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. 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 three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	36	28	64
TfD	0	0	0	3	3
MfD	0	0	2	0	2
FfD	0	0	2	1	3
RfD	0	0	37	40	77
AfD	0	0	0	2	2

• 3 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 6 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 12 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 13 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 130 sockpuppet investigations
• 8 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 3 Fully protected edit requests
• 1 Candidates for history merging
• 7 requests for RD1 redaction
• 112 elapsed requested moves
• 3 Pages at move review
• 41 requested closures
• 115 requests for unblock
• 1 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 14 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (32 out of 7747 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Template:FAQ/FAQ 2024-05-12 10:48 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Justlettersandnumbers User:Arjayay/Rang HD 2024-05-12 10:46 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Rang HD -- requested at WP:RFPP Favonian Rangiya 2024-05-12 09:27 2024-10-16 06:56 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: confirmed socks edit the article Ymblanter Vaush 2024-05-12 07:35 indefinite edit,move per WP:CT/BLP Primefac Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in January–June 2015 2024-05-12 04:52 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Johnuniq Later-no-harm criterion 2024-05-12 03:07 2024-06-12 03:07 edit,move Edit warring / content dispute: Protected per a complaint at WP:AN3 EdJohnston Draft:Lewis Raymond Taylor 2024-05-11 20:41 2024-08-11 20:41 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Lewis Raymond Taylor 2024-05-11 20:35 indefinite create Persistent sockpuppetry JJMC89 2024 Kharkiv offensive 2024-05-11 12:11 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:GS/RUSUKR --requested at WP:RFPP Favonian Drake (musician) 2024-05-11 09:32 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/BLP; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Slovenia 2024-05-11 09:29 2024-05-18 09:29 edit edit wars on the page Tone Timeline of the Israel–Hamas war (7 May 2024 – present) 2024-05-11 03:48 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Czech Republic 2024-05-11 02:43 indefinite edit Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP and WP:ARBEE Daniel Case Ben Shapiro 2024-05-11 02:24 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBAP2 Daniel Case Eden Golan 2024-05-11 02:03 2025-05-11 02:03 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts ScottishFinnishRadish Nguyễn Văn Hùng (martial artist) 2024-05-10 20:21 2027-05-10 20:21 edit Persistent sockpuppetry: User:Nipponese Dog Calvero Favonian Nguyen Van Hung 2024-05-10 20:21 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: User:Nipponese Dog Calvero Favonian Phan Bội Châu 2024-05-10 20:21 2027-05-10 20:21 edit Persistent sockpuppetry: User:Nipponese Dog Calvero Favonian Nguyễn Kim Hồng 2024-05-10 20:21 2027-05-10 20:21 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: User:Nipponese Dog Calvero Favonian Vietnamese people in Taiwan 2024-05-10 20:21 2027-05-10 20:21 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: User:Nipponese Dog Calvero Favonian McGill University pro-Palestinian encampment 2024-05-10 19:18 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case England 2024-05-10 13:52 indefinite edit Persistent sockpuppetry: request at WP:RFPP Ymblanter Nemo (rapper) 2024-05-10 01:56 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case The Eras Tour 2024-05-10 01:48 2025-01-29 23:36 edit,move Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content: raise protection to ECP for duration to cut back on fan edits Daniel Case Kim Jae-joong 2024-05-09 23:16 2024-08-09 23:16 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry ToBeFree Draft:Blue Dream Group 2 2024-05-09 18:54 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: see Draft:Blue Dream Group Ymblanter Draft:Blue Dream Group 2024-05-09 18:53 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ymblanter Template:CGNDB URL 2024-05-09 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 3512 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Hind's Hall 2024-05-09 11:46 indefinite edit,move oops Ymblanter Assembly theory 2024-05-09 01:47 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts; previous protection level has not been sufficient; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Dumraon Raj 2024-05-09 00:34 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/IPA Daniel Quinlan On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians 2024-05-08 19:28 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case

Close needed

Anyone want to take a crack at closing Wikipedia:Move_review#The_In_Between_(2022_film)? It's been open for seven weeks now and has been listed at WP:CR for a month. -- Vaulter 14:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Close still needed. -- Vaulter 02:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

{{doing}} — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

My hero! -- Vaulter 03:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done Those were weirdly complicated page moves. I think I fixed everything, but if you notice a page out of place let me know and I can fix it. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Removing all edits of a disruptive editor from revision history of a specific article

• Special:Contributions/Wrestlewrestlingmania
• Turned the revision history of Sonya Deville into a mess by adding disruptive/vandalist edits like[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] and much more.
• The user Made 124 edits from 10:40, 3 May 2022 to 13:15, 3 May 2022
• So is it possible to hide and delete those edits? They damaged both revision history and page statistics. --Mann Mann (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I see you've already reverted them, so I assume you mean remove even the record of the edits them from the history? If so, no – even if they were revision deleted or oversighted they'd still show up in the history as deleted edits. And of course we don't use those tools for common-or-garden vandalism. – Joe (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: Yeah, I mean the whole record. He did very same stuff on Stuart Dallas and Mateusz Klich (and maybe more articles). His edits on those articles were in 26 April. I don't understand how he managed to evade indef-block until today. --Mann Mann (talk) 15:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. Legend has it that the dark art of poor man's oversight is still remembered in some rouge circles. However it can be a pain, and usually works best on newer articles, so it's usually kept hidden away. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Rogue, I think. (But we all make misteaks.) BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Eric C. Conn

Eric C. Conn is protected from creation, so only administrators can create it.

I suggest a redirect to any of these:

• List of American Greed episodes§Eric C. Conn
• Natasha Cornett§Eric C. Conn
• Statue of Abraham Lincoln (Stanville, Kentucky)§Eric C. Conn

Citations:

• "Lawsuit: Disbarred KY lawyer Eric Conn misused court system". kentucky.com. 2021-01-05. Retrieved 6 May 2022.
• "Fugitive Lawyer Involved in Largest Social Security Fraud Scheme Sentenced to 15 Years in Prison for His Escape and Related Crimes". United States Department of Justice. 7 September 2018. Retrieved 6 May 2022.
• Jiang, Jeffrey (8 April 2022). "Crooked Judges, Fraudulent Lawyers, and How the Social Security Administration Has Failed 3,500 People". HLS Clinical and Pro Bono Programs. Harvard Law School. Retrieved 6 May 2022.
• "American Greed: Season 12 Episode Guide (6: "Conn's Job")". TV Guide. March 19, 2018. Retrieved March 18, 2018.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk • contribs)

If there isn't a clear target for the redirect then it may be better not to create one and show the reader search results instead. Hut 8.5 07:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Eric C. Conn is protected from creation, so only administrators can create it.

I suggest a redirect to this first, while growing the section sufficient for full article:

• Statue of Abraham Lincoln (Stanville, Kentucky)§Eric C. Conn

Citations:

• "Fugitive Lawyer Involved in Largest Social Security Fraud Scheme Sentenced to 15 Years in Prison for His Escape and Related Crimes". United States Department of Justice. 7 September 2018. Retrieved 6 May 2022.
• Johnson, Rae. "'Mr. Social Security,' series about infamous Kentucky lawyer Eric Conn, to air on Apple TV+". The Courier-Journal. Retrieved 6 May 2022. 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 11:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

We heard you the first time. As Hut 8.5 notes above, there may be a good reason to not arbitrarily create a redirect. If we leave it a redlink, then the search results show every article the name Eric C. Conn appears in. If we created a redirect, it would only be valid to link to one of those. Your proposal is less useful than you think it is. --Jayron32 12:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you for drawing your editing to our attention. Since it appears that your only editing on this subject is to add multiple references about Conn's legal problems even when they were irrelevant to the article, I have removed those where they were spurious and believe that Conn's own article should remain thoroughly red-linked. I have watch-listed all affected articles. Black Kite (talk) 12:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

  Occasionally golden eggs are dropped into the laps of administrators. One type is the occasional LTA who drops into AN and says "I am a sockpuppet, please ban me". This is the other type. WaltCip-(talk) 12:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Hut 8.5: @Black Kite: @WaltCip: You are accusing Wikipedia:Long-term abuse ? I object to the "golden egg" accusation. Actually there were links for both sides of his legal issues. I added the multiple references at the mention of his name to explain who he is, since there is no wikipedia article. So with a documentary single episode and a documentary mini-series and a conviction for an extraordinary crime, what is a good reason for not allowing an article on a clearly notable subject? So if I make a draft for Eric C. Conn, how do I go forward, or should I just do The Big Conn (mini-series) ? 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

