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

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction.

"WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

Technical instructions for closers

Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
• Wikipedia:Proposed article splits

Administrative discussions

ANI thread concerning Yasuke

(Initiated 55 days ago on 2 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1162 § Talk: Yasuke has on-going issues has continued to grow, including significant portions of content discussion (especially since Talk:Yasuke was ec-protected) and accusations of BLP violations, among other problems. Could probably be handled one sub-discussion at a time. --JBL (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

• (Initiated 117 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
• (Initiated 114 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
• (Initiated 114 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA

Many thanks in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

If re-requesting closure at WP:AN isn't necessary, then how about different various closers for cerain section(s)? I don't mind one or two closers for one part or another or more. --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

During Phase I of RFA2024, we had ended up having multiple closers for different RFCs, even the non-obvious ones. I think different people closing subparts of this should be acceptable Soni (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Bumping this as an important discussion very much in need of and very much overdue for a formal closure. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... designated RfA monitors (at least in part). voorts (talk/contributions) 16:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done designated RfA monitors. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

For recall, @Sirdog: had attempted a close of one section, and then self-reverted. Just in case a future closer finds this helpful. Soni (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping. For what it's worth, I think that close was an accurate assessment of that single section's consensus, so hopefully I make someone's day easier down the line. Happy to answer questions from any editor about it. —Sirdog (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I also think closing some sections at a time is pretty acceptable, especially given we have only been waiting 2+ months for them. I also have strong opinions on 'involved experienced editors' narrowing down a closer's scope just because they speak strongly enough on how they think it should be closed. But I am Capital-I involved too, so shall wait until someone takes these up. Soni (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Not many people agreed with the concerns expressed on article talk about closing section by section. If a closer can't find consensus because the discussion is FUBAR, they can make that determination. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 444#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues

(Initiated 85 days ago on 3 June 2024) Initial close has been overturned at review. A new close is required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Gaza genocide#RfC on the inclusion on the BU Today article in the lede

(Initiated 66 days ago on 22 June 2024) nableezy - 17:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Titles of European monarchs

(Initiated 65 days ago on 22 June 2024) - I thank the Wikipedia community for being so willing to discuss this topic very extensively. Because 30 days have passed and requested moves in this topic area are already being opened (For reference, a diff of most recent edit to the conversation in question), I would encourage an uninvolved editor to determine if this discussion is ready for closure. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

(Also, apologies if I have done something incorrectly. This is my first time filing such a request.) AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

There is ongoing discussion there as to whether a closer for that discussion is necessary or desirable. I would suggest to wait and see how that plays out.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

This is dragging on ad nauseam. I suggest an admin closes this, possibly with the conclusion that there is no consensus to change. PatGallacher (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. Also a discussion at Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion#Some holistic solution is needed to closing numerous move requests for names of royals, but that dates back to April. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Shakshouka#RfC on etymology

(Initiated 58 days ago on 29 June 2024) Conversation seems to have concluded. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done LEvalyn. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Anti-Defamation League#RfC: Wikipedia reliability section

(Initiated 57 days ago on 30 June 2024) - Note: Part of the article and talk page are considered to be a contentious topic, including this RfC. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 18:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Hermann_Göring#Rfc_for_Herman_Göring's_Lede_Image_(2024)

(Initiated 54 days ago on 4 July 2024) Discussion is ready to be closed. Nemov (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Can someone close this one? For some reason it was extended, but it hasn't really changed anything. Nemov (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:La France Insoumise#RfC: How should the political position of La France Insoumise be described?

(Initiated 50 days ago on 7 July 2024) Discussion has already died down and the 30 days have elapsed. Uninvolved closure is requested. Thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby I was reviewing this for a close, but I wonder if reopening the RFC and reducing the number of options would help find a consensus. It seems like a consensus could be found between options A or D. Nemov (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

That could definitely work! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election#RfC: Inclusion of parties in the Infobox

(Initiated 50 days ago on 8 July 2024). Ready for closing, last !vote was 12 July by looks of it. CNC (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Gaza_Health_Ministry_qualifier

(Initiated 43 days ago on 15 July 2024) -sche (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

There have been only 5 !votes since end July (out of 50+) so this could be closed now. Selfstudier (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

+1 please close it thanks. NadVolum (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Benevolent_dictatorship#Should_this_page_contain_examples?_#2

(Initiated 41 days ago on 17 July 2024) Any brave soul willing to close this? The participants fall about 50-50 on both sides (across both RfCs too), and views are entrenched. Banedon (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Residence in the infobox

(Initiated 39 days ago on 18 July 2024) Not complicated, relatively little discussion, not a particularly important issue. But, in my opinion, needs uninvolved closure because the small numerical majority has weaker arguments. And no other uninvolved has stepped forward. Should take maybe 30 minutes of someone's time. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 17:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

RFC - Inclusion of Gaza genocide

(Initiated 39 days ago on 19 July 2024) Talk:List of genocides#RFC - Inclusion of Gaza genocide -IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Socialist Alliance (Australia)#RFC - Is Marxism at times considered an ideology and if so, does it fall within Socialist Alliance's ideology?

