Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	19	14	33
TfD	0	0	0	2	2
MfD	0	0	2	1	3
FfD	0	0	2	2	4
RfD	0	0	24	49	73
AfD	0	0	0	11	11

• 4 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 3 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 5 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 10 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 133 sockpuppet investigations
• 9 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 6 Fully protected edit requests
• 2 Candidates for history merging
• 33 requests for RD1 redaction
• 44 elapsed requested moves
• 4 Pages at move review
• 28 requested closures
• 121 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 14 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (36 out of 7750 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Nava Mau 2024-05-14 03:45 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case Andrey Belousov 2024-05-14 03:31 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Category:Hamas 2024-05-13 23:01 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Izno Sde Teiman detention camp 2024-05-13 20:49 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter Çankaya Mansion 2024-05-13 14:18 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement, WP:GS/AA Rosguill Second Battle of Latakia 2024-05-13 13:39 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Alien 2024-05-13 13:23 indefinite move lower to semi, time heals; requested at WP:RfPP The Night Watch Shays' Rebellion 2024-05-13 08:08 2025-05-13 08:08 move dang it. Not used to move protection, I guess.... Dennis Brown Chuck Buchanan Jr. 2024-05-13 02:01 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Animal stereotypes of Jews in Palestinian discourse 2024-05-13 01:24 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per ARBPIA Daniel Case Michael Ealy 2024-05-13 01:22 2025-05-13 01:22 edit,move Persistent vandalism: racist swinery Drmies Template:Nelson, New Zealand 2024-05-13 00:51 indefinite move Highly visible template that is vulnerable to macron vandalism Schwede66 Hebrew University of Jerusalem 2024-05-12 21:47 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per ARBPIA Daniel Case Interracial marriage 2024-05-12 19:14 2024-11-12 19:14 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry RoySmith Template:FAQ/FAQ 2024-05-12 10:48 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Justlettersandnumbers User:Arjayay/Rang HD 2024-05-12 10:46 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Rang HD -- requested at WP:RFPP Favonian Rangiya 2024-05-12 09:27 2024-10-16 06:56 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: confirmed socks edit the article Ymblanter Vaush 2024-05-12 07:35 indefinite edit,move per WP:CT/BLP Primefac Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in January–June 2015 2024-05-12 04:52 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Johnuniq Later-no-harm criterion 2024-05-12 03:07 2024-06-12 03:07 edit,move Edit warring / content dispute: Protected per a complaint at WP:AN3 EdJohnston Draft:Lewis Raymond Taylor 2024-05-11 20:41 2024-08-11 20:41 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Lewis Raymond Taylor 2024-05-11 20:35 indefinite create Persistent sockpuppetry JJMC89 2024 Kharkiv offensive 2024-05-11 12:11 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:GS/RUSUKR --requested at WP:RFPP Favonian Drake (musician) 2024-05-11 09:32 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/BLP; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Slovenia 2024-05-11 09:29 2024-05-18 09:29 edit edit wars on the page Tone Timeline of the Israel–Hamas war (7 May 2024 – present) 2024-05-11 03:48 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Czech Republic 2024-05-11 02:43 indefinite edit Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP and WP:ARBEE Daniel Case Ben Shapiro 2024-05-11 02:24 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBAP2 Daniel Case Eden Golan 2024-05-11 02:03 2025-05-11 02:03 edit Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts ScottishFinnishRadish Nguyễn Văn Hùng (martial artist) 2024-05-10 20:21 2027-05-10 20:21 edit Persistent sockpuppetry: User:Nipponese Dog Calvero Favonian Nguyen Van Hung 2024-05-10 20:21 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: User:Nipponese Dog Calvero Favonian Phan Bội Châu 2024-05-10 20:21 2027-05-10 20:21 edit Persistent sockpuppetry: User:Nipponese Dog Calvero Favonian Nguyễn Kim Hồng 2024-05-10 20:21 2027-05-10 20:21 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: User:Nipponese Dog Calvero Favonian Vietnamese people in Taiwan 2024-05-10 20:21 2027-05-10 20:21 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: User:Nipponese Dog Calvero Favonian McGill University pro-Palestinian encampment 2024-05-10 19:18 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case England 2024-05-10 13:52 indefinite edit Persistent sockpuppetry: request at WP:RFPP Ymblanter