  • I would either suggest it be redirected to List of Apple TV+ original programming#Docuseries or be locked as connected to this, whatever the consensus is. Not everything that has had a docuseries made out of them (or more than that to fill time on uncreative true crime networks or business news channels when the market is closed) hits WP:N. Clearly as it's been locked since 2012, we have determined this is a routine crime story that doesn't need an article, and that the's subject's unrepentant WP:VANISPAM beforehand disqualifies them from the 'honor' of an article. Nate • (chatter) 23:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

The article was protected in 2007, as a result of 3 days of re-creations by DavidKy (talk · contribs) and a further re-creation by Josh5687 (talk · contribs), both single-purpose accounts who haven't edited in more than a decade. There hasn't been a single AFD discussion; there has been no determination of anything as just claimed, certainly not of the notability of something that post-dates the only attempts at an article here by ten years and could not possibly have been the reason for protection; and the only mention on this noticeboard was, ironically, as part of a set of long-term create-protected pages that perhaps do not deserve long-term creation protection. I think that it's safe to say that 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk · contribs) is not in the single-purpose account category; and it seems that the case for long-term create protection is largely nonexistent. The original repeatedly created article is clearly not what 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk · contribs) is envisaging. I think that we are going overboard in defending the protection here. Uncle G (talk) 04:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I stand by not re-creating this though; I take a dim view of 'oh this guy did this' spamming of someone's contributions negative or positive into articles through force, and likewise as I said, the subject's previous VANISPAM behavior, even though they no longer can practice law and are in prison, still disqualifies them from having an article here. More than that, whatever sympathetic vs. evil bent is going to come along with those who wish to edit the article based on these docs and their reaction as such. Thus, it's going to be WP:RECENT coverage influencing them rather than a long-time examination of them over time from the early teens. Nate • (chatter) 22:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Baseball Bugs

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

---

Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Well, well. That only took 10 days. I have repeatedly asked this user to leave me alone. Following Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1097#User:Baseball Bugs on 26 April 2022, user agreed to leave me alone. Today I wake up to another message on my talk page asking for help.

@Cullen328: @Newyorkbrad: @Masem: @Guettarda: Do something to stop this user from bothering me. AldezD (talk) 14:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, this nonsense: "I've asked user AldezD about this, suspecting he'll agree that it's fancruft. If he doesn't think so, I'll drop it." I've never edited the Mattea Roach article. AldezD (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I asked you for help on a fancruft issue. Someone thinks that reporting which Jeopardy host Mattea Roach prefers is somehow important. If you don't think that qualifies as fancruft, then I'll let it stand. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

No administrator I, but Baseball Bugs, c'mon. When your interaction with this user was already the subject of an AN/I thread, this really should be obvious to you. I don't think any sanction is necessary, but just stop. Seek generalized help on talk pages. It's hard not to read what would otherwise be a benign talk page message as anything other than petty and passive-aggressive. That said, Happy Friday to everyone. Dumuzid (talk) 15:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

So I see an allegation of hounding, and a balanced one of casting aspersions (regarding the sockpuppet claims). If BB agrees to avoid AldezD, and AldezD agrees not to make claims against BB that they can't back up, can this be put to bed?

Would that be fair, @Baseball Bugs and @AldezD? Guettarda (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Soytenly. --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

This is the opposite of avoiding AldezD. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I can't think of any user who's more death-on-fancruft than Aldez is. That's why I asked for his help. If you know another user I could ask about it instead, please tell me. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:IDHT. Stop bothering me. AldezD (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

If you can think of someone else to ask about this instead, please tell me. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:21, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, see what you just did there? STOP DOING THIS. Your opinions of AldezD, positive or otherwise, are entirely irrelevant. This should not be a difficult concept. Dumuzid (talk) 15:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Anyone but AldezD? NPOVN? Wikiproject something-or-other. Literally anyone but the editor you said you would avoid. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:24, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

If you can't think of anyone, then don't ask. You're allowed to not edit an article. --Golbez (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I forget why I had AN on watch for some reason, noticed this, so... IMO this has to be a 1-way interaction ban now. What they are unwilling or able to do by choice must be imposed. ValarianB (talk) 15:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Fine. I'll find someone else to ask, somehow, somewhere. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

A one-way interaction ban does look pretty reasonable at this point. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Have any of you actually read the issue I raised in that article? --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

No, all I read was where you said you would avoid AldezD, and the went directly to their talk page. ANI isn't for content issues. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm willing to just outright block BB from being able to edit AldezD's talk page. I think the partial block functionality allows for that. Canterbury Tail talk 15:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

As you wish. I asked a good-faith question and got schlepped to AN yet again. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Are you really this oblivious and missing the actual point here? Canterbury Tail talk 15:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I know you're smart enough to know what WP:IDHT is, Bugs.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:40, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the iban would be a better call, since if BB already posted on their talk page after saying they would avoid them, I find the likelihood of BB seeking them out in article space to be fairly high. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Interaction ban - Baseball Bugs, I am imposing a 1-way interaction ban on you with AldezD. You may not interact with AldezD. Copying from WP:IBAN, this includes, but is not limited to,

Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to:
*edit each other's user and user talk pages;
*reply to each other in discussions;
*make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly;
*undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means;
*use the thanks extension to respond to each other's edits.

The ban will be in effect for 6 months. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

No, make it permanent. I asked a good-faith question and got an "F.U." as a response. I don't ever want anything to do with that editor again... EVER. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Process question: can admins impose these without a !vote? EvergreenFir (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think !votes are needed to respond to red-line warning violations. WaltCip-(talk) 15:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe especially if the target agrees with it. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

You had a chance to avoid them before, as you said you would, and you didn't keep your word. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

This is my punishment for assuming good faith. No matter. I've asked for advice elsewhere now. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:46, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Assuming good faith! Astounding. --JBL (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Again, just a non-administrator civilian here, but I think the proper interpretation is that this is the formalization of a remedy to which Baseball Bugs had previously consented. As such, to my mind, no !vote necessary. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, I feel that the iban is likely the best case scenario here. If this was left open for discussion on a remedy, I believe a block would have been far more likely. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay. The previous i-ban discussion last 9 days and had clear community consensus for a remedy of some sort. Given the violation of that remedy, this seems like an appropriate enforcement of that consensus. If anyone objects, please let me know and we can do a full 24-hour !vote. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Just make the iban permanent and we can be done with this. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay, it's indefinite now. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Bravo. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Logged at WP:EDRC#Baseball Bugs IBAN EvergreenFir (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

• On reading this I thought that Baseball Bugs must be a young child, but on looking at the contributions I see that this editor has been contributing since 2007, so that is impossible. I can't for the life of me see any reason not to impose an indefinite block (for WP:CIR or WP:NOTHERE) given such behaviour by an experienced adult editor. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
  • The lack of understanding in the responses is concerning, but a complaint was brought because of a specific action, and future iterations of that action are now prohibited. FWIW, I'd like to see them continue to contribute to their usual areas of the Reference Desk and baseball topics, and have hope it'll go for the best. ValarianB (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
    • For what it's worth, though I am a poor replacement for just about any other Wikipedian, I offered to act as Baseball Bugs' sounding board and they have taken me up on that, at least in a limited way, and they seem perfectly reasonable now. While I think the IBAN was certainly necessary, I think an indef would be a major and unwarranted escalation, but that's just me. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
    • ValarianB, it's more than concerning--it's astonishing. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

      (Non-administrator comment) I commented at the previous ANI thread, and I was going to propose a one-way IBAN myself, but EvergreenFir beat me to that. I knew a one way-IABN was where this was headed, but it was just a matter of time. If this isn't WP:WIKIHOUNDING, I don't know what is. Since Baseball Bugs had already agreed at the previous ANI thread to avoid AldezD, this thread should've probably resulted in more than an IBAN. Perhaps a WP:PARTIALBLOCK from AldezD's talk page should be in order too?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

  I confess I had thought Bugs had left the project - they used to be over ANI like a rash and I haven't seen that for quite some time - but there again I don't frequent the reference desk. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

  He's topic banned from ANI. That's why you never see him at ANI anymore, unless the thread is about him and he needs to respond to it. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

  Ah, I missed that one. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Disruptive IP editor

150.176.145.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

150.176.145.147 has been disruptively editing a number of articles related to musical instruments, most recently Kokyū (which I reverted) and Tenor guitar (also reverted, though not by me). These edits are mostly the addition of bad grammar, paragraphs on whether an instrument is Baritone, Soprano or otherwise, and the use of ampersands and run-on sentences.

