Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. 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	19	23	42
TfD	0	0	0	1	1
MfD	0	0	1	3	4
FfD	0	0	2	5	7
RfD	0	0	22	50	72
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 12 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 4 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 8 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 5 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 142 sockpuppet investigations
• 35 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 5 Fully protected edit requests
• 2 Candidates for history merging
• 11 requests for RD1 redaction
• 53 elapsed requested moves
• 6 Pages at move review
• 26 requested closures
• 130 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 15 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (29 out of 7752 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Neil Hartigan 2024-05-15 17:16 2025-05-15 17:16 edit WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Buzzards-Watch Me Work RoySmith Tad Jude 2024-05-15 17:16 2025-05-15 17:16 edit WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Buzzards-Watch Me Work RoySmith Minneapolis 2024-05-15 17:15 2025-05-15 17:15 edit WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Buzzards-Watch Me Work RoySmith Draft:CaseOh 2024-05-15 02:40 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Dennis Brown Poot 2024-05-15 00:14 2025-05-15 00:14 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Spore (2008 video game) 2024-05-14 23:39 2024-11-14 23:39 edit,move Persistent vandalism from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Jewish Institute for National Security of America 2024-05-14 06:51 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Doug Weller Nava Mau 2024-05-14 03:45 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case Andrey Belousov 2024-05-14 03:31 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Category:Hamas 2024-05-13 23:01 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Izno Sde Teiman detention camp 2024-05-13 20:49 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter Çankaya Mansion 2024-05-13 14:18 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement, WP:GS/AA Rosguill Second Battle of Latakia 2024-05-13 13:39 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Alien 2024-05-13 13:23 indefinite move lower to semi, time heals; requested at WP:RfPP The Night Watch Shays' Rebellion 2024-05-13 08:08 2025-05-13 08:08 move dang it. Not used to move protection, I guess.... Dennis Brown Chuck Buchanan Jr. 2024-05-13 02:01 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Animal stereotypes of Jews in Palestinian discourse 2024-05-13 01:24 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per ARBPIA Daniel Case Michael Ealy 2024-05-13 01:22 2025-05-13 01:22 edit,move Persistent vandalism: racist swinery Drmies Template:Nelson, New Zealand 2024-05-13 00:51 indefinite move Highly visible template that is vulnerable to macron vandalism Schwede66 Hebrew University of Jerusalem 2024-05-12 21:47 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per ARBPIA Daniel Case Interracial marriage 2024-05-12 19:14 2024-11-12 19:14 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry RoySmith 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

Misuse of WikiProject to canvass?

It has come to my attention today that I was the subject of a post on this notice board on July 21 [1]. I would like clarifications on policies.

1. Is WikiProject the correct place to reverse longstanding consensus rather than article talk page? Is it acceptable to "sneak through" a new consensus on a WikiProject with no note, no notification, no reminder on article talk pages that said discussion is secretly taking place on WikiProject? Shouldn't the point of Wikipedia:Consensus be allowing as many lay editors to participate as possible rather than being held in virtual smoke-filled room? Are all of these behaviors above-board or violations of Wikipedia:Canvassing and Wikipedia:Tag team? I earnestly raised all these questions in my last edit [2] on WikiProject:Golf, but no one has given an answer to this day and instead I was arbitrarily blocked. As I wrote in WikiProject: Golf, it isn't a requirement to join WikiProject:Golf to be allowed to edit golf-related articles, but how are lay editors like myself supposed to participate in consensus-building if they're all done in WikiProject rather than the broad daylight of article talk pages? I wouldn't have even responded on WikiProject:Golf that day if I weren't tagged because I wouldn't know a discussion about myself was taking place. In fact, I wouldn't even be writing on this board if I didn't get a notification when I logged in.

2. I was arbitrarily blocked for 48 hours while I was away, despite another administrator User:SarekOfVulcan wanting to hear from me before any action was taken. Furthermore, the editor who aggressively edit-warred with me User:Wjemather was not sanctioned, even though he abused his automated rollback privilege in a content dispute [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] and refused to engage in any discussion on article talk pages. How is this fair and proportional? Perhaps I should've been less aggressive in restoring the removed content, but User:Wjemather was equally aggressively in edit-warring and even abused his automated rollback privilege. Therefore, I don't understand why I was sanctioned and he was not. I was under the impression that Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is normal. I posted numerous notes on article talk pages [8] [9] [10] [11] [12], but he flat out refused to discuss on article talk pages and continued to be intransigent even on his home turf WikiProject:Golf [13]. Even User:Phinumu, who reported me to this board, expressed misgivings about Wjemather's Wikipedia:BATTLEGROUND attitude [14]. As SarekOfVulcan pointed out, consensus can change. Moreover, as I wrote earlier, using WikiProject rather than article talk pages to alter longstanding consensus is underhanded and reeks of canvassing.