(Initiated 38 days ago on 20 July 2024) RFC tax has expired and last comment was 5 days ago. TarnishedPath^talk 04:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars#RFC Proposal: Kamala Harris as "border czar" in the Biden administration

(Initiated 30 days ago on 27 July 2024) – This discussion is a month old and consensus is very clear. Could an uninvolved editor please summarize and close it so that the foot-draggers will finally let the article be updated? 2601:600:817F:16F0:815A:D0F2:7C13:ACE7 (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Imane Khelif#RfC lead

(Initiated 21 days ago on 5 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. Last comment 23/08/2027. TarnishedPath^talk 04:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Imane Khelif#RfC on weight of "misinformation" in lead

(Initiated 15 days ago on 12 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. Last comment 24/08/2024. TarnishedPath^talk 04:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024_United_States_presidential_election#RfC:_Trump_infobox_photo

(Initiated 16 days ago on 10 August 2024) Several users have discussed the issue sufficiently, but others agree that there are too many options to reach a consensus.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 03:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Goodtiming8871: Please properly format this request and list it in the proper section. See the rest of the requests above as well as the instructions at the top of this page. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @voorts, Thank for your kind advice, I updated the format after reading other requests and instructions. Please advise me if it still needs to be fixed. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 03:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Goodtiming8871: Just needs to be moved to the RfC section as far as I see. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

And done. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Super Goku V,Thank you for your kind advice and contribution. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Philippe Pétain#Rfc for Lede Image of Philippe Pétain

(Initiated 10 days ago on 17 August 2024) Requesting immediate procedural close for Talk:Philippe Pétain#Rfc for Lede Image of Philippe Pétain, because it is blocked on a Wikipedia policy with legal implications that no one at the Rfc is qualified to comment on, namely U.S. copyright law about an image. At a minimum, it will require action at Commons about whether to delete an image, and likely they will have to consult Wikimedia legal for an interpretation in order to resolve the issue. Under current circumstances, it is a waste of editor time to leave the Rfc open, and is impossible to reliably evaluate by a closer, and therefore should be procedurally closed without assessment, the sooner the better. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 United States presidential election#Trump photo

(Initiated 5 days ago on 22 August 2024) There are currently two separate RfCs about Trump’s infobox photo. Should there be a procedural close, or should discussion be allowed to continue? Prcc27 (talk) 08:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 21:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Total
CfD	0	0	0	5	5
TfD	0	0	1	5	6
MfD	0	0	0	2	2
FfD	0	0	0	1	1
RfD	0	0	3	79	82
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 16#Category:Literary critics by ethnicity

(Initiated 30 days ago on 28 July 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 17#Category:Discotek Media

(Initiated 26 days ago on 1 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 17#Category:Wikipedia files of no use beyond Wikipedia

(Initiated 10 days ago on 17 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Antisemitism in the United States#Merge proposal

(Initiated 311 days ago on 21 October 2023) a merge discussion related to Antisemitism in the United States and Antisemitism in the United States in the 21st century now without comments for 4 weeks; requestion a close by any uninvolved editor. Klbrain (talk) 07:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:There was no such thing as Palestinians#Merge to Golda Meir?

(Initiated 271 days ago on 29 November 2023) Discussion started 29 November 2023. Last comment 25 July 2024. TarnishedPath^talk 00:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Ricky Ponting#Merger

(Initiated 168 days ago on 12 March 2024) Merger proposal started months ago. Closure may be overdue. --George Ho (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done Queen of Hearts (talk) 02:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 194#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

(Initiated 91 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

 Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Frostly Just checking, would you like someone else to help with this? Soni (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Frostly: also checking in. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Voorts and Soni, thanks for the pings! I've unfortunately been in the hospital for the past week but am now feeling better. I apologize for the long delay in putting out the close and appreciate your messages! Best, — Frostly (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that; a week-long hospitalization is not fun. But, I'm glad that you're feeling better. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 13:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:You Like It Darker#Proposed merge of Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker

(Initiated 89 days ago on 30 May 2024) Contentious merge discussion requiring uninvolved closer. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation

(Initiated 79 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

If the closer finds "no consensus", I have proposed this route in which a discussion on merger and RM can happen simultaneously to give clearer consensus.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of common misconceptions#Split proposal

(Initiated 50 days ago on 8 July 2024) – Editors would feel more comfortable if an uninvolved closer provided a clear statement about whether a consensus to WP:SPLIT exists, and (if so) whether to split this list into two or three lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Al-Tabaeen_school_attack#Requested_move_10_August_2024

(Initiated 16 days ago on 10 August 2024) - I believe consensus is relatively clear, but given the contentious overarching topic I also believe an uninvolved closer would be appreciated. Thanks in advance! Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Courses extension is up and running

The Education Program extension for structured course pages for classes is now live. (It's actually been deployed for a few weeks, but unrelated platform updates introduced a critical bug that it took us a little while to fix.) Per the RfC on using the extension, it's now available for use by US and Canada Education Program, as well as whatever other courses the community chooses to use it for. See Special:SpecialPages#Education for the various features and lists of courses.

Admins now have the ability to create (and delete) institutions and courses, and to assign the user rights for "course coordinators" (non-admins who will be able to create and remove courses, mark people as instructors or volunteers, and use the rest of the extension features), "online volunteers" or "campus volunteers" (people helping out with courses, such as Online and Campus Ambassadors), and "course instructors".

I'll be beta testing it with one of the current classes, Education Program:University of Guelph-Humber/Currents in Twentieth Century World History (2012 Q4), as well as building up the documentation for course pages. Now's also the time to figure out how we want to use this for independent classes; it should make it easier to keep tabs on classes and catch problems early, so trying it out by offering it to a few classes that we discover editing on their own might be a good first step.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

How was this enabled when it was rejected by the community? 140.247.141.146 (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of RFC closure

• Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Misuse of primary sources

Could some uninvolved editors please review the closure of the above RFC. The discussion had been archived off the page for some time. The last comments were made 26 September, and at that point, there were 2 full supports of the proposal (the proposer and 1 other), 2 partial supports, and 8 fully opposed to the proposal. User:Eraserhead1 went out of his way to unarchive the discussion, close it, and enact the proposal as having consensus, in his words "consensus in favour". I know that consensus discussions are not a vote, but even being generous we have at best a 33% support to 67% oppose. That's not a consensus. When approached to reconsider by myself and several people, he has steadfastly refused to reconsider his closure, dismissing all of the oppose votes save one as "complete rubbish" (his words). Thanks to anyone who looks this over. --Jayron32 20:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Of note this discussion was listed in the "requests for closure" section at the top of this page as a discussion awaiting closure - that's why I closed the discussion.