I seem to remember an editor who conducted similar unconstructive edits to musical instrument pages with a very similar style of writing some time last year, though I haven't found the relevant edits yet. This IP has a clear history of vandalism, but their actions may also constitute ban evasion.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 18:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Found it!--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 18:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for six months for block evasion based on the above – some of the edit summaries overlap pretty closely. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Page move revert & deletion request

Hi there. Could someone please move Talk:Hungrysausage832 back to User talk:Hungrysausage832 and delete all of the other pages that User:Hungrysausage832 has moved it to? Thanks. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:38, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done - not sure of this history, but this reasons some WP:NOTHERE concerns, given all the places it was moved to. Hog Farm _Talk 21:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, @Hog Farm. It looks like Ponyo has just blocked the user for a day. I was just patrolling orphaned talk pages, and happened to stumble across this — I don't know what's going on here, either. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 22:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've blocked the account for 24 hours to stem the tide of disruption. Not sure who this is, but they're certainly not a new kid on the block. If anyone feels the need to modify the block, please go ahead.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 22:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll be surprised if they aren't back in a couple days. Hog Farm _Talk 22:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I see that to probably nobody's surprise, they returned to the same nonsense and have now been indeffed-blocked. Hog Farm _Talk 03:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Ryulong

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Mythdon's topic ban from editing any page that falls under WikiProject Tokusatsu (including articles), and any discussions relating to those pages, broadly construed, is lifted.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:32, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Ryulong

Closure review of the Skeptical Inquirer RSN RfC

Last month the RfC on SI's reliability at RSN (archived thread) was closed. Since then there have been concerns at WT:RSP (thread) that the wording of the close is too vague to provide meaningful understanding of the consensus when dealing with the source's reliability in discussions and/or listing at RSP.

The bolded text in the closure was I believe that the discussion establishes a reasonably clear consensus to use the Skeptical Inquirer with consideration given to proper usage in consonance with existing sourcing and content policy, which really doesn't mean anything, while various parts of the close mentioned the source's area of expertise without mentioning which area this is. As Newslinger summarized, [s]ince the closing statement does not specify the topic areas (e.g. general topics vs. politics) or aspects (e.g. staff vs. contributors) of the source that the options apply to, it is up to us to interpret the closing statement and the rest of the RfC in a way that would fit the format of this list. It has been a month since the closer (Eggishorn) has been active, so me and other editors believe it is in the interest of the community that the close be reviewed and reworded to be clearer (or if need be overturned).

Concerns were brought up in the closer's talk page that the close had served as a WP:SUPERVOTE (thread), but I will not comment on that as a party to the Arbcom case. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 15:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

• Overturn, to be reclosed by a more active editor. Generally, if an editor wants to close a discussion they need to be available to clarify the close, and to address concerns about the close. As this close needs additional clarification and Eggishorn is not sufficiently active to provide it the close should be overturned on procedural grounds. BilledMammal (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  "by a more active editor" sounds rather too much like nonsense to my ears; they were certainly active enough at the time of the close, and they replied on their talk page at the time. There is no requirement for closers to be indefinitely available afterwards: should we also overturn all closures made by editors which are since inactive, "on procedural grounds"? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

  In this case, editors are uncertain how to implement the close; in general, closers should be active long enough to address any timely requests for clarification that are made - I note that the closer agreed to provide such clarification a month ago, but due to inactivity has not been able to do so. BilledMammal (talk) 12:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

  With all due respect, I'd restrict the critique to the substance of the close; I think that has merit. I share RandomCanadian's qualms about reading in an "activity requirement" to closing. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 12:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

  You make a good point; my issue with the close is that it is too vague to be implemented - my references to activity were due to the belief that the vagueness could have been addressed through clarification by the closer. BilledMammal (talk) 13:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

  As an addition to BilledMammal's comment, I didn't bring the closure here because I wanted the close to favor my vote, but rather because we have waited a whole month for the closure to be clarified. Without that clarification the close is genuinely meaningless. What does use [...] with consideration given to proper usage in consonance with existing sourcing and content policy mean apart from "This is a source, which you can use. Sources are used in Wikipedia according to policies. Follow those policies when using this source." What policies? What was the consensus in the discussion regarding BLP sourcing policies affecting the source's use? MEDRS? Editorial oversight and WP:QS? It was clear in the discussion that there was disagreement among editors as to how those policies apply to SI. As the closer did not address those disagreements we all leave the discussion feeling like our perspective is backed by consensus, even if it is not. I think that SI is a QS outside its coverage of skepticism, so should I act in discussions regarding the source arguing that is the consensus? I mean after all is WP:V not existing sourcing and content policy? That is why clarification from the closer is needed and as he has not provided such clarification this closure review is necessary. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 19:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

  I do AGF that you didn't raise this in order to get your way on it; you weren't a major "partisan" in the ArbCom case. Sometimes, Wikipedia just doesn't provide an algorithmic formula for evaluating sources. As you note, "there was disagreement among editors as to how those policies apply to SI." There may, perhaps, not have been a consensus about it that a closer could elucidate without making a supervote. Let's see if such disagreements really do lead to ongoing problems, and we can always re-discuss the issue if need be. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

  If there was no consensus for how the policies apply to SI then the close should have explicitly mentioned no consensus regarding each of those policies. Discussions at RSN are literally about how the policies apply to a source. How I see it the current close is just a way to end the discussion without actually judging consensus in the discussion. The fact that the closer mentioned strength of arguments without even outlining said arguments means we can't even critique how they evaluated points brought up in the discussion. It is about as substance-less a close as one can give in three paragraphs and does not clarify the consensus in the RfC at all, in my opinion. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 20:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

  The reference to "strength of arguments" was made in finding that there was a consensus against options 3 and 4. The close goes on to say: The discussion below as a whole makes it clear that usage of this source is subject to qualification in the same way that all sources are qualified. It is impossible to determine a priori whether a particular usage will be contextually acceptable or unaceptable but the discussion below endorses our existing general guidelines on source usage. That's a clear and affirmative statement of consensus that the usage is subject to evaluation on a case-by-case basis. It's not a finding that there was consensus to select some particular subset of policies and guidelines to evaluate this particular source, and it's not clear that a different closer would have discovered a consensus for such a special rule. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

  I see it as a clear and affirmative statement that PAGs on sources exist. That's really all it does.

  • The discussion below as a whole makes it clear that usage of this source is subject to qualification in the same way that all sources are qualified. - I'd be terribly surprised if this source was not subject to the same standards as all other sources on Wikipedia.
  • It is impossible to determine a priori whether a particular usage will be contextually acceptable or unaceptable [...] - Correct, but I'm not sure anyone assumed otherwise. There are wide topic areas (e.g. negative BLP coverage, MEDRS, etc.) where uses fall into a similar context and additional considerations apply but the scope of the RfC never was particular usages.
  • but the discussion below endorses our existing general guidelines on source usage - A finding otherwise would imply the RSN RfC has power to overturn guidelines such as WP:RS, which it does not nor did anyone make that point in the RfC.

  Additionally, no arguments were described in finding that consensus against 3 and 4. It is also a bit problematic to me that the close declined to make any distinction at all between marginal and general reliability (The dichotomy between Options 1 and 2, however, is more of an apparent divergence than an actual one.) when there is currently community consensus for the existence of that distinction. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 21:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse Seems like the OP here (and other editors) is asking the closer to make a general binding ruling on when and where usage of the source is acceptable, when this is of course a matter of case by case like with any source (i.e. even such generally reliable sources like the BBC or press agencies like Reuters are not "100% use without any other consideration"; and of course with academic journals there's the subtle difference between primary sources like case studies and secondary ones). The closer correctly explained the reasons why they did not provide such a ruling (it would indeed appear to be a SUPERVOTE, as that was not the question that was asked at the RfC and many of the participants did not express a very detailed opinion on that), and I see no reason to overturn the close on those grounds. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

  I'll agree that the close seems somewhat unclear and could use with a rewording or additional clarification of its main holding (i.e. the source is acceptable for use on Wikipedia, but general considerations which apply to other sources similarly apply to it, including in BLP or other more complicated contexts [for ex., to take one from the discussion, when the source is reporting on a lawsuit it is involved in it is obviously not an independent source - but such obvious concerns apply to other sources as well: the NYT reporting on a lawsuit it is involved in would similarly not be an ideal source]), but on its merits the close seems a reasonable reading of the discussion and of policy, so hence the "endorse". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:07, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

• Overturn I appreciate the emphasis on generally reliable and on the notion that all sources depend on context, but this was a step too far.