3. User:Girth Summit posted on my personal talk page that someone (not her) falsely accused me of being a sockpuppet and having links with the late Muammar Gaddafi. This is beyond the pale and flat-out bullying. They are trying to throw the book at me for daring to question their golf WikiProject and see what sticks. From what I can gather, User:IceFrappe, User:Skitash, among others have contributed to many articles on Arab nationalism and the Maghreb in the year of 2023. I assume they are also Arab like myself. However, it is irresponsible and frankly reeks of racism to accuse all of us being the same person.

I must apology in advance for the awkward English; it is not my primary language. Jamahiriya (talk) 07:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

With respect to my use of rollback, see WP:ROLLBACKUSE #5. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, inflammatory comments on article talk pages are not an invitation to collegial discussion. They were also inaccurate as it was User:Nigej who did most of the work in originally removing these tables in accordance with the consensus established and reaffirmed through several discussions. As you were advised, one individual does not get to unilaterally overturn consensus (without discussion) just because they don't like it and reject the centralised venue (a perfectly normal process when dozens of articles are involved) where discussions were held. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Just to confirm that it was me that deleted most of the "past champions" sections. See eg Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Golf/Archive 16#Nationalities in the field which shows that was not some whim on my part but part of a consensus at WT:GOLF that they should be deleted. Nigej (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

On point 3, this is my post on the OP's talk, I make no mention of links to Gaddafi. I left it with regard to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IceFrappe. No further comment on this from me, aside from the comments I made in that SPI case. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Nor does the SPI accuse Jamahiriya (or IceFrappe) of having links to Gaddafi. It notes that both have created articles on cousins of Gaddafi, which is objectively true, and states that they have both edited Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, which is also objectively true and easily verifiable by the diffs included in the SPI report. Unless we are suggesting that "edited articles related to the Gaddafi family" is "links to Gaddafi", there is no accusation of links to Gaddafi that I can see in the SPI report. (Nor, so far as I can see, is there any accusation in GS's talkpage post or the SPI case that Skitash has any connection to either Jamahiriya or IceFrappe) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I was arbitrarily blocked for 48 hours while I was away, despite another administrator User:SarekOfVulcan wanting to hear from me before any action was taken. This is misleading. The ANI discussion can be found here. The sequence of events is: Jamarihiya reported for edit warring; Star Mississippi pblocks them for 48 hours from article space and says they will take no further action; SarekOfVulcan replies to Star Mississippi saying that they "suggest no further action be taken until we get a response from Jamahiriya". Contrary to the impression that Jamahiriya gives in this AN post, Star Mississippi's block was not going against SarekOfVulcan's suggestion; SOV's suggestion was regarding any action further to SM's block. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Your reading of WP:CONSENSUS is correct in that backroom "consensus" created on a WikiProject talk page is meaningless. Editors have been topic banned in the past for acting like WikiProjects have authority over articles. There's debate over whether selective WikiProject notifications amount to canvassing, and it largely depends on context. But you were not blocked arbitrarily, you were blocked for WP:edit warring. Your messages were also hostile and accusatory, so it's not surprising if someone chose not to respond. I probably wouldn't have responded to your talk page posts either. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

As regards point 1, it seems to me that where an issue covers many hundreds or thousands of articles it is impractical to discuss them individually on talk pages. They needs to be some central place for these issues to be discussed. In this case there is a long-standing consensus that WP:GOLF is a suitable place. The idea that this is some sort of secret place where such issues are decided, is complete nonsense. Every article here is part of WP:GOLF. Nigej (talk) 20:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

As noted above, WikiProjects do not have authority over articles. You can discuss things there, and then apply bold changes based on what's discussed. But ultimately, people not involved in the project and contributors to individual articles have a voice too and if there is disagreement over issues at any individual article then those must be resolved at the talk page, there's no magic trump card to apply a WikiProject rule there.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone is claiming wikiproject superpowers. All that is being said is that WT:GOLF was, and remains, the logical venue for a centralised discussion impacting a large number of closely related golf tournament articles. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 00:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

No one's claiming some sort of veto for WikiProjects, just that it's a sensible place for discussions for issues relating to multiple articles. There was no attempt here to contravene any Wikipedia policy or guideline, just an issue of whether certain content was suitable or not. In this case I accept that my edit summary: "remove champions in the field section" was not the best, I should have mentioned the discussion at WT:GOLF. In theory it would be possible to add talk page sections linking to WT:GOLF discussions but where there are hundreds/thousands of articles my experience is that this is rarely done. Nigej (talk) 06:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

That can be an appropriate place to hold an RfC, if it was tagged as an RfC and the talkpages of affected articles were notified. Otherwise, people who work on a few articles but aren't involved in the wikiproject in general would have no way of knowing that it was even happening. A discussion taking place on WT:GOLF that lasts less than 22 hours with 4 participants is not a valid consensus to enforce on hundreds of articles like that. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, when so little time is given to participate in such a discussion, it results in a lot of potential problems with articles where good faith edits from anonymous or newer contributors can be batted down through a localized consensus. I've seen multiple times when Wikiproject users use "we discussed it, we reached a consensus, it's not our fault you didn't participate" as a justification for doing so, and it's rubbish. Many contributors don't know what Wikiprojects are or what purpose they serve, nor do they always have time to go out of their way and seek them out. I agree that the talkpages of the relevant articles need to be pinged. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 23:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