Close review of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Capitalization of NFL draft article titles

To start, this has been one of many attempts by a set of users to get the title "Draft" lowercase, going back to at least 2013. The most recent RM on the subject "National Football League Draft" occurred a few months ago and closed against lowercase being the title. A month ago, User:Dicklyon decided that "the large number of football-fan editors compared to the editors who want to respect our style guidelines" at RM was too great – something demonstrably false as a number of football editors supported lowercase – and so he decided to open up this village pump RFC in violation of WP:RFCNOT and prior consensus (not that he can't try again after a time, but it feels like its been happening over and over again – feels like a WP:STICK). The discussion was plainly a disaster; one of the worst and most disorderly proposals I've ever seen. First, not nearly enough notifications were sent out – e.g. NO relevant pages had a notice at the top as required by RM; the NFL project page received a notice but not the also-very active college football project; after the close, one of the most prominent football editors asked "When and where did that consensus happen?" and later noted that it seems "pretty sneaky."
At the discussion, a number of users pointed out that it was an inappropriate RFC and WP:FORUMSHOPPING, which was split out into its own section; by my count 11/15 out of the users commenting there said it was an inappropriate discussion. As demonstrated by the later WT:NFL discussion, a number of interested editors were discouraged from commenting due to the belief that it was going to be rejected as inappropriate. Furthermore, others were discouraged by the EXTREME AMOUNT of WP:BLUDGEONING from several lowercase supporters; User:Hey man im josh noted that three users combined had 192 comments. There is simply no way to come about a consensus when such extreme bludgeoning occurs. The amount of the discussion which was actually editors !voting was about 1/6, a number of which of those were "procedural close" comments. Hey man im josh gave an accurate description of the chaos in this comment; among other points, he noted that:

The validity of the discussion wasn’t established early on. There were a number of users who thought it was an inappropriate forum ... I think as a result some people didn’t participate or comment as much ...
Wikilawyering and bludgeoning the conversation to death was a significant reason why the discussion ended the way it did and I wish MOS discussions were better moderated to avoid these types of outcomes. “These type” being ones that are won by sheer number of comments and wearing people down ...
NFL Draft is absolutely (and clearly) a proper name of an event (in relevant sports sources, aside from ESPN, who is looking into their style guide based on an email I sent) but bludgeoning and wikilawyering has prevailed ...
There are inconsistencies in sources because most sources don't have a style guide they must adhere to, but that doesn't mean that downcasing is actually the proper result ...
It’s sometimes downcased in sources because sources themselves, which often consist of dozens of different writers, are not necessarily aware that it’s a proper name. This is a common problem for events, drafts particularly, that have self descriptive names which are also nouns ...
Inconsistency in sources doesn't mean that something’s not actually a proper name, despite what some are screaming from the rooftops ...
Some people refused to even consider the possibility of a proper name once the ngrams, which are notorious for lacking meaningful context, came out and showed an inconsistency (again, context is key) ...
Several people reached out to me privately to say that the discussion was such a trainwreck and drama filled that they weren’t participating ...

TL;DR: This discussion was an absolute disaster of a discussion – one of the worst I've ever seen. A large number of the participants didn't understand the terms of the proposal, many didn't comment because they thought it was inappropriate and going to be declined, not even close to enough notifications, zero notices on affected pages as required, SO MUCH BLUDGEONING, etc. etc. I could go on and on. But this really was a disastrous discussion to the point that no consensus could possibly be found in my opinion – even one of the supporters (User:Amakuru) later commented that they realized "This was a rare case ... where the raw numbers from ngrams didn't tell the whole story, there was decent evidence that capping could have been appropriate which was amply presented in last year's discussion, and without casting any bad faith ... this decision to go behind the back of the RM participants is a poor one." Whichever way this goes, we are willing to abide by the result (Hey man im josh has actually implemented some of the changes), but in my opinion, this really should be Overturned to no consensus. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