There is a problem with editors treating RSP as a rule, not just advice or guidance (we ought to make the disclaimer with a 72-point font so that even the blind could see it). Obviously Eggishorn is qualified and he was making a very difficult close, but even very experienced editors may fail and I think this was the case. That is to say, the problem was not the merits of his approach but the result and its practical implication. If we have another RSN discussion on Skeptical Inquirer, we would inevitably see quarreling of editors about the TRUE_MEANING™ of that close (and you know, whose truth is truer), because essentially telling people "look up WP:RS", to which the third paragraph boils down, doesn't help anyone if people have different understanding of how RS applies in practice and different set of outlets they are ready to consider RS. We shouldn't give a pretext for editors to create timesinks. The four-option template shouldn't end in a no-consensus result or without a clear result. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. I was pinged to the WT:RSP discussion that led here, and I expressed some concerns there: [10]. I recognize that the close had some significant shortcomings: one has to read most of the way through to get past "why I think I can make this close" to get to the actual description of consensus, and the closer has not been available to answer questions. I think the close, as written, amounts to a lot of need to evaluate the appropriateness of the source on a case-by-case basis. ("It is impossible to determine a priori whether a particular usage will be contextually acceptable or unacceptable...") Some editors, however, very much want a more specific prescription for when to use or not use the source. And there is a legitimate concern that editors who were dubious of the source during the ArbCom case may be looking for a close that better reaffirms their position. So, if some brave soul were to step forward and re-close the discussion, there will be a rock-and-hard-place dilemma of making the reading of consensus more specific but not too much more specific. I think it may be best to leave things as they are, for the time being, and see how "case-by-case" works out in practice over the months ahead. If it leads to a mess, then there could be a renewed discussion, based on that experience. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm going to update my comment to specify Endorse. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse close per RandomCanadian. There is no compelling evidence that the close was flawed. That some editors, including the OP, would have preferred a different outcome from the RfC is clear, and seems to me at the heart of this request. I further endorse Tryptofish's suggestion that we leave things as they are and proceed in good faith with the "case-by-case" strategy. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 03:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse close. I'm a bit puzzled by the comment opening this thread. The statement in the close about a reasonably clear consensus to use the Skeptical Inquirer is informative, not vacuous: the close pointed out that options 3 and 4 of the standard set drew less support than options 1 and 2. I don't buy the procedural argument that a close is somehow devalued because the closer is taking a wiki-break; nor do I find the statement of the close unactionably vague. Rebooting the whole discussion just to get a line we could lazily plug into WP:RSP doesn't seem like a good use of anybody's time. XOR'easter (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

  XOR'easter I agree with you that 3 and 4 gained less support than 1 and 2. I don't think anyone is disputing that fact. Option 2 is Marginally reliable for supporting statements of fact, or additional considerations apply. Which additional considerations apply in this case, backed by consensus, as specified in the close? Also, how can a close indicate support for two different options that are not equal (general and marginal reliability), in your opinion? — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 19:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

• Overturn - Or at least clarify. Needlessly vague and meandering, there is a big difference between option 1 and 2 and how we can use the source on the pedia. From what I can tell it did not address many of the concerns voiced in both the pro and con arguments. Specifically its use for BLP articles, other than stating we should follow our core policies. Which is unhelpful in this situation. Given the amount of discussion and overall participation paired with a whole arbcom case on the subject we need something with a more reasoned and thought out close. Anything else is honestly insulting to those who did participate and give their opinions since they seem to be largely ignored, that compounded with the closers refusal to answer any legitimate questions on it does not sit well for something so contentious. Also I don't think anyone is asking to reboot the discussion to be lazy and plug it into RSP, that is nonsense, what is being asked is someone to actually evaluate the discussion that already happened. Finally is a close cannot be deciphered, does not answer the question asked, or ignored the arguments it is flawed as it does not set out to do what a close of an RFC is meant to do, which is to interpret consensus on a topic. I honestly don't care which way it goes, but I do care that we actually have something to point to going forward, this close will not give any clarity as it can be used by either say to say "well see I am right!". PackMecEng (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse basically per RandomCanadian and XOR’easter. Pretty sure I can decipher it and although I can see others would have preferred a different outcome, that’s not a good reason to overturn it. Doug Weller talk 19:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn. There is compelling evidence that the close was flawed: that it didn't actually summarize whether or not there was a consensus for any particular option that was offered. If it were to simply say that there were no consensus between Option 1 and Option 2, or if it were to find consensus for Option 1 but also that it is considered a biased source, or some other consensus, then it would at least be capable of summarizing the discussion. If you look at a closing summary that doesn't actually address the RfC question at all, on the other hand, you've found a substantially flawed close. If somebody closed a deletion discussion with "there is a consensus to apply WP:Deletion policy to this article" it would be seen as patently ridiculous. As Ixtal notes above, closes are almost entirely meaningless without actually summarizing the discussion and ascertaining consensus on the RfC prompt. Failing to do so makes for a bad close. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse. Close seems reasonable given the RfC input; sometimes discussion results don't fit neatly into a dumbed-down WP:RSP-esque format, even though as Doug notes "others would have preferred a different outcome". Note that the OP here is the user formerly known as A. C. Santacruz. Alexbrn (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Why does OP’s former username matter? I don’t really see how this would affect the question of whether or not the close was a bad. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 01:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

    Because an innocent onlooker (like me, initially) might think this is a request from a new, uninvolved editor, rather than from the one who was maybe more partisan & involved than any other in that RfC and its environs. Alexbrn (talk) 01:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

    Let me rephrase: what does the editor have to do with the substance of the arguments regarding why the close was bad? You seem to be listing the editor's former username as a way to support your endorsement, which feels odd from a policy standpoint. We don't tent to discard arguments just beacause of the person making them. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 02:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

    "You seem to be listing the editor's former username as a way to support your endorsement" ← No. But knowing who is writing something is useful context that can inform understanding. How, you decide. Alexbrn (talk) 02:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

    And how does it inform your understanding in this case? I'm struggling to see why the user's former username is relevant; would you be willing to help me understand? — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 06:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Alexbrn, Given your reading of the close how would you summarize it? PackMecEng (talk) 02:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  I wouldn't. That's rather the point of "sometimes discussion results don't fit neatly into a dumbed-down WP:RSP-esque format". Ultimately, there's no prohibition on using the source, but it should be used in a WP:PAG-aware manner. That the enthusiasts at WP:RSP have invented non-policy concepts like WP:GREL, and like arguing about colour schemes and icons, should no be allowed to backwash into closers' abilities to write non-simplistic closes, not on editors' abilities to intrepret them WP:CLUEfully. Alexbrn (talk) 02:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  See that is the issue, if the statement of the close is that we should follow policy it has no value. Obviously we follow policy, that is why we have it. Every source is subject to that. Lets ignore RSP for the moment, that is not relevant to this discussion, and focus on what we are supposed to do with the information that close provided. Given your summation, it seems less than helpful, and certainly less than required given the sheer amount of information covered in the RFC itself. That is the core issue at play here, while we do not need a simple consensus is on option 1 or 2, we do need more information that accurately summarizes community consensus and the best way to apply that which, I am afraid, this close clearly lacks. PackMecEng (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  We can't ignore RSP because the RfC was explicitly framed to place SI in an RSP category (WP:GREL, WP:MREL etc.). It doesn't fit. I don't have any difficulty understanding the consensus that we "use the Skeptical Inquirer with consideration given to proper usage in consonance with existing sourcing and content policy", even if it doesn't fit into an RSP box. Alexbrn (talk) 03:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  Did... anybody in the discussion actually argue that it doesn't fit into either some RSP box and/or that it was between two RSP boxes? — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  There were some "x, maybe y" type comments. But once a RfC has got going with people selecting from a menu of four options, !voting with an option that's not "on the menu" is a way to get that !vote ignored; so people don't. As I said at the time, the RfC was a bad idea. The way it was done compounded the problem: sources like SI, and the issues around it, really do not fit into a "four option" template rooted in discussion of news sources, so as ScottishFinnishRadish observed this kind of general RfC was not appropriate. Alexbrn (talk) 04:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  I was trying to not take part in this, because as I also observed, We don't need the same group of people having the same discussion again. I think the result should be overturned specifically because there are concerns and questions about the close that were not addressed, and remain unaddressed due to the inactivity of the closer. I can't say if the problem with the close is also based on what the closer stated, because we haven't gotten to the point of getting clarification. Because of that, we're left to interpret the close as written, which simply isn't great. I also think Mhawk10's statement above, If somebody closed a deletion discussion with "there is a consensus to apply WP:Deletion policy to this article" it would be seen as patently ridiculous. is fairly spot on. It's unfortunate that the close didn't actually address the RFC, because what we'll be left with is even more discussions among the same group of editors about the same things over and over again.