With regards to why I closed it that way. Well I didn't see even a weak argument to explain how the previous position was protecting us from attracting libel cases (which is the point of WP:BLP). Additionally the sources in question which are all among the world's highest courts, seemed like the sort of sources that people would use anyway, so the prohibition seemed particularly counterproductive. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The opposes did have clear, logical, policy based rationales, however. When you close a discussion, you aren't supposed to give your opinion on the question at hand, you're supposed to give a summation of the comments others have made. When you close an discussion based on your own opinion regarding answering the initial question, that's what WP:SUPERVOTE means. It's fine to vote on the discussion if you care about the outcome, but you shouldn't close discussions where you have a feeling one way or the other. The way you closed it makes it clear that you had an opinion of your own. You can't just discount people who oppose the proposal as "rubbish", and there were many reasons to oppose the proposal: libel concerns were NOT the only valid reason to oppose it. Several people opposed on other grounds; you can't just discount those reasons. Merely because there are people who argue differently that you would have doesn't mean their arguments are invalid. You need to give weight to all reasonable sides to the argument, and if you can't, you should vote for yourself and leave the closing to someone who can. --Jayron32 20:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

If the opposes really have "clear logical policy based" rationales then it should be trivial for you to explain to me how the old way of doing things was protecting us from attracting libel cases. Given we are talking about the BLP policy here, what other rationales could be relevant?

With regards to opinions, I had no opinion on the matter before closing the discussion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, you're stance here is that any oppose which isn't about "protecting us from attracting libel cases" is invalid. That makes no sense. One could argue (as several did) that the use of unanalyzed primary sources represents WP:UNDUE weight to those sources, which is against Wikipedia policy on both original research WP:SYNTH and presenting a point of view that exists in secondary source WP:NPOV. None of those arguments has anything to do with Libel, but are squarely grounded in Wikipedia policy. And those were the sorts of arguments you called "rubbish". Again, merely because the oppose votes weren't about "protecting us from attracting libel cases" doesn't mean they were invalid. Also, there were only two people who wholeheartedly supported the measure as proposed. Two. Changing a policy like BLP should be done on sturdier ground than the support of two people and the lukewarm support of two more. --Jayron32 21:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

If there are issues with the use of these sources which are covered by other policies why exactly do we need to repeat ourselves in WP:BLP? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I went to go look at it, but the legalese seems to be above my head : )

That said, if no one else looks it over, I'll see if I can figure out what the discussion consensus is. But I'd rather someone a bit more fluent in the verbiage would look it over. - jc37 20:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

If you can find a coherent argument in the opposition feel free to close it differently. I couldn't see one. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Well as I suggested at the top, the legalese verbiage is a bit beyond me. (IANAL). that said, I've re-read the discussion several times, and I think I see several arguements from both sides of the issue - Though to me, I see some other sub-"sides" to this as well. It seems one of the issues at hand is that quite a bit of things are combined into a few sentences on the policy page. At least a few of the opposers seem to agree with part, but disagree with part.

All that said, this is not an easy discussion to read : )

I think I'm going to have to re-read it a few more times... - jc37 21:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, I really dislike ever using the term "supervote" when discussing a closure. For one thing, I (like most closers) have been accused of it myself in the past, (when I clearly was assessing the discussion and closing based upon it). Sour grapes after a close is not uncommon. That said, the wording of this closure is unfortunate in that it really does appear to look like a "vote" rather than an interpretation of the discussion. If nothing else, I might suggest rephrasing the closure. - jc37 21:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There was an RFC. Discussion ground to a halt on 26 September. Nothing happened for 30 days when a bot moved the still open and ignored discussion into the archives on 26 October. On 5 November a request was posted the requests for closure subsection of this page (watched by 3600), where it lingered, untouched, for 11 days. Eraserhead1 reviewed the situation and made a decision. Now it's opposed by a participant in the discussion with a rationale including the self-contradictory arguments that it's not a vote while presenting the tally of the votes. Wikipedia:Rfc#Ending_RfCs states "it can be formally closed by any uninvolved editor. " As amplified by WP:CLOSE "If discussions involve several individuals the discourse can become lengthy and the results hard to determine.. After a while, it is time to close the discussion so that the community can move on." (emphasis original) There's no policy provision for admin review of a content discussion (RFC). Unless evidence of involvement by the closer is presented, the community should support the work of a volunteer willing to close a discussion; If editor(s) are unhappy with the closure, I'd recommend a new RFC, perhaps with the question reworded for clarity. NE Ent 21:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• This is a key issue (how to use primary sources) in a key content policy. A significant change can't be pushed through by two or three people when there's clear opposition. So the close is moot, because it can't as it stands be enacted. We could go through the process of finding an admin to endorse or overturn the closure -- or we could just remove the closure and re-archive the RfC -- but I hope Eraserhead will take into account the opposition to his closure on the BLP talk page, and will himself withdraw it. It seemed so obvious to me that this was a failed proposal that I didn't even add an oppose myself, and I may not be the only person who acted that way, so this is in every sense an unexpected and unfortunate conclusion to the discussion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm perfectly happy to rephrase the closure so that it doesn't override other policies aside from the change to WP:BLP.
  • With regards to not participating in the discussion, frankly that is your problem.
  • With regards to RFC closes it seems that WP:RFC offers no immediate right of appeal, perhaps you should focus your efforts on changing that policy so there is a formalised review option. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

If you could close it to summarize and reflect the consensus (which can't ignore numbers), rather than adding an opinion yourself, that would be appreciated. As for appealing, there is no formal anything. As things stand, your closure won't be enacted, and anyone can ask any admin to re-close. But I hope you won't make us jump through that hoop. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

According to which policy or guideline? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: All closes are subject to review at WP:AN through long common practice. We just also have the benefit of some review processes like DRV or MRV for certain kinds of closures. If that isn't codified into some policy page, it should be. - jc37 21:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The fundamental problem even with review here is that every single time you close something remotely difficult you get whining about it. Frankly in the small number cases where an RFC gets closed incorrectly without a formalised review option spelt out in WP:RFC the easiest and simplest way forward is probably for another RFC to be held. That is probably the best way to avoid making the closer lose face and unfortunately probably the best way to avoid wasting too much time.

