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	30	0	30
TfD	0	0	6	0	6
MfD	0	0	24	0	24
FfD	0	0	2	0	2
RfD	0	0	47	0	47
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

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

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (78 out of 7722 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Dhadhor 2024-05-07 19:28 2024-06-07 19:28 edit,move Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content Ponyo Background of the Rafah offensive 2024-05-07 18:39 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Sophie Anderson (actress) 2024-05-07 13:21 2024-11-07 13:21 edit,move Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Draft:Karintak operation 2024-05-07 12:48 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/AA enforcement Firefangledfeathers Reactions to the Israel–Hamas war 2024-05-07 06:54 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Robertsky Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates/Archived/Archive 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Connormah 2 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia talk:Flagged revisions/Trial/Votes 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Wizardman 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/BillMasen 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements/FayssalF/Questions for the candidate 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/February 2009 election/Oversight/Lar 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Merovingian 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac User:Halibutt/Archive 15 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Blankfaze 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Vassyana 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Candidate statements/AGK/Questions for the candidate 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Hemlock Martinis 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Kmweber 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Shell Kinney 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Alexia Death 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Rlevse 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Dream Focus 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Coren 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/WJBscribe 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Privatemusings 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby campaign 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Wizardman 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Fish and karate 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Snowspinner 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Dbiv 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Charles Matthews 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/AntonioMartin 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SlimVirgin-Lar/Proposed decision 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elaragirl 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll/Year-linking responses 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012/Option 2 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Filiocht 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Lifebaka 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Proposed decision 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Lesser General Public License 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jvolkblum 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/White Cat 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Dmcdevit 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Everyking 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Grawp 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac User talk:Leonidlednev 2024-05-07 03:26 2024-10-08 05:50 move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP Daniel Case Yusufzai 2024-05-07 02:34 indefinite edit make ECP indef Daniel Case Islamic Resistance in Iraq 2024-05-07 02:15 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Palestinian political violence 2024-05-07 02:12 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: restore previous indef ECP Daniel Case Battle of Beit Hanoun 2024-05-06 22:14 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish A-1 Auto Transport 2024-05-06 21:06 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated ToBeFree Killing of Sidra Hassouna 2024-05-06 19:17 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/A-I ToBeFree China 2024-05-06 08:12 indefinite edit Persistent disruptive editing: upgrade to WP:ECP due to long term and sustained disruption from multiple confirmed accounts El C User talk:AgentKaren 2024-05-05 23:52 2024-05-08 23:52 move Editor moving user pages to try to change their username Liz User:AgentKaren 2024-05-05 23:52 2024-05-08 23:52 move Editor moving user pages to try to change their username Liz Module:Chart/Default colors 2024-05-05 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2583 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Module:Chart 2024-05-05 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2578 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Draft:Cheese 2024-05-05 17:41 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Pppery Revisionist Zionism 2024-05-05 12:54 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/A-I -- requested at WP:RFPP Favonian Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2024 2024-05-05 12:22 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Universities and antisemitism 2024-05-05 07:00 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: inextricably tied to WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C User:Zee Saheb 2024-05-05 06:19 2024-06-05 06:19 create Repeatedly moving drafts to User space Liz User talk:Fathia Yusuf 2024-05-05 06:03 indefinite edit,move Foolishly moving a User talk page Liz Battle of Krasnohorivka 2024-05-05 04:30 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:GS/RUSUKR El C Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure 2024-05-05 03:40 indefinite edit,move This does not need to be indefinitely fully-protected Pppery Ruben Vardanyan (politician) 2024-05-04 22:43 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/AA Daniel Case List of pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses in 2024 2024-05-04 22:07 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Fertile Crescent 2024-05-04 21:27 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Al-Aqsa 2024-05-04 21:18 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Kundali Bhagya 2024-05-04 21:07 2025-05-04 21:07 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case Drake (musician) 2024-05-04 05:55 2024-05-11 05:55 edit Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts Moneytrees Uttar Pradesh 2024-05-04 04:45 indefinite edit,move raise to indef ECP per request at RFPP and review of protection history Daniel Case StoneToss 2024-05-04 04:12 2024-08-04 04:12 edit Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: per request at RFPP; going longer this time Daniel Case Palestinian key 2024-05-04 04:08 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case List of national symbols of Palestine 2024-05-04 04:05 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Disinvestment from Israel 2024-05-04 03:59 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case

Another ARBPIA page created by a non-EC user

Zikim Beach massacre is a very problematic piece of ARBPIA content that was created by a non-EC user and appears to be extremely off-kilter with respect to WP:V, WP:NPOV, etc. Judicious un-creation may be in order. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

• I have deleted it and redirected to Battle of Zikim, where the content was covered anyway. I have dropped the editor a reminder about editing ARBPIA articles as well, as they clearly haven't understood that (or have ignored it). Black Kite (talk) 09:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

  The author does make the point that User:SunDawn reviewed the article and even praised him for it. Animal lover |666| 14:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

It was a decent start to an article and was in no way problematic from a WP:V or NPOV perspective (it was well referenced to reliable sources). The question of why anyone would claim the article was problematic should be the concern here. Number 57 15:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

In the current climate, such pages should be deleted immediately as a matter of course imo. Selfstudier (talk) 16:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

And that's another view that should raise concerns IMO. Number 57 16:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I guess we should get rid of Deir_Yassin_massacre and redirect it to the Israeli War of Independence. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

It was a synth-y affair replete with ample editorialisation, POV tone and a POV title, and supported by three fairly weak sources that barely seemed to verify let alone cross-verify most of the claims, and with nary an WP:RSP in sight. Pretty much exemplary of why EC protections exist over the CT area. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Or, perhaps, you are the one who violates WP:NPOV and so on every article that doesn't align with your POV is automatically marked by you for deletion.

I provided three reliable sources from the biggest media networks in Israel. Each of the sources I added is considered reliable and has an article about it here on English Wikipedia. Sometimes, not all the information is translated into English and is only available within Hebrew sources, so I did the hard work and translated three reliable sources from Hebrew to English. I could find even more resources, but once again, all of them are in Hebrew and therefore won't be considered as NPOV by Iskandar323. Orwell1 (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

No, this was an page created out-of-process, and it was bad. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I am the original creator of this article. As I am now an ECM user, I am requesting the restoration of the article. Orwell1 (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

To avoid any doubt: I am withdrawing my request. Orwell1 (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

For anyone reading - you just made 320 edits consecutively adding the same category to articles. I'm not sure if this qualifies as 'gaming' EC (genuine question, I've seen people talk about EC gaming previously but not sure where the line is). Requesting further input from other administrators and pinging original deleting administrator Black Kite. Daniel (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I see we had the same thought at the same time. Revoked: Special:Redirect/logid/154419860, User talk:Orwell1 § Removal of extendedconfirmed^diff. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 19:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

For God's sake, is there anything wrong with adding categories to articles after they have been double-checked and verified? Is there anything wrong with being a WikiGnome? Would you prefer me not to make these useful edits? I have lost my desire and willingness to contribute to this project since Iskandar323 started chasing after me and marking every single article I created for deletion. Orwell1 (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

To avoid any doubt: I am withdrawing my request. Orwell1 (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Requesting Reconsideration of ECM Permissions

• Orwell1 (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

I am a valued editor on the Hebrew Wikipedia with over 20,000 edits and a former sysop on other sister projects. My expertise lies in the Israeli-Arab conflict, and I have created dozens of articles about it on the Hebrew Wikipedia. I aimed to reach the 500-edit limit so that I could begin editing in areas I understand, but my rights were removed without violating any policy. Each of my last 300 edits was reliable, verified With the investment of much effort. There is nothing wrong with minor edits. I would greatly appreciate it if you could restore my permissions. Orwell1 (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

To avoid any doubt: I am withdrawing my request. Orwell1 (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, no. Running an unapproved bot to game extended-confirmed is not allowed. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 21:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Only part of my edits were done with a bot. I still don't understand why it's not okay. Yes, a bot takes much less time than doing some tasks manually. But every bot requires development time and testing time to ensure it doesn't cause harm. Would you rather cancel these useful edits? I really can't understand users like you sometimes. If anything, the fact that I used a bot shows that I'm an experienced editor and shouldn't be treated as a new editor. So yes, I still believe that each of my last 300 edits was reliable and verified, with a significant investment of effort. And I still believe you should restore my permissions. Orwell1 (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@Orwell1 (Non-administrator comment) We do not allow unapproved fully automated editing. All edits are expected to be reviewed by a human prior to implementation. The Wikipedia:Bot policy has more information on this. Right now admins saw a need to stop policy violations by removing your extended confirmed permissions. That does not mean you will never get extended-confirmed, just that you will have to work back to get it. There are millions of articles to edit, why not find something that suits your interest and work on rebuilding trust? Awesome Aasim 22:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To be perfectly honest, you should probably count yourself lucky that you weren't blocked for running an unapproved bot. stwalkerster (talk) 22:12, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Concur with stwalkerster . -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

A few further examples

A few further examples of non-EC ARBPIA creation: Ein HaShlosha massacre, which was created on 13 October (at the time as a "massacre" with no death toll) by an at-the-time non-EC (/only just autoconfirmed) editor with unusual subsequent editing (mass adding of short descriptions to get back to ECP), and Nirim massacre, created on 21 October by a user active since 11 October and with 400 edits at the time of the Nirim article creation. The non-EC + pointed title combo is not great. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I've suspected similar sorts of things, editors gaming EC in order to participate in editing of articles and RFCs where EC is required. No evidence just when you look at an RfC that's under ARBPIA and you see a lot of the editors are barely over 500 edits then it's hard not to draw that conclusion. TarnishedPath^talk 09:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Now we also have Alumim massacre, created by a user with 31 edits. Same issue. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Such pages should be deleted (or draftified at a minimum), not even bothering to make edits, just straight into this article, with a whole two Israeli refs in support. Selfstudier (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

That page was draftified. In my opinion, draftification is better than deletion in such cases, because it can be done unilaterally and quickly. PROD and AFD take seven days, during which time the article is not indexed but is outward-facing. I see that page was then worked on, and is back in article space after being properly accepted by an EC reviewer. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The EC editor that returned this to mainspace actually barely edited the page at all; they simply added sources to existing statements, creating the impression of verifiability without actually editing any of the statements. Much of it still failed verification when it was moved back into main space. This seems inappropriate. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I moved one of these pages Nirim massacre to Nirim attack, per this request. I was reverted by User:SuperJew. While it is true that it is not uncontroversial (since the entire topic attracts controversy), in this instance given it is such a non-NPOV title, and the comments here, I feel it fulfills the requirements of a technical request. There are other move requests at WP:RM/TR. Please clarify if these are technical requests that should be moved, or if they should go to formal WP:RM discussion. Thanks Polyamorph (talk) 08:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  Since you know this topic is controversial, it's quite baffling that you considered the move uncontroversial and made the move less than 20 minutes after it was added. --SuperJew (talk) 13:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  While the topic is controversial, I didn't consider the move itself controversial since it was a technical request to ensure NPOV. This discussion was linked in the move request, which I consulted before making the move. Since you reverted my move I am requesting clarification here. If these are policy violations, then we can not wait 7 days or more for a formal move discussion. Polyamorph (talk) 13:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  Since these are grossly POV titles/policy violations it's not baffling at all. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  Not at all POV. It was a massacre and was described as such in many reliable sources. --SuperJew (talk) 13:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  Prove it. Reliable sources by no means broadly use that term. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  Should be draftified and ec protected. Selfstudier (talk) 13:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Black Kite: as admin who deleted the article above, do you have any thoughts on these contested moves? Polyamorph (talk) 06:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

  Firstly, if articles are being created by non-EC editors they should simply be removed from mainspace. If EC editors then want to take repsonsibility for them, then fine. The article title is obviously an editorial matter; as a general rule of thumb, however, I would tend to shy away from using "massacre" unless it's extremely well sourced that this is the COMMONNAME of the event. A number of these articles do not appear to follow this guideline. Indeed, yesterday I deleted List of events named massacres at AfD; most of the Delete rationales were because the inclusion criteria were so variable. Black Kite (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you Black Kite. I will draftify for now as created by non-EC user. Polyamorph (talk) 15:32, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

  Arrrgh, someone moved it back to mainspace. Polyamorph (talk) 19:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

  Provided it is done by an ec editor, thereby taking responsibility, that's OK. The issue is non ec creation. Selfstudier (talk) 19:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Major source problem with Associated Press

It appears the Associated Press has removed all of their articles from the website from at least the year 2006 prior. Any Associated Press source that was dated in the year 2006 or prior will now link to PAGE UNAVAILABLE. This is a major problem as I'm sure many articles used Associated Press sources. I've actually contacted Associated Press about this and someone got back to me saying they've inquired with the operations team about it but until we get an update many of these sources will now link to page unavailable until it's addressed. It is of course possible that they may not bring them back at all, in which case we'll have to hope many archives exist on Way Back Machine, but it will be a pretty major job to go through all these dead links and archive them/recover as many links as we can. Inexpiable (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Is it possible to run a search of references to establish/guesstimate the number of times it's used? By its nature, a lot of its articles would have been syndicated to other outlets. Serial 17:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

On the order of 3,300 articles have any source dating 2000 to 2006 using U.S. date format, and use apnews.com. Maybe somebody can improve this search for a more accurate answer (remove the prefix:A term for the full result).

"associated press" insource:/"apnews.com"/ insource:/date=(January|February|March|April|May|June|July|August|September|October|November|December) [0-9]+, 200[0-6]/ prefix:A

Cheers ☆ Bri (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Cheers @Bri! Serial 17:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Tweaked the search queries a bit; not perfect, but more accurate. Got a number closer to 950, with both mmdd and ddmm date formats and going back to 1990. The searches are in my sandbox, if useful. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Tweaked the query again, new total about 150 listed here. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

This seems like a task for WP:URLREQ - I would suggest posting there. Galobtter (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@GreenC: also since they do a lot of this kind of fixing. Galobtter (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping, Galobtter. One could use iabot.org but it will take a while to resolve since it has to see the link is dead on 3 passes, with at least 3 days between each pass. It's a better fit for WP:WAYBACKMEDIC ie. WP:URLREQ when only some links within a domain need to be saved or moved. I opened a request at Wikipedia:Link_rot/URL_change_requests#apnews.com. Follow further conversation there. I won't start for a few days while we wait to see if AP resolves the problem, and I finish work on MetaCritic, another major source outage, then retool for apnews.com -- GreenC 21:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Of note, I waited four days and the MetaCritic website fixed itself. Good thing because they had 50k to 100k broken links. See this often, sites break then repair themselves after some time. I'll still keep the apnews request pending for now. -- GreenC 23:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Earlier today, there was a big notice on the AP's front page, saying that some articles were unavailable, and to use the mobile app while they fix it. I tested just now, and a 1999 article that fails in the browser loads properly in the app. The notice is off their main page now, but there's a chance it'll get fixed. DFlhb (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I think a solution to this would be to point Archive.today's archiver to the google cache of each page before the cache expires, and then use WP:URLREQ to reference the newly archived copy. Most if not all the pages are likely to be in google's caches. Anyone with the skill and inclination to make it so? Archive.today is already smart enough to treat the cached copy as authoritative and direct users using the original url to its copy. RudolfoMD (talk) 19:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The problem is still not fixed. This article is from 2006: [1], links to page unavailable still. I have not yet heard back from the Associated Press after I emailed them informing them of this. Inexpiable (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

A recent row at RfA

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

---

Note: I'm not 100% sure this is the right place to start this kind of discussion, but it's definitely not AN/I. If there is a better place, please do let me know and/or go ahead and move it there.

See previous discussion here

Let me start by saying: I have either no or close to no prior interaction with any of the editors involved here. I am a relative newbie, having 500+ edits and most of them on project space, but spent most of the pandemic reading through project space, including past RfAs. I have read what it says on the top of the page about inexperienced editors not posting here, but I'm not opening this post to get anyone sanctioned or admonished. Rather, I want to get more opinions and start discussion on behaviour that I personally found concerning and deserving of wider attention, and establish some sort of consensus over whether and why it is/is not acceptable.

Moreover, an additional disclaimer: I don't wish to cast aspersions of any sort on anyone I mention below. I believe, and have no reason to doubt, that they are all acting in good faith and without conflicts of interest or ulterior motives. The involved people all appear to be longstanding editors, much more experienced and with much more contributions to wiki than I have. Nonetheless, I still feel that the behaviour of some of them may be detrimental to the community as a whole.

At the RfA for 0xDeadbeef which closed several days ago, Lourdes made several comments to the oppose vote which contained lanuage such as the following:

• Because I remember having acted on your complaints at ANI a few times, and on the basis of that connect and support that I gave you, I am requesting you to reconsider your stand

Kashmiri raised the issue of this comment giving the appearance of exchanging admin favours for a support vote, and in addition WP:CANVASS and WP:VOTESTACKING, on the RfA talk page. A discussion then ensued about whether this was the case. Loudres made a total of two replies during the course of active discussion, in which she generally apologised for the bad optics:

• [M]y apologies with no qualifications whatsoever for how this came out and swayed a few editors to change their votes and some others to add supports than oppose. Do be assured that I have taken heed of all the points above.
• It wasn't intended to be like this. Let this not take away from the worth of the candidate, whose RfA was drowning with few changing their !votes.
• I understand the points you have written and don't wish this to be an issue for the candidate at this point.