  Reading the whole close, in my eyes it's basically saying, "There is no consensus on the reliability of SI. Most respondents believed it was reliable for WP:PARITY use, and in areas of its expertise. Many respondents expressed concerns about the use of SI to make controversial statements about BLPs and for statements on medical topics. Opinions sourced to SI should always be attributed. Editors are reminded to familiarize themselves with WP:RSCONTEXT, WP:PARITY, and WP:FRINGE when using SI as a source." The close, however, dodges the specifics by going with Various commenters made clear statements about use cases they saw as not acceptable - areas outside the source's area of expertise or opinion usages or specific articles later thrown into question.

  Basically, a question was asked via RFC, there was no consensus on the answer, so saying I believe that the discussion establishes a reasonably clear consensus to use the Skeptical Inquirer with consideration given to proper usage in consonance with existing sourcing and content policy. is a cop-out that doesn't respect the responses that dozens of editors gave to a specific question because it ignores the actual question being responded to.

  I don't actually generally edit in the areas where SI is used, and my attention was drawn to it because of the BLPN threads that have popped up around it, so the close doesn't much bother me one way or another. I'd love to go to every article where we're sourcing negative information on BLPs to yellow journalism from a source that clearly doesn't have consensus as being generally reliable, but it's not really worth the time of having another RFC with the same people about the same source. And that's the biggest problem with the close as it stands, it's just passing the buck and setting up yet another one of those clusterfuck discussions with diminishing returns, as uninvolved editors don't really seem to give a shit. We got the most participation we're going to see on the topic in that RFC, and it was summarily ignored in the close, and any further discussions are going to be back to the same group of editors with the same opinions divided down the middle.

  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole's access to template editor permissions

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

---

Is this the appropriate place to ask for review of an editor's access to user rights, if not would someone move it to the correct location?

I would like to ask someone to have a look at whether it is appropriate for this editor to hold Template editor rights?

Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Anthonyhcole was granted template editor rights by Bishonen in 2014 following this discussion, because they wanted to make an edit notice. [11]. It was acknowledged by the participants in that discussion that Anthonyhcole did not meet the criteria for template editor rights, but they were granted anyway. At the point they were granted template editor rights they had made 131 edits in the template namespace, 94 of which were creating {{Invitation to edit}}, 15 were edits to DYK, 5 were edits to {{Centralized discussion}} and the remainder were minor edits to navboxes.

Since being granted the right they have made three edits in template namespace, all of which are DYK nomination related [12]. They have never edited the module namespace [13].

While being granted unneeded semi-major rights out of process is problematic enough the reason I am questioning their suitability to hold these rights at all is this recent post to the village pump [14] in which they query why their page User:Anthonyhcole/Passwords has been deleted and oversighted, and this post to TonyBallioni where they ask for it to be un-oversighted and restored [15]. I think anyone here can make an informed guess what the contents of that page were, and why it's simple existence represents a massive failure of even the most basic online security practices.

Given a combination of factors, nameley:

• Anthonyhcole did not qualify for template editor permissions at the time they were granted and should never have been given access to them in the first place.
• In the 8 years they have held template editor permissions, they have never used them.
• Their long-term storage of all their passwords on a public wiki page represents a complete failure of even the most basic level of account security practices.

I think their access to template editor should be revoked per WP:TPEREVOKE point 6. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Well, I know we deflag perms with activity expectations, but of course, AhC hasn't been inactive over a year (pinging Xaosflux for confirmation that that's the main reason for revokingh, rather than unuse?). I also can't really see where anybody really (well, seriously) disagreed with the granting of them at the time by Bishonen. I agree, he hardly met WP:TPEGRANT; but converseley, does he meet TPEREVOKE? Admittedly, his last 50 edits go back nearly 18 mopnths, and keeping passwords on a public wiki doesn't exactly instill confidence... SN54129 19:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129 I would argue that storing your passwords on a public wiki page falls under the otherwise neglected account security practices clause of WP:TPEREVOKE point 6. Template editor is a highly restricted right like edit filter manager (There's less than 200 template editors in total) due to the enormous amount of damage inappropriate use could do, so I don't think it's a good idea for an editor who has never used it and who stored their password on a public page to continue to hold it. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

(OS comment) *.74, for what its worth that page did not appear to include a Wikipedia password. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Regarding non-use removals: in general we only revoke for overall inactivity, not tool-inactivity. A few flags, such as interface-administrator, have explicit tool-use minimums, but not the WP:PERM ones. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Anthonyhcole/Passwords is not a list of passwords. It is a list of clues that tell me which password I use with each account. No one else can intuit the passwords from the 2 or three digit reminders. Ergo: I am not an idiot (at least in this regard) as implied by the OP. I'd appreciate it if someone would restore it.

I don't need or want the template editor rights. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• Ok, I've removed TE per this comment. Anthonyhcole, Primefac said he emailed you about restoring and hasn't heard back. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks User:Galobtter. I'll check my emails. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• Nothing else to do here. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

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

User with 60k+ edits blocked for copyvio

I have indefinitely partially blocked User:Gryffindor, who has over 60,000+ edits total and 45,000+ edits to mainspace for copyright violations. A CCI on them, Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Gryffindor, has been open since 2014, and copyright issues with this user date back to 2005. The CCI will be filled out with their new edits in the next few days, I would appreciate it if others could help sort through the current mountain of edits. My CCI guide has some guidance on cleanup. Note that this user is a former admin, see this BN discussion. Given my previous postings on dealing with copyright violations, and the extent of them in this case, I am posting this here so the community is aware. I have recently trying to systemically review the edits of users with long histories of copyright violations. Some good news is that I believe that most high edit users with copyright issues have now been deal with, and cases like this will be much rarer in the future. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2022).

Administrator changes

Colin M

David.Monniaux • Fribbler • Grue • Kpjas • West.andrew.g

CheckUser changes

Ks0stm

Oversighter changes

Ks0stm

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, a change has been made to the administrators inactivity policy. Under the new policy, if an administrator has not made at least 100 edits over a period of 5 years they may be desysopped for inactivity.
• Following a discussion on the bureaucrat's noticeboard, a change has been made to the bureaucrats inactivity policy.

Technical news

• The ability to undelete the associated talk page when undeleting a page has been added. This was the 11th wish of the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey.
• A public status system for WMF wikis has been created. It is located at https://www.wikimediastatus.net/ and is hosted separately to WMF wikis so in the case of an outage it will remain viewable.

Arbitration

• Remedy 2 of the St Christopher case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to place a ban on single-purpose accounts who were disruptively editing on the article St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine or related pages from those pages.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Potentially involved block; needs review

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

---

• RazorThick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Okay, I've had it with all the dog-whistle racism lately. Given the race-oriented older editing history of this account, and his recent edit-warring and "opinions" that the only black quarterback in the NFL hall of fame is there due to "affirmative action", I've blocked him indef for BLP violations. Since I reverted his nonsense from the article once, I could be viewed as involved, so I bring the action here for review. I'm sure there will be a passive-aggressive unblock request in due time. Kuru (talk) 23:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

• Good call. PRAXIDICAE💕 23:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
• [16] [17]. We're not losing anything useful here. Black Kite (talk) 23:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse, this edit is just gross. Galobtter (pingó mió) 23:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
• The block was appropriate and necessary. That user has no understanding of how Wikipedia works, and doesn't seem eager to learn. Rather, he has tried to insert his white-grievance politics first into White privilege and soon after into Warren Moon, in the latter case edit-warring in blatant violation of WP:EW, WP:NOR and WP:BLP. He also came to my user-page to challenge me to a debate about abortion [18]. I reverted that, informing him that Wikipedia is not a debating society. NightHeron (talk) 00:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
• I've declined an unblock request from this user, but would also separately endorse the original block. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
• I've revoked their TPA after they made repeated personal attacks against Praxidicae. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

  Also a good call. JBL (talk) 00:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

  And for good measure, I ran CU as LTAs like to frequent Praxidicae's talk page and as such making personal attacks against Praxidicae is LTAish. No obvious connection seen. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for checking, they're not my typical LTA visitors, just a garden variety racist. PRAXIDICAE💕 00:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

  And to add to the added stuff, they have continued the comments on my simplewiki talk page. They also sent me an email, but I have muted them from sending me emails and the email comment was similar to what they were saying onwiki. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