At the end of the day if I and the very small number of other closers stop closing discussions then the project will completely grind to a halt. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

But in this case the issue had settled itself. The proposer had not gained consensus, and had allowed the RfC to be archived. This is a key part of a key content policy. It can't be changed so casually when there are more objections than there is agreement. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

According to which policy or guideline does a proposal which gets archived automatically get closed as no consensus? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh I agree a follow up RfC would be fine. (The more I read the discussion, the more I think it's difficult to see a clear consensus for anything from that discussion.) I merely was informing of common practice.

And I believe I noted about sour grapes after a close, above.

And while I might like to think I'm an important cog in the Wikipedia machine, we're all merely Wikipedians here, and can be replaced. (This speaking as a closer myself : ) - jc37 22:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The close seems all wrong, as it ignored what seems to be consensus to oppose. But I don't really care about the close of a conversation that I didn't participate in; I just don't want to see such odd and unique provisions being added to policy, on the suggestion of a few and the opposition of many. Dicklyon (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

"odd and unique provisions" - this is the best opposition argument so far. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• A couple comments:

1. I generally think Eraserhead1 does a good job handling the backlog at AN/RFC
2. this isn't going to be enacted no matter how the discussion is closed
3. Ignoring some comments may be appropriate sometimes; for instance if someone argues that we need to label all tomatoes as suspension bridges per BLP
4. Eraserhead1 asserts that the point of WP:BLP is "...protecting us from attracting libel cases"
5. The possibility of harming the subject is codified into the lead of the BLP policy ("...the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.")
6. Ignoring comments that argued that BLP is, at least partially, about protecting living persons was not based in policy

I see no alternative but to overturn the closure and remove the current summary at the top. I think archiving the discussion with a simple "no change" result would be sufficient. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Side step

Instead of getting heavily involved in a back and forth discussing appropriateness of the closure, I think we can sidestep all of this and cite Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions, and suggest that the discussion falls under "close calls and contentious discussions", which the page suggests "are best left to an administrator".

I personally would prefer to not unilaterally revert the closure under this guideline, but if others concur, we can just revert, and leave it for someone else to close. To paraphrase WP:ADMIN: "There's always another closer" - jc37 22:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

If Eraserhead won't agree to remove the close himself, it seems clear that there's consensus enough for someone else to do it (in fact I think everyone commenting so far has said there was no consensus). It would be best if it were done by someone who did not comment during the RfC. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Given Dicklyon has presented an opposition argument that actually makes sense lets change the close to no consensus to avoid further drama. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The policy for deletion process is not applicable to RFCs. NE Ent 23:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

That is merely one place where this common practice concerning closures is codified. That said, I would welcome it if you wished to start a discussion for codifying a standalone guideline for non admin closure. WP:NAC is currently merely an essay. - jc37 23:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

More urgently we need a review process codifying - and really a change to WP:CONSENSUS to clarify whether a supermajority automatically counts as a consensus would be good too. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTAVOTE - jc37 23:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

So if supermajorities aren't automatically a consensus, barring Dicklyon's comment above, why was this even raised for review here? At best all we can say is that consensus was weak - which I think was a fair point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't raise it for review here, so I'm probably not the one to ask. I'm merely attempting to helpfully follow up on what others have asked. - jc37 23:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

"By convention, administrators also normally take responsibility for judging the outcome of certain discussions, such as deletion discussions, move discussions, and move-review discussions" RFC is not on that list. The policy pages are pretty clear. The logical long term consequences of admins feeling entitled to simply overturn the good faith efforts of editors closing RFCs is they'll (non-admin editors) stop doing it. Given this RFC had fallen, unclosed, off the radar, this would not be beneficial for the Encyclopedia. The net effect is that "consensus" will be determine by the most persistent editors, willing to filibuster discussion until they succeed in getting their version in place, not by uninvolved volunteers acting in the best interests of the Encyclopedia. NE Ent 23:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Given in this case about two editors presented a decent argument in favour, and one presented a reasonable one in opposition (albeit here in the review rather than in the original RFC) I think it isn't worth fussing too much.

Frankly the comments about "consensus" being determined by the most persistent editors has been going on for ages - see the endless list of baseless challenges to my closures on my talk page and the endless list of discussions to close at the top of this page. The only really shocking aspect of this particular case is that the editors who have argued here have all been around forever and really should know better. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that the original closure statement [1] was effectively a !vote - which makes the entire closure inappropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The closure, in fact, asserted a positive "consensus" - if one wishes to assert a "consensus" there dang well should have been one. If a closer wishes to say "policy requires this close" and thus does not invoke "consensus" that would be a different matter - but the closer specifically said that a consensus existed, which was quite unapparent to all the folks who gave opinions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that when weighing up the arguments you are perfectly entitled to ignore positions that you don't think are valid, and in fact you should do that - otherwise you are just treating the matter as a vote. Additionally it seems from the above discussion that I was right to ignore their positions as while they managed to make some policy based arguments, all of them would be directly covered by other policies and thus didn't need repeating in WP:BLP which is all about preventing us getting sued for libel.

The only real point that perhaps I should have done better is that a consensus which only essentially involved 3 people or so should have been closed as no consensus by definition. Additionally I'm sorry my closure statement wasn't particularly well worded. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

No, you're not entitled to ignore arguments just because you personally don't think they are valid. That's clearly supervote behaviour - the discussion essentially becomes a contest to convince the closing administrator that their side is right, not to produce a consensus. You are allowed to discount clearly flawed or logically fallacious arguments, but not reasonable arguments that you don't find persuasive. It isn't realistic to expect participants in discussions about changing policy to cite policy to support their viewpoints. Otherwise it would be impossible to change any policies. Hut 8.5 11:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

With regards to arguments I expected them to refer back to the point of the policy which is to avoid libel claims - which they utterly failed to do - thus the points weren't really valid.