However the issue here is that these sections were all added without discussions, they were then all deleted (albeit many years later). Per WP:BRD another discussion might well have been in order but User:Jamahiriya simply embarked on a mass revert of the deletions without any attempt at any discussion on the issue anywhere. His only edits to talk pages were to complain about 3RR infringements. Nigej (talk) 06:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

That sort of behavior certainly isn't meritorious either, but remember that here at AN, or at ANI, the conduct of all parties involved are observed. There is nothing wrong with looking at ways to improve the process and editing atmosphere in addition to correcting the problems caused by a user that engages in edit wars. Just as WP:BRD has its limits, so too does WP:CONLEVEL need to be observed. You are not required to start an RfC each time you're trying to reach a consensus on a particular matter affecting multiple articles, but you do need to at a minimum loop in the talkpages of those articles affected. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 19:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Article on Pope Francis

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

---

Note in section regarding elevation to Cardinal the consistory was December 21, 2001. I suggest adding that December 21 is the Feast Day of St Peter Canisius, a famous Jesuit saint and Doctor of the Church. The article also notes that as Cardinal he was named Cardinal Priest of St Robert Bellermine church. Robert Bellermine is a Jesuit saint as noted. I would suggest adding that Robert Bellermine is a Doctor of the Church.

John Hall 173.64.11.32 (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The article's talk page is the place for suggestions like thqt. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Reliability of La Patilla closure review

After posting at WP:RS/N here at AN, I was adviced to ask for a review of the closure of the RfC on the reliability of La Patilla. If I'm counting correctly, at least eight editors (without including myself) have expressed their dissaproval with the closure at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Deprecation RFCs and quorums and have asked for its review and possible overturn. NoonIcarus (talk) 15:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• There is clearly no community wide consensus that can be derived from a discussion with such a limited number of participants, and even in said discussion the majority view is not even for the option chosen by the closer. Overturn and change the close to not enough participation to determine site-wide consensus, certainly not enough for a source to be ruled verboten for use across the entire encyclopedia. And given the closer's repeated editing sprees removing sources from articles in which they themselves close RFCs as "deprecate", dont think this person should be closing any deprecation RFCs. Since they feel so strongly about the topic they should participate in the discussions, not close them. nableezy - 17:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn closure (uninvolved with RfC) Two issues were raised in the discussion immediately after the close. One is a question regarding how many people should participate in a discussion before we agree there is truly a community consensus to apply deprecation restrictions to a source. This is a broad question that probably should be asked as part of a review of the wider deprecation practice. It also probably shouldn't be answered here. The second issue is if this discussion should actually be closed as consensus to deprecate. It clearly was not by the numbers. Thus strength of argument is the only justification for closing this topic as consensus to deprecate. However, the closing discussion didn't explain why votes for answers ranging from "1 reliable" to "3 unreliable" were discounted in favor of deprecation. I have little knowledge of the source itself. My post here is based on what was presented vs how things were closed. Springee (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Comment: Want to disclose that I am the poster of the RfC regarding La Patilla and voted for deprecation after FactCheck.org showed that La Patilla reposted an article with information from Breitbart. There are multiple sources that are currently seen as unreliable, deprecated or blacklisted with similar to less participation (see Discogs, Last.fm, Rateyourmusic, Examiner.com, LiveLeak, Crunchbase, FrontPage, HispanTV, MintPress, BlazeTV and others). Some of these are more obvious decisions, but nonetheless, had little participation. If we are to begin a difference in concluding WP:RSP RfCs here with La Patilla today, we need to review the accuracy of the entire WP:RSP list in total and establish a more concrete policy surrounding the closing process (one user raised this concern here). Though I am in no way opposed to such changes, it seems that the opposition to the closure has more to do with the closure process than with the decision made. Please keep in mind, per WP:DISCARD, "Consensus is not determined by counting heads or counting votes, nor is it determined by the closer's own views about what action or outcome is most appropriate. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments ... The closer is not expected to decide the issue, just to judge the result of the debate, and is expected to know policy sufficiently to know what arguments are to be excluded as irrelevant". David Gerard reviewed the arguments made and with their knowledge of policy (which they obviously have), made a decision. Also, I would like to ping the users from a related discussion to include their input: @Silver seren, Sideswipe9th, Banks Irk, Andrevan, David Gerard, Alaexis, BilledMammal, JayBeeEll, Blueboar, Peter Gulutzan, SandyGeorgia, Selfstudier, Burrobert, Feminist, and Teratix: Thanks!--WMrapids (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Disclaimer: I supported deprecation. I think if you're going to argue about vague process concerns in a situation like this you need to also make a principled argument toward why La Patilla is a suitable source for Wikipedia, and that means engaging with the fact that La Patilla republishes sources like Breitbart, RT, and the Epoch Times. The La Patilla discussion was open for two months. WP:RSN is a high-traffic, neutral venue. The discussion was lengthy, more than enough for a closer to work with. Mackensen (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  Excuse me, six weeks, I can't count. The point stands. Mackensen (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  And for that close being based on 4 out of 12 people in the discussion? Not even a majority for the close result. It's just funny that I, as someone who would have voted Option 3 or 4, can so easily see that it was a bad close, but I guess once involved in a discussion, it's a sunk cost issue to acknowledge anything else. Silverseren^C 21:38, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Silver seren ...but I guess once involved in a discussion, it's a sunk cost issue to acknowledge anything else I beg your pardon. Mackensen (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  When involved in a discussion, whether it be an AfD or an RfC, there is a resistance to any other outcome than the one desired, even when certain results are clearly not appropriate for the consensus shown. I've had to deal with such sunk cost feelings as well in other discussions. Silverseren^C 22:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  Really? Mackensen (talk) 22:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  Mackensen, those sound like very good reasons to !vote 3/4 in the original discussion. However, this discussion should not be asking if the source is reliable or not. Instead it should ask if the RfC closing process was correctly followed. Springee (talk) 22:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, and I addressed this in my comment. Process is important, and so is consensus. Consensus isn't a head count. A good closer will evaluate the strength of the arguments when closing and discount those that aren't well-grounded in policy, or that don't have a good grasp of the pertinent facts. This was done here. I feel confident asserting that Wikipedia shouldn't allow a source that republishes Breitbart, RT, and the Epoch Times, and that most Wikipedians, in the light of cool reason, would agree with that. What's the principled counter-argument, and why didn't anyone make it in the original discussion? Mackensen (talk) 22:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  Sure, comments have to be disregarded sometimes because they aren't based in policy, but there's some limit to how much a closer should use their own intuition to make up the difference — otherwise we wouldn't bother having RfCs at all, we would just have one person say "yes" and one person say "no" and then get a closer to decide which of them had the right opinions. Consensus isn't a head count, but four people out of thirteen saying a source sucks should not be recorded as a project-wide consensus to forbid any mention of an entire website. Deprecation is an extreme measure (in fact, the most extreme of any of the options listed) that shouldn't be done on a sorta-kinda-basically basis. jp×g 23:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that a good closer should look beyond the simple !vote count. However when 2/3rd of the respondents don't say 4 (or in a hypothetical case 1) then it gives the strong appearance of being a supervote. Had the close been 3 it would be easier to understand. Certainly anyone who says deprecate would agree that means it's at least generally unreliable. But when the !vote and the closing are so far out of step it no longer looks like we are following the process. This is before we even go into the issues with deprecation that jpxg mentioned below. I mean, can anyone actually say what the standard is to qualify for deprecation (cue the "double secret probation" clip) Springee (talk) 23:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse closure per Mackensen. Andre🚐 21:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