  Happy to share the email contents to arbcom / stewards as needed, just ping or email me for it. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 01:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse block of this white grievance POV pusher. Cullen328 (talk) 00:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• Happy to endorse the block. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:50, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
• Could someone RevDel the blocked user's denigrating comments about Warren Moon from both the BLP and its talk-page? Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 00:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

  I don't view the comments there as deletable. In terms of candidates of revision deletion, they're pretty mild. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:13, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

  I can see why the comments out of context might seem mild -- just some newbie trash-talking a football player he dislikes for some reason. But the context is that the blocked editor singled out Warren Moon for disparagement for one reason only -- because the quarterback is African American. So the context is racism in America. That makes the comments particularly vicious and in my opinion needing RevDel. NightHeron (talk) 01:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• I requested a global lock after they harassed DJ and another admin at simplewiki and eswiki, so now they won't be editing anywhere. :) PRAXIDICAE💕 01:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

  And locked. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 01:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

  That was fast, wow. Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• Post-locking endorse I think this diff says it all. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 02:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Close review Talk:The Wall Street Journal

I'm concerned that Szmenderowiecki's took on a close request in good faith but with a questionable result. The original RfC is here Talk:The_Wall_Street_Journal#Should_editorial_opinions_be_posted_in_the_lede_summary. The general question is if the article lead should include a comment that the WSJ's editorial board has promoted scientific misinformation. The closer concluded that there was consensus to include based on the discussion. My count is 12 opposed to 8 9 includes, but the survey discussion was a bit of a mess so it's hard to have a clean count. Reasonable arguments were presented on both sides but it should be noted how much weight something is given in the lead is often an editorial judgement and more subjective vs more binary questions like "is this source reliable for this fact". The closer has stated they discounted arguments against inclusion in the lead because they felt MOS dictates that we must summarize important topics from the body in the lead. Since much of this discussion was how much weight this topic should receive (including if it has sufficient weight to be in the lead) it seems like a supervote to decide that anyone saying it doesn't have sufficient weight is violating MOS and thus their vote is discarded. If this were 12 include to 8 9 opposed it might be easier to see strength of argument pushing the conclusion over the "consensus" line. However, buy !vote numbers this RfC was closer to consensus to exclude yet was called a consensus to include. A discussion related to this close was conducted here [19] with Szmen reaffirming their closing. Springee (talk) 03:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Updated my count, 8->9 oppose include. Springee (talk) 11:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC) correcting my correction! Springee (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Pinging HTGS, as they asked to be in the event a review was opened. XOR'easter (talk) 03:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• What's the outcome you want here? Overturn to no consensus?—S Marshall T/C 07:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• I'm asking for the close to be reverted and allow a more experienced closer to review the RfC. While I appreciate Szmenderowiecki's BOLD efforts, they have been an active editor for just slightly more than 1 year and their talk page has a number of disputed close discussions. Springee (talk) 11:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
• Is this a !vote? There seems to be a couple of discussion threads about this, so ill weigh in here, please ping me if the discussion is actually elsewhere. I am uninvolved in this RFC, based on my somewhat cursory reading, this RFC should be reopened and adjudicated by someone else. If Szmenderowiecki came to the right conclusion, then chances are another closer will too. This is not the sort of RFC that should be closed in a controversial way and, in my opinion, Springee has reasonable concerns. Bonewah (talk) 12:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
• I also agree with Springee as there are reasonable concerns. Atsme 💬 📧 13:13, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• An "overturn" of a discussion close generally happens because there's something wrong with the close, not because there's something wrong with the closer. I think you need to play the ball and not the man. If I had made that close, what would you say was wrong with it?—S Marshall T/C 13:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• My concerns are based on the quality of the close, not the editor themselves. Yes, if you made that same close I would say there was something wrong with it. My primary concern is they discounted arguments that, for lack of a better phrase, they didn't like, then decided that a margin of editors that favored exclusion becomes a consensus for inclusion. Zooming out, we have a 12 editors opposing and 9 supporting inclusion in the lead. There is a clear consensus that this content should be in the body of the article but the question is does it have sufficient weight to be in the lead. A number of arguments why it doesn't were presented. Some were based on how we handle other similar pages, some were noting that the single cited source may have WP:V with respect to the specific claim in the lead. But beyond that, when we talk about the lead of an article we always have some level of subjective, editorial judgment with regard to which of many topics in the body should make it to the lead. Szmen stated, "Arguments that said we shouldn't summarise the stuff in the body were discarded."[20] But no opposing editors argued that. Instead they argued that this topic had insufficient weight to be included in the lead (which is MOS compliant). Thus editors who said, "yes it does" were counted towards consensus regardless of the quality of their arguments but editors who said no were thus discounted. If the overall editor feedback were close to consensus (say 11 for and 6 against) I can a case where one would claim "weight of arguments". However, I don't see that in this case. We aren't talking about a bright line policy and 12 oppose to 9 include is a clear majority who oppose (but not sufficient where I would call it a consensus to exclude). Using so much personal judgement to discount some arguments looks like a SUPERVOTE, especially when the weight of numbers is far from the consensus line. Springee (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

  3 editors said "nowhere". XOR'easter (talk) 13:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• If we choose to dismiss those arguments as invalid then we are still as rough parity vs consensus to include. If they present reasoned arguments, even if we disagree, then we should still treat those as opposed to inclusion in the lead. Springee (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

  I feel like setting aside a distant third-place minority opinion and then making a judgment call between options with rough numerical parity isn't that unusual a close. It might not be how I would do things myself, depending on the question, though it seems reasonable here, since the two "against inclusion" options are actually quite different in their effect and so shouldn't be pooled. XOR'easter (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Some clarification is in order.

In the statements saying that: If the overall editor feedback were close to consensus (say 11 for and 6 against) I can a case where one would claim "weight of arguments". We aren't talking about a bright line policy and 12 oppose to 9 include is a clear majority who oppose you seem to speak of "number of arguments" instead of weight. Otherwise that emphasis on numbers is puzzling. In fairness, you do make one argument challenging the merits, which is that MOS does not in fact require that we summarise all the arguments.

Speaking of which, you say Instead they argued that this topic had insufficient weight to be included in the lead (which is MOS compliant). The problem here is in two points. A lot of editors invoked WP:DUE as policies governing inclusion of material in the article, but WP:DUE itself basically says about the proportion of article space we must devote to diverging arguments, according to their prominence. It is not helpful when determining which points should be mentioned in the lead, and in particular when I saw no divergence at all in the sources.

MOS:LEAD does say in a footnote that "Do not violate WP:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section", so indeed, this may be MOS-complaint in certain circumstances. In order to prove that, what you had to show is that it is not a major controversy. You tried to do that by saying that other encyclopedias don't have that content. Britannica isn't necessarily a top-notch source, though, and we have plenty of secondary - preferred - ones (instead of tertiary) to base on. For Animalparty, it was their view that the assessment of sourcing was probably biased and therefore the prominence wasn't likely as big as it was, though no one provided sources to prove that (I mean, anyone could have, but no one did). For FormalDude, that was a "singular dated opinion" (unclear whether he meant it wasn't mainstream or that it was mainstream but nevertheless not prominent enough), but sources in the article and provided by XOR'Easter proved otherwise for climate change. For other topics, only Oreskes is provided in the topic, but I was not convinced by the notion that this opinion was not representative of the mainstream given the enormous number of cites. Bill Williams noted that some opinions are dated and already not representative of the newspaper, and that point was noted, though again, some said that it shouldn't be mentioned at all, while others proposed some alternative formulations that would include the opinions on asbestos, tobacco etc. without formulating them, or leaving them as is. Finally, Peter's analysis was discussed on my talk page. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

And this illustrates a major concern I have with your closing. It looks like you used the closing to cast a supervote rather than to fairly assess consensus. The climate change denial section in the article body is 2 paragraphs. Why should that be in the lead? The reason for citing other sources about the WSJ is to show that they don't feel this is something in need of coverage in their summary of the paper. If we think it is that means we may be including it based on editor bias vs based on actually following the weight given to the topic by independent sources. Again, when we have a number of editors all saying roughly the same thing, even if they don't articulate it the same way, we shouldn't discount them just because you don't like their arguments. This very much is a case where we should listen to the weight of editors who respond and should avoid anything that might look like a closer basing the closing on your opinion. Consider this, if you are right a different closing editor can reach the same conclusion. Thus reverting your close and allowing a new closing shouldn't be an issue in the end. Springee (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• My concern with that RfC would not be so much the close but the fact that it was created, bludgeoned and canvassed by an account that is almost certainly a sock. I am amazed no-one ever took that particular SPA to WP:SPI. Black Kite (talk) 13:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• Im skeptical of "weight of arguments" claims in RFC closing, this is no exception. If this were a rules based question, then sure, arguments that actually cited rules would win over ones that did not, or if the arguments being discarded were obviously vacuous, then again sure, neither is the case here. Bonewah (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• The "weight of the arguments" is the key to this, though.—S Marshall T/C 16:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Im not sure it is if the argument boils down to judgement calls on content. Not all judgement calls are going to be equally valid, but if closers are too quick to dismiss judgements the closer doesnt think have much weight, then closing is always going to be a supervote. Closers should only rely on "weight of the arguments" type claims if its fairly obvious that one side is populated mostly by vacuous reasoning. I dont think that is the case here. Bonewah (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