In my view, these comments fail to actually address the complaint, and instead simply acknolwedge that someone has complained and walk away without answering their questions. The talk page then degenerated largely into accusations of personal attack or conflicts of interest and discussion stagnated.

My concern with regard to this is twofold:

• Firstly, the original issue: Lourdes is making an appeal to her own actions to convince people to support another person. Kashmiri further takes issue with the fact that the reply is not actually discussing the candidate in question, but I agree with Noah that emotional appeal is unavoidable at RfA, and the main issue here is with the implication of "I did you a favour, please do me one".
• Secondly, broader concern on the impact of admins and crats on discussions: In my view, what has effectively happened is an admin waving their mop around resulting in greater impact on discussions. Even an otherwise very experienced editor wouldn't be able to say "I did a thing for you" because they don't have the permissions to do said thing. (It is validly noted that it's not clear whether Lourdes actually used admin tools in the "thing", but the languge of "acted on your complaints in ANI" seems to imply something of the sort.) This is not unique to RfA at all, I'm sure we've all seen messages on talk pages along the lines of "I have 10k edits and you have 100, so shut up". However, I feel that mop-waving behaviour is of special concern in a venue where we're deciding whether to give someone else the mop to wave around. It gives an uneasy impression that if one has friends in high places, RfAs get a lot easier.

Personally, I think that the appearance of due process is just as important as the due process itself, and looking at it from the perspective of an outsider, unfortunately this series of events failed to provide that appearance. Please do let me know if there is a better place to raise this concern, and apologies for the hassle to everyone I'm pinging below. Fermiboson (talk) 08:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy ping for all editors mentioned and/or involved in linked discussion, and elsewhere: @Lourdes @Kashmiri @Brat Forelli @Hurricane Noah @Tamzin @J947 @Voorts @Rhododendrites @TimothyBlue @Star Mississippi @RoySmith @0xDeadbeef @AirshipJungleman29 @Intothatdarkness @Serial Number 54129 @GiantSnowman Fermiboson (talk) 08:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• Hi Fermiboson, the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/0xDeadbeef#Lourdes's canvassing has witnessed multiple apologies from me to multiple editors. What do you wish me to do here in this report? Let me know. Thanks, Lourdes 08:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry if it seemed like I was going after you, that wasn't my intention. I mostly wanted wider input on the concerns I raised above. That said, I would appreciate if you could elaborate more on what the original intent of your message to GS was - if you didn't mean for it to be "favour-trading" then why mention your favour at all? Fermiboson (talk) 08:35, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  Hi Fermi, it was a mistake to ask for a review of the oppose based on past interactions. I also have taken heed of the comments from other editors there. Let me know what else would you wish me to do here? Lourdes 08:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  Could you also disclose, if you remember, whether the past interaction involved the use of admin tools or permissions? Other than that I have no more questions, and thank you very much for your straightforwardness. Fermiboson (talk) 08:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, it would have involved the use or the opportunity to use admin tools or permissions. Even a comment given by an admin on an AN or ANI notice is equivalent to using an administrative authority. Thank you, Lourdes 08:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you very much, and sorry again for the trouble. No hard feelings, hopefully. Fermiboson (talk) 08:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

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

I can't find the case linked to in the close. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Lourdes doesn't work and there's no archive search on the page. Can someone (e.g. RickinBaltimore or ToBeFree edit the close to point to it? And maybe add archive search to the /Case page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RudolfoMD (talk • contribs) 20:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

There was no case, we declined the request since Lourdes was desysopped and indeffed. Primefac (talk) 20:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Eyeroll. RudolfoMD, it's at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=1183169230 Fences&Windows 15:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

ARBPIA article Ibrahim Biari created by non-ec account

Clearly in the ARBPIA topic area, and also beyond the fact it is, besides two edits, entirely the product of ineligible accounts, makes a series of disputed claims in Wikipedia's voice. Should be deleted per the extended confirmed restriction, and if not that then BLP as it is claiming somebody did X, Y, and Z based on the Israeli military and further claiming they are dead, again based solely off the Israeli military. nableezy - 03:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy May be related, but I actually am wondering if G5 should be expanded to include these articles, so we would not have to waste time at the ANB. Awesome Aasim 18:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that ArbCom did not mandate, but allowed for, the deletion of these articles so Idk if it works to make them a CSD candidate. But if this isnt being deleted for the EC vio then it should be for the BLP1E issue, the fact we dont even have confirmation that this person existed or is alive or is dead, and all we are publishing are a series of claims by a combatant in an active war. But if at all possible, Id like to avoid one more pointless discussion to the 30 other ones happening in this topic area, so if it can be deleted without me nominating it that would be splendid imo. nableezy - 18:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Criteria for speedy deletion is discretionary as far as I am aware, and if a CSD is declined it does not stop the page from being nominated at XfD. Awesome Aasim 18:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I've moved it to draft. If someone EC-confirmed wants to take a stab at it then fine, but at the moment it's simply an article about someone who never had an article before pretty much sourced to the IDF. Black Kite (talk) 19:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy: It's already been noted on this board in prior discussions that such articles are eligible for speedy deletion under WP:G5, though the execution falls to administrator discretion. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

EC permissions

I temp dropped the bit but they didn't give me EC, if someone could please do me the favor, I would appreciate. I'm expecting to get the bit back in a while, but I need to edit my user page, which is ECP. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 12:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

RFA oppose votes

We have had editors blocked, badgered and cancelled for ivoting oppose at RFA. We have administrators moving discussions: Ritchie333 seems to do this more than others. I objected on Ritchie333's talk page earlier this year but they have not stopped moving the discussions in subsequent RFAs.

See some examples

Oppose ivoter Therapyisgood blocked in theleekycauldron's RFA - read discussion here

Moving oppose discuussions in the Novem Linguae RFA

Synotia was blocked by Maile66 for ivoting oppose in Aoidh's RFA

I also unblocked Synotia when others pointed out I was possibly in error with that block. — Maile (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

And today we have a bureaucrat unilaterally striking the oppose ivote of an editor in good standing.

I questioned the crat (Acalamari) on their talk page. I believe that these actions are undemocratic. We should ivote in secret as we do for Arbcom candidates; that way editors will not be badgered, blocked, sidelined and cancelled. We should not manipulate the results to produce an unrealistic 100% support outcome.

One thing we can still correct: @RadioKAOS: is an editor in good standing and their ivote in the JPxG RFA should be reinstated. Congrats to JPxG on their adminship and for trying to get others to stop badgering oppose ivoters in their RFA. Lightburst (talk) 15:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Off-topic; please stick to the original topic, viz. bollocking people. Serial 15:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I've never seen the term "ivote" before. 331dot (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC) My guess is it's a corruption of "!vote" - which also makes no sense as RfA is more explicitly a vote than a discussion. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 15:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC) i can already hear the screaming. ltbdl (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC) An old habit of mine which other editors seem to understand. ivote is !vote because it is WP:NOTVOTE. Lightburst (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC) Cargo-cult Wikipedia jargon. iVotes are not votes in the same sense that !OS isn't an operating system. —Cryptic 16:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• The last two at least were deservedly struck, as they were both disrupting the process to make a point and not actually commenting on the candidate. RFA is supposed to be a consensus-building process, and editors with an axe to grind making protest votes should be removed. RFA is enough of a mess without that crap. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Why didn't you wait for Acalamari to respond on his talk page? You gave him less than an hour and a half before coming here. (I also think this is better suited to WT:RFA. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. The discussion could have continued at Acalamari's talk page... as it happens I agree that it was a bad call to strike that oppose, and in general we should avoid badgering RFA opposers too much, but I don't think this is a problem which needs a WP:AN dramafest any time soon...  — Amakuru (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@Amakuru and Pawnkingthree: I am sure you are both right. Acalamari was just the latest RFA incident, and I thought it needed broader discussion. Lightburst (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm thinking of setting up an RfC soon (when I get time to write a decent proposal) of stopping replies to !votes (whether support, oppose or neutral) and put them elsewhere, such as on the talk page, the general discussions area ... just about anywhere. Basically, they'd be analogous to Arbcom discussions. It helps keep the noise and the accusations of "badgering" down a bit. Indeed, I would only consider archiving responses too !votes to the talk page because they have been badgering or otherwise talking too much about a single piece of opposition. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Anyway, the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/theleekycauldron 2 was an absolute bloodbath, which I appear to have taken part in and helped, and for which I apologise. I was obviously having a bad day. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• If your vote (and it is a vote, RfA is about numbers, not discussion or consensus) is not based on the candidate's suitability for adminship, it absolutely should be struck. Well done to Acalamari for having the balls to call it out. If your vote is a personal attack, you absolutely should face the same consequences as you would elsewhere on Wikipedia. The free for all punch up and the drama when somebody dares try to enforce some decorum is everything that is wrong with RfA. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  Very well put. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  It's a vote, RfA is about numbers, not discussion or consensus +1 Serial 16:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  If it's about numbers, why are we allowing comments of any kind? Just vote (!!vote) and leave. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• It's a vote, RfA is about numbers, not discussion or consensus - this right here. Discussion can go to the talk page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: It is only a vote for support voters... but it is clearly not a vote for oppose voters. Are you ok with erasing votes? Lightburst (talk) 17:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, where did I say I wanted to erase votes? RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

If I ivote "Oppose why not?" my ivote would get scrutinized as disruptive and editors would demand for me to justify the oppose. But that is a common support ivote. Also "Support I thought you were an admin already?" Perfectly ok support ivote. Some just say "Support" with a signature and that is fine. Try doing that as an oppose ivoter: Oppose (signature). The response from @HJ Mitchell: is surprising - imagine enforcing decorum by erasing a valid ivote based on entirely subjective criteria. FYI: even JPxG recognized the problem with this response to question 11.Special:Diff/1182777427. With comments like that I know they will be a fantastic administrator. Also check out the comments of Chris troutman. Lightburst (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I think that, at RfA, the dynamics differ between support votes and oppose votes. Supporters who write only their signatures or use non-arguments like the "I thought you were an admin already" vote, are normally assumed to be indicating that they concur with the nomination statement, or that they find no problems with the nominee. If one were to oppose per no stated reason, whose statement or argument are they concurring with? Why are they opposing? Other times, oppose votes that are perceived to be directed at issues other than the nominee, or are perceived as weak, get badgered, while weak oppose votes don't get badgered as often when many are opposing, probably because it is assumed that it is not unreasonable to oppose the nomination. Nythar (💬-🍀) 18:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Right @Nythar:, but you see the refrain above claiming it is a vote! It is only a vote if you agree with support. If you oppose you are forced to justify, which is the opposite of a "it is a vote". Lightburst (talk) 18:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

That does seem to be the case, and RfAs resemble genuine votes only when the number of oppose votes become large, although oppose votes still may be badgered. And I'm not referring to the reasonableness of an oppose vote; even the most justified opposes will be badgered in a 200/3 RfA. Nythar (💬-🍀) 18:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

We assume that all admin candidates have good qualities just as all have flaws. The onus is on you to disprove the nomination statement if you feel that the flaws outweigh the good qualities. I've done so many times but doing so just to take a potshot or make a point about the process, or for any other reason not related to the candidate, is disruptive. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Actually I'd like more discussion and less voting. But we can't fix something by pretending it's something else. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• Crats should strike pointy disruptive opposes more often than they do. Even (and especially) if they make no difference in the final tally, it's deeply unkind and unfair to disrupt someone's RfA to make an unrelated point or general objection to the process or adminship in general. Folly Mox (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• I have to agree with Folly Mox, HJ, and others. As a candidate who has experienced a rough RfA in the past, and was quaking in my boots before launching the second, the high social cost of writing the first oppose is a feature, not a bug. If you wanna take a potshot at a candidate in the one of the only places we basically ignore civility rules, you'd better have a good reason. There are lots of qualified editors out there who are terrified of RfA because of what dumb, insubstantial things might be dredged up in the oppose column just to embarrass them. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• I have to disagree with the last couple of comments. The "high social cost of writing the first oppose" absolutely is a problem. If an oppose vote is obviously cast to make a point or to disrupt the process then yes, I think it can be struck. In any other case though (and that includes votes that initially look like they are poorly explained), it's different. Those votes should be respected as such. As I said in the discussion of Cupkake4Yoshi's oppose vote to JPxG's RfA, Cupkake4Yoshi has every right to vote against a (so far) overwhelming majority, AND to be taken seriously. Johnuniq, and others below, have explained how this vote may be the result of a misunderstanding, but that doesn't justify assuming bad faith. It saddens me to see voters questioned and ridiculed like this, because it genuinely threatens the process. We need people to raise genuine concerns ESPECIALLY in the face of overwhelming majorities. If they turn out to be mistaken then that's great, but we must not shout them down. JPxG themselves commented earlier today to ask that people not jump in and try to beat this guy's ass on account of his oppose rationale. I tried to convince the editor not to leave Wikipedia entirely. Whether they'll change their mind, I don't know. The necessity to stay civil applies to all! Compare Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Hey man im josh#Replies to Sportsfan (hatted) for another recent example of an oppose vote being shouted down. Renerpho (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• I'd agree with that, Renerpho. There seems to be a bloodlust for some in attacking oppose !votes - and many of the objections and attacks would be worthy of admin attention (even though it is often admins making some of those comments). No one questions the support votes (as opposed to !votes) on an RFA, but it seems to be de rigour for people to attack an oppose, even when made in good faith. It seems that sometimes supporters don't seem to want to see even one oppose without jumping on it: they should take on board that people's views and opinions differ and it's just as fine to oppose with what they think is a weird rationale, as it is to support with zero rationale. As long as the oppose carries something of a realistic rationale that isn't obvious trolling or an outright attack, then it should stand. This is slightly bizarre, given the (248/1/1) close (really, why bother with the dramah and supervote of the delete when the count is never going to be anything but a pass), but huge kudos to JPxG for their approach to the oppose. - SchroCat (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  The reason given to strike that oppose vote (quote: as the rationale is false in some parts and a rant about Wikipedia in others; less to do with the candidate as it otherwise ought to be) borders on a failure to assume good faith, or at least to parse what that vote actually said. Yes, the vote is a rant about Wikipedia, but that's in response (reality check) to what was perceived as an unjustified praise of the project by the candidate (the "Jimbo quote", as they call it; the statements "free access to the sum of all human knowledge" and "a reliable source of high-quality information"). Is that rationale "false"? I don't know. But it's not unreasonable, and it definitely is about the candidate's statement, not just about the project. Wikipedia has its flaws, and if someone opposes an RfA because the candidate seems to be unaware of those perceived flaws, that sounds like a good reason to me! The vote still would have easily passed, so I don't understand why Acalamari would even open that can of worms and strike a vote that could have been made in good faith. Renerpho (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• RadioKAOS voted oppose because "the answer to Q1 is a whole lot of happy horseshit", then goes on to explain why they think the answer is horseshit. Simply put, RadioKAOS thinks either JPxG's answer is dishonest or JPxG is living in fantasy land. RadioKAOS is also unimpressed with JPxG's self-proclaimed non-answer to Q10.
  Sure there's an unrelated rant in there as well, but votes with zero rationale still get counted. It seems the bar for oppose votes tends to be higher, but even in that case an oppose vote that merely says "Oppose, I think this candidate does not have the required mindset for an administrator" which could universally apply to any candidate would probably still be counted. So to discount a vote due to its rationale would require an extraordinarily irrelevant or false rationale and should virtually always be discussed before getting struck. In a few cases an argument could perhaps be made to move, strike or collapse a rationale without striking the vote itself: in this case the rationale is rather long which doesn't fit well in a numbered list of votes. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  It's also noteworthy how close to the end of the RfA that this had occurred, so unintentionally or otherwise, there was no likelihood of any sort of rebuttal being posted due to the new policy requiring the automatic closure of an expired RfA. I have to wonder if that may have prompted the suddenness of striking the !vote without any discussion. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 00:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• Perhaps relevant here is the thing I said when someone asked me about it at said request:

I don't know if it is appropriate for me to do a full go-off about the RfA process while I am in the middle of one, but I suppose I will be honest: it's fucking sad. While nobody has individually chosen to play the part of the villain, the outcome is nonetheless disgraceful. The number, right now, is 222/1/1: but is that real? Who knows. Maybe there are some people who think I'm a complete piece of trash, and are simply choosing not to throw themselves upon the bonfire by saying so in public at a 222/1/1 RfA. I guess we'll never know: I have been given the gift of a potentially high ratio, at the price of a potentially dishonorable victory. But what else could have been done? What else were they supposed to do? The options seem to have been to do that, or to say nothing and let it stand.