overturn and reopen I wonder whether deprecation should be a standard option in an initial RFC, but rather only discussed in follow up threads about sources already marked as unreliable. As to concerns of quorum I think it's depends on how serious the discussion needs to be, certainly sites that are WP:UGC or have WP:COPYVIO concerns don't need large attendance RSN could overturn the underlying policies the discussion just services as a rubber-stamp. However neither of these are valid reason for overturning. What is is that I don't believe the numbers and discussion add up to a close for deprecation. I'm not an experienced closer but "generally unreliable" seems more apt. With a note that republished articles from deprecated sources stay deprecated even if republished by another source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I wonder whether deprecation should be a standard option in an initial RFC, but rather only discussed in follow up threads about sources already marked as unreliable This has been said before and I completely agree. Selfstudier (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: I second this. WMrapids (talk) 22:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Seems like a very good idea to me. Springee (talk) 22:27, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd support this as well. jp×g 23:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

To be clear I do believe depreciation is sometimes very necessary. But it should be used for sources knowingly publishing falsehoods, otherwise acting in a duplicitous manner, or is an ongoing waste of time. Having more involvement from editors at RSN wouldn't hurt either. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I would also suggest making it clear when Deprecation is needed. Some people seem to think deprecation is needed because we really don't like what the source has to say or because the source is really unreliable. From the opening of WP:DEPRECATE, "Deprecated sources should not be considered to be either unique or uniquely unreliable." This tells me that we should never be deciding between 3 or 4. We only use 4 when some special circumstance demands it. The Daily Mail was the first case but it was also before RSP was created. Post RSP have there been any sources that were causing issues on Wikipedia and thus required someone more than just saying generally unreliable? Looking at wp:DEPRECATE it honestly isn't very clear what qualifies for deprecation. The closest I see is a talk page comment that says it's for sources that continually come up as a problem. That seems very infrequent thus very few sources should ever qualify. Springee (talk) 00:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn closure The closure doesn't line up with the discussion shown and the consensus therein, even when weighing the different stances. And double the number of people have expressed opposition to the closure since than supported the outcome the closer went with in the first place. Just a bad close overall, not much else to say about it. Silverseren^C 21:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn (uninvolved) I mean, really, from zero to deprecated with such limited (persons) consensus.Selfstudier (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn (uninvolved). Deprecation isn't a policy or guideline — it's basically an emergency measure that disregards a lot of policy and should be taken only in the most outrageous cases. Everyday decisions about whether a specific reference (an article, a story, whatever) is reliable to source a specific claim should be handled by the people who are writing and discussing the article, not a bureaucratic determination of the entire source's "reliability" based on local consensus of a dozen people at some random noticeboard some time in the last decade(!). That said, even in the event that this was a legitimate way to determine and enforce the "reliability" of sources, it's not clear that this RfC is a consensus. One person says it's a bad RfC; there are four people who support options 1 or 2 ("generally reliable" or "additional considerations"), three for option 3 ("generally unreliable") and three for option 4 ("deprecate"), plus one person who said that both 3 and 4 were acceptable. It's difficult to see how this could be seen as a consensus for anything, but extremely difficult to see how this could be seen as a consensus to deprecate (a much harsher decision that disrupts the status quo significantly). Again, deprecation is basically a IAR-style "this website is so malignantly bad, and such a persistent problem, that we must overrule all normal editorial processes to purge it from Wikipedia" — not "four people out of thirteen said they thought it sucked". jp×g 22:27, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse - per Mackensen, etal. When reading through the arguments, 3 (Generally unreliable) had pretty solid consensus and so did 4 (Deprecate), though by a much slimmer margin. (Incidentally, just for the vote-counters out there, I went through and grouped together 1 and 2, and 3 and 4, and by doing that, 3/4 seem to have the majority. And no, no one should ever close based upon numbers like that - that was purely for the vote-counters out there.) - jc37 23:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  Based upon the clarifying comments by the closer, I am no longer comfortable endorsing the close. I was broadly trusting in their discretion, in light of neutrally assessing the discussion per broader policy/process/prior consensus/etc. I'm just not seeing that in their clarification. And the disinclination to even modify the unfortunate phrasing of "majority", doesn't help things either. - jc37 09:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn (uninvolved) w.r.t. the RSN thread. When reading through the arguments, it looked like there was plainly not consensus to deprecate. Additionally, the closer's claim that there was a majority for deprecation is plainly false; even though consensus is not determined by a bean count, the closer's assertion that a majority of participants favored outright deprecation is plainly false. As Silver seren aptly notes above, [t]he closure doesn't line up with the discussion, even though a basic requirement of a good RfC close is that it faithfully represent the discussion's result. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:33, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that there were some issues with word choice in the closure. And I think clarification statement from the closer could be helpful/informative. - jc37 23:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  It is not merely about word choice. The only basis for the close in favor of outright deprecation rather than characterizing it as GUNREL presented was that alleged majority vote, but no such majority exists when looking at the discussion broadly. There is no mere clarification that resolves that there was plainly not consensus to deprecate in that discussion; the only solutions for when the result is plainly wrong are either to (1) have the closer vacate the close or (2) have the current close overturned by the community. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  And from your perspective, I can see that. I think where you and I seem to generally disagree is to how slim the margin was for deprecation (or rather, whether there was a margin at all : ) - and I'll admit I'm leaning more than a bit on "closer discretion" here, which is why I think a clarification of some type by the closer could possibly be helpful/informative - jc37 00:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn, close relies on the blatantly false claim of a majority for deprecation. (commented on RSN talk but not RfC) – Teratix ₵ 00:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn, there was no majority (1.5 !votes out of 10 for deprecation). If the !votes for deprecation somehow had better arguments, this should have been stated explicitly. I haven't participated in the RfC and have no opinion regarding the reliability of the source itself. Alaexis_¿question?
• Comment from closer: it was a close one, heavily argued for several weeks in multiple venues. I assessed it as between "generally unreliable" and "deprecated", leaning toward deprecation - it certainly wasn't, say, between "GU" and "considerations apply" - it was clearly considered a very bad source, and the only question is the precise class to put it into. The outlet's blithe use of sources given to fabrication (for which those sources had already themselves been deprecated) seemed to swing it more in the discussion to deprecation in its own right than merely "GU". But the outcome could reasonably have been either GU or DEP, sure. I wouldn't put it higher than "generally unreliable", though. I've also noted this discussion at WP:RSN - David Gerard (talk) 07:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for clarifying. Would you consider adjusting your close? The "majority" sentence in particular seems at issue. But also, while I do support closer discretion, perhaps, based upon what you have said, and in light of the above, you might re-look at the discussion? - jc37 08:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think "deprecate" is a valid outcome for the discussion as was. This current discussion has been open for only a few hours, so changing it would be a bit premature, wouldn't you think? Particularly given the opener's failure to publicise it fully - David Gerard (talk) 08:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  To clarify, are you maintaining there was a majority for deprecation? – Teratix ₵ 17:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC) (@David Gerard: in case you missed this) 21:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: there appears to be a drive to leverage this discussion into removing the concept of deprecating sources. We had an RFC on source quality RFCs in 2019 Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_275#RFC:_Moratorium_on_"general_reliability"_RFCs that kept them. If you want to remove the concept of deprecation, then a broad general RFC in the proper venue, e.g. WP:RSN, would likely be the way to swing that - David Gerard (talk) 08:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn (uninvolved). It's as simple as, as has been noted above, deprecation is ou strongest possible response to a source and is site wide. As such the decision to do so must be equally strong and equally site wide. This close represented neither. SN54129 09:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn and reclose (uninvolved). I don't believe the number of users and forum were particularly flawed. I am however backing a reclose because I don't see option 4/depreciate as in any way having a consensus for it. An option 3 (generally unreliable) might, as could a very strict option 2 (unlikely but possible). When having the reliability scale of options (vs a change/no-change option) discussion, it's generally reasonable to assuming that anyone backing option 4 would back option 3 if the alternative was anything less. So a consensus could be garnered that way, but the current close I don't think can do so. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn (uninvolved), per good arguments by jpxg, nableezy, Silverseren, and others. And support ActivelyDisinterested's suggestion on deprecation not being the first step.