You're suggesting that the closer should find in favour of the side with the most non-obviously-vacuous accounts !voting for it. But, at the time of closing, there were plausible allegations of selective canvassing on the talk page, and there was fairly blatant socking going on as well. I can't really agree with you on method there.—S Marshall T/C 22:50, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Allegations of canvassing, sock puppeting, allegations of improper close, a discussion that was "bludgeon-y"... forget about what you think of my 'method' this RFC should be junked on the basis of a half dozen other issues. Bonewah (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, it should be overturned to "no consensus", yes. When you run it again, as I expect you will, cross-post the discussion on WP:RSN because we evaluate the Wall Street Journal as a generally reliable source, so that paragraph in the lead is unexpected.—S Marshall T/C 15:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Exactly because it is very remarkable that an otherwise respectable outlet regularly goes Baron of Lies when it comes to specific subjects, it should be a no-brainer that that fact belongs in the lede. Another cross-post: Every user who has spent more than 1000 words on article talk pages and pages like this one to prevent that mention deserves a topic ban for climate change, broadly construed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, i didnt run this RFC in the first place, so if you are expecting me to run it 'again' you are already wrong. The only reason i even learned about is was because someone dropped a note on FTN, which i monitor. Having said that, i too would like to see this sort of thing decided by a much wider audience, so RSN, FTN etc etc, the more the better. Bonewah (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh! No, I was using "you" in the plural. Read that as When you (the participants of that RfC) run it again, as you expect you will..., not When you (Bonewah) run it again, as I expect you will... That probably wasn't as clear as it should have been, to be fair.—S Marshall T/C 23:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

• The discussion was ... bludgeon-y. If I came across one like that which I hadn't been involved with, I'm not sure that I would trust any conclusion based upon it, one way or the other. It entered fruit of the poisonous tree territory long before it was closed. I think Szmenderowiecki made the best of a miserable situation (maybe not the exact way I would have in similar circumstances, but not out of line with the P's and G's, either). We could rattle off essays all day, holding MOS:LEDE or WP:OTHERCONTENT higher than WP:SUPERVOTE or vice versa, but that does nothing to identify the underlying problem. XOR'easter (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• User:Szmenderowiecki, there were canvassing allegations on the page that you didn't mention in your close. How did those canvassing allegations affect your determination of consensus?—S Marshall T/C 16:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

  Not at all, actually. None of the pinged users/IPs, among those mentioned by Aquillion, commented in the RfC, while posting on WikiProject talks is a legitimate way to draw attention to an issue at discussion. I do not address sockpuppetry allegations until I see an SPI case with a block or a ban. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

  Well, in the case of that debate the concerns were self-evidently well-founded and reasonable.—S Marshall T/C 16:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

  I think I had tuned out of/given up on the discussion before those concerns were raised, but reviewing the mess now, they do seem well-founded and reasonable. XOR'easter (talk) 23:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• Overturn. A clear-cut case of supervoting.
  1. The closer gave more weight to MOS:LEAD – a guideline that they incorrectly treat as a policy – than DUE (part of NPOV policy).
  2. The closer automatically discounted opinions that said the content should not be in the lead: Arguments that said we shouldn't summarise the stuff in the body were discarded. ... presence is ordered by policy. Again incorrectly referring to MOS:LEAD as a policy.
  3. I explained in the RFC how DUE should be applied to this case, and used The New York Times – which was also mentioned in Merchants of Doubt – as an analogy. The closer improperly discounted that argument based on WP:OTHERCONTENT, an essay.
  4. The closer mentions that The reading of the book revealed ... and I downloaded a copy myself to see the context of all statements about WSJ to verify if there has been any cherrypicking ... I reached that conclusion using the sources in the body and provided here ... I had to analyse the article refs because of assertions that numerous sources were present that corroborate the book's arguments. I.e. instead of merely summarising the discussion, the closer conducted their own research and apparently decided that certain viewpoint is right, then shaped the closure arguments to fit that outcome.
  5. The closer made an offer to revert the closure: But I will retract on the following condition: You make another edit as a continuation of the RfC which points to the reliable sources that contradict the notion that the WSJ's science/climate positions of the editorial board are not aligned with the scientific consensus, if you are able to find any. This is just bonkers.

Above I have cited the closure and the discussion where Springee challenged the closure, which is a must read for everyone participating in this discussion. This should show that the closer preferred one version over another and casted a supervote. They dubiously discounted opinions that don't fit the preferred outcome and decided that guidelines and essays that may entertain a specific outcome are more important than policies. Politrukki (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• Overturn(involved), WP:SUPERVOTE is really all that's relevant. Closer reviewed the source material and made a determination based on their opinion of the source material. That's not a close, which summarizes the consensus of involved editors, that's a !Vote. Also, given there were no major policy reasons for inclusion, it is hard to see how a slight majority of editors supporting exclusion translates to inclusion.Slywriter (talk) 23:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn per Politrukki. What the closer got correct is that discussions are not head counts, but that isn't a license to close the discussion on the basis of one's own beliefs regarding what the best argument is. Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. The arguments made by those opposing inclusion on the basis of WP:DUE were credible; this isn't a case of a WP:VAGUEWAVE where it's ok to simply ignore people on the basis that they didn't offer any explanation for why a policy supported their argument. The method of discarding arguments that argued against a particular interpretation of MOS:LEAD also ignores the potential for there to be good reasons to make an exception to the verbatim text of the style guide. This seems to be an incorrect application of WP:DISCARD; instead of evaluating that reasonable arguments of roughly equal strength were presented by editors in favor of including the content and by editors in favor of excluding the content, the incorrect discarding of editors' arguments without a strong policy basis led to the erroneous close. A close reading of the discussion reveals no consensus to include the sentence.

On a wholly separate note, the notion that the closer has been an active editor for just slightly more than 1 year has no bearing on the validity of this RfC close. If the marginal difference on overturning this is that the user is not an admin, for example, then there's a community consensus against overturning a close on that sole basis. The only things that matters for whether or not an uninvolved RfC close should be overturned is whether or not the closing summary is deficient. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 00:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

It is startling for me that an analysis of sources revealed such backlash here. Per WP:DISCARD I am obliged to ignore arguments that were irrelevant in the closure, and because most of comments quite a few comments were not backed up by evidence and were simply personal opinion (such as that assertion of a skewed selection of sourcing - in that case the problem is not the sentence in the lead but the NPOV of the "Science" section itself). In my view, many more were on the side of exclusion, as I pointed in the dissection above (see 16:35 GMT post). WP:DUE in particular seems to be an unfortunate reference in this discussion, because all the time the referenced policy part describes the way relative weight of two or more opinions should be measured and expressed in an article, rather than how much space we should devote to a certain issue where no contradictory opinions have been presented. Note that all the time DUE speaks of majority/minority POV. Instead, it was and is often used as a shorthand for "notable enough" (or WP:UNDUE for "not notable enough"), which is OK for a relative comparison with the majority opinion but inapplicable here.

However, as I've said, I've seen intense backlash over the arguments used during the closure for reasons I read here but still do not persuade me as somehow inappropriate. I don't care about the participants themselves, they are involved blah-blah-blah, but the consensus to endorse from uninvolved editors is unlikely to appear. With that amount of challenges, that's a forced retraction.