Besides if you aren't allowed to discount arguments that aren't persuasive how are you supposed to assess a WP:CONSENSUS? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

An argument not being persuasive to you doesn't mean it isn't a valid position. The closer has to reflect the consensus of the discussion, not impose an opinion, and while numbers alone don't determine consensus, they can't be ignored either. If any single editor could close any RfC in any direction by discounting every opinion as unpersuasive to him personally, there would be no point in holding RfCs. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Any close will be "imposing an opinion" at some level - that's what's being requested as we aren't closing discussions as a vote. What is important is that the closer doesn't come into the discussion with a pre-existing bias.

Ultimately to avoid bias from individual closers you need a healthy and sensible review option - and that is something we currently don't have. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussions are a vote to some extent. Your mistake was to ignore the numbers completely. And it looked as though you did have a bias, or at least a misunderstanding of the policy. You wrote: " It seems pretty obvious that this group of international courts are going to be impartial and serious ..." when (a) it's not obvious at all; and (b) that is not the point. The point is whether issues discussed by a court are notable, i.e. whether secondary sources have discussed them. That is part of the point of BLPPRIMARY -- to prevent editors from adding original research to BLPs based on issues raised only in court documents. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

With regards to consensus as per WP:CONSENSUS "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever." - so WP:CONSENSUS in fact explicitly states that majority/minority views shouldn't be taken into account. If the community feels that you should take numbers into account to some extent then WP:CONSENSUS needs updating accordingly first.

It is also true that in general primary sources are worse than secondary sources, however when the primary source is one of the world's highest courts that doesn't seem likely to be a bad source - and therefore it isn't really going to protect the project from libel claims to explicitly prevent such sources from being used is it? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

It does not say that minority/majority views shouldn't be taken into account. It says that the numbers on each side are less important than the quality of an argument. This doesn't mean that the numbers on each side can't be taken into account. The barrier to discounting or assigning reduced weight to an arguments is considerably higher than "the closer doesn't agree with it". Arguments can be discounted for being logically fallacious, for being convincingly rebutted, for contradicting longstanding principle or wider consensus, or for many other reasons, but not simply because the one editor who is closing the discussion doesn't agree with them. The role of the closer is not merely to provide an previously uninvolved view of the situation (that's what participants do), and consensus is, at least in theory, independent of whoever closes the discussion. The last paragraph you wrote above strongly suggests you should have contributed an opinion to the RfC instead of closing it. Hut 8.5 17:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Fair point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

So what happens with disputed closes

Sorry to semi hijack this thread, but a similar case was virtually ignored. So in a general sense what is the process for dealing with disputed RFC closes. I assumed it was to bring them here, but if they are ignored here what is the next step. Does the original close stand, does it revert to a no consensus one or do we simply open up the RFC again and wait for another closer? AIRcorn (talk) 10:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

In different ways all of those options are terrible (leaving the original close to stand is bad if the close was bad, and the other two lead to a minority being able to prevent anything other than no consensus by complaining - even if it is meritless), as is leaving it to rot here. so the simple answer is you're fucked.

At least until Jimbo and/or Arbcom imposes a sane solution on the community or the community grows up enough that they will accept some sort of improvement beyond the current status quo. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Aircorn, if the first close was a non-admin closure, you can ask an admin to endorse or overturn it. If it was an admin closure, you can ask two others (admins or experienced editors) to look at it again, or a bureaucrat (if it's an important policy issue, for example), and so on in effort to gain consensus. There are no rules about this; it's a question of common sense, and I have never seen a case where it didn't work out, so long as enough people were involved.

It's unlikely the requests for review would be ignored if worded clearly and posted to the right places, though it might take some time for people to respond. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Although this seems fairly sensible this is all something that you've made up, and isn't in any way codified, so really it is up to the discretion of the individual closer.

Additionally as with any review it is also dependent on admins and others being willing to review closures, which frankly doesn't seem to be happening. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to step in here and disagree respectfully, but strongly, with SlimVirgin's statement "If the first close was a non-admin closure, you can ask an admin to endorse or overturn it." That is a completely and totally wrongheaded view of what adminiship is. Admins are not given special magical override power on anything at Wikipedia, and that includes closing discussions. Admins have tools that allow them to block, delete, and protect. And that is all. Admins don't have a "override closure" tool. If a closure by any editor is believed to be in error, the correct procedure is a) ask the editor to reconsider and b) ask the community to review it. There is no special administrator power to overturn a closure unilaterally. --Jayron32 23:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The closing editor (a non-admin if that matters) was asked about their close and they stood by it. However, they were more than happy to have the closure reviewed. It has been brought here twice and archived without resolution twice. The first time one admin offered to close it under certain conditions, but the person filing the review request did not appear to accept those conditions (not sure whether that was the reason it went no further). The second time it did not attract a single comment. Here is the diff of the latest question,[2] to which the answer appears to be that no one is willing to take it on (understandable, but not very useful). I don't know what the next course of action in this situation is. AIRcorn (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Recent discussion on ANI -- closing by Kim Dent-Brown (talk · contribs) included statement: "The more complex question that emerged about who can close and/or reopen RfCs does not seem to have been answered ..." I haven't seen compelling evidence the concept admins have special status in RFCs (not Afd, not move discussion, etc.) is supported by any community wide consensus. I've started Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#Review . NE Ent 17:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec; reply to Eraserhead) I haven't made it up; I've been here for years and that's how I've seen RfC reviews being handled. It's a process that's rarely needed and seems to work well -- the problem with writing it down is that it would become inflexible.