On one hand, I did strongly disagree with the oppose voter's claim, and I do feel like the process benefited from the mistake being pointed out, but on the other hand, did it really warrant 7,200 bytes of response? Perhaps a better question is why we've decided that it is uncivilized to have a candidate respond directly to accusations, but it is highly civilized to have a dozen other people respond nebulously on their behalf. The circumstances behind an oppose vote, especially one based on something that happened a long time ago, are generally arcane and half-remembered even by their participants; why would bystanders be better-equipped to address them? I feel like they usually aren't, which is part of the reason people make up for quality with quantity, and we end up with giant walls of text below every oppose. I don't know how this could be formalized, but it seems to me that if you see an oppose that's so goofy you feel you absolutely must take action, it's probably better to channel your outrage into asking the candidate a somewhat open-ended question that lets them address it.

I think one of the major issues that gives rise to badgering is that, for whatever reason (an actual rule? an unwritten custom?) candidates are forbidden to (or at least considered uncouth if they) respond to opposes. This means that random other people must do so on their behalf, and since nearly everybody except the candidate is just some random person who wasn't involved in the thing being brought up, it's very difficult to tell if any given objection was thorough enough, or addressed the central point, or was "enough". Hence why there are a ton of them. I think that if we let the candidates just say "That's not true because of diff and diff and diff" or "I disagree", it would be worth a thousand "this is impetuous!" badger responses. jp×g🗯️

JPxG, I wish all admins approached it the way you do! Discouraging oppose votes actually is unfair to the candidate, who is denied both valuable criticism and honest feedback. It is also dangerous. It is interesting that we are discussing this on the day another admin has been desysopped and blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry.[2] They passed 207/3/1 in 2018. I can't help but wonder if more people would have opposed at that time if it didn't come with such a risk of shaming. Looking back, there are hints in that RfA that make me think... The question whether Wifione was a sockmaster has even been raised in their RfA in 2010 (passed 90/23/4), so obviously just raising an issue doesn't guarantee that it is properly addressed (there wasn't enough evidence to prove sock puppetry at the time).[3] We have been rightfully talking about how painful RfAs can be for the candidates; but at the same time, an almost unanimous vote is meaningless if voting a certain way is discouraged! Renerpho (talk) 00:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I wish candidates were encouraged to participate in discussion with the opposers. Might be better to not have this discussion in the oppose section, but then it would be better to not have any rationales in the support or oppose sections at all; discussion and voting should be separate. —Kusma (talk) 10:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Me too @JPxG: I have mad respect for you as an editor. You did the research when I was getting pummeled at AfD a while ago, and I never forgot it. I think your answer to question 11 was spot on and I know that you will be great in this new role. I am sorry for dragging you in here a day after your RFA. Congrats! Lightburst (talk) 02:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I think offtopic rants should not be allowed in the oppose section. Personally, I believe RfA should be a vote (the pseudo-rationales in the oppose section are what causes most of the acrimonity) so I think the perfect answer would have been not to strike the vote, but to reduce it to the "oppose" and move the offtopic rant to the talk page, but striking it was a reasonable bureaucrat response. —Kusma (talk) 10:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• I have to disagree with the people who say that RFA should be a numerical vote, not a discussion. Sure, most serious candidates fly through these days, which may lead people to that conclusion. But there have absolutely been times that a well-written oppose brought up a certain issue, incident, or concern that was not being adequately considered and significantly changed the way the rest of the RFA unfolded. Whether that meant supporters switched to oppose or they decided to stay put, they made a more educated decision as a result of the oppose, and I argue that was always a good thing, even if it meant that some of those RFAs failed. Pinguinn 🐧 11:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  When I say "RfA should be a vote", this is shorthand for saying that RfA should involve a discussion together with a (separate) numerical vote. That's what we have done for ArbCom for many years (sometimes with open voting, more recently with secret ballots). —Kusma (talk) 11:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  Decoupling the votes from the discussion would allow the ability for people to vote without making a post in the discussion area. In an ideal world that would be good—we'd allow people to support and oppose without a stated rationale. But while supporting without a statement is already common at RFA, the concern I would have is that people who voted oppose and did not immediately provide a rationale in the discussion section would be pinged and hassled in the discussion section until they provided one. So in the end, it wouldn't be so different from allowing them to just provide a statement with their vote. Pinguinn 🐧 15:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• I cannot read this wall of text in detail but having searched a few key words, I cannot find any reference to the agreed, legitimate and RFC approved process of moving lengthy, off-topic and inflammatory discussions to the TP. This approach was agreed years ago as means of removing the oxygen from debates caused by (usually, but not always) !oppose votes which were generally (but not always) absured, irrelevant or plainly intended to incite disruption. It has been successful. Leaky caldron (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
• RfA is like a marriage ceremony. The candidate stands in front of people who clap and cheer, because it certainly was not an easy path for them to get to this stage, they have been through doubts and scrutiny. Yes, it must be asked: If any person present knows of any lawful impediment..., then if you're aware of a valid impediment, please detail it convincingly. Otherwise just clap and cheer per nom please. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

  Not a bad analogy. I have never witnessed an oppose at a marriage ceremony, but I imagine some badgering would ensue, even if it was perfectly valid. There's certainly a social cost to speaking up at a marriage ceremony. But do we really consider RfA as a ceremony? Maybe all of us have misunderstood the idea. Renerpho (talk) 18:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

  RFA is an ascension ceremony. Levivich (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

  I should have said, do we consider it as anything else but a ceremony? There seem to be some who believe it's a vote, and that there should be a discussion. Maybe that's a misunderstanding. Renerpho (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• Poking my head in to give a few thoughts, I guess. I've been tied up in meat space and what little time I've had for wiki stuff has gone to what you might expect, so forgive me for not having followed this blow-by-blow. Firstly, I find it sad that JPxG says the outcome is nonetheless disgraceful. Consensus is not merely the ratio of support to oppose, it is also the absolute strength of each camp; a limited group of editors[...]cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. You did not merely achieve a high ratio of support to oppose: of the three candidates in you cohort you received the highest absolute number of support votes, over a hundred more votes than at my RfA, and a higher participation than at my failed RfB. If we were to disregard opposition entirely like we do for ELECTCOM and go simply on endorsements, you would have the strongest claim to consensus. The trust this community has in you is real, and if you ever doubt that read through what your supporters have to say about you. When I have doubts or anxieties about whether I have the support of the community or if I've lost my way, I don't go look at the ACE results or voter guides, I look at my nomination statements and the words of hope and encouragement given to me at RFA (and even my RFB despite its failure).
  Secondly, the argument against Acalimari---that RfA is a vote and therefore votes should not be badgered or struck---only makes sense if you think democratic votes are wild free for alls, but they aren't. We strike votes at ACE all the time, one of the last edits I made here was paperwork to empower a group of people whose precise job is to strike votes at ACE. We have eligibility and participation requirements which disenfranchises hundreds of editors because we believe their opinions are insufficiently informed due to lack of participation, and we change them in RfCs that get limited participation from those who would be affected. Meanwhile, bureaucrats have been routinely criticized for the lack of transparency in how they actually weigh !votes, but now that one has gone through the trouble of showing their work, transparency in the vote counting process is also undemocratic? What's the model of democracy we're working under because it seems to just be a word thrown around whenever we don't like something that happens at RFA.
  Bureaucrats are perhaps the most specialized group of editors on this project. They have, arguably, a single job: determine the outcome of an RFA after weighing the validity of "votes" or "comment" (you pick). Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence[...]the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones. If a "vote" or "comment" is based on a plainly erroneous statement, it's value is zero because it is simply false; it's arguably less useful than a bare "oppose" with no rationale. Why treat it like it's on par with something even mildly helpful to consensus? In democracies, if a vote is invalid, it gets discarded. The bureacrats already do that; they just don't show their work. There's nothing that says they can't show their work, and I don't see why we should prohibit them from being more transparent in how they weigh consensus even in uncontroversial cases. To me, that is what improves democratic decision-making. — Wug·a·po·des 00:29, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: A long post which seems to justify the crats removal of a valid vote in the RFA. Imagine that: crats and admins all circling the wagons to support the crat who disenfranchises an editor who is otherwise qualified to participate in this procedure. This is not unlike the blue wall where police are loathe to criticize each other. Pick the right side, it is not hard. I know that I am entering dead horse territory so I will take my leave. Lightburst (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Wugapodes, If a "vote" or "comment" is based on a plainly erroneous statement, it's value is zero because it is simply false;
I'll have to forgive you as you haven't followed this blow-by-blow but the so-called "erroneous" statement was RadioKAOS saying "the candidate still hasn't provided an actual answer to Q10". At the time RadioKAOS voted, this was JPxG's answer to Q10: "Yes, but I will need to think about it for a minute". That is very clearly not an actual answer. Some confusion happened because JPxG expanded their answer to Q10 afterwards. Even the expanded answer may or may not constitute an "actual" answer, but it doesn't matter: that's not what RadioKAOS commented on. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 01:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Section break / bureaucrat response

First off, this thread could have waited until I'd had a chance to reply to the messages on my talk page about this topic; that being said, this general subject is a good discussion to have.

We should not manipulate the results to produce an unrealistic 100% support outcome. - I agree, and more than 99% of the time there has been no need for a bureaucrat to strike anyone's participation. But there are situations when it has been appropriate to do so and never has it been to ensure unanimous support for someone.

As to address this message from Lightburst on my talk page, there was no "misleading explanation" for my striking out the oppose in question. The oppose falsely stated that the candidate hadn't answered question 10; there is an answer present. If the opponent merely disagreed with the answer, then they should have stated as such; saying no answer was provided was incorrect. As for the rest of the oppose, I will agree that my use of the word "rant" was erroneous. But that aside, the remainder of that opposition had nothing to do with the candidate and was, instead, the opponent sharing their views about various problems they perceive with Wikipedia. I have set past precedent for giving less weight or dismissing participation that is critical of Wikipedia or the WMF while being irrelevant to the candidate; in the bureaucrat chat for Floquenbeam's second RfA, it was people supporting because they were against the WMF - not because they were for Floquenbeam - that led to me disagreeing with my fellow bureaucrats and being the only one to argue for a no consensus closure.

As for my striking being "undemocratic", per policy, we are not a democracy. And about there being no "rule" about striking, I'm far from the first bureaucrat to strike a contribution (and this isn't even the first time I've done so); we absolutely can strike provided that there's either been a discussion that has proved the participation is inappropriate or, if acting entirely by ourselves, we are able to justify the strike. In this case, my strike is consistent with my past determinations in RfAs. I will not be reversing the strike because the RfA is closed (if we start going back and changing participation in closed candidacies, then we open an entirely new world of trouble) and because I consider the strike to be correct, as justified above. If there's a community discussion that forbids bureaucrats from it, then of course I shall abide by such a decision in future. Until then, striking or otherwise discounting participation has been an acceptable action for bureaucrats to take, within reason as stated.

To address other aspects of this discussion, those unrelated to my specific actions, over the past few years or more, it has become acceptable to move extended discussion to the talk page if it becomes too cumbersome or shoots off into irrelevancies. This, by itself, is not a reflection on the person who has supported or opposed. It's done to reduce clutter on the main candidacy page, not to censor anyone.

Finally, with regards to "badgering", while there is the voting element to the process, RfA is a discussion as well. Anyone participating in one is accepting that it's possible that their contribution may receive questions and other responses. This applies not only to opposition, but also those in support or neutral or even anyone just making a comment. The general thought is that since opposition holds more weight than supports, opposition receives more scrutiny; but if anyone thinks that supports should receive more than they currently do, then absolutely people should challenge accordingly and I encourage them to. Provided that no one is being followed back to their talk page or being sent uninvited private correspondence about their RfA participation, then no one is being "badgered" and we need to stop throwing that term around so readily.

Tl;Dr - the oppose I struck here had nothing to do with the candidate's qualifications or suitability to become an admin, and was otherwise a long commentary about Wikipedia; the one part that was about the candidate was false. Acalamari 00:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Anyone participating in one is accepting that it's possible that their contribution may receive questions and other responses -- Your response sounds like you are suggesting that the incivilities mentioned above are an acceptable way to "discuss" an issue on this site. Please clarify where you draw the line of what is acceptable, ideally with reference to the examples given above. Renerpho (talk) 01:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Acalamari, The oppose falsely stated that the candidate hadn't answered question 10; there is an answer present. If the opponent merely disagreed with the answer, then they should have stated as such; saying no answer was provided was incorrect.
You are misquoting RadioKAOS. They actually said: this RFA is almost over and the candidate still hasn't provided an actual answer to Q10. Note the adjective "actual" here. They didn't claim the question was literally unanswered.
And to quote from the answer given to Q10: so here is a bullshit non-answer So by the candidate's own admission they were unable to provide the examples that were requested in Q10. The candidate somewhat avoided a direct answer saying "no", claiming no specific examples came to mind. This seemingly left RadioKAOS hoping the candidate would update the answer later to provide the requested examples. (or a clear claim that they can't provide the requested examples) We can argue whether the answer constitutes an "actual" answer or not, that's highly subjective and not the way to "win" this argument. (not that anybody will win this argument, arguments like these can only be lost, not won) Edit: as JPxG pointed out, we all overlooked the fact JPxG added the "bullshit non-answer" after RadioKAOS voted. When RadioKAOS voted, the answer to Q10 was "Yes, but I will need to think about it for a minute." which unequivocally equals "not an actual answer".
And about there being no "rule" about striking, I'm far from the first bureaucrat to strike a contribution
This argument falls in the "n people can't be wrong" category.
(and this isn't even the first time I've done so)
"I've cheated on you many times, I don't understand why you are mad." ;-)
we absolutely can strike
Considering there's no rule about striking this is something bureaucrats just started doing. So now I say: no, you can't strike. In the absence of a rule my word is worth as much as yours, so you really can't strike anymore now. This doesn't impact removal of content for policy-based reasons, but you can't strike the actual vote in cases like these.
provided that there's either been a discussion that has proved the participation is inappropriate or, if acting entirely by ourselves, we are able to justify the strike.
And you're not able to do that. So where was the discussion?
In this case, my strike is consistent with my past determinations in RfAs.
"My cheating on you has been consistent, I don't understand why you are mad." ;-)
I will not be reversing the strike because the RfA is closed (if we start going back and changing participation in closed candidacies, then we open an entirely new world of trouble)
So declare your close invalid. Reopen the RfA, unstrike the vote and let someone close it. If that changes the outcome (which in this particular case it won't), so be it.
It's done to reduce clutter on the main candidacy page, not to censor anyone.
It's worth considering to move such comments down to the general comment section while remaining on the same page, but that discussion is probably not one for AN. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 01:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Acalamari: You made a unilateral decision to strike a valid vote by an editor based entirely on your own subjective criteria. As stated above, this was an easy pass so your erasure of the vote is curious. Editors above have insisted that RFA is a vote: but it obviously not if you are able to cancel a vote. I think you were wrong, and it is not even a close call. What is the next step for us pawns if you as a bureaucrat refuse to un-strike a valid vote? Lightburst (talk) 02:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Contrary to popular opinion, not every decision you disagree with is open to endless challenges. Go and write an article instead of wasting time with meaningless drama. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Note that at the time, I had not actually typed out that answer to Q10, it just said "I will have to think about it for a while to come up with something" (or something like that, not verbatim). jp×g🗯️ 11:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• After seeing this, this and this, I will not be participating in the conversation here any further. Criticism of my judgment and discussion around it are completely valid; but calling me or anyone else retarded, however, is beyond unacceptable, even if in linked meme format or somehow argued that "everyone" present is retarded. I'm sure there's going to be some way that it'll be excused or otherwise justified, though, or made out to be that I'm deserving of what was said / linked. Acalamari 04:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Acalamari: Nobody is calling you anything, and I am not "excusing" or "justifying" something that I think didn't actually happen. The edits you linked to make quite clear that nobody intended to use insults. Alexis Jazz never seriously argued that "everyone" present is retarded; you are twisting their every word there. On the contrary, I am convinced that the details of the meme didn't even cross their mind. They even said that they misremembered the meme.[4]

  I hadn't understood the reference to the jpg-image myself, hence why I googled it, to find out what they were even saying. It was me who then brought up the possibility on their talk page that it could be misunderstood. I asked Alexis Jazz to remove the reference to the meme, no matter how obscure, and to clarify what they meant -- which they did (the spirit of the meme is not the same as the literal message ... because of this I've edited my comment[5]). They summarized it as effectively I called everyone, very much including myself, retarded, adding that that's not quite accurate (that is, not what they meant to say). Please do not take that as literally meaning that every one of us has been insulted. The reference has since been replaced by the mundane, but intended meaning, that arguments like these can only be lost, not won.