Side note: I'm increasingly seeing RfCs at WP:RSN for sources that aren't widely used, and have never (or only once) been discussed at RSN before. It's problematic when the source is obscure or foreign, because it can be hard to evaluate a source you're not familiar with; people might focus on whichever aspects the OP chose to highlight (whether cherry-picked or not). RfCs should be mostly a last resort, because they have this "aura" of seeming binding and settled, yet their scrutiny may be no better than if the source had been repeatedly brought up over the years in non-RfC WP:RSN discussions, each time involving different editors who discussed different aspects. A source that quotes Breitbart may be more clear-cut (and isn't an ideal example of what I'm describing), but I think the overall trend needs addressing. DFlhb (talk) 11:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm regularly at RSN, and the vast majority of threads end in simple advice. Unfortunately misuse of the board, as with other boards, does happen. Greater attendance would certainly help. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Worth noting that in this particular case, the RSN La Patilla discussion wasn't out of nowhere - it was a followup from a contentious discussion on Talk:La Patilla, on the issue of how to deal with a news source that was enormously popular but also reran material from Breitbart and the Epoch Times. That is, there was a genuine dispute that was squarely in RSN's remit - David Gerard (talk) 12:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn closure, and encourage the original poster to follow up on advice given them at ANI before launching other RFCs. As described at ANI by ActivelyDisinterested, the way the OP has gone about creating these RFCs has assured limited participation; that, and the WP:BLUDGEONing made me at least (knowledgeable about Venezuela since I worked throughout Latin America and the Caribbean during the 1980s and 1990s) unwilling to even weigh in to the mess.
  One thing that really sticks out, given the censorship and absence of free media in Venezuela, is that WMrapids has so far not accounted at all for WP:EXPERTSPS in their campaign to eliminate Venezuelan sources. As essentially all independent media has been shut down in Venezuela (see samples sources at the ANI), a thorough analysis of how a source can be used on Wikipedia will involve looking at how often other experts cite these sources, for example in scholarly sources and highly reliable newspapers. I haven't had time to look at La Patilla, but this, for example, is the case in spades with Nelson Bocaranda and Runrunes--another source that WMrapids has targeted. (Disclaimer: I created Nelson Bocaranda when his name came up in a 2008 Featured article candidate; [15] it's somewhat impossible to have worked in Latin America during the 1980s and not know who he is.) It is equally likely to be true of Alberto Federico Ravell of La Patilla, and I don't believe this has been looked at, but some use of the source as EXPERTSPS is likely to be possible.
  I strongly encourage WMrapids to work with other Venezuela-knowledgeable editors before throwing up RFCs (the best RFCs as those that are not launched until they have ample feedback from all "sides" to avoid garbage in-garbage out, which is what we have now on the RFCs), are those editors will be more likely to be able to point WMrapids to SPSEXPERT usage and history and sources and issues they appear so far to be unaware of. They seem to have embarked upon this campaign because of issues in Peruvian articles, and Venezuela is not Peru. In a country where the absence of press freedom is on par with that of Russia, most Middle Eastern countries, Yemen, and at the bottom of the list with the likes of China and North Korea, a solid analysis of sources per WP:EXPERTSPS needs to be undertaken before establishing reliability, much less deprecation. Doing this correctly will take a lot of work, as sources are so hard to find (most formerly reliable Venezuelan news archives have been taken over by the government and scrubbed as journalists are forced into exile, and most Wikipedia articles in the entire suite have been systematically biased by a few other editors hard at work in the entire suite inserting Maduro POV.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  I failed to indicate my level of involvement. I had no historic engagement with WP:VENRS, and I did not participate on the RFC for La Patilla beyond stating on Talk:La Patilla that the RFC there was malformed. I was once actively engaged in editing Venezuelan topics, but disengaged years ago because keeping up with the rampant tendentious editing throughout makes it a timesink. It was widely known in Venezuela that Chavez had paid editors, although reliably-sourced proof of this has not yet emerged to my knowledge. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn and reclose; there is clearly not consensus to deprecate the source: but there is also enough substance in that discussion to create an RSP entry, and to mark it level 2 at the very least (I have not evaluated all the posted links, which I would do if I were closing this). Reposting content from Breitbart and IBTimes is most certainly a red flag, and cannot be dismissed outright. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that Level 2 is likely to turn out to be reasonable in this case, but I'd want to undertake the EXPERTSPS review I mention above before entering a declaration, and that takes time I don't have. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  I have no objections to anybody conducting an EXPERTSPS review, but I want to be clear that I'm not supporting a level 2, I'm saying that's the best possible outcome for the source: no website that reposts content we have deprecated could ever be considered uniformly reliable, and indeed the default assumption should be of a lack of reliability. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  Same, for clarification: I'm not intending my post to support either 2 or 3, as I haven't done the work, but it's not 1 or 4. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn (involved) This might be implicit being the one that started the thread, but I wanted to explain further at any rate. Besides there not being a consensus for deprecation, as stated in this discussion, the fact that La Patilla generally publishes "questionable, fringe and propaganda content" (as stated in the closing statement) was hotly debated in the discussion, and the assertion that the outlet tended to be used as an "negative example" per WP:USEBYOTHERS (also stated in the closing statement) needs explanation as well, since this is not reflected in the discussion. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn (uninvolved). The RFC was malformed from the start, and the characterization of 3, or possibly 4, comments out of a dozen as a "majority" is obviously wrong on its face. There was clearly no consensus to deprecate the source. Banks Irk (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn and reopen (involved) After reviewing the concerns addressed above, I am encouraged by the large amount of feedback and agree that the "majority" calling for deprecation was an inaccurate description. Reviewing the closer's history and experience, I initially had faith in their decision, but users make mistakes sometimes (trust me, look at my recent edit history), so that is why there should be a more community-centered process for deciding deprecation instead of having a single user decide. Seeing that this RfC has sparked more involvement, I believe its closing should be overturned and that the RfC should be reopened in order to achieve a more broad consensus. Even though the closing decision agreed with my position, my goal was not to deprecate La Patilla but to determine a consensus on its reliability, which can now be established with further participation if this discussion is reopened.--WMrapids (talk) 06:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
• Thanks WMrapids for the ping. I share the concerns expressed by Nableezy and others about the idea that four people could possibly represent a WP-wide consensus to deprecate a source; by Teratix and others about the use of "majority" in the close; by ActivelyDisinterested about including deprecation in a very first RfC on a source; and by DFlhb about the frequency at RSN of RfCs on the broad use of sources instead of discussion about particular instances of sources being used to support particular claims in particular articles. It's obvious that the closure should be overturned (and frankly disappointing that David Gerard hasn't already withdrawn it). --JBL (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn (uninvolved so far, but read the previous discussions). My understanding is 4/12 participants opted for depreciate, and the close says "the majority agreed to depreciate". A Majority would 7/12, so right there - I feel the close is a problem because it's not accurate, I don't see a clear consensus other then "it's not a 1". Someone made a good point in one of the follow up discussions, that while the source had reposted content from blocked sources, it was translations of the better content of those sources, not translations of the worst content that got them blocked, and they'd even posted a retraction of one article found to be a problem later on. It does make sense to put a note that some of their content is translation of blocked sources, and those translations should not be used as a way to "get around" their block. But the examples I saw were clearly labeled with the source, so those articles would be obvious. Denaar (talk) 14:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Juan Branco