I agree that there's a problem with getting people to close things. I think this is partly caused by people not structuring RfCs clearly. When I open one, I open a section for non-threaded replies (for "the vote," which our ideology says doesn't matter, but of course it does), and a second section for threaded discussion. I do that to save the poor closer having to wade through everything trying to pick out the key comment from each person. I've looked myself a few times at the AN/RFC board intending to close a few, but I end up not doing it because of the mass of comment I'd have to read. If we could persuade editors to streamline their RfCs a bit more, I think more people would be inclined to close. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

With regards to your first comment, I disagree. It might be OK for you to not have it written down, as clearly you have a strong personality. However for people with weaker personalities, or for newer closers, it would be of great benefit. I'm also not really clear on what benefits there are in this case of being flexible that you wouldn't be able to use WP:IAR for.

With regards to structure I'm sure that is an issue - but it is also an issue that can be easily addressed. Simply add a list of example well structured RFC's to the policy and/or templates people use. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I might be inclined to review a massive wall of text if I didn't know that anyone who didn't like my conclusion could just go whining "it wasn't closed by an admin." The statements "It's a process that's rarely needed and seems to work well" and "there's a problem getting people to close things" are incoherent. NE Ent 17:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Aside from the first time, after which it was pointed out that there were no admins willing to make closes, no-one has made any reference to any closure being made by a non-admin. I'm not really convinced that you wouldn't get exactly the same treatment as an actual admin, and that is why so few admins are willing to close discussions. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The non-admin status of the closer was a key element of discussion in the ANI discussion I linked above. NE Ent 18:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• The question when reviewing a close here should not be what the best close is, or would have been, but only whether the close was reasonable. In my view the process should always be to ask the closer to reconsider, and then if they stand by the close, to bring it here for review. Outside of deletion and move discussions, admin or non-admin really is not relevant. A closer of a discussion must exercise considerable judgement to weight conflicting guidance on what weight to give various statements. On the one hand discussions are not a !vote, so weight must be assigned to various points. On the other, the closer must not override the judgement of the commenting editors with their own, and remember that in most cases WP:IAR allows a discussion outcome to go against even policy if there is sufficient consensus for it. That is why the standard of review when a close is brought to AN should be only that the close was reasonable. So if the closer is uninvolved, and closes the discussion in a way that is reasonably supported by the discussion, then the close should go undisturbed. Editors who disagree strongly enough can always open a new discussion. Monty₈₄₅ 19:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Really old RfD backlog

The Redirects for discussion backlog has unclosed discussions from October 19. It would be much appreciated if some admins could work on this. Thanks, Ego White Tray (talk) 06:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like it's back to October 3 Ego White Tray (talk) 06:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Yet more evidence that we need to completely reform the closure process. FWIW RFC's have a backlog to the beginning of September.

And seriously if the project isn't going to die then we actually need to solve this problem. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

You think the project is going to die if old "Redirects for discussion" and "Request for comments" aren't closed? Really? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

If we can't make decisions about anything how can the project survive? Redirects may not matter, but RFC's, AfD etc etc. all do. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Thousands, if not millions, of decisions which affect the encyclopedia are made and executed every single day, by individuals and by group consensus. That a limited number of - perhaps thorny, but also perhaps trivial - questions haven't been closed out is not, in my mind, of such great consequence that it threatens the survival of the project. Yes, it would be nice if things got done, but it's hardly of such urgency as you portray. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

How can we know that? Roman Empires, Soviet Unions, Myspace, Yahoo (close to), Hostess Brands -- lots of longstanding institutions can suddenly reach their tipping point. WP has a a quarter million unreferenced articles. Getting stuck on an issue, requesting help with an RFC and getting no help is not encouraging to editors. At some point a critical mass of dissatisfaction could snowball. It's arrogant to think that Wikipedia is invulnerable to the same force of histories that tend to sweep away complacent organizations. NE Ent 19:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I had not previously come across the theory that unclosed "Redirectionum ad Discussionem" had brought down the Roman Empire. I though it had something to do with lead in the dishes and barbarians at the gate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, just as it's more important that discussions are closed correctly than that they are just closed, it is more important that articles be factually correct than that they are referenced. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Comparing Wikipedia to societal or political collapses, or even underwater companies, seems a tad dramatic. This really isn't a big deal; backlogs, even severe ones, are nothing new whatsoever, and this particular issue isn't even that daunting; RfDs are still being routinely closed, it's just that no one's bothering with the more contentious ones. Now that it's brought to our attention, I'll start taking a look and I'm sure other admins will as well, and we'll get it resolved. Swarm ^X 19:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The most contentious ones always drip to the bottom of the backlog. Admins just don't want to touch them. I should know, I have been on a few of them, waiting for weeks and weeks...... --Enric Naval (talk) 12:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Caught up a bunch. Backlog now only to Oct 30. - jc37 19:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

well, thanks for the help. I posted here already some weeks ago without response. I wouldn't say that noon has been bothering to close contentious ones, rather since summer with a few regulars we've been shifting this backlog merely over.[3] One point at RFD is low participation so they stay often open to see if some has a new argument or in sight . --Tikiwont (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps one step to getting attention would be to consolidate venues, and combine it with either AfD or MfD. There are a limited number of things (classically, 7±2 ) that people can pay attention to. DGG ( talk ) 13:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know. For example, the arguments for RfD and CfD are so different, the difference is bigger than the difference between Spanish and English wikipedia. The arguments for keep/delete/merge in one of those areas are really alien to the arguments in the other areas. They even have different rules for NPOV....
• Maybe a special page where all backlogs are visible at a glance? --Enric Naval (talk) 12:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Range blocks

Could an admin familiar with range blocks take a look at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Broadway Hoaxer and see if anything can be done with blocking this person? I'm concerned that what we're catching of his vandalism might be the tip of the iceberg, and articles are being distorted with his misinformation without being discovered. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

From which IPs has this vandal most recently been active? AGK [•] 20:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