  It is sad that you seem to use my attempt to keep the discussion going, of all things, as a knock-down argument to end it. That is not how I expect anyone to respond to criticism. In the comment I made on Alexis Jazz's user page, I said that this is an important discussion to have, and clarity is needed to avoid derailing it. If you actually consider criticism and discussion around your judgement as important then I hope this convinces you to actually reply to the criticism raised before. Renerpho (talk) 06:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  I already did reply to the criticism; see my post at 00:43. I've given my reasons for my action in the RfA; if people disagree, they anyone who wants to hold another discussion to re-instate the oppose is free to do so. As for Jazz's comment, I have struck my message above. AGF, after all, although that behavioral guideline seemed to go out the window early on in this entire thread. Acalamari 12:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for striking the message. It is a step in the right direction. Renerpho (talk) 14:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I´ve undone the JPxG rfa close by Acalamari, some bureaucrat willing to actually justify their close can reclose it. I was uninvolved with the Rfa and the discussion, but the status of bureaucrats doesn´t make them immune for errors and criticism. If someone used personal attacks while doing this, then get them warned or sanctioned, but don´t use it as an excuse to avoid admitying an errot in judgment. Fram (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I have reverted your actions. I see no issue with a discussion here (or elsewhere) determining that the struck vote should not have been struck, and subsequently updating the nomination and related counters to show 248/2/1, but JPxG passed their RfA and you do not just get to "re-open" it because the numbers aren't 100% to everyone's liking. Primefac (talk) 12:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you to Primefac for restoring the closure. The close itself does not need to be justified; it was an obvious pass and no one is disputing that, so your re-opening of the candidacy was inappropriate at best. The issue at hand is the oppose I struck, and on that issue I have "actually" justified and explained why I did it. That you might disagree with the reason doesn't mean I didn't give one. And there was no error in judgment from me - I believe my action was correct. If the community wants to exhaust time and effort on restoring this one oppose, it may do so at its convenience. Acalamari 12:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Your explanation has been shown to have been incorrect, and your discounting of the vote was the wrong action. Have you even seen JPxGs response above? "Note that at the time, I had not actually typed out that answer to Q10"? As a non-burocrat, I shouldn´t adjust the tally or only undo your striking of the one vote, so simply letting another burocrat reclose it was the easiest solution. Fram (talk) 12:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The easiest solution for causing more drama, yes. Please stop stating your opinions as facts, Fram. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

There isn't a time stamp on the question's answer and we bureaucrats do not go through the entire edit history of each candidacy, so I didn't notice at the time of my reading when that answer had been given. But even if there was one and if I had known the answer came after the oppose, I'd still have performed the strike but my rationale for doing so would have been slightly different.

Your undoing was a far more drastic move than changing the tally would have been, but neither should have been done, regardless. Acalamari 12:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The close should be undone, thanks @Fram:. I see that very quickly another bureaucrat had the back of the Acalamari. Surprise! We can have our vote in an RFA struck with no notification to the voter? Got it! I know that numerically the struck vote of a single oppose vote is meaningless, but the bureaucrat action demonstrates to me that participation in an RFA is meaningless. All you have to do is allow editors to vote in an election and then assess after seven days. Is that too much to ask? I say we vote in secret and all of this blocking, meddling and vote striking is avoided. Lightburst (talk) 13:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Please re-read my statement; I am neither endorsing nor criticising Acalamri's strike. Rather, I am undoing the unilateral reversal of the close of a successful RFA. Whether the oppose is kept struck or added to the formal records is not my concern; JPxG passed their RFA and it should not be entirely undone by a non-bureaucrat because the numbers may not be correct. Numbers can be adjusted after the fact if there is an issue (and they have been in the past, for example if a late-breaking vote is missed by the closing 'crat). The outcome is not in question, which is why I reverted the undo. Primefac (talk) 13:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Primefac: - Bureaucrats already have supervote power in deciding RFAs and now they have extended their power to striking valid votes. If this vote was somehow objectionable, why wasn't the voter notified or warned for the vote? Lightburst (talk) 14:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The outcome of the vote is indeed not my concern, and I am sorry to JPxG that we are messing with what was (is) a very successful RfA. That said, I would have appreciated if Acalamari themselves (and not some other well-intending admin) had simply undone the strike with an admission that they were in error, and reopened the RfA for it to be properly closed soon after, ideally by an uninvolved party. It wouldn't have been a big deal, I think. That's what has been suggested before Fram's action. I appreciate that Fram was trying to help, but I disagree with them reopening the RfA, as much as I agree with their reason to do so.

Acalamari, your non-response to the criticism disappoints me; as do the replies from HJ Mitchell and Primefac! The timestamp on the question's answer is irrelevant. Both Yes, but I will need to think about it and here is a bullshit non-answer fit RadioKAOS's oppose rationale. As Fram has correctly stated, your rationale for striking the vote has been shown to be incorrect in the replies to your 00:43 comment. Renerpho (talk) 14:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

To clarify what I am concerned about: It's the example this sets for the future. Both the way how oppose votes in general are discouraged, and how votes may be dealt with in the closing process. Renerpho (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Rfa left closed, vote unstruck, tally adjusted. Acalamari, you didn´t need to go through the Rfa edit by edit, just look at how it looked at the moment the offending oppose was posted. Fram (talk) 14:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Fram! Can we move on now? As far as JPxG's RfA is concerned, I have said all I have to say, and I think Acalamari have heard what they had to hear. Does anyone disagree? There are clearly some more issues here that may be worth discussing, but I feel like this may be neither the right place nor the right time to do so. Renerpho (talk) 15:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Fram, thank you!
Mad props to @JPxG for pointing out we all missed the fact they added their "bullshit non-answer" after the oppose vote was cast which caused part of the confusion. They could have easily remained quiet but chose to speak up instead and I respect that. I hope someone will notify me if JPxG ever runs for bureaucrat so I can cast a vote.
It's unfortunate that @Acalamari didn't unstrike the vote themselves. Instead Acalamari said Your undoing was a far more drastic move than changing the tally would have been, but neither should have been done, regardless. As far as I'm concerned, it's not too late for Acalamari to admit they simply made a good-faith mistake by overlooking the word "actual" and not checking the page history. It's not too late to admit that striking the vote, especially without discussion, was not the right thing to do.
Anyone can make a mistake, but someone who is incapable of admitting and correcting theirs will only continue to cause drama and shouldn't be in a position of trust. Acalamari: nobody will blame you for making a mistake, but they will blame you for not owning up to it. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 16:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

He didn't make a mistake. He made a decision you don't agree with. Everyone in this thread needs to give their head a wobble then go and add as many bytes of sourced prose to the encyclopaedia as they have to this noticeboard on a meta-meta-meta issue. Jesus wept! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

If Acalamari would honestly believe that they should revert Fram. I'd be highly surprised if they did. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm tempted and I'm sure Acalamari was. But at this point it would only result in more ridiculous drama, causing more problems than it solved. And people wonder why we can't get anything done around here! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell, But at this point it would only result in more ridiculous drama, causing more problems than it solved. Actually it would quite possibly result in Acalamari losing his bit. (but I'll give you that drama would be involved)
And people wonder why we can't get anything done around here! That's an easy one: because Acalamari hasn't managed to state they made (at least in hindsight) the wrong call. You can't blame anyone but Acalamari for that. Acalamari had the opportunity to minimize the drama but unfortunately didn't take it. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Bollocks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Your insistence in defending this out of policy action is curious. Our slogan "Wikipedia: The free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit!", but apparently not "anyone cannot vote". Lightburst (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Not nearly as curious as your insistence on continuing to argue even after you've got what you want. Was the encyclopaedia finished while I wasn't looking? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: You have not been reading carefully, just defending the indefensible. What I want is detailed in the thread; I want for oppose voters not to be blocked, harangued, sidelined and have their votes struck in the dark. I thought we all wanted the same thing? The un-striking the vote is insignificant when you as an admin cosign the maneuver and consider re-striking it. And it seems the crat thinks they are golden. Lightburst (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

And I want RfA to be a more collegial environment so that good candidates aren't put off from running at a time when we need more admins. To that end, I'm extremely happy to see opposers blocked, harangued, sidelined, or having their votes struck if their votes are not related to the suitability of the candidate, or are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, or are personal attacks. Other than that, if you want to oppose (civilly) based on something the candidate has done or not done that gives you pause, go ahead. I'll defend you to the hilt, even if I disagree with you that it makes them unsuitable. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Facepalm. i guess we agree on some things. I am finding some common ground in your statement. I saw you as a reasonable person when we previously interacted so try to imagine my surprise at seeing your messages in this thread. Lightburst (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

This is a perennial issue and frankly I've never seen the point in striking votes except in the most obvious cases (e.g. sockpuppets). Jeffrey O. Gustafson (talk · contribs) used to oppose every RfA on the grounds that we had enough administrators (this was back in the mid-00s). Drove people crazy. Generated far more heat than light. Most people did the sensible thing and ignored him. Functionally, RfA is a vote. Is consensus assessed? Kinda. If a user in good standing wants to oppose a candidacy on spurious grounds well, what of it? No policy is offended here. Moving from the abstract to the specific, striking the one vote here accomplished nothing and clearly did more harm than good. On the plus side, the actual candidate showed a good deal of sense in handling (and not escalating) the situation. Mackensen (talk) 15:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think RadioKAOS could not have gotten a better answer to their Q10 than JPxG's handling of this situation. Kind of funny if you think about it. Renerpho (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Lourdes: in light of the Lourdes debacle I went to the RFA to see that the valid opposition was badgered and discussion was relegated to talk page - like this Andrew Davidson oppose. [about that]? Crazy responses like: My experience here is that there are some editors who love opposing people at RFA ...they tend to be trouble-makers and and this whopper: his participation at RfA is as deliberate trouble-maker on some otherwise immaculate runs for office. IMO the desire to have a Dear Leader "immaculate run" is the problem. Lightburst (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The appeal of an unanimous or unopposed vote is questionable. People are keeping track of it,[6] and I guess it's an interesting statistic, intended to measure unusually high (=good?) community consensus. However, if an oppose vote is attacked for blemishing a statistic, that's a prime example of Goodhart's law: When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure. Renerpho (talk) 17:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

A few days ago I added records for highest ratio (i.e. requiring 1 oppose or 1 neutral) -- maybe there ought to be records for highest two-oppose or highest three-oppose as well. jp×g🗯️ 21:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@JPxG: If you're actually interested in proposing this then we should discuss it somewhere else. But for the sake of the argument: Expanding those records further won't do any good. What are you actually measuring there, the largest pile-ups of support votes? Successful target shooting (trying to hit precisely x oppose votes)? Why would that be interesting, and why should people want to break those records? Do we really encourage people to vote honestly if that only helps RfA candidates to be added to that vanity project of a list? I'd rather get rid of it altogether than add more entries. Renerpho (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured they were a lesser evil than only recording unanimous/unopposed runs, but overall, I think it might just be a negative influence on the process. Perhaps we could come up with better and more imaginative categories, like "most cuss words from the candidate on a successful RfA" or more pointedly "least oppose-badgered candidacy" etc. For example, I would not qualify for the latter... jp×g🗯️ 10:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I've been thinking for a while that WP:RFX100(+) should stop explicitly tracking "highest unopposed", "highest unanimous", etc. Maybe that would do some small amount of good. (Then again, in 11 years and a day of editing, I've never understood why exactly we're so worried about oppose badgering. The opposer is under no obligation to oppose if they can't handle criticism, and also under no obligation to respond to that criticism.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 05:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I really truly agree, Tamzin. I think the concept of identifying and applauding RfAs for being unanimous creates an unhealthy culture of hostility for pretty much all parties involved - voters, spectators, the current candidate, would-be candidates, and even established admins. I had some thoughts on this, but I've realized that they would probably become an essay-length post, and so I may post them in a separate userspace essay and share them later. But long story short, we are susceptible to crowd psychology here on Wikipedia, just as much as we would be susceptible to it anywhere else on this rock hurtling through space. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

+1 to MfDing the RFX100 pages as glorifying something that isn't healthy to glorify (unanimity). Dissent is not only productive but necessary for good decision-making. Levivich (talk) 18:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin: People have been unrightfully sanctioned for opposing; there have been personal attacks and incivilities in the replies to their votes; people have left the site over the attacks in recent RfAs, and that behaviour is justified and accepted. That's the difference between criticism and badgering, and we should not mix up the two. They look similar if you squint, but they are not the same thing. Renerpho (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Most concerns I've seen over oppose "badgering" have been about legitimate criticism of the opposes. That's distinct from concerns about personal attacks in response to opposes. Again, people can just oppose and walk away. It's not that hard. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 19:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Idle parliamentary speculation

A hypothetical, parliamentary question: If Fram had been a crat when making this edit, would it mean I was not an administrator during the intervening time before someone else re-closed it? As a separate question from being a sysop, which is a technical permission -- in the same sense that a ban and a block aren't the same thing. The answer in this situation would seem to me to be "yes", since a crat-closed RfA is what grants adminship, not the vote count at the end time (and indeed a 123/1/2 can be closed as unsuccessful under certain strigine circumstances).
But isn't that kind of weird? Are there any other circumstances where it's possible for someone to be a sysop and not an administrator? I suppose, depending on which order the crat closing an RfA clicks the buttons, it might be the case for a few seconds. Has it ever happened for longer than that? jp×g🗯️ 10:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Without descending too far into lawyering, I would argue no, inasmuch as it's the granting of the flag that makes you an administrator, not the closure of the RfA itself. RfA is a community process for determining who should be granted the flag. It's still up to a bureaucrat to push the button. It's not within the bureaucrat's charter (at present) to reverse an RfA and desysop someone because they disagree with the close; I can think of a few situations arising out of some bureaucrat chats where a decision to promote was taken and some bureaucrats felt that decision was precipitous, but there wasn't really anything for it. I think one ended up at Arbcom.

That said, if there was a situation where promotion was truly controversial (which yours wasn't), it would probably be a good idea for the new admin to refrain from doing anything with the tools while the politics sorted themselves out. Mackensen (talk) 11:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

JPxG, well, I remember one time this kinda happened, but it was on Commons: c:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 80#Jcb. The de-adminship was closed by a Wikipedia admin (trusted, but not a Commons admin/crat) and locked by a Commons admin. (but not crat) 67% voted to remove his bit. Commons technically doesn't require a crat to close though it's generally how it goes in practice. While waiting for a crat to come online and actually remove the bit, Jcb continued performing admin actions. Drama ensued.
If Acalamari had reversed the close themselves, I'd argue you technically wouldn't be an admin until a proper close happens. We'd consider the close as having never happened. Though you'd possibly keep your bit to avoid polluting the rights log. If you used your bit without realizing it might be advisable to wait, nobody would blame you in this case. If another crat reversed the close.. well, maybe? I suppose we'd still consider the close as having never happened. This is ignoring the question whether another crat would be in their right to reverse a close, I'd assume there'd be a valid reason to reverse the close. But I'm largely speculating here and things may turn out different in practice. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

It seems like an interesting academic exercise and a technicality. As an aside: I am rather perplexed that Acalamari apparently still believes that they were right to strike and mischaracterize the minority opposition vote. Maybe there needs to be some arbcom action for this kind of disruption to the RFA process. As Alexis Jazz has said, an admission of error is in order and it does not seem to be coming. Without an admission Acalamari will believe it is within their purview to tamper with votes and then dig their heels in. Lightburst (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Arbcom?? This is just getting ridiculous now. We should all find something else worthwhile to do rather than continue this discussion. Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Pawnkingthree: the integrity of the process is in question. Sidelining minority opposition is what my post is about. The crat apparently thinks they are ok to continue in this manner. Lightburst (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Lightburst: Acalamari have accepted Fram's latest edit to the RfA (it is still the most recent edit as of now [7]), and we should assume good faith that they are trying to abide by whatever community consensus we may reach, even if they disagree with it (even if they consider the discussion a waste of time). Would I appreciate an apology? Yes. Do I think they should not do this again? Yes, that's why we're here, to make sure it doesn't. I still believe we can do that without parental guidance. @Pawnkingthree: You are not the first here who's trying to tell us what is and what isn't worthwhile discussing. I appreciated that the first time it happened; and in most cases, I wouldn't mind being told again. Considering the topic of this thread (the integrity of a key process, and how we conduct discussions on this site in general), it just irritates me. Renerpho (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I was reacting to the suggestion made above that Acalamari be hauled off to Arbcom, which is way over the top. As you say, the oppose has been reinstated, and has not been reverted, so what else needs administrator attention? Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Renerpho: I like the spirit of what you said above - but I see this as WP:ICANTHEARYOU. If I demonstrated the same behavior and refused to admit this obvious error I am sure I would face sanctions. It is clear from the thread above that they were mistaken about the missing answer to question 10, and yet they moved on which makes me believe that they will continue in this manner. Acknowledgment is important. Lightburst (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Renerpho, Acalamari have accepted Fram's latest edit to the RfA (it is still the most recent edit as of now Acalamari only made a single edit (at 2:34, 4 November 2023) since Fram's close at 14:42, 3 November 2023. So I'm not quite certain Acalamari is even aware of what happened. Would I appreciate an apology? I wouldn't even ask for a literal apology. They could just say that knowing what they know now, it was the wrong call. While I hope it's not what Acalamari is doing, it is unfortunately a very common strategy to avoid accountability by remaining quiet. I've seen it far too many times. People who are being questioned know that the community eventually gives up, allowing them to pretend they made the right call. Archiving bots are their friend.
That de-adminship of Jcb I referenced above? That was the same. Jcb would make a few posts to defend whatever he did before ghosting discussions that tried to hold him accountable, never admitting a mistake. I've literally searched for Jcb apologizing for something, anything.. and had to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find 1 sorry/year. Assuming someone acknowledges their error when they ghost a discussion is why the drama didn't end until he was desysopped. If you want less drama, keep pushing until you get an answer. A little bit more drama today, 10 times less drama tomorrow.
Even though some people continue to side with Acalamari, the strike has proven to be controversial at best - and a controversial strike should never happen without prior discussion. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Spike 'em

I am little confused, is Spike'em being edited by a troll? I wasn't sure if something odd was going on or if I should just ignore it. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Looks like one of our long-term pests has taken a liking to impersonating them. WP:RBI will do the job, as ever. JavaHurricane 17:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Two impersonators blocked and Spike's page move protected. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

k, cheers, seeing his account messed with on my watchlist did look like a red flag. Govvy (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the concern! Spike 'em (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

There also seem to be user Spike 'em 4 and Spike 'em 5 as well - both created 6 September, neither of whom have edited. I stopped looking at that point, but there may be more. If there's a quick way of checking for more it might help. I suspect they have the same source Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I have zapped 4 and 5 - there is no 6. GiantSnowman 16:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

This lets you search for usernames. That was all of them. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Multi-page edit warring on Tulku and Western tulku, their talk pages, and other related pages

For a quick introduction, I created the Western tulku page (still currently a work in progress) and was met with almost immediate pushback from User:Skyerise. Skyerise is of the opinion that this was intended as an attack page to delegitimise Western tulku. I won't try to make any accusations here, but I'd really appreciate it if an admin were to arbitrate here. Please see:

• Western tulku and history;
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Western tulku discussion there;
• Tulku and recent history;
• My talk page; and
• Skyerise's talk page.