The biography for Juan Branco has been plagued by mass changes, sockpuppets, and single purpose editors over the last month. I came to the article via RfC, but it's been super difficult to keep things under control. Any assistance to help with the disruptions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, please! Nemov and me disagree and I totally would like more users to intervene so that I can let this article alone. Delfield (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Qwerfjkl and non-admin closures of categories

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

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

pbp 18:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

Administrators' newsletter – August 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2023).

Administrator changes

Firefangledfeathers

• AlisonW
• Amberrock
• Closedmouth
• Scottywong

Interface administrator changes

Novem Linguae

Technical news

• The tag filter on Special:NewPages and revision history pages can now be inverted. This allows hiding edits made by automated tools. (T334338)
• Special:BlockedExternalDomains is a new tool that allows easier blocking of plain domains (and their subdomains). This is more easily searchable and is faster for the software to use than the existing MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. It does not support regex (for complex cases), URL path-matching, or the MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. (T337431)

Arbitration

• The arbitration cases named Scottywong and AlisonW closed 10 July and 16 July respectively.
• The SmallCat dispute arbitration case is in the workshop phase.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Report on User:Kshatriya Yoddha

Hello, I want to file a report on User:Kshatriya Yoddha, who apparently called me a racial slur on his talkpage. Apparently I was in an edit war with the user before, but today was the day where they took the situation very far.