BTW - Am I seeing double? Why are some individuals commenting in both the uninvolved & involved subsections? Ya can't be both uninvolved & involved. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

GoodDay, if one is "involved", is one only allowed to respond to comments by others who are involved? And the same for "uninvolved"? I get that endorsements and overturns are to be segregated, but all responding comments too? It should also be noted that when this discussion was first created on Feb 16, and when I first commented the same day, the sections had more generic titles: "involved" and "involved". These have been refactored into "RFC non-participant" and "RFC participant", which has had the effect of placing my initial comments in the "RFC participant" section even though I was quite clear about the nature of my participation on this issue: I'm not quite sure if I'm considered "involved" or not since I did not participate in this RFC, but I did participate in the 2023 RM and I am quoted above! I'll go with involved. Given that, AirshipJungleman29's admonishment toward me and several other editors (I think the WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour should be taken seriously as a separate issue; it's no wonder this topic is so heated if five vastly experienced editors (Hey man im josh, BeanieFan11, Jweiss11, Bagumba, and SMcCandlish), with almost 1.2 million edits between them, can't even respect a basic involved/uninvolved division.) comes off as rather Kafkaesque. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

When I made the sectioning I was more thinking to divide the overturn/endorse votes by those who were participants and those who were not; I didn't really see an issue in responding to comments in the other section. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