Another editor who decides to reclose will have my closure in view in a collapsed box. Please address the canvassing/socking allegations, if relevant. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 01:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki: I have to push back on the off-hand dismissal of the applicability of WP:DUE. WP:BALASP, which is a subsection of WP:DUE, notes that An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. The bolded parts, in particular, form the policy basis for the claims of undue weight that were made in the discussion; there were quite a few arguments regarding the extent to which the sentence's inclusion in the lead focused unduly on that specific criticism of the WSJ's opinion section. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 01:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I suppose, since it's voicing an opinion, that the text formerly known as a close counts as a !vote now. XOR'easter (talk) 04:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

• Mhawk10 has nearly got it. What he's missed is that the disputed sentence is the long term consensus text and the purpose of the socking and canvassing was to get it removed. No consensus means restore the status quo. The correct close would be "no consensus to remove".—S Marshall T/C 08:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's a good point which I'd also missed; overturning to No Consensus means the text stays. As I said above, if those shouting overturn above really want a discussion which isn't tainted by other issues, it would be better to start a new one. Black Kite (talk) 10:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
    • Overturning to No Consensus means the RFC was inconclusive. It says nothing of real note about if the text should stay or go, in my opinion. Bonewah (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
  • S Marshall is correct on how to handle a no consensus close in the case of longstanding text that has been recently disputed. This assumes that there was at some point a consensus to insert the material into the article (see WP:ONUS). — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 15:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOCON says "... a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit" and the bold edit was made on 1 March 2019 by Snooganssnoogans. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

There was a consensus for the text per this 2019 RFC[21]. In the last few years, there have been multiple RfCs and discussions on the topic every few months where a new string of IP editors, sockpuppets and canvassers rehash the topic. Regular editors cannot be expected to engage in the same RfC every few months. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't just SPA. A number of established editors objected, some shortly after the original RfC was closed. Look at the number of long term editors who have recently objected. Had they been aware at the time it's quite likely the original RfC would have resulted in a no-consensus vs consensus to include. However, our process says once a consensus is established it takes a new consensus to overturn it. Closing the current RfC as no-consensus means the text stays. Springee (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

There's arguably a tension between what we say in our article and our view of the WSJ as a source in WP:RSP, and we could reasonably have a clean, untainted discussion about how to reconcile the two.—S Marshall T/C 16:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there is any tension. This is a discussion related only to the Op-Ed articles the paper chooses to run. Would we treat OpEds from the WSJ differently if we weren't having this discussion? Springee (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

The Christian Science Monitor has some bonkers editorials that basically reject modern medicine. But the firewall between its opinion side and news side is the reason that this really doesn't affect its reliability as a news source. Analogously, I don't see an issue with the way that WSJ is handled on WP:RSP. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 01:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Any accusations of the person who opened the RfC being a sockpuppet are unfounded unless they are actually blocked, and the comments about bludgeoning ignores that both the opposition and the support for inclusion replied to plenty of messages throughout the page. Bill Williams 13:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

• There are some biased views on the WSJ talk page by editors who are here to use Wikipedia to express a one-sided opinion on the WSJ, one of the highest quality newspapers in the world (only a fool would believe otherwise). The talk page is like a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS case study. Wikipedia needs a way to manage such advocacy groups using the platform in this way. Many of these editors should not be writing/editing articles on Wikipedia in their favored topic area, it is not encyclopedic quality and not something that helps the public good. 78.18.251.161 (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, yes, we get it: Mentioning the WSJ's anti-science disinformation campaigns is blasphemy, and the blasphemers should be kicked out. Now back to writing an encyclopedia please. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Please look out cross-wiki abuse and LTA User:米記123 sock DE and spam 12

Special:Contributions/42.3.187.0/24,please El_C block it,also,please protect Backpack,see history,thanks.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 11:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done and  Done. El C is out of action currently. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Revdel needed

Can someone revdel this edit [22], and maybe ban the IP?--Ermenrich (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

They're just back from a block, so revdelled and blocked six months for disruptive editing. Miniapolis 00:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Miniapolis thanks!--Ermenrich (talk) 01:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Page protection back log

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talk • contribs) 05:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll do some, thank you mysterious stranger. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Think I messed up.

I wanted to add to Victoria2Sander178 too Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mike Matthews17, but I stupidly added that user to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/My Royal Young, is there an admin that can fix my mistake?? Regards. Govvy (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

On it. 1 sec. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 13:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Govvy:  Done. For future reference, WT:SPI is a better place to ask for help from a clerk. (Not per se an admin matter. I think in theory I could have histmerged that but for moving a section it's a lot easier to just copy-paste with attribution, which is what I did (well, via script). Non-admin clerks can do that, and likewise non-clerk admins usually won't touch SPI clerical stuff.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 13:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

non-admins can do SPIs? I thought that was an admin only thing. Govvy (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Non-admins can become SPI clerks; see here. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Overriding a relist

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

---

I'm posting this here and not at WP:CR because they won't to override relisted AfDs and administrators don't usually go there anyway. Can someone close this AfD discussion? This second relist by Spartaz seems to me quite unnecessary given that nobody wants to keep and, by my experience, the outcome usually defaults to delete and is then deferred to editorial discretion or RfD if no consensus on a redirect is found. I don't see why a discussion on content and notability should remain up for nearly a month over an issue that has nothing to do with content and notability. Avilich (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done The relisting comment seems reasonable and within the bounds of admin discretion, you didn't try to discuss this directly with Spartaz before coming here, and you didn't inform them of this discussion, so I feel like the answer has pretty much got to be no. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: I noticed that his activity is generally sporadic, so I sa wnothing wrong in bringing this here straightaway while pinging him, something I did before and nobody complained. I can talk to him though if you feel that's more appropriate. Avilich (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

You don't appear to be using a mobile app, so you should be able to see both the banner at the top of this page and the edit notice that both state the following: "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} to do so." and also "This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of general administrator interest.If your post is about a specific problem you have (a dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator), you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead. Thank you." I know banner blindness is a thing but c'mon. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: I assumed it was just for actual, serious conduct issues rather than some minor procedural action but I'll keep that in mind, thanks. Avilich (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Seriously? I’m being dragged to AN for relisting an AFD? What the actual…. Super rude to do this without the courtesy of engaging with me first. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's a reasonable relist. It's clear that we're going to end up with a redirect, but to where? Black Kite (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
• Not sure how many "agree with Spartaz, Beeb, and Black Kite" comments are needed before this gets closed to prevent others spending too much time on it, but I too agree that was a reasonable relist. @Avilich:, OK to close this? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: sure, close this. Again, I did something like this before with no fuss; didn't expect someone to take such offense, but yeah, anyway, it's clearly going nowhere. Avilich (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

• Yeah AN isn't the right place for this. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Spartaz' rogue relists here we come. – Joe (talk) 23:51, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
• Certainly seems reasonable. I agree with Spartaz, Beeb, and Black Kite. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Cross namespace redirects

Are user talk pages allowed to be redirected to article space? - FlightTime (open channel) 22:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

First, you mean user pages, not user talk pages. Second, you need to notify the user, don’t circumvent that by not naming them when this is obviously about someone in particular. Third, more generally, I’d say “meh”, but in this case, no they can’t. Fourth, if you go hunting for what FT is talking about, it’s nsfw. Floquenbeam (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Actually, it's the talk page link in the signature. Thank you for your reply (as confusing as it is :P ). - FlightTime (open channel) 23:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

It looks to me like it was the username link in their signature, not the "(talk)" link. But that's arguing about something besides the main issue. They've changed the redirect target to something less objectionable, so now it's more of a generic question. I suppose the technically correct answer is worth a couple of thousand bytes of discussion and a dozen competing bluelinks, but my own humble opinion is now "meh". I still think you should notify the editor, since the discussion here will directly affect them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree, thank you again. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 23:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:UP is actually surprisingly straightforward on this. I guess that couple-thousand-byte discussion happened at some point in the past.

User talk pages should not redirect to anything other than the talk page of another account controlled by the same user. However, redirects from userspace subpages to mainspace are common and acceptable. Soft redirects are allowed on userpages.

I think that last clause is enforced a bit inconsistently—actually, I know it is. Plus it omits the obvious and well-accepted scenarios of hard-redirecting userpage to talkpage or an alt's userpage to the main account's. But seems like the general answer is: If a userpage redirecting to an article is an issue, turn it into a soft redirect, unless there'd still be a WP:UP violation for other reasons, in which case handle that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

The "soft redirects" are meant for userpages redirecting to e.g. the Meta userpage, or a userpage on another language version where the editor is most active. Soft redirecting your user page to an article should be discouraged as confusing to other editors (especially newbies) and polluting the "what links here" from that article. Redirecting a user subpage to an article (or to an essay or ...) is acceptable if there is a good reason for this (e.g. a page was created in a user subpage and then moved to the mainspace), but otherwise again should be discouraged as not helping. Fram (talk) 07:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

This can occur when a new page is created in the userspace and then moved to the mainspace. Unless you have the pagemover right, a redirect will be created automagically. You then need to blank the user page or nominate it for deletion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)