I find myself getting incredibly petty here so it's time to step back. This is only intensifying. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 19:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

You've given no warnings nor have you taken this to the correct venue first, which is WP:3RRN. If you believe I have broken 3RR then please follow the proper reporting process at WP:3RR. Thanks! Skyerise (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm clearly talking about the massive row that's happened since I first created the page and not any specific incident of WP:3RRN. hence multipage. You know, disputing neutrality, flagging for deletion, and proposing a merge all at once, then unilaterally merging the pages without consensus or discussion despite opposition.

Clearly something is going on and this is clearly disruptive for both of us. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 19:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

You have created an article which inappropriately separates out religious figures by ethnicity. That's the root of the problem. Skyerise (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Blame the academics who coined the term. Plus, this isn't the venue to continue this argument. I went here for arbitration. It's not the place to clutch pearls. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 19:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

But is it a place to mention that you have stalked me to an article I am working on and seem to be harassing me on both talk pages. Perhaps WP:BOOMERANG should apply here? Skyerise (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

You literally started the merge and neutrality discussion and have been merging the pages without consensus. It's not stalking if you're the one who is creating disputes and leaving messages on my talk page. Plus, when I first created the article, you kept disruptively editing the Western tulku page. Holy shit dude. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 19:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

You have complained that tulku was too short. You said to go ahead, only clarifying that you meant AfD rather than merge after I had already finished the merge. I've expanded tulku from 10,980 bytes to 48,921 bytes in the last few days, most of which has nothing to do with Western tulkus. Perhaps you could also do something productive? Skyerise (talk) 19:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

You've continued to merge the pages long after it became obvious what I meant. I didn't complain it was too short; I noted that I didn't want to flood the tulku page with a discussion of Western tulku. I still stand by the claim that this deceptive in the context of your claim that I've forked the pages. If someone wasn't aware you had been merging the content to the older Tulku page, maybe your claim that I was creating a POV fork'd attack page might hold up. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 19:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll say this one more time in bold: it's totally inappropriate to split an article about title holders of any religion by their ethnicity. I'm sure you'll be getting feedback about that from other editors soon enough. Have the last word here if you want. I've got better things to do. Skyerise (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I know I said I wouldn't make any accustations but it looks like User:Skyerise has canvassed two users in the deletion discussion on Western tulku. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 19:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Both the editors I contacted know that I am looking for their independent opinions, which I value, and not !votes. They do not always agree with me, nor do I expect them to. That's not "canvassing". Skyerise (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

So what is it when you hit up two friends of yours and then claim I'll be getting feedback about that from other editors soon enough? MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 20:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, both editors disagree with me as frequently as they agree with me. It's called "more eyes". I'm done here. Skyerise (talk) 20:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Request to re-open RFC

This a request to reopen an RFC and allow it to run longer, because:

• Legobot tagged the RFC on September 29; the DNAU was dated Nov. 3 (tomorrow).
• On October 30, further input was requested at VPR
• That day, 2 editors voted (including me)
• On October 31, 4 editors voted
• On November 1, 1 editor voted
• On November 2, 1 editor voted
• Five hours later, the RFC was closed as "no consensus."
• The closer wrote, "It's right to close it now," but I disagree. There is no rule that says an RFC must be closed after 30 days, and this one was still attracting new participants daily -- this is contrary to WP:WHENCLOSE
• Of the 8 new votes that had come in after the VPR posting, 5 were "yes" and 3 were "no," so this was trending towards consensus, rather than away from it.
• The final tally at closure was 18 yes, 13 no, or 58% in favor (18/31).

Aside from being closed too early, I think the closing statement itself does not meet the standards for closing statements, because:

• It provided no explanation for how it arrived at a no-consensus result -- as WP:CLOSE says, "A good closer will transparently explain how the decision was reached." This closing statement didn't do that.
• The closing statement did not summarize, or even identify, any arguments, on either side
• It did not weigh any votes, although some votes seemed to lack any meaningful rationale (such as the final one)
• It did not count the votes (if you think that sort of thing matters)
• What it did was simply assert "no consensus," and then write a generic description of how WP:ONUS works after a no-consensus RFC.

Because there was still active, daily participation from new editors, because the trend line was towards consensus rather than away from it, and because the closing statement didn't explain the no-consensus result or otherwise follow WP:CLOSE or WP:ACD, I think this should be re-opened and allowed to continue running until participation dries up, and then re-closed. This will be more efficient than having to re-run the RFC later, and so will save editor time in the long run. Levivich (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

"It did not count the votes. See Wikipedia:Consensus: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable), nor is it the result of a vote". Given there was no consensus in the weight of the arguments (based on policy and guidelines), the "trending towards consensus" claim is a straw man. Vote counting has never had a place on WP.

In your little chronology, you missed the point that Legobot removing expired RFC template on 29 October after thirty days, so it's already run over a fair period already. The advertisement at VPR on 30 October was the second time it had been advertised at that venue, the first time being on 29 September. Is creating more heat and dramah and dragging out a timesink rfc really beneficial? It wasn't on 30 October (when I requested a close at WP:RFCL, and I doubt it is now either. - SchroCat (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• Closer: Levivich gives me two substantive points to respond to.

1. I closed the discussion prematurely. No, I didn't. That discussion had gone on for more than the requisite amount of time. It was eligible to be closed. With AfDs, there's a deplorable tendency to relist them when they don't reach consensus, but RfCs aren't the same; they're 30 day discussions that suck up a lot of volunteer time. We only want them relisted in exceptional circumstances. The "trending towards consensus" argument reduces to "if you'd closed it at a different time you might have got to the result I wanted".
2. I didn't say how I got to "no consensus", and I didn't summarise the arguments, and I didn't count the !votes, and I simply asserted that the outcome was no consensus, all of which are just the same point said four different ways. The arguments reduce to "Infoboxes are useful" and "The infobox information is redundant to the first paragraph". Editors cited no policy or guideline that says we should or shouldn't have infoboxes, because no such policy or guideline exists. It's just an aesthetic judgment.

Changes to an article need consensus; the consensus wasn't there; and at some point we have to draw a line under it.—S Marshall T/C 20:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• Closed when !votes were still coming in, better to re-open it now and let that continue to see if a consensus can develop. nableezy - 22:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Why do we have to draw a line under it? That is how filibustering works, when you have what you want in place you can block changes by "no consensus". If anything, your close opens the door to a brand new rehashing of the same discussion, because you didnt draw a line under it, you left it unresolved. If the discussion is continuing to get new input it should be allowed to continue. Because right now, the way I see it, anybody is totally justified in opening a brand new RFC on the exact same question. Because there is no consensus against the change. nableezy - 20:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying I "had what I want in place" and I was trying to "block changes"?—S Marshall T/C 20:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

No, of course not, sorry if that was unclear. I am not accusing you as closer of anything, but what I am saying is that when users feel they have their position in place as the status quo that they can, and often will, filibuster discussions to the point of aiming to prevail by no consensus. And since this was continuing to draw in more participation, that process should have been allowed to continue so that a consensus could form even with the volume from the people who really really care about the issue. nableezy - 20:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

You can't filibuster an RFC. !Voting and walking away still counts in the end judgement and adds no more time to the process. RFCs are timesinks and should only be used sparingly, which is why WP:RFCBEFORE "RfCs are time consuming, and editor time is valuable". If anyone does decide to open a new RFC right now, it would be disruptive in the extreme. Those that care about the article and the subject are likely to have had it on their watchlist ahave had ample opportunity to comment on it in the previous 30 days. - SchroCat (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes you certainly can, and Id say as a rough definition that making 20 out of the 115 comments in a discussion qualifies. Add to it the *involved* support of a no consensus close here because, surprise, that results in your (minority) position prevailing, and Id say that is actually a solid example. Besides, the whole point of an RFC is to get outside perspectives, presumably the reason an RFC is opened is because the people who do care about the article and the subject are likely to have had it on their watchlist have not come to a consensus locally and so they seek out more views from the wider community to find what consensus may be. And for the record, I probably would have voted no infobox. nableezy - 20:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

No, you can't: filibustering is about extending or prolonging a discussion to stop other people getting their argument in.This is not the case with an RFC. If someone is replying to a point, it doesn't stop anyone (or 5 or 10 people) from !voting at the same time.

Just a little correction: I did not make 20 comments in the !vote section. I made about 15 comments to the that section (not the discussion section), and that is less than at least one editor who was vocal in his support for an IB, so if you want to make something of it, we cancelled each other out. And, as a reminder, "no consensus" for a change is an entirely acceptable and common end to an RFC. - SchroCat (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

No, filibustering is about talking so much that no change happens. Anyway, I think this should be reopened and more input sought out. nableezy - 21:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Filibustering is about extending a discussion to stop others talking (or at least it was when I did my politics degree - maybe its definition has changed considerably in the meantime). And it's not possible at RFC because one person commenting doesn't stop a hundred others from adding their input. It's a false parallel. If you think I've tried to extend the discussion, you've missed the point, but perhaps the others who commented multiple times (including at least one who commented more than me), may have had a different idea, but you'll have to ask them. - SchroCat (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

No, when people see a clusterfuck of a discussion they will stay away. Which is one of the reasons why people turn them into clusterfucks. Hey look, its happening here. nableezy - 21:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Indeed it possibly is, but at the RFC (as with elsewhere) it takes more than one to tango - and this is supposed to be a discussion, not a vote, as is an RfC. I'm not going to get into a finger pointing game, but you should count up comments made by people, if you want to try and have a go at me for something: in the !vote section, one IB supporter made 16 comments; I made 15 (yes, I acknowledge that's too many); a second IB supporter made 14. I don't think they were filibustering any more than I was, and I don't think they were trying to turn it into a clusterfuck any more than I was. I do, however, resent your implication that I tried to turn it into a clusterfuck, or I did so as part of some malicious gameplan. Neither of those are true, and you should strike the implication. - SchroCat (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Is "Clusterfuck" one of those bird names they're trying to change? Randy Kryn (talk) 03:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• I don't see a strong reason to reverse this closure. S Marshall is correct in that there isn't a clear-cut policy on whether an article should have an infobox; as such, infobox discussions are essentially a headcount, and there isn't a good reason to give "I don't want this article to have an infobox" less weight than a more long-winded argument. Under the circumstances 18/31 is on the border between weak consensus and none, and I cannot fault a finding of no consensus. Aside; this is why the infobox CTOP designation should remain in force. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry to "badger opposes", but I'd like to respond to there isn't a good reason to give "I don't want this article to have an infobox" less weight than a more long-winded argument. While it's true there isn't a clear-cut policy on whether an article should have an infobox, there is also no clear-cut policy on whether a stand-alone article should exist. WP:N is a guideline. There isn't a clear-cut policy on when a close should be overturned. WP:CLOSECHALLENGE is an information page. There isn't a clear-cut policy on when to use WP:IAR, which is probably the least clear-cut of all policies. But in all these situations, we weigh votes based on strength of arguments. Why shouldn't we weigh votes based on the strength of arguments in infobox discussions?

  If there were a clear-cut policy, we wouldn't need to consider strength of arguments at all, because the policy would be clear, and all we'd have to do is apply it. Strength of arguments is exactly what we need to look at when we're talking about anything that doesn't have a clear-cut policy. It makes no sense to me that we should approach it as: (a) if there is a policy, apply it, or (b) if there is no policy, take a headcount. That seems to be the very opposite of WP:NOTAVOTE.

  I submit that there are good arguments for, and against, having an infobox, and editors make such arguments in every infobox RFC (though not every editor), and you can see examples on both sides in the RFC at issue here.

  On the other hand, if we accept that infobox discussions are essentially a headcount, why is 18/31, 58%, on the border? Is "consensus" 60%? Why not 51%? Is that in any clear-cut policy, guideline, info page, or anything?

  Finally, if we accept that it was on the border between weak consensus and none, and there were new votes coming in daily, isn't that exactly the reason to leave the RFC open, because it's on the border, so a few more votes could make a difference, one way or the other? Levivich (talk) 03:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  Levivich, with respect, you're splitting hairs between policy narrowly construed in Category:Wikipedia policies, and policy broadly construed, meaning documented principles. We have documented policies and guidelines about notability. On infoboxes, we don't. We therefore have no basis to weigh votes besides setting aside entirely off-topic or ad hominem commentary: strength of argument is based on policy, it doesn't exist in a vacuum. And you're quite wrong that clear guidelines obviate the need for discussion; we have tons of guidelines about notability, yet AfDs remain contentious.

  As to the timing issue that BK49 raises below (I appreciate the note, Barkeep, I agree it's rare for us to disagree) I wouldn't necessarily object to this RfC being open for longer, but I don't see a strong reason to extend it purely on the basis that comments were still coming in. Infoboxes are contentious on Wikipedia, and contentious topics draw attention, especially if the RfCs are advertised widely long after they've begun. If we left the average AMPOL RfC open until comments stopped coming, we'd never close most of them. TL;DR: after the 30-day timeframe has long lapsed, I don't see a handful of new comments being enough to overturn an RfC. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  strength of argument is based on policy I think it can also be based on principles, practice, and/or logic. I don't think the three options are WP:PAGs, off-topic, or ad hominem. (And I'd suggest our notability guidelines, though voluminous, are not clear.) Levivich (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• Rare is when I find myself so disagreeing with Vanamonde but this is such a case. I think this this was closed too soon. WP:RFCEND says An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent that it won't be. and it later says Conversely, whenever additional comments are still wanted after 30 days... so our RFC information clearly contemplates situations where longer than 30 days would be an appropriate length. With the post to the Village Pump it was no longer clear that consensus wouldn't be achieved and so leaving it open for a few more days to see if that was the case, or not, would have been appropriate. However, given that momentum behind that will have evaporated by the time this thread reaches conclusion, I think this harm can't be cured. But that doesn't change the fact that it shouldn't have been closed at that time in my opinion. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  I think we absolutely do contemplate situations where longer than 30 days is appropriate. For example, where a new source emerges during the discussion, or a sudden news event affects the topic we're discussing; or where it's one of the difficult matters that demands a panel close. But an infobox dispute? I disagree that that's the kind of situation envisaged.

  I would not want it to become custom and practice that we're not allowed to close an RfC if it's recently been cross-posted to another venue. I feel that would have negative consequences.