RFC Non-participant comments

• Endorse close the various bad-faith and/or factually-inaccurate complaints about the forum should be discounted completely. An RFC can change policy, and the sheer volume of complaints about the forum prove that there was sufficient notification. Once the "how dare you propose this" complaints are discounted, there is consensus for the move. 217.180.228.138 (talk) 01:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse close. This has been a contentious point for years. The RfC sought to resolve the debate and was well attended with spirited discussion on both sides. Having read through the debate, I conclude (a) a community-wide RfC (with input from both American football and MoS editors) was a good way to resolve the issue one way or the other, and (b) the closure by User:The Wordsmith was reasonable.
  As for the concern with "bludgeoning", both sides were quite active in their comments. Compare User:Randy Kryn from the "upper case" camp (31 edits) with User:SMcCandlish from the "lower case" camp (42 edits). I don't see that as a basis for overturning the close. Cbl62 (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Bunch of extremely involved editors who should know better than to ignore sectioning ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Cbl62: I wasn't planning to join the discussion, but I think it's more useful to search for signatures as opposed to edits. The page was created part of the way through the discussion and some users replied to multiple comments in the same edit. I think that's a better reflection of someone's participation in the conversation as opposed to the edit count at that page. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC) Fair point, but a signature count ends up with roughly the same proportion: 41 for Kryn, 51 for McCandlish. And I didn't see anything that was particularly intimidating or "over the top" in the comments made. Cbl62 (talk) 02:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC) Though then there's also Dicklyon (72) and Bagumba (57); I for one was discouraged from commenting as much as I wanted due to seemingly every single supporter of uppercase receiving a barrage of opposition from one of those three (plus others), something that has continued at the related Talk:USFL Draft discussion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC) Are we really going to count number of edits/comments by editor here? I think the relevant questions on this matter are simply 1) was this RFC an appropriate substitute for an RM and 2) was there proper notice? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC) You labelled "capitalized" examples at Talk:USFL Draft § 2022, 2023 drafts that were almost half incorrect—either shown to be actually lowercase or without mention of the specific term "USFL Draft". The fact that it received responses is a reflection of the factual errors and failure to acknowledge the discrepancy in a timely fashion. Per WP:BATTLEGROUND: Editors in large disputes should work in good faith to find broad principles of agreement between different viewpoints. Discussions are not merely to tally votes without a policy and guideline-based discussion to understand opposing viewpoints. I'd welcome an uninvolved editor to assess the actual non sequiturs. MOS is under Wikipedia:Contentious topics, and the disruptive behaviour needs to be reeled in. —Bagumba (talk) 04:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC) Indeed. The last couple of months have actually shown repeated cases of what amounts to outright sourcing falsification in attempts to WP:WIN in tedious and trivial over-stylization disputes (especially in American in sports topics, e.g. here and here). This is turning into a WP:TE problem, a "let me capitalize stuff just to imply how important it is to fans, or else!" sort of thing. (That said, one assumes it is a product of presumption, selection bias, and inexperience at doing statistically meaningful usage examination, rather than being intentional sourcing distortion for PoV reasons. But the result is disruptive nonetheless.) To claim that editors who provide detailed refutation of such pseudo-sourcing are "bludgeoning" is just a hand-waving attempt to avoid scrutiny and to silence principled objections. In particular, Brandolini's law is highly applicable here: it almost always takes more effort and verbiage to refute provably false claims than to make them. The issue is exacerbated by the habit of many of those in favor of over-capitalizing things to simply repeat their "it's a proper name and must be capitalized!" claims in WP:IDHT fashion after it has already been proven that indy RS generally do not capitalize it as a proper name. Such proof by assertion attempts generate another round of refutation. The problem is further magnified when later arrivals do a "per X" !vote that cites the rationale of the provider of the bogus statements and so-called evidence. Most commenters do not read RfC, RM, and other discussions in any depth, and simply pop off with whatever best suits their predilections.