71.183.177.19, 71.183.182.212, 96.224.19.69, 96.224.16.71 and 96.224.17.19 are some that I am aware of. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Also 71.183.183.250 and 71.183.191.7 Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Knowing nothing whatsoever about filter construction: is it possible to block certain key words only if they came from 71. or 96. addresses? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Kiranreddy9999

Kiranreddy9999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaged in the creation of multiple low-quality articles about the location of India where he apparently resides. It's incredibly difficult to deal with these as they come up in NPP. I've fixed a few, PRODed a few, and posted in his talk page asking him to examine the article creation process and MOS to improve his contributions. Is there some kind of "timeout" that can be imposed on users so they take notice about the problems their contributions are creating? This is not a new user, he has a long history of contributions but as far as I can see he/she does not respond to notices in the talk page. A few examples:

• Nizamabad Sportspersons
• Nizamabad Film Artists
• Nizamabad Politicians
• Dichpally Ramalayam
• Tadpakal Pushkaram
• Village Development Committes in Nizamabad Andhra Pradesh
• Kandakuthi Triveni Sangamam
• Sirnapally Waterfalls

Thanks. §FreeRangeFrog 17:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• This user is continuing to create poor quality articles despite this report, see e.g. Nizamabad Tourism. MER-C 10:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • And yet no responses from any any admins. §FreeRangeFrog 19:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
• Short of revoking editing privileges entirely, leaving a black mark in a log, no. Uncle G (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. So, what's the OP here? Just mark the stuff for deletion as it is created? Some of it (very little) is salvageable because of minor historical notability, but most of it is not. §FreeRangeFrog 21:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Merchandise giveaways

image added here by Shaz0t (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the Foundation is trying something new and worth bringing to the attention of the admin here. Wikipedia:Merchandise giveaways/Nominations is the page with actual nominations. As someone who is a bit focused on editor retention, I would ask admin to stop by, take a look, perhaps nominate someone and drop off a vote. This is one of those situations where we have a chance to simply and publicly show a little appreciation to the people who actually create content (or admin, it isn't limited), via a kind and sincere comment. The key is keeping it a positive experience. I personally think it is a good morale booster, even for those who don't walk away with a free t-shirt. My understanding is that this is just the first of many give-aways. While being held on enwp, it isn't limited to enwp editors. Please consider spending a few minutes to participate. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

meta:Proposals for closing projects/Closure of English Wikinews

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

---

Of possible interest, I have started a proposal to close English Wikinews. 86.152.61.18 (talk) 01:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Backlog and cherry-picking cases on SPI

I'm concerned about the procedure for handling of cases at the WP:SPI. I filed a case regarding a repeat sock puppeteer on November 10, complete with a flock of ducks and no request for check user, that should have been a 10-minute no brainer to close. Nine days later, it's still sitting waiting for processing, with two older cases (filed 11/6 and 11/7) ahead of it. Meanwhile, as of this writing, there are roughly a dozen more recent filings that were closed and awaiting archiving, a pattern I've noticed daily as I've checked on the progress of my filing; over the nine days, I'd estimate at least 30 newer cases were handled while mine and the others cited languished. At this point, I'm struggling to understand why; most appear to be equally mundane cases cherry picked by the handful of admins who are taking action on SPI. This may be perfectly appropriate practice, but if it is, that's not apparent to me, a garden variety Wikipedian. So at this point, I'm asking two questions: a) how are priorities for handling these cases set and; b) how much longer should I reasonable expect a comparatively routine filing such as mine to sit? This isn't my first rodeo, but I've never had one take more than a couple of days to be addressed before now. --Drmargi (talk) 18:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• As a mere clerk trainee, I can only offer my limited perspective. I do a lot of other things other than SPI, as do most clerks, but I typically jump on cases first that I have seen before simply because I am familiar with the PuppetMaster, so it is faster and easier to deal with those cases than say, a new sockmaster that I've never seen before. Sometimes I will endorse having a Checkuser run a CU check on someone and it is done in an hour, sometimes it sits for days, I assume for the same reason. We are pretty much constantly understaffed over there. Not so much by clerks, but by patrolling admin. Any admin can do everything a clerk can do except endorse or decline CU, and some mundane paperwork. Those are getting done, but what isn't getting done is the matching up the left and right sock and taking action, which only requires the admin bit. SPI is an often frustrating place to work, as some cases are obvious, some cases take an hour to look up, and sometimes what looks obvious to one person, in reality isn't. It is always more obvious to the reporter, who knows the master, knows the sock, knows the article content and has often seen the same pattern time after time. For those of us stumbling in on a case we have never seen anything on, we have to have a very high degree of confidence when blocking, so it takes us much longer. And keep in mind, sometimes a case might look like nothing has happened, when an admin or clerk may actually have researched it, and is simply on the fence and chooses to do nothing because they aren't confident enough to mash the big red button and block someone. The best solution is for more admin to patrol and help us keep the backlog down to just a few days, but it is purely voluntary and fairly thankless, so the line of volunteers is short. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• If a CU is "on the fence" about a case, do they consult other CUs for their opinion?

  I think that rampant socking is a much more serious problem for the project than, for instance, unclosed discussions, since socking is frequently associated with sneaky vandalism that is difficult to correct because the material looks, superficially, OK, and takes some research or knowledge of the subject to see and fix. Of course, it would help if we would institute registration before editing... Beyond My Ken (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I handled a bunch of SPIs last month when Dennis Brown posted here about a backlog but found the whole thing rather frustrating, with problems including (roughly in order of severity):

• Bad, poorly written documentation, spread out across multiple pages with important information hidden in obscure places, that makes it unclear who is allowed to do what.
• Too many cases that just don't need to be there, either because it's unactionable (eg, reporting a dynamic IP which made a single edit three weeks ago, where the puppetmaster has long since moved on) or because it's crashingly obvious socking that can be handled in 10 seconds at AIV or RFPP (eg, an account gets blocked, then five minutes later an IP turns up to continue the same fight), and so on. Possibly caused by the aforementioned documentation problem
• Too many cases where the initiating party just links to the suspected sockpuppet's contributions, providing no explanation or diffs that link them to the sockmaster. Reviewing a case like this takes three times as long as should. (On the other hand, I am totally sympathetic to the fact that filing an SPI is a massive chore when you know 100% that they're a sockpuppet and you've been dealing with this tiring user for ages now)
• A lack of helpful information in the table at WP:SPI#Cases currently listed at SPI to judge which cases need the most attention. I don't know about anyone else, but I was picking cases to review based on how much I liked the sockmaster's username. It was as good as any other method. Given that SPIs can sometimes be quite long, and quite numerous, I can understand why they're not transcluded onto the main project page, but I feel the bot could do a bit more. For example: highlight cases that have been open for a while with no admin/clerk/checkuser edits, or report the number of edits to the page and the number of users (so we know which ones have been lingering with no input). Or something that makes picking a case to review less random.