  I'm becoming concerned that we as a community might be losing our institutional memory of the infobox wars of a decade ago.—S Marshall T/C 23:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  it's precisely because I haven't forgotten that I think you made a mistake being impatient because now the war will continue there. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  If it continues it will be disruptive and can be dealt with as such. I know you've made at least one difficult close in the past on this matter and have a better awareness of the arguments than many, so are in a good position to take a measured approach looking both forward and back. - SchroCat (talk) 23:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  Impatient?—S Marshall T/C 23:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse (involved) - Closing discussions is difficult enough and rehashing this does little to help anyone. My comment today wasn't to overturn or challenge this close but to ask the closer to remove the part of the close that admonished me for extending the RFC. I didn't violate any rules by extending the RFC and per WP:RFC it's perfectly reasonable thing to do to find consensus. Plus, it was working to get more comments. Most of the RFC infobox discussions over the past year have ended in consensus inclusions. The few that have not have been close and they suffered from the type of "flood the zone" commentary from both sides that was wisely observed by nableezy. The wall of text responses in the survey do little to change minds and only discourage others to comment. This particular RFC appeared to be contentious as soon as it started. The exact same scenario is playing out in a similar RFC that started a couple of days ago. I would encourage the participants on both sides to dial it back. If you are unable to find common ground speak your piece and move on. Thanks and happy editing. Nemov (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• (Uninvolved) I agree with Barkeep, who already wrote out a bunch of words, so I'll keep it simple. When new editors are continuing to join an RFC it's not ripe yet. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• Fwiw, the exact opposite happened here on James Joyce and complaints were made when more !votes trickled in before the 30 day period expired. Victoria (tk) 23:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse close (involved), the text of the close goes in-depth on the closer's reasoning. Seems like a fair and well described close. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - The RFC was opened for over a month & it was time for closure. GoodDay (talk) 14:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
• Bad Close (uninvolved) Having an absolutist fixed set time view as the closer suggests is a no bureaucracy violation, and as comments were still coming in, the close rightfully should have been forestalled. Moreover, the stated rationale for the jump to close makes little sense, because that RfC was taking basically no effort by the community as a whole, and it takes very little effort and mere minutes to leave a comment there. It is neither a complicated, nor unfamiliar matter for the community to deal with, and is in total a small content editing decision. So, this close wrongfully interfered with community consensus gathering by cutting it off while the community was commenting. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: In the RfC I suggested the article would benefit from an infobox. The closure went against my suggestion. But I'd find it truly pathetic were I to offer an opinion here! The two sides are already split along the lines they chose in the RfC. The Ayes to the infobox find the closure premature or otherwise problematic; the Nays find nothing wrong with it. I'd suggest, although I suspect this is how it's going to play out anyway, that only the opinions of uninvolved editors should be taken into account. Take care, all. -The Gnome (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Principles of timing discussion closes

I've been trying to extract the principles that underlie Levivich's, Nableezy's and Barkeep's dissents here, and I think their basic position is that consensus is better than no consensus. (Am I being fair?) They're saying I should have waited to close because consensus might have formed, and if I understand them right, then I actually disagree with them at a philosophical level. On a philosophical level, I think that where there isn't a consensus, we shouldn't try to make one happen. We certainly shouldn't wait for a moment when consensus appears and then pounce. I think that we should close the discussions before us when they're eligible to be closed and participants who want them closed, and if there isn't a consensus there at that time, then as a matter of principle we should close it then and there as "no consensus". If I'm wrong -- if it's actually right to use timings to engineer or construct a marginal consensus out of a no-consensus outcome -- then we need to write that up and put it in Wikipedia:Closing discussions because it's nowhere to be found there!—S Marshall T/C 14:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

It is on that page, WP:WHENCLOSE, last two bullets. In this case, second bullet point, discussion was not slowing down, it was picking up (8 new participants in the four days prior to the close, including one on the day of, and one the day before), and, third bullet point, further discussion would have been useful because it was trending towards, not away, from consensus (the majority in favor over the course of those 4 days got larger, 5/8 is 62.5% in favor, and the discussion in tots ending up at 58% in favor at the time of close, which is either consensus, or close to it, depending on your view).

Continued new participation + further participation would make a difference = keep it open, per WHENCLOSE. Levivich (talk) 15:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I think you're entirely missing my point.—S Marshall T/C 15:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, I am. I'm also missing Vanamonde's point about strength of arguments above. This seems clear to me for the reasons I've said above. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Levivich (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Its if there is a chance of a consensus developing it is better to let that happen than to close it on some timeline, and if there are people still coming in to comment then there is still a chance of a consensus developing. I dont really care which way this goes tbh, I have zero interest in the infobox wars or the "content creators" vs the "wikignomes" or any of the other battle lines that appear to exist here. But just on a process question, if things are looking like more time will potentially lead to a consensus, then it is better to allow that to happen than to close it as no consensus. Its why we relist things. nableezy - 16:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, let me help you with that. We agree that the key paragraphs are the last two bullets of WP:WHENCLOSE. They read:

• When the discussion is stable: The more contentious the subject, the longer this may take. Two signs of achieving this state are the same editors repeating themselves, and the rate of other editors joining the conversation is slowing.
• When further contributions are unlikely to be helpful: If additional comments, even weeks or months later, might be helpful, then don't close the conversation. Most conversations do not need to be closed. On the other hand, when further responses are likely to result in little more than wasting everyone's time by repeating the same widely held view, then it should be closed sooner rather than later. In between, wait to see whether enough information and analysis has been presented to make the outcome (including an outcome that editors do not agree) clear.

You understand that to mean I should have left the discussion open.

Well, on the first of those bullets, we haven't reached the point where the rate of other editors joining the conversation is slowing, but we've certainly got to the point where the same editors are repeating themselves. There's an opportunity for a sysop to consider whether or how to manage the conflict between SchroCat and Dronebogus.

On the second, the further contributions are definitely unhelpful. Infobox decisions are straight up votes. I can tell that you're amazed and horrified by this fact, but it's how it is. Arbcom has specifically asked the community to come up with a guideline or at least a set of principles about infoboxes but after the last lot of infobox wars, nobody had the stomach to start the RfC. Everyone was either sick of it or topic banned.

I don't get why I should care that it was "trending towards consensus". It's not my job to find a consensus. It's my job to read, understand, think, and decide if there's a consensus or not. I make that determination at the time.—S Marshall T/C 16:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• I think both SchroCat and Dronebogus should have been formally warned for their suboptimal behavior in that discussion. In fact I started to fill out the paperwork to do so but decided I wouldn't have had the time to defend the action in the following days so I didn't take that action. I was getting ready to take SchroCat to AE for continuing that less than optimal behavior in this discussion but then he left me a friendly and productive talk page message and so I decided to try responding there in a softer approach. But that sub-optimal behavior doesn't change that that new and productive comments were being left - it is my opinion that the comments from October 30th on were collectively quite productive. I think this idea that we need 30 days to find consensus was a bad mindset for you to have had when approaching this close. Consensus can, and often is, found faster than 30 days even in an RFC and there are times - and this is one - where consensus might take longer than 30 days to find. The goal of an RfC is to gauge what the community thinks about a specific issue not to have a time limited discussion. Hopefully, there consensus can be found. If it can't it should be closed as such, but yes you shouldn't prioritiize some 30 day deadline over the finding of consensus, which is exactly what the information pages tell you to do. I think you misapplied those principles when doing this close and sadly that misapplication has caused a harm that we can't easily fix just by reopening. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

^ I agree with this, and would add: it should matter that it was "trending towards consensus" because any closer's job, first and foremost, is to not get in the way of consensus by closing too soon--exactly what WHENCLOSE says.

I don't really care about this infobox or infoboxes in general, either, but what I do care about is that individual editors do not singlehandedly shut down productive discussions by other editors. I care that closers don't start closing things just because 30 days have passed when new participants are joining the conversation. If we don't wait for discussions to run through before closing them, we short-circuit the consensus-building process. This is especially true when the close is "no consensus" -- what is the point of closing a discussion as "no consensus" if it's still ongoing? What good does that gain? There is a perception amongst some that stopping discussion is a good thing. I disagree, strongly. Levivich (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Building off what Levivich says here, one thing I wish more closers would do is distinguish between "no consensus" and "consensus against". In any number of RfCs there is a consensus against something which is absolutely as valuable to know as if there is consensus for something but it's instead closed as "no consensus". But that's a periphery concern to the facts of this case where the outcomes were realistically going to be either consensus for or no consensus and a couple days more of participation could, and should, have let us know which was the true opinion of the community. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

If the community agrees with you and Levivich, then what edit would we make to Wikipedia:Closing discussions to summarize these points?—S Marshall T/C 17:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

None. I think you didn't properly apply what is already there in WP:WHENCLOSE: it was too soon, it wasn't stable, and further contributions were likely to be helpful. If the community agrees that the timing wasn't correct - and I will note that of the editors discussing that point a significant number of editors seem to agree, with Vanamonde offering the most strident defense of timing as opposed to the overall content of the close which I don't object to - I hope the outcome of this will be for you to factor that feedback into your future decisions about when you close a discussion. Of course Levivich has already said the outcome he wants - for the discussion to be reopened. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Because I think it's clear, my answer is also "none," but I'd put the question back to you, S Marshall: what words, had they been written at WP:Closing discussions, would have caused you to conclude "not yet time to close" for this particular RFC on Nov 2? Personally, I generally don't think bright-line rules are helpful, so I wouldn't be in favor of anything like "X days with no new comments," and I think the current description on the page is clear enough, but not everyone agrees with that, so perhaps there is some other/additional language that would clarify it, that isn't a bright-line rule. Levivich (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, it's surprising that you'd to ask me to write the words that justify your view when I don't agree with you... but okay, let's try it.

Straight votes: In rare cases, the community needs to make a decision about which no policies or guidelines are germane. These tend to be aesthetic judgments, such as which of two photographs to use, or whether the article should have an infobox. Before deciding to treat a discussion as a straight vote, the closer should make sure that nobody has cited a germane policy or guideline in the discussion, and should then use their personal knowledge and searches to make sure that no policy or guideline is germane. Where the matter is a straight vote, try to avoid a "no consensus" outcome. You should instead leave the discussion unclosed until the !votes swing one way or the other.—S Marshall T/C 18:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• S Marshall|, you wrote "There's an opportunity for a sysop to consider whether or how to manage the conflict between SchroCat and Dronebogus." I wouldn't know about such an opportunity. What I do know is that the recommendation in WP:BLUDGEON is treated with a lot of indifference by everyone, including administrators. When a discussion develops into a conflict, then, more often than not, the reason is that one or more contributors are permitted to attempt and force their point of view by the sheer volume of their comments. For instance, SchroCat was twice warned they're all over RfC, bludgeoning the discussion, once by yours truly, but the admonition to allow others to contribute was ignored. (Schrocat even came to my talk page to accuse me of "incivility".) I strongly believe that the discussion would have proceeded much better, irrespective of conclusion, if the noise was forced down. -The Gnome (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  You made only one less comment that me in the !vote section, including the disgusting comment "The hatred against infoboxes per se, however, exhibited openly by some contributors, as I've witnessed in the past, is amusing, though it verges on the pathological". That was followed up by Dronebogus's comments "SchroCat, I agree your obsessiveness here is pathological and disruptive" and "SchroCat is acting obsessive, hypocritical, and disruptive". And I thought Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions was supposed to mean something. - SchroCat (talk) 15:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  I did write that. I'm not the civility police: as a discussion closer, I do content, not conduct. All I do is determine what the community thinks about something and write it up. Anyone can see that a conflict between SchroCat and Dronebogus exists but that's conduct. It's for uninvolved sysops to determine the rights and wrongs, i.e., not me.

  Having said that, the conflict touches on my role because of how it affects discourse. Infoboxes are a designated contentious topic and they generate one heck of a lot of RfCs, so if two prolific editors are often arguing about infoboxes, then it's in the best interests of the encyclopaedia for that conflict to be managed.

  You've mentioned WP:BLUDGEON and measured it in terms of the number of comments someone writes in a discussion. I don't measure it in those terms, though. Consensus-seeking editors talk to each other. They reply to each other's points. Each tries to understand the other's position and address their arguments and that's awesome and it's what a request for comment is for. And some editors are passionate about their subject, which is one of the things about Wikipedians that I find most endearing. I'm a discussion closer because I rather enjoy reading such conversations. And let's remember that WP:BLUDGEON isn't a policy or guideline, although it is certainly widely cited.

  I'm saying that the number of contributions someone makes to a discussion isn't a problem. Where editors talk about each other and restate their own positions while ignoring the other's points, that's the problem.—S Marshall T/C 17:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Query about use of Village Pump Proposals

• Queries for Barkeep49 and Levivich; at the point you made your (initial) posts to this thread, were you aware that the October 30 VPR post followed on a September 30 post of same? How is this not thinly-disguised canvassing or easily gamed (as in, if I haven't yet gotten the result I want, I'll keep cross-posting 'til I do)? And is even the first VPR an appropriate use of VPR; that is, what is the scope of VPR (I was under the impression it was for meta issues, not individual article disputes), and how does repeated use of it for individual articles, rather than issues of broader impact across all articles, not facilitate "asking the other parent" and gaming of the system? I'm truly confused about why we would stall closing an RFC because someone repetitively asks for more feedback, worried about the slippery slope acceptance of that, and wonder how VPR is intended to be used, and how allowing an RFC to continue running as long as people are cross-posting about it elsewhere will not lead to gaming the system, and make anyone reluctant to come in and close an RFC. As a non-admin, I'm not in a position to state whether the close was premature, but S Marshall is a most sensible editor; I'd not want us to be discouraging sensible editors from tackling tough closes, and I'm truly confused about why multiple cross-posts about an individual article isn't gaming the system, and why we want to open that door. Why should VPR be used to canvass editors to infobox discussions? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  I don't really have an opinion on RFC notifications at VPR. Levivich (talk) 04:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  Levivich ok, just me trying to understand whether VPR was used appropreately in this case, and maybe someone will clue me in, but for your part specifically, when you said in your opening post that "On October 30, further input was requested at VPR", were you aware it was a duplicate of a September 30 post? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  I don't remember whether, a month ago, I saw that post on VPR or not. Also, I have no idea where else, besides VPR, this may or may not have been advertised. I only mentioned the Oct 30 VPR post because that is what brought me and other voters (I assume) to vote between Oct 30 and Nov 2, when the RFC was closed, and I'm asking for this RFC to be reopened because there was active voting on the day of, and in the days prior, to the close. I don't mind answering your questions of course, but tbh I don't understand why the earlier VPR post, my thoughts on its propriety, or my awareness of it, is relevant to whether this RFC should be reopened because there were new votes coming in. Levivich (talk) 05:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  It's me wondering how many times someone can "ask the other parent", and worrying where that will lead if we truly endorse same, and concerned that such a trend will turn VPR in to the go-to place to canvass. Re you in particular, just wanting to doublecheck whether the knowledge of the earlier post changes your initial impression. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  It doesn't change my view. I think when an RFC is "tied" (or close to it) after 30 days, it's a good idea to advertise for more input. If editors have already invested time into an RFC and it's "on the border" of achieving consensus (like 58%), trying to get more editors to participate is the most efficient route to a clear result. Also, I don't really see how a post to any village pump can be canvassing, so long as it's neutrally-worded, since the village pump isn't an audience with a particular viewpoint. As to VPR being overrun by RFC notices, yeah, that could be a problem, but I don't think that is relevant to whether this RFC should be reopened. Levivich (talk) 05:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thx, Levivich; now I understand your viewpoint. (And glad you acknowledge my concern about VPR being overrun by RFC notices, but I guess we'll have to cross that bridge if we come to it.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  There's nothing wrong publicizing a RFC on VP per WP:RFCTP. It's particularly strange accusation of "thinly-disguised canvassing." What particular group is being canvased here? Are you opposed to getting more input? Nemov (talk) 12:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  WP:RFCTP says you can post on Village Pump forums "if related to it". Can you explain how a content discussion is "related to" the Village Pump forums? I'm not convinced it's "related to" it enough for posting once, let alone twice. - SchroCat (talk) 12:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  I was not aware but I disagree Sandy with your idea that it's thinly disguised canvassing. Both posts meet the criteria laid out in the guideline, with the only questionable piece being the repeated posting. What I think that shows is a belief by Nemov that broader participation will support their POV which may or may not be correct but seems like the kind of action we want to avoid WP:LOCALCON issues. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  They don't meet the criteria. The VP forums are not there to be used for advertising content RFCs. Only RFCs that are "related to" the particular forum should be posted there. We have a feedback request service for advertising RFCs, not every other forum that people think they want to clog up once, let alone twice. - SchroCat (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  You're right that content doesn't belong on the Village Pump. However I think, for a number of historical and practical reasons, that I wouldn't label Infobox disputes as purely content ones and this is why I did not find a single notification to a pump objectionable but instead in keeping with the CANVASS guidelines. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  We will have to differ on whether it ever appropriate to post to the VP for something that is not supported related to VP activity. It's certainly not justified by the RFC guidelines and I personally think it wholly inappropriate. In this case, if only it were "a single notification": the notification that was put on the VP was left after Legobot removed the RFC tag and after I left a request at WP:RFCL was the second one post on that board about the same RFC. The RFC had run for over 30 days, been on the Feedback Request messaging service and been advertised inappropriately on a VP forum and there was still no consensus before it was inappropriately added to the VP forum for a second time. Disruptive much? However, as it seems that people are not going to bother with the the guidelines at WP:RFCTP, it does now mean that any future IB discussions are likely to see such notifications at other semi- or un-related forums - FAC, etc, is likely to now have such notifications neutrally notifying of the process. I wonder how long it will be before someone is accused of gaming the system by doing just that. - SchroCat (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, BK, that answers my question then. It's ten or fifteen years too late now, with the fait accompli accomplished, but it's interesting that posts to WT:FAC and other places were avoided for so many years while IBs were imposed on FAs, as posting there was thought to be a breach of the spirt of canvassing. I've continued my discussion of broader concerns at User talk:SchroCat, as they're beyond the scope of this closure discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  But since we're here at AN, where admins can opine on such things, and because the last Arbcase requested a community-wide discussion of infoboxes, why are (most often, the same) editors being allowed to pursue individual article infoboxes, and not admonished to open the community-wide RFC instead? How is the arbcase not being flouted? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  Never mind, SchroCat located a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 143#Infobox RFC. And I even participated in it (growin' old ain't for sissies, apologies). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Use of Village Pump Proposals

Back to the concern about how to publicize RFCs, and whether Village Pump Proposals is best used for meta-issues, or should be used for individual article disputes, and why the approach taken here seemed to breach the spirit of the canvassing guideline. If publishing RFCs to VPR is to become the accepted norm, it could overrun Village Pump Proposals when there are other options available to more directly engage editors knowledgeable in a specific content area. WP:RFCTP mentions that RFCs can be publicized on talk pages of relevant WikiProjects.