This is the comment the user made to me: "Cope harder sub-narmada pajeet... and sulk when you see a tall, fair, handsome north-Indian munda flex his muscles infront of mallu and tulu chicks... should i send u a fair&lovely... will help u :)"

This is the link to the user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kshatriya_Yoddha

The link to the comment is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kshatriya_Yoddha&diff=prev&oldid=1169306784 and I believe this is the current version of their talkpage. In case they made have edited it, this link will provide the evidence.

If this issue doesn't concern you, I would like to know who may it concern so I can proceed with my report. No2WesternImperialism (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• The user has been blocked indefinitely. Black Kite (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Additions to the Bad image list

The following images were used to vandalize several pages:

Image list

01 pregnant woman.jpg Orgasm denial.jpg Smooth at the beach.jpg Stydká rýha.jpg Nude woman urinating(31318958701).jpg Chibi, 26.jpg Napletek 1.jpg Penehafada.JPG Round head.jpg Meni.jpg After male.jpg Ano masculino.JPG Bilder 2011 133.jpg Thumbnail X-20.jpg 400 Bad Request HTTP (14391721952).jpg Two Young Men by Anonymous.jpg Newborn clamp.jpg Poa Phan.JPG In need of attention.png Innie labia.jpg Klitorisvorhautpiercing horizontal.jpg Klitorisvorhautpiercing vertikal.jpg Klitoriswurzel, Klitoriseichel, Klitorisschenkel.png Labia Majora.JPG Labia Minora 123.jpg Labiamin.jpg Labios menores prominentes.jpg Labia minora.jpg Labia becoming engorged with blood as female reaches arousal.jpg Labia majora and minora.jpg Michaela.JPG Flag of Germany (1935–1945).svg

--Leonidlednev (T, C, L) 22:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment This is already up at MediaWiki talk: Bad image list#Multiple files. Nate • (chatter) 02:28, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Mrffcknt

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

Perhaps an admin could take a look at Mrffcknt because it seems like there's some WP:NOTHERE going on that's being presented as "good faith" answers to various Teahouse and HD questions. It's either intentional NOTHERE behavior or newbie WP:CIR behavior. Could this be a LTA account. For reference, I didn't notify the user because it it is LTA or intentional NOTHERE, then it's unlikely anything positive will come from their participation here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd say their first 4 edits look like they are intentionally giving Teahouse users bad advice in order to deceive them into doing something chaotic. This includes giving instructions on how to violate copyright and instructions on how to canvass. Their last 2 edits are a bit more ambiguous. I would support a WP:NOTHERE block, but wouldn't mind another opinion before I hit the button. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: They seem to have stopped for now so a block at this point is probably not warranted. FWIW, another user notified them of this discussion, and different user added a user warning to their user talk page. So, they at least now have been warned and perhaps won't be repeating the same behavior. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

This is one of our frequent flyers. Indeffed, though I don't have time for a proper sleeper check right now so another CU might want to take a look. --Blablubbs (talk) 11:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Even if it weren't a sock, I would also view anyone who was willfully giving bad advice to users at the Teahouse as much, much, worse than anyone who just executed their poor judgement. Teahouse abuse causes more issues, and the high likelihood of losing every user they burn. It is our spiritual equivalent to bullying children. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

There's also the username... --Blablubbs (talk) 17:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Global ban for Бучач-Львів

Per the Global bans policy, I’m informing the project of this request for comment: RfC/Global ban for Бучач-Львів. --Jphwra (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Lil tay

Looking for an administrator to take a look at Draft:Lil tay and see what can be done surrounding the concern I added to the talk page:

• It seems that the draft for the correct capitalization, Draft:Lil Tay has been indefinitely set to requiring administrator privileges to create. Due to the recent news, should this be lifted to allow for this page to be moved to its correct capitalization? Is this page allowed to be created at all, or is it considered a bypass of the administrator lock? Hopefully an administrator can look into this ASAP and see what can be done from here.

B3251 (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I've moved the draft to the correct capitalization, and reduced the creation protection on Lil Tay to extended-confirmed instead of sysop. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 20:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. B3251 (talk) 20:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Andrevan:

User is making changes to Alieen Cannon's page that have not been agreed to by Consensus. Warned him numeous times to wait till consensus. 2600:8805:C980:9400:651E:9482:536D:FE66 (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• The article has been extended-protected by Courcelles, and I've blocked the /64 range of the IP, which has been blocked many times in the past, for six months (same duration as the block in 2022).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)