I have a couple of other personal peeves with the approach of some of the SPI regulars which made me feel that my input wasn't desired there, but the four points above are the main issues imo that are bogging down SPI right now. – Steel 03:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all for the helpful explanations. It's hard for the average soul to appreciate the decision-making process some times. I still don't see why my easy-peasy one sat so long, but never mind, it's done now. But more importantly, I do have a better appreciation for the factors that govern some of the choices made. It wasn't my intention to challenge anyone, which everyone (thankfully) appears to have understood, just to have a better grasp of what figures in to getting these things done. --Drmargi (talk) 08:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Fictional entry?

I've just discovered this little snippet among the "Harvard Guide to Using Sources" named What's Wrong with Wikipedia? where it is stated that:

Four years ago, an Expos student who was writing a paper about the limitations of Wikipedia posted a fictional entry for himself, stating that he was the mayor of a small town in China. Four years later, if you type in his name, or if you do a subject search on Wikipedia for mayors of towns in China, you will still find this fictional entry.

Has this article already been found and deleted, or could it be that it is still around here? I'm just asking, because there is a suspicious article about a guy named Chen Fang, supposed former mayor of Yinchuan, created by an ip-user whose only contributions were acts of vandalism, all done on September 25, 2005. One of those was the addition of an apparently non-existent Pennsylvanian company called "Fang Technologies" to the List of companies of the United States by state and the only source supposed to confirm the existence of the aforementioned Chen Fang was added in 2009, but the link actually leads back to the website of Harvard University, and it is probably not a coincidence that it was added by an ip-user that can also be traced back to Harvard. Quite a few other ips coming from Harvard have edited as well, including vandalism on Dec. 6, 2006. I've tried to find out who was the actual mayor of Yinchuan at that time, but my Chinese obviously isn't sufficient to handle such a task. Anyway, the available evidence points to this article as the one mentioned in the above quote, it is in all probability fake and should be deleted at least for violating WP:BLP, since there are no sources confirming any of the information presented. (Lord Gøn (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC))

Somebody should also notify the guys at the Norwegian Wiki, since the article has been translated into bokmål and it would be too bad if this piece of mockery would survive there. (Lord Gøn (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC))

I've nominated Chen Fang for speedy deletion as a hoax. If I'm wrong, we don't have an article on a probably non-notable person, not a big deal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The linked guide has no author or publication information -- It doesn't seem to pass Wikipedia standards for a reliable source. NE Ent 23:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Blitzed it. It was deleted a few days after creation in Feb 2005, then recreated that Sept. Doubt about it on the talk page dates to July 2008. I'll add to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia if nobody else gets round to it. Fences&Windows 23:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I've left a message on the talk page of the equivalent article on the Norwegian Wikipedia pointing out that our article has been deleted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

FYI - The administrator in no:wiki, who was mislead to enter the article stub there, has now deleted the entry. TorSch (talk) 11:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Why isn't this a personal attack?

Main page: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Why_isn't_this_a_personal_attack?

Definitely an incident. Nyttend (talk) 02:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I am receiving death threats + vandalism by unsigned editor

An editor is vandalising pages and attacking me personally on talk pageswith death threats .

E.g. "...you pathetic piece of s**t. I will hunt you down and f***ing kill you.")

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Josef_Mengele&curid=21628220&diff=523986010&oldid=523985892 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/189.90.241.170 I request an immediate blocking please.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 08:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. Next time please post to ANI/AIV instead. Max Semenik (talk) 09:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Hopefully there won't be a next time. But... a week! That seems rather short. I have had no dealings with this person at all. Just received a death threat out of nowhere. I would have thought that with the amount of contributions from thsi person and the high proportion of them being vandalism, ad hominem attacks, thea1RR violation PLUS the death threat, that we can safely assume this person isn't a serious wiki editor they should be banned for a lot longer than a week! :-o--Mystichumwipe (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

This is an IP address that has only been used by that editor for two days. Long-term blocks of dynamic IPs don't have much value -- the person using them is likely to switch to a different address very quickly. Looie496 (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm says someone (not necessarily, but ideally, the recipient of the threat) should contact emergency@wikimedia.org -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 17:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

IP reported at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Requests. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation has been alerted. Thank you. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I can just imagine some 14 year old kid pissing his pants when the police come to his house to question him... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい)

• That is a static ip and a known proxy server. Doesn't look open proxy, but hard to tell due to using some really odd ports. Will require some more digging, but a longer block is clearly warranted since this IP doesn't rotate. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
• Increased block to one year. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:RFPP

Heavy backlog at WP:RFPP. Admins needed. Armbrust ^{The Homonculus} 08:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Bruce Reyes-Chow

Bruce posted an article on his Patheos blog about vandalism to this article. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/breyeschow/2012/11/20/wikipedia-heretic-cat/

It does not appear to be high volume vandalism, mostly from 151.201.12.39 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS), but with the very public notification of it I thought you should have a heads up. If a couple of folks could add this to your watchlist, would be much appreciated. Thanks! Oh, And hi everyone! Pastordavid (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)