Nemov you have notified VPR of five infobox discussions on four Featured articles, but have never once notified the relevant WikiProjects, which is the place where (theoretically) editors knowledgeable about that specific content area are more likely to congregate, follow or respond. The four FAs all passed FAC without infoboxes. The five articles are:

1. FA Rod Steiger, 21 March, which 3 WikiProjects have tagged, in addition to WT:FAC which could have been notified
2. Colleen Ballinger, 27 April, which 5 WikiProjects have tagged
3. FA Richard Wagner, 11 July, which 6 WikiProjects have tagged, and FAC could also be notified
4. FA Felix Mendelssohn, 17 July, which 6 WikiProjects have tagged, and FAC
5. FA Georges Feydeau, September 30 and again on October 30, which 5 WikiProjects have tagged, and FAC

If WikiProjects and other more directly involved pages were approached first, this whole matter would seem much less like a problem waiting to happen, where key pages and players weren't notified, and more like an attempt to reach those editors most likely to understand the content issues, rather than appear only because of a stance on infoboxes. I hope we can agree that moving these acrimonious discussions into the realm of what a useful infobox would convey on a given topic-- rather than just IB yay or nay-- would benefit both the articles and the participants, and that one goal should be to engage those who best know the content and sources. Absent that, it still seems to be that the approach taken on those five articles is more likely only to pull in editors who have strong views about infoboxes, which is likely to continue to result in heated discussions along the lines of yea or nay on IBs, rather than specific benefits to specific articles.

My suggestion continues to be that this was not an appropriate use of VPR, which should be reserved for meta issues; if it is an appropriate use of VPR, then we should expect to see all RFCs posted there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

As others have mentioned, this isn't an issue and neutral worded notices that encourage more feedback are good. I will continue to do so when it's necessary to help find consensus. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I've always seen neutrally worded notifications of a discussion to WikiProject talk pages, noticeboards, or village pumps as best practice and not canvassing. I think canvassing only comes into play when you start going offwiki or you give notifications to individuals (rather than groups). I appreciate that others may have a different interpretation of WP:CANVASS, and I have been surprised in the past at how vague WP:CANVASS is. I think that page would benefit from a bulleted list of allowed notifications and disallowed notifications, rather than its appropriate/inappropriate/scale/message/audience/transparency table. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I wonder if the tension here between general notifications and project specific notifications arises from the fact that disagreements about infoboxes are sometimes between general supporters of infoboxes who believe in good faith that they practically always add value to an article, and specific cases where editors working on an article feel that an infobox is not justified (as I argued in this RfC, for full disclosure) because there is not enough information that is true and not misleading to include in one. General appeals for more participation in an RfC are likely to move the needle away from the subject-specific or article-editor preference. That doesn't mean it's wrong to post these notifications to places like the village pumps, but I think it's likely they'll have that effect, whatever the intent of the notification. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Mike Christie did you mean to include a link on "as I argued in this RFC")? Yes, that is (one) part of the issue. Considering the view expressed here on the use of VPR for notifications, then fora like FAC and GAN should also be noticed in future infobox discussions. And I continue to request that Novem (who as far as I've seen, is the only editor using VPR for infobox discussions) first use the more typical avenue of notifying the WikiProjects tagged on the article page, or at least do both. As Mike says-- to avoid moving the needle away from people who work in the specific content area. Realistically, because FAs have been targeted for infobox inclusion, the FA-process community should have been a bigger part of the discussion all along, and yet were not notified historically. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

No. The Village Pump is called that because it is the place where any and all Wikipedians can come together to discuss anything.

We have some loosely topic-defined VPs simply because having one page would be too long. But VP/Misc does exist for everything else.

Let's not try to hyper-control what should be an open forum for discussion.

If the concern is that VP/Proposals has been getting too long of late, then let's talk about adding another sub-page. not curtailing open discussion. - jc37 15:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

If you think this should be allowable, then WP:RFCTP (which suggests that you can only post RFCs on Village Pump forums "if related to it") needs to be re-written, because this goes in the face of the current guidelines. - SchroCat (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

First of all, that's an essay, but let's sidestep that as immaterial at the moment.

I don't see an issue with the text. The sub-pages are topical. And MISC is there for the rest. - jc37 16:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I think there's a natural hierarchy of notifications for content issues. An RfC about how to present Rotten Tomatoes reviews in a film article may only need to be notified to the films project. Some RfCs might benefit from notifications to multiple WikiProjects, and perhaps to FA/FL/GA pages if good/featured content is involved. The broader the question at the RfC (a matter of editorial judgement, of course), the higher up the hierarchy the notifications should go. But I can't see a reason why anyone would want to notify village pumps and not notify the lower (i.e. more focused) levels of the hierarchy. I'd interpret RFCTP to mean this when it says "if related to it". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Getting hung up on controlling the venue of a discussion, kinda gets into WP:CREEP territory. The important thing is that the discussion be somewhere where interested editors may join in the discussion in question. - jc37 16:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but it's also true that notifications shouldn't omit appropriate pages, and that doing so can unintentionally introduce biases. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Can and has introduced bias. Many of us who held what are now apparently old-fashioned views of what comprised Canvassing, and followed the spirt of what we believed the guideline meant, never dared discuss an infobox proposal outside of the article talk page, for fear of arb sanction. And yet today, centralized "what was once viewed as canvassing" is allowed, while talk page misbehaviors are the norm. Standards of acceptance have apparently changed, after the horse already left the barn while others were sidelined by previous ideas about (not) canvassing; the guidelines need to reflect the changed attitudes. I can't decipher any useful purpose for escalating to VPR when more relevant WikiProjects are ignored and bypassed. Perhaps we should just have a message board dedicated to infobox proposals if VPR is to be used as a beacon for proponents of one side of a discussion, while bypassing fora where others are present. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

IMHO, WikiProjects that relate to an RFC, is the best place to notify interested editors. The Village Pump pages? are kinda like a dusty attic or basement. Unless you have'em on your watchlist? you ain't gonna visit them much. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification has had this covered for a very long time. - jc37 16:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it says to use Village Pump "for discussions that have a wider influence such as policy or guideline discussions". However you want to look at this, the guidance is all about only using VP for non-content matters. As I said above, if they are going to be used for content matters in future, then the guidance will have to be re-written, because at the moment the use for advertising individual content discussions on individual pages is inappropriate. - SchroCat (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• I suggest we say that it's okay to cross-post to the Village Pump but if it's a Featured Article then WT:FAC is a more relevant venue.—S Marshall T/C 19:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

  I know nothing about FA, but if there isn't already, it seems like there should an FA RFC page that lists all current RFCs on FA talk pages (not just infobox). Levivich (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

  These last two proposals still bypass WikiProjects and, for example, GAs. The problem is bigger than just FAs (although FAs seem to have been targeted because ... well, they're FAs, so they're the best place for establishing fait accompli. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Issue on Mt. Sinai Holy Church of America

The admin continues to make changes on that page that dishonors the leadership of our great organization by removing their titles from their names. 2600:6C5A:5AF0:9BA0:E98F:BBD6:C1B8:5A14 (talk) 19:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Article: Mount Sinai Holy Church of America.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Edits like this one are completely acceptable (see MOS:PREFIX). This has nothing to do with "honor," and referring to an organization as "our" and "great" indicates you have both a POV and a conflict of interest. Nythar (💬-🍀) 21:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I blocked Special:contributions/2600:6C5A:5AF0:9BA0:0:0:0:0/64 on October 10 for one week for disruptive editing at the article. My guess is they are the same person as Knightja, whom I just indeffed for not following the proper procedures for undisclosed paid editing, and continuing to edit the article after having been warned about their conflict of interest.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposed motion to modify the extended confirmed restriction provisions

The Arbitration Committee is considering a motion to modify the provisions of the extended confirmed restriction. Comments are welcome at the relevant request for clarification.

In accordance with the procedural requirements for modifications of the Arbitration Committee procedures, a duplicate copy of the motion is available at the Committee's public motions page.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Proposed motion to modify the extended confirmed restriction provisions

Five appeals at AE

The initial wave of ARBPIA sanctions has thankfully ebbed, but this leaves us with a number of outstanding appeals at WP:AE—currently five—at a time when admin participation has likewise ebbed. One just managed to fall off the board until I restored it, so it would be great to have a few more admins chime in, or close those that are closeable. (Full disclosure, I am the sanctioning admin in two of the cases.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 07:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like a great place to spend my second day! I'll take a look. jp×g🗯️ 08:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Never mind. jp×g🗯️ 08:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the corps @JPxG:! This follow up reply definitely got a chuckle out of me. AE is a "thar be danger" area a lot of admins avoid, and for good reason. That isn't to discourage you as it definitely needs help, but it can definitely be contentious. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

May I ask how it fell of the board? I thought AE cases were supposed to stay open until closed by an admin. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: It was automatically archived by a bot as an old discussion. Renerpho (talk) 04:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Probably it should use User:ClueBot III for archiving so threads are archived when closed rather than based on when they were edited. Galobtter (talk) 04:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I thought we didn't use an archive bot at AE and that every thread got an admin close. Guess I was mistaken. Bummer, that would be a nice feature. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Based.shqiptar.frompirok's behaviour on Wikipedia

After a long discussion on Jazzar Pasha's talk page, he, Based.shqiptar.frompirok seems to have thrown a tantrum after his views have been challenged, refusing to participate in the discussion, while continuing editing the page.

Writing several times in the messages that he leaves with his edits that "the conversation is over". He seems to be intent on keeping his version up, while refusing to participate in any discussion. We've already had a discussion in the talk page, his last message there reads "Your reluctance to answer my questions raises concerns about the depth of your understanding of this topic. Furthermore, I have yet to see any substantial evidence supporting the assertion that he was a Bosniak, making this discussion more or less done and pointless."

To which i replied "What questions do you feel like i haven't answered?"

I request the mods to help me call him to continue this in the talk page if he wishes. Rijekaneretva (talk) 09:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Multiblocks Proposal from the Community Wishlist Survey 2023

Hello admins, Community Tech needs your feedback.

During the Community Wishlist Survey 2023, a request was made for the functionality to layer blocks or allow them to overlap.

Community Tech has began work on this proposal and has conducted a technical investigation, which the team has published.

Please share your feedback on the results of the technical investigation and also on our overall approach to the proposal.

(Please let me know if I should also add this notice to the newsletter talkpage to request addition to the newsletter for December 2023.)

Thank you –– STei (WMF) (talk) 13:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Glad this is being worked on, I didn't realise this had come up but it's something I've been wishing for ever since P-blocks came in. Canterbury Tail talk 15:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@STei (WMF) I don't understand what I'm being asked to comment on. Am I supposed to say whether I agree or disagree with the results of your technical investigation? I'm going to trust your team is competent so mark me as agree especially because block having large technical debt "rings true" with my experience using the function. But as far as I can tell there is no solution being offered - next steps is in fact blank - so I can't tell you anything about your thoughts on next steps. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 I believe you are being asked to comment on whether or not the user stories and requirements were correctly identified by the team :) Sohom (talk) 09:13, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

ARBPIA

I'm not sure how it's supposed to work, Al-Shifa Hospital is clearly a contentious article related to the conflict. However I don't see any indication of editing restrictions, do they apply or not? Alaexis_¿question? 19:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

At least partially, ill add the appropriate edit notice. If an admin wants to say the whole thing is they can protect it and modify it. nableezy - 20:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Alaexis_¿question? 20:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

It's been extended confirmed protected since Oct 18, with a protection edit summary of Contentious topic restriction: WP:A/I/PIA, so that's at least one restriction. Are you asking if 1RR applies to this article? –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Alaexis Be brave, feel free to wikipedia:Rfpp -Lemonaka‎ 09:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Chengqingy

Chengqingy is a recently-created account which, in my opinion, has not been acting in good faith and is disruptively editing Nigera-related articles. They were warned about content blanking and edit warring by multiple users, particualrly at the article Nigeria. They do not respond to their talk page messages, which is not a big deal, but it is frustrating communicating through the only thing they read, which is edit summaries.

So what exactly are their edits which are disagreeable enough to start a row with multiple users? It is painfully clear that this new user is only interested in removing content about Nigeria that they do not like, then erroneously claiming that it was due to unreliable sourcing.

Chengqingy made four mass content removals from Nigeria in a 72-hour period with the same vague reasoning ([8], [9], [10], [11]), prompting four warnings on their talk page.

They have also been selectively removing a particular photo of a starving child at Nigerian Civil War, with a new bogus reason given each time after having explained to them why their reason is not policy.

It is clear to me that this user is not interested in building an encyclopedia. Look at this recent edit to Anambra State, for example. The edit summary is "links added", so why did they also randomly remove Mathias Ugochukwu from the list of notable people? What is their explanation? The edit also adds the subjective claim that "[Chimamanda Adichie] is one of 21st century [sic] most influential author" without a source; are we really to believe that this user has a solid grasp of WP:RS policy, enough so that they can make judgement calls as to what paragraphs to remove from articles with no more explanation than "no verifiable claims"? Yet that does not even have to be asked, because as other users have pointed out, all the content that has been removed by this user has been adequately cited. Yue🌙 07:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Yue: You haven't notified the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I am just seeing this message right now and would like to make some comments. Firstly, All the edits I have made so far are with honest motive and not otherwise. Secondly, I removed ’Mathias Ugochukwu’ from the notable people because the name appeared twice. The veracity of my edit to ‘Chimamanda Adichie’ is not an assumption because there were series of citations about the claim on various notable websites on google. And I added those sources. Lastly, the edits on ‘Nigeria’ was because I couldn’t find the claim elsewhere on google, even the author did not provide the methodologies that was involved in the claim. Hence it contradicts with Wikipedia rules. Chengqingy (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

2,000+ admin actions in violation of WP:BAN

General Discussion

As the dust settles from [12], something has been nagging at me: There are now about 1,000 blocks and 1,000 deletions, plus some other admin actions, that were performed in violation of an ArbComBan. To my knowledge, this is the first time this has happened in the modern era of Wikipedia adminning (i.e. since c. 2012). Now, editors have broad discretion to revert actions made in violation of a ban, and WP:RAAA would not apply here for multiple reasons, but in this case most actions will be trivially valid, anti-vandalism and -spam actions. But not all of them. Some will be judgment-calls, even tough ones, where we deferred to the discretion of a fellow admin, and where that discretion should maybe now be reviewed.

Should there be some kind of review, particularly of the blocks? I could put together a list of outstanding tempblocks and p-blocks, plus indefs of any established users, and admins could reblock in cases where we're willing to assume responsibility. Maybe that's too much, and I'm aware of the WP:DENY aspect here, but at the same time, if I got blocked and then found out the blocking admin was a sock, I'd be pretty damn pissed, and I think we owe it to those people to at least take a look at whether the blocks were any good. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 17:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Are there any actions that stand out to be particularly egregious after a cursory glance? The Night Watch (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

1. Probably, most of the admin actions she did are ones that no admin would have declined. Such actions should be left alone.
2. You probably won't get admins to mass-review her actions. Even her deletions, which non-admins can't.
3. If you believe any specific action she did was incorrect, feel free to request admin review.
4. Any admin may undo her actions without it being wheel-warring.

