO... I am fearing for Luke Skywalker's page at this point. My question is whether reducing the content of such important pages to less than half or even to a quarter without any preceding discussion by a new user has to be considered constructive or not. I think it is not but I may be wrong, so now that I have made administrators aware about this I am letting them make their own considerations. 62.19.148.47 (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Uh... what? Some links to what you're talking about would help. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I can't find any clue of what you're talking about. However, removing contents from an article is to improve it especially when it contains WP:WWIN, etc. I have viewed the page history and can't find anything related to content removal without explanation. Even if your statement is justified, they could have appeared in WP:RC and any patroller will take care of that. This is not a big deal though. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Redirect creation request

Hi, please can an administrator create a redirect from Deji Olatunji to KSI#ComedyShortsGamer, as an {{R from relative}}? The title is protected in two separate ways (matching an entry on the title blacklist and also being individually salted); however, there is information regarding him at this anchor in the article, and an RFD discussion for Comedy Shorts Gamer (entertainer) was recently closed as keep based on this.

All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 21:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Done. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Uptown Scottsbluff

In moving Uptown Scottsbluff back to article space, I accidentally created User:Uptown Scottsbluff. Could someone R3 that please? Thanks. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Deleted. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Banning User:User 28062F033EOF457DC93EEFAABBET2C3

This user is known for creating badly spelled "warning templates" and editing articles related to Windows. In addition, they keep evading their block by making sockpuppets; feels like there's a new one every business day. Does this warrant a ban and/or an LTA case? thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 23:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree that they should be banned per WP:3X. Not sure what the requirements for a LTA case are but that should definitely be a thing to consider. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 13:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

What would the benefit of either of those things be? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Ban is probably warranted per WP:3X, but there would probably need to be lots and lots of sockpuppets with systematic abuse going on for a while to warrant an LTA case (think something like this or this). Not saying it's impossible, but only make an LTA case as a last resort. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 15:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Request for unblock

Hi, I am user:Lazy-restless ban ID: #17, I want to be unblocked and agree to follow what authority commands me to do. What should I do to be unblocked, please help me. See my contribution, previously I did a lot of good edits and created a number of good articles and templates. I want to contribute more. I believe that I can do a lot of good positive conteibution to wikipedia. 202.134.10.131 (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, don't use any IPs or users as sockpuppets (as you have done here) to edit on the English Wikipedia for 6 months, then you can follow WP:SO to potentially get unblocked. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 17:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

@Aliwxz has been consistently making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as he did at Sistan and Baluchestan province (disruptive) and he also blank out and removed portions of zabol contents. He has been treading very close to a full block, i think administrators should look into his behavior and put a stop to it. Balash-Vologases (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I find it mildly humorous that you lifted the language been treading very close to a full block from the discussion of your own partial block. Also, you have failed to notify the user in question as required in the large red box at the top of this page. Also, two edits you don't agree with, one three days ago and the other a month ago, doesn't seem like it it needs administrative intervention. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

If you check talk page, he has been warned about his edits but he has been removing contents that related to baloch in almost all his edits. Balash-Vologases (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States

Hi all. I would appreciate it if an admin could close Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States. It is a sprawling, five-week discussion which has recently been mentioned in a local newspaper, and I think it could benefit from an admin closure (which ideally would make sense to the news organization) before legions of meatpuppets show up. (The semi-time-sensetitive nature is why I am coming directly here rather than WP:CR.) Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Second opinion appreciated

...on User talk:GoneWithThePuffery, where I just dropped a "final warning" for harassment. Puffery has a habit of making things personal already, as their edit history shows, and when they got falsely accused of socking (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GoneWithThePuffery) and Talk:Snell's law, they kind of exploded. I don't know about "unbelievable muppet" and "piss off very quickly"--muppet isn't much of an insult, and "fuck off" isn't blockable so "piss off" wouldn't be either, but please see what I just reverted on Talk:Snell's law: that's just over the top. The editor is likely right about content (I agree with them so they must be right), and they're highly educated and smart, but their attitude is not yet right for a collaborative project. All that to say, eh, I hope my "final warning" isn't too much. Drmies (talk) 23:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Piss off very quickly is what I say to my dogs when they make me take them out in the middle of the night. Warning is fine. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Eh don't they have dog doors where you live? Porter just went outside by himself--but then he's a Good Boy. Drmies (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Dog doors, winters, and bears don't mix. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Point taken. Woof! Drmies (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Discssuion cut off by involved admin User:Just Step Sideways

Discussion was only open for two days and it involved a DYK BLP complaint and AndyTheGrump's uncivil remarks referring to DYK editors as idiots. There were two simultaneous unrelated threads about ATG's incivility at ANI but discussion in this thread was not concluded. In fact just hours ago the thread was active. I think the JSS close was involved because of their critical offline commentary and appearance of a friendship with ATG on an offline site that refers to DYK as a clusterfuck.

1. JSS and ATG are both very involved in criticism of DYK offline in fact JSS posted there minutes ago.
2. I went to the JSS talk page but my discussion was also cutoff by JSS.
3. Here is another relevant discussion of self reflection at DYK "BLP_issues_with_Andrew_Tate_DYK_hook" also ongoing at WT:DYK

I think there is more than just the appearance of a conflict and cutting off an active discussion is not a good idea. I believe that the thread should be allowed to continue and the JSS close should be backed out. Lightburst (talk) 00:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)