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC) On Jweiss11's two questions: Yes, since consensus can form by any means the community chooses, WP not being a bureaucracy. And yes, at first, though the latter rapidly turned into repetitive and activistic canvassing (see extensive diffs in the RfC itself) by a particular pro-capitals party – basically, bludgeoning at a site-wide level. The idea that this discussion somehow had insufficient pro-capitalization input is a fantasy. And the input level really wouldn't make much difference, anyway, since the question was simple: is there sufficient capitalization in the independent RS to meet the MOS:CAPS (and WP:NCCAPS) standard? This was in a no way a question of what people might personally just like the look of better. Though several of them tried to turn it into effectively a referendum on whether editors focused on a particular topic can override WP:CONLEVEL policy to get a result they want, and the answer was of course "no", since the entire point of the policy is preventing editors involved in a particular topic from making up their own "counter-rules" and forcing other editors obey them in that category instead of following the actual WP:P&G and the sourcing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC) Despite what WP:BUREAU says, Wikipedia is indeed a bureaucracy. Only a bureaucracy would claim it wasn't one. :) Jweiss11 (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse close. It is reasonable to bring discussions that have not reached consensus on the pages involved to a wider audience, especially when they concern application of a global guideline. The evidence and policy-backing was overwhelmingly for lowercase, so even if every gridiron editor was properly notified it shouldn't have made a difference (unless they all invoked IAR, with impeccable reasoning). And as Bagumba noted, it doesn't seem like football editors were all that concerned about "proper procedure" back when the RM for the 2016 NFL draft page resulted in all the draft pages being moved to uppercase without notification or RM notices being placed. JoelleJay (talk) 04:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  To be clear, JoelleJay is referring to my comments at the RfC, not here. For convenience, here are links to said 2016 RM and its move review.—Bagumba (talk) 05:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn close A bizarre end run around the RM process, that used a separate, poorly advertised RFC instead of a move review, or a new RM. The stated idea for why we needed this novel approach was because this was meant to set some sort of precedent, and yet the ending we get only applies to the NFL. RFCNOT is clear, and this was not the way to go about it. The amount of bludgeoning in that discussion, and every single discussion related to it cannot be overstated: the statistic page for the RfC is unlike anything I've ever seen before. Already, one user (who posted ten times more text than anyone else at the RFC) has posted more text in the "Uninvolved users" section than any one uninvolved user. This is absurd, and something needs to be addressed if this is how MOS regulars are treating pages. Parabolist (talk) 01:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse per JoelleJay. Mach61 (talk) 00:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse close I don't see any convincing argument for why application of policy couldn't be discussed at an RfC, and the policy-based reasoning in the close was pretty impeccable. As an aside, I think the WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour should be taken seriously as a separate issue; it's no wonder this topic is so heated if five vastly experienced editors (Hey man im josh, BeanieFan11, Jweiss11, Bagumba, and SMcCandlish), with almost 1.2 million edits between them, can't even respect a basic involved/uninvolved division. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Hey man im josh, you could have commented in the involved section with a ping to Cbl62. I have no doubt that you have behaved with decorum in general in the aftermath of this RfC, but in this case I do not feel that you did. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
    • Hey man im josh, dividing a close review into involved and uninvolved sections is intended to prevent threaded replies rehashing the previous discussion from taking over the close review. I simply ask that you keep this in mind in the future. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
• Vacate RFC discussion, list at RM per WP:RFCNOT, which specifically includes Renaming pages. Carson Wentz (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse close. According to a excellent essay I recently had the pleasure of reading, its hard to argue with the fact that lots of people knew about the discussion, lots of people contributed and the right people knew it was going on. The venue / namespace itself may have been contrary to community norms, but WP:CONLEVEL is also policy and I can't see a reason to delegitimise the discussion purely for being in an atypical location. Scribolt (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse close—per SMcCandlish. Tony (talk) 03:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse The idea that a discussion of this size can be void due to insufficient participation is ridiculous. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  If the majority of comments were from unique commenters, the majority of commenters opined regarding the content question, and the majority of the commenters expressed valid opinions then you would be correct. The first two unarguably did not happen, the last one arguably did not. Thryduulf (talk) 04:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse, more or less. I'm not a fan of RfCs circumventing existing processes, and an RfC isn't the right procedure to come to a conclusion about a page move. However, it is a suitable procedure to determine how to apply the MOS, even if there are implied page moves as a result. I read the close as finding consensus for lowercase "draft" and clarifying that yes, that means pages should move, rather than finding consensus that pages should move. The closing statement recognizes various concerns and I tend to agree with e.g. that it was advertised widely enough. Tangentially, however, I'll also express support for more liberally handing out restrictions to people who routinely turn MOS disputes into battlegrounds (maybe even experimenting with a comments-per-discussion restriction if not a tban). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  The close was, explicitly per the closer, NOT about applying the MoS broadly. It was ONLY about that specific instance of "Draft". Parabolist (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