Animal lover |666| 18:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Reblocking will just give the user a longer block log, which they might not appreciate. I think it would be better to just list the blocks on a page somewhere (akin to a CCI), and have admins tick "yes, reviewed, I would have made that block". The willingness to assume bad faith shown in this thread suggests that yes, there might be some blocks which need to be undone. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Generally agree with above that we should 1) apply the reasonable admin standard and 2) not change blocks or other actions unless they don't meet that standard, which I think leads to 3) probably should only list the "currently active" things, whether deletion, block, or protection (or other action). WP:VOLUNTEER as to the utility/necessity of such work. Izno (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• If someone wants to do the hard work of going through 2,000 actions and bring them up for community review, I guess I can't stop them. But I don't think its necessary. The right thing is to do what we would do with any action committed by an admin removed for cause: review it when it comes up, and add that admin's conduct as a factor to be weighed. For example, ArbCom already does that. We occasionally get appeals from users who were blocked by now banned or otherwise disgraced users. We don't automatically undo the block because of who made it. But we do investigate more deeply than we usually would into whether the block was right in the first place. I would be opposed to unblocking or reblocking accounts sua sponte. For unblocking, we don't allow third party unblocks. Why unblock an account banned 5 years ago if the user is long gone? For reblocking, not only does that consideration apply, but further, reblocking after a long time is inadvisable because you weren't there when the inciting incident happened, and thus might miss something. That would also serve to obfuscate who got blocked by Lourdes in the first place, which might make undoing a bad Lourdes block harder. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• I don't know how this slipped through my radar, but that is an absolutely stunning turn of events. My jaw literally dropped reading that diff. It might be worth looking through anything active, but that is a lot of work that might not have much benefit. If there was ever consensus to undo actions en masse, bot ops with admin bots (like myself) could be pinged/contacted to assist. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• Isn't this the posterboy for a legitimate WP:XRV use? jp×g🗯️ 23:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• I would oppose a blanket reversal (which I don't think anyone has suggested yet, but it seems inevitable) but don't have an issue with more contentious blocks being listed for review. If someone is willing to do the excruciatingly boring work of compiling those, they have my thanks in advance. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
  • I don't envy the work. This is like when a crooked cop gets caught and then all of the arrests the cop made need to be looked at. Lightburst (talk) 00:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
• I don't envy the work, and I've been involved in some of these mass review projects, from GNIS (still ongoing) to the one with all of the sportspeople. This seems worse. CaptainEek, I have sympathies for someone who might have been illegitimately blocked and as a result just walked away thinking that Wikipedia was run by idiots. We cannot necessarily rely on people coming to complain as a driving force. We should at least look. And we should differentiate between blocks to enforce bans (Are there even any?) and blocks that are not part of banning. Uncle G (talk) 03:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

IP Blocks to review

ipb_address	actor_name	disposition
Special:Contributions/65.28.77.182	Lourdes	removed — xaosflux Talk 00:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/136.34.132.39	Lourdes	removed — xaosflux Talk 00:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/172.58.63.16	Lourdes	removed — xaosflux Talk 00:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/2600:1007:B03E:3864:0:0:0:0/64	Lourdes	removed — xaosflux Talk 00:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/2600:1007:B000:0:0:0:0:0/40	Lourdes	removed — xaosflux Talk 00:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/2804:1054:3010:0:0:0:0:0/44	Lourdes	Y OK - there's an LTA sitting on this range and major disruption re-occurred immediately that a previous 1-year block expired. Black Kite (talk) 10:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/49.145.0.0/20	Lourdes	Y Only a partial block on four articles, and appeared to be justified. Black Kite (talk) 10:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/2600:4040:AA53:F500:0:0:0:0/64	Lourdes	removed — xaosflux Talk 00:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/104.226.30.18	Lourdes	removed — xaosflux Talk 00:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/86.157.242.237	Lourdes	removed — xaosflux Talk 00:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/2603:9009:800:B1A7:0:0:0:0/64	Lourdes	removed — xaosflux Talk 00:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/2600:1700:10E1:1D20:0:0:0:0/64	Lourdes	Y This one is good - persistent falsifying of BLP birthdates over a period of months. Black Kite (talk) 09:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/172.97.45.5	Lourdes	? This is the Martin Bayerle spammer, also User:Imagixx. Could probably be dealt with via a few pblocks from particular articles. Black Kite (talk) 10:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/1.152.104.0/21	Lourdes	Y Persistent disruption and vandalism over many months, previous blocks. Black Kite (talk) 10:11, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/1.136.104.0/21	Lourdes	Y As per the entry immediately above. Black Kite (talk) 10:11, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/45.237.49.1	Lourdes	Y Absolutely good - admins can see why. Black Kite (talk) 10:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/109.228.71.226	Lourdes	Probably OK, expires in a couple of days anyway. Black Kite (talk) 10:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/109.101.69.23	Lourdes	removed - Black Kite (talk) 10:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/182.228.179.154	Lourdes	removed - Black Kite (talk) 10:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/154.180.107.122	Lourdes	Block evasion, expires in a couple of days. Black Kite (talk) 10:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/62.4.55.186	Lourdes	Same user as 109.228.71.226 above, expires shortly - Black Kite (talk) 10:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

These are the IP blocks made by Lourdes that are still active as of today. I suggest that an admin review each one and decide if it should be removed or kept (I've done some already). This is a very small subset of the above. There were no indefinite IP blocks. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

For anyone interested, here are the username blocks (most are indef): Special:PermaLink/1183546654. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I looked at two random username blocks. I suppose that a reasonably thorough administrator would not overlook deleting the page User:Journal of BIoresources and Bioproducts (obvious copyvio etc.) when blocking for the very reason of creating such pages. There may be omissions of this type or of some other type. —Alalch E. 00:34, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Blocks of users with 100+ edits

Without prejudice against looking at the full ~900 account blocks, I've triaged this to a list of users with at least 100 edits. My reasoning is that blocks of low-editcount users are much more likely to be routine vandal/spam blocks, and that a brand-new editor who was wrongly blocked will probably have either just created a new account, WP:SOCK be damned, or been scared away for good.

Username	Expiry	Disposition
Amitamitdd (talk · contribs)	infinity	Y Reasonable failure-to-respond block. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 01:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Dieter Mueller (talk · contribs)	infinity	Y Reasonable failure-to-respond block. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 01:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Kthxbay (talk · contribs)	infinity	Y Sockpuppetry confirmed (although not necessarily to master) @ Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nangparbat/Archive § 08 May 2020. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 01:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Jib Yamazaki (talk · contribs)	infinity	Y Reasonable failure-to-respond block. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 01:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Nlivataye (talk · contribs)	infinity	Y User talk:Nlivataye#June 2023 is not inspiring. Izno (talk) 05:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
AlhyarJy (talk · contribs)	infinity	Y Reasonable failure-to-respond block. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 01:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Saucysalsa30 (talk · contribs)	infinity	Y Had community support at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1130#Block consideration for Saucysalsa30. Mackensen (talk) 02:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Wallacevio (talk · contribs)	infinity	Y Reasonable failure-to-respond block. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 01:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
GRanemos1 (talk · contribs)	infinity	Y Reasonable failure-to-respond block. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 01:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Donovyegg (talk · contribs)	infinity	Y Reasonable failure-to-respond block. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 01:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Chamaemelum (talk · contribs)	infinity	Y Validly-enacted siteban. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 01:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Gbe Dutu (talk · contribs)	infinity	Y Reasonable failure-to-respond block. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 01:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Abdel hamid67 (talk · contribs)	infinity	Y Had community support @ Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1134 § Unreferenced articles by User:Abdel hamid67. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 00:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
DaleEarnhardt292001 (talk · contribs)	infinity	Y Discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1134#User:DaleEarnhardt292001; user did not request an unblock. Mackensen (talk) 02:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Darshan Kavadi (talk · contribs)	infinity	See below. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
A E WORLD (talk · contribs)	infinity	? Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1137#Mass overlinking and poor grammar 'corrections' by relatively new editor was the report. Whilst I am not convinced that the accountholder can write, at User talk:A E WORLD#August 2023 2, Lourdes and others seem to be putting up more and more hoops for the accountholder to jump through. Exactly how is the person supposed to prove that xe will do something that xe has stated xe will do? Uncle G (talk) 06:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Chuachenchie (talk · contribs)	infinity	See below. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Golden Mage (talk · contribs)	infinity	Not confirmed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Datu Hulyo/Archive, and although the block was for disruption it was for disruption that was the same pattern as that sockpuppteer. Tamzin? Uncle G (talk) 03:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC) Knew there was a reason this one rang a bell. I was quite confident on Golden Mage being Datu Hulyo at the SPI, and Courcelles backed that up on technical evidence. I might have waited a bit longer for an answer on why they were running three accounts, had Lourdes not blocked GM, but 2+1⁄2 months later GM/DH/John still hasn't explained what they were doing, so this block Y should probably stand. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 04:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC) Ah! Special:Diff/1171455039 is a non-confirmation of something else. Uncle G (talk) 09:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Ptb1997 (talk · contribs)	infinity	N Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1139#User:Ptb1997 might have been a trigger-happy block, but the rest of the community shares in the shame of this given Special:Diff/1176584689. The accountholder promised to do better back in September, and our collective response to this for two months has been massively bureaucratic, including ignoring that diff twice over simply because it wasn't put in an unblock request box. Uncle G (talk) 05:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Egerer12 (talk · contribs)	infinity	? This was discounted as a sockpuppet by Tamzin, but is one of the accounts that has heavily contributed to the fact that Draft: namespace and the article namespace are now full of duplicate Country at the 2024 Summer Olympics articles, e.g. Mozambique at the 2024 Summer Olympics and the identical Draft:Mozambique at the 2024 Summer Olympics. This is a massive waste of AFC reviewers' time, especially as there's a backlog of several thousand drafts to review, and would that there were a speedy deletion criterion for getting rid of all of the duplicate drafts! Uncle G (talk) 05:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC) A full block for WP:Communication is required may be warranted here rather than the article space block. This editor has literally never edited user talk namespace. Izno (talk) 06:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
574X (talk · contribs)	infinity	Y Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1140#574X already had support from ScottishFinnishRadish. Uncle G (talk) 04:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Yafie Achmad Raihan (talk · contribs)	infinity	? Non-English speaker blocked for not communicating at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1140#Concerning page moves by Yafie Achmad Raihan. Account's Indonesian Wikipedia block log is clean for that and more page moves. Uncle G (talk) 04:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Silveresc (talk · contribs)	20231105051320	Y Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1141 § Long term POV disruptive editing at Zviad Gamsakhurdia. Not sure the situation was handled optimally, but it's a p-block and expires imminently, so meh. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 00:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Sinwiki12 (talk · contribs)	infinity	Not a sockpuppeteer per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sinwiki12/Archive, but the block was for repeated whitewashing of Chinese topic articles and diffs such as Special:Diff/1138585762 (Hello, Bbb23!) do indicate that there was a problem here. The account definitely had an article editing agenda that what Wikipedia said about China was all lies put about by American newspapers, and edited several articles in that vein (e.g. Special:Diff/1175736935). See also Special:Diff/1019125984. I suspect that this account would have ended up being blocked in the long run. Uncle G (talk) 04:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
AbrahamCat (talk · contribs)	infinity	Incivility block at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1141#User:AbrahamCat at Choke (sports). Worth a quick peer-review by someone here, but on its face it's likely good. Uncle G (talk) 04:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Omer123hussain (talk · contribs)	infinity	* Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1141#Omer123hussain: persistent sourcing issues definitely needs peer review. It's in the Indian topics area that Wifione was restricted from. Uncle G (talk) 04:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 00:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Darshan Kavadi

• I would say that the block on User:Darshan Kavadi (DK) deserves a second look (and possibly reversed for being a bad block). DK was first warned of their disruptive editing behaviour on July 26. DK disengaged and edited other articles on August 1. No other edits were made by DK after August 2. ANI report was filed on August 8 but closed because Lourdes went straight for indef block on first instance. The appearance of non-communication by DK was a self-fulfilling prophecy because DK never had a chance to reply (or saw it too late). It's almost like DK was punished for disengaging from the disputed page in question. No admin would have issued a indef block on a single warning on an account who hasn't edited for a week, which makes Lourdes's actions punitive instead of preventative. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Plus, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1136#Requesting advice and suitable resolution was in the area of single-purpose account Indian promotional editing, which Wifione should not have been touching at all. Uncle G (talk) 05:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Chuachenchie

• Here's another questionable block. User:Chuachenchie has been editing since November 2020 and had 9k edits. Edits are a mixture of bad (OR, BLP) and good (ITN noms). Lourdes once again went right to indef block and not start off with short blocks and escalate from there. Editor remains active on zh.wp. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:17, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• That block was made as a result of this report. That editor managed to make over 9k edits without once talking to anybody or even leaving an edit summary. Communicating with other editors isn't really optional. Lourdes did leave a warning, which was ignored, and there were numerous previous attempts by other people to talk to this editor, which were also ignored. The block doesn't look unreasonable. Hut 8.5 14:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Omer123hussain

• I made the report on Omer123hussain that led to the block above. I think it's justified; there's serious OR issues there; but nobody else seems to want to engage with it. I will not be taking any admin action, though I'm not necessarily capital-I Involved. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Ptb1997

• I'm on the fence about Ptb1997. As is sadly often the case when an admin places a block "Until user resolves issue X", the implied promise there hasn't been upheld in subsequent unblock proceedings. Sadly the accept/decline-focused nature of unblock requests leads to a lot of situations like this, where a user has said most of what they need to say but maybe needs to go into a bit more detail, and instead just gets declined on with little explanation. So with all that in mind I'd tend toward an unblock, with a warning about communication. However, there's also the matter of Ptb19975555, their sock. Evading a block imposed by someone who was in turn evading a ban is not something that WP:SOCK as a policy has ever contemplated, but either way, first offense for socking by an otherwise constructive user is normally 1-4 weeks, so I think commuting to time served, with warnings about communication and socking, would still be reasonable. Or at least I've mostly convinced myself of that in the course of writing this comment. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 06:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Personally, I'm in favour of forgiving the sockpuppetry (which was also handled bureaucratically, with its edits reverted because it was a sockpuppet), unblocking, with a statement that the community expects Special:Diff/1176584689 to be made good on, and will be found a more welcoming place for editors who talk to other editors. Especially as the warnings going back "8 years" turn out to be disambiguation 'bots, bracket 'bots, people talking about where punctuation goes in lists, why not to boldface things, birthdates in biographies, and which sportsperson gets player statistics. Only 7 of the warnings/requests were over the whole of 2023, and 3 of those were 'bots. And clearly the accountholder does communicate on occasion: Special:Diff/841858412. Hence why I think that it was a trigger-happy block. Uncle G (talk) 08:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Yafie Achmad Raihan

• I am involved with this in the sense that I raised the initial discussion about this user. Luck has it that they have just requested an unblock on promise that they will not do any more wrong page moves. There is something weird with their usage of the unblock template so it may not have turned up on any admin's radar yet. – robertsky (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Likely G5, possible block evasion

TheDelhiBoy2 was indef blocked on 27 October 2023, and only ever edited the article Amar Singh (art dealer). GlasgowGoatHerder created an account on 29 October 2023, and heavily edited the same article. A draft created by GlasgowGoatHerder comes back as a likely G5 candidate when SPI tools are run against TheDelhiBoy2. The DelhiBoy2 tried to A7 speedy delete the article Amar Singh (art dealer), while GlasgowGoatHerder created a draft about an artist who has held exhibitions at Amar Singh's gallery, and has previously painted Amar Singh; the topics are clealry strongly aligned. GlasgowGoatHerder claims to be creating a page on Wikipedia for a school project. I do not believe this stated motivation to be true. In any case, GlasgowGoatHerder still remains unblocked. Uhooep (talk) 01:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm confused on why you're allowed to be anywhere near this article, Uhooep. You used a sockpuppet account to edit war with the other editors on this very article you're bringing up. There likely is other people's sockpuppets going on with the new accounts throughout that entire article's history, but this doesn't seem like a subject you should be involved in whatsoever at this point. Silverseren^C 02:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I have never used another account to edit since successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee in June 2021, and I take that very seriously. I also have no COIs. I am one of three independent users requesting a CheckUser on the aforementioned suspected master and suspected socks. Uhooep (talk) 02:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Skyerise

It was suggested I move this comment here. Please merge this to the above notice if policy dictates, I mainly write and edit pages and I specifically try not to engage in debates anymore.

Since the beginning of the conflict on Western tulku-Tulku,User:Skyerise has engaged in disruptive editing, including:

• Threats;

• Refusal to assume (or accept) good faith;

• Canvassing;

• Purposefully creating edit conflicts, as they did not want to "let [me] finish" a completely misguided page per their own words;

• Censorship, removing mentions of race where it is present in the original source; and

• Merging against policy (i.e., without consensus), which is especially deceptive since they have been falsely claiming it is a fork which was split off the older Tulku page.

I think that it is important to note that according to their user page, Skyerise is a western Tibetan Buddhist. This isn't exactly a conflict of interest but it seems to me to be a pretty clear-cut case of attempted censorship and POV-pushing based on Skyerise's personal offense taken at the criticism academics have levied against certain Western tulku or the concept of "tulku envy".

Apologies for the long comment, but this is incredibly stressful and I have to deal with white Buddhist rage enough as it is.

References

MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 14:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Also I want to note I did warn the aforementioned user with {{subst:AN-notice}}~~~~, they simply have reverted the edit on their talk page. Just in case it comes up. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 14:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The relevant page here appears to be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Western tulku, which I suggest is the first starting point. Note Skyerise's comment that the article is "racist" and the comments from User:Johnbod and User:AirshipJungleman29. I actually wonder if this report belongs at WP:ANI? Black Kite (talk) 14:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

That is where I initially posted this. Another editor suggested I move it here. Misunderstood. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 14:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)