RFC participant comments

• Overturn page moves per WP:RFCNOT. My view hasn't changed, concerning the matter. An RM should've been opened at the page-in-question, including related pages. IMHO, an RFC shouldn't be used as a substitute for an RM. GoodDay (talk) 01:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• I'm not quite sure if I'm considered "involved" or not since I did not participate in this RFC, but I did participate in the 2023 RM and I am quoted above! I'll go with involved. I concur with GoodDay that this change should be conducted via an RM. I'll also note that the "notice" of this RFC to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League was underwhelming: [1]. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  What exactly are you're expecting for an RfC notification...? That's neutral and includes a link with a self-descriptive title, with further context provided earlier; nothing more should be said in such a notice. JoelleJay (talk) 05:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  There was a repeat notification later at 18:31, 6 January, seen now at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 23 § NFL Draft RFC at Village Pump.—Bagumba (talk) 05:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse close. I don't understand why GoodDay and Jweiss11 and Randy Kryn and BeanieFan11 and a few others want to see this discussed again at an RM. The same evidence and same guideline-based arguments would prevail. You can see an example of a "related" RM (that is, similar issue, different football league) at Talk:USFL Draft. BeanieFan11 is again there posting ridiculously wrong info and then complaining when editors point out the mistakes. His "evidence" make the opposite case of what he's arguing for. Ultimately, probably much more quickly in that case, we'll follow the guideline, as we've done with the NFL Draft RFC. Lawyering about the process slows it down, and wastes a lot of editor argument time, as here; I'd call it disruptive, but we have a long tradition of letting everyone have their "day in court", so that's where we are. I commend the closer of this long mess of an RFC for all did he, other than making us wait a full 30 days when the result was clear weeks earlier. Dicklyon (talk) 05:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse close. The purpose of a close review is to examine whether the closer erred, not to relitigate why people would have preferred one outcome or another. The closer did not err here, and despite the length of the discussion, the only actual questions to resolve were quite simple: does the sourcing show enough capitalization in indy RS to meet the MOS:CAPS standard? Clearly no. Is there some means by which the community can be prevented from addressing the question in an RfC (at VPPOL and later stand-alone)? Clearly no. Randy Kryn has been beating a drum that WP:RFCNOT somehow invalidates the RfC or makes it inoperable and just "an opinion poll", but this is a bad misunderstanding of policy. WP:Consensus can form anywhere by any means. RFCNOT (an "information page" essay) suggests, of course, that RfCs are not the usual process for effectuating page moves, which is true. However, this was not an RfC standing in for an RM, it was an RfC to resolve the problem that that a previous RM and a WP:MR after it failed to come to a consensus. That's a perfectly valid reason for an RfC, though it could also have been done via a followup RM. The RfC route netted broader input, so was the better choice, despite all the patently disruptive "shut it down!" handwaving by people unhappy with the predictable outcome (predictable because the WP:P&G on the original question are clear, as is the sourcing). In short, the closer did not err, the process was not broken (despite various parties trying hard to break it, and extensive pro-capitalization canvassing). The closer has stated in user talk that their intent was that the RfC result could just be used as a rationale to move the page in question, consensus already having been established. This is correct per WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY and WP:CONSENSUS. However, it's ultimately immaterial. It's clear that the pro-capitalization camp are going to insist on opening yet another RM about this anyway, so the pointless discussion is guaranteed to continue and waste more editorial community time. But that has no implication of any kind for whether the reasoning in the close is faulty, which it is not.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse close yeah I thought it was the wrong avenue, but I trust the judgment done on the forum. Plus it evolved into its own page, so I accept the outcome. Plus, I'm not overly bitter about it and I guess I know when the bludgeoning gets really toxic, I just ignore it. Conyo14 (talk) 07:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn page moves per WP:RFCNOT, the RfC itself was a good opinion poll but then the next step would not be moving pages but opening a Requested Move. Anything else is WP:IAR without the necessary reasoning of why unilaterally moving pages improves Wikipedia. Reversing the page moves is another topic and not related to this review, and should be addressed separately. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Weak endorse. I voted to keep "draft" capitalized and I stand by my opinion, but there did appear to be weak policy-based consensus to change it to a small "d." Sound, policy-based arguments were made on both sides but the closing admin got it right in the small "d" side having better support. While RM would have been the preferred way to handle this move, this RFC received significant participation from a wide range of users including consistent contributors to NFL-related articles and those who do not typically edit in this area; this RFC can be considered valid grounds for a page move. Frank Anchor 14:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  Changed to overturn after a more thorough reading of RFCNOT. It specifically mentions RM, and not RFC, as the correct venue for a page move. I maintain that the RFC received a large base of opinions from both NFL-regular contributors and people who rarely or never contribute in the area, but when the RFC process page says RFC can not be used for a page move, then RFC can not be used for a page move. Frank Anchor 14:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn the discussion on both sides devolved into an absolute mess. As I previously noted, I generally avoided the discussion after a few comments due to the tone. I will also note that the whole "wrong venue" discussion was a distraction for both sides. The original intent of going to RFC was to gather a larger audience. That was achieved but at the expense of a huge distracting discussion. I feel like both sides would be better served by having a cleaner discussion in the right venue (notifications can occur left and right to everyone) to mitigate any ancillary concerns. Seems bureaucratic, but it would seem that both sides would probably prefer to have a cleaner consensus to point to moving forward. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn. I'm not thrilled with the closer hand waving away the RFCNOT concerns raised in the RFC. I would also like to dispute the idea that the "Pro Caps Crowd" was somehow canvassing when the "lowercase crew" has an entire section of WT:MOS dedicated to canvassing. And of course the bludgeoning issue needs to be addressed. There is no need for any editor to make dozens of comments at an RFC, regardless of which side they are on. Jessintime (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  That section at the top of WT:MOS, of current and past style-related discussions, is kept neutral, central, and open to anyone interested, much like automatic and other notifications to Wikiprojects. Canvasing is something else entirely. Dicklyon (talk) 10:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse close The review rationale does not identify anything in the close that was unreasonable or against policies or guidelines. The close is detailed and accounted for the major counterarguments, even if it differs from those cherry-picked quotes or what some !voters like. The claim of a "disaster" or bludgeoning mandating a do-over are unconvincing, if not also insulting. Veteran admins are capable of separating the wheat from the chaff, perhaps moreso than some non-admin closers, who might "safely" close with an otherwise unexplained “obvious no consensus”, instead of investing time to filter and assess the valid points. The OP argues WP:RFCNOT, which is from an information page, while WP:NOTBURO and WP:CONSENSUS#Consensus-building are policies. The close gave more weight to policies:

  Analyzing the relative strength of the arguments, those who sided with RfC being a valid venue for this issue have significantly stronger policy-based arguments. ..there is no consensus that the RfC is invalid or inappropriate.

  Circling back to the the review rationale, it has factual errors. The most recent RM was closed as "no consensus" not "closed against lowercase being the title" (see WP:THREEOUTCOMES). The RfC was closed in line with P&Gs. The info page WP:CLOSECHALLENGE states:

  Closures will rarely be changed by either the closing editor or a closure review…if the poll was close or even favored an outcome opposite the closure, if the closure was made on the basis of policy. Policies and guidelines are usually followed in the absence of a compelling reason otherwise, or an overwhelming consensus otherwise, and can only be changed by amending the policy itself.

  WP:POINTY also has some applicable guidance:

  Practically speaking, it is impossible for Wikipedia to be 100 percent consistent, and its rules will therefore never be perfect. If consensus strongly disagrees with you even after you have made proper efforts, then respect the consensus…

  For all the fuss about appropriate venue, nobody has explained how the MOS was applied incorrectly (MOS:CAPS: Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia.), or explained how a new RM would present any new arguments. NOTBURO indeed.—Bagumba (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Time to move on The RFC was a disaster from start to finish and I suspect there's zero chance that it is actually overturned because who has time to read through all of that debate about proper nouns? The lesson here is bludgeoning and badgering can work in certain situations. The endless wall of text comments certainly obfuscated the issue enough that a consensus was somehow pulled out of the wreckage. Congrats, I guess. It seems like there's more important matters to the project that interpretations of proper nouns. The English language isn't a math equation and treating it like one seems like a waste of time, but YMMV. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn while I generally agree with everything Nemov said, I'm loathe to reward the badgering and bludgeoning by tacitly agree with the close. I've no interest in wasting further energy on a mostly-pointless debate, but for the record I dislike the pompous and contemptuous tone that the MOS crowd takes toward content area specialists. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn per RFCNOT. As others have stated, a clever end-around when RMs weren't going their way, wrought with bludgeoning and simply overwhelming their opponents. The Kip 05:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: @AirshipJungleman29, I've stayed out of the conversation except to clarify something and now to reply to a comment directed at me, not to make an argument for either outcome. The page was split off at one point and the "top editors" of the split version does not include pre-split comments and some users replied to multiple comments in the same edit. Not sure it's fair to call that "disrespecting" an involved / uninvolved section or implying that contributes to a battleground mentality. I've spent a lot of time since this close trying to calm tensions and I don't appreciate the implication that I'm fanning the flames and making things worse. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  @AirshipJungleman29: I had zero expectation of it being an issue for me replying to Cbl62 the way that I did and, frankly, I still don't believe my reply was an issue. I also had no expectation that people would want to communicate as if this were a discussion at arb, where threaded discussions are discouraged between parties. There was no arguing on my behalf or any efforts to influence anybody, I didn't reply again after Cbl62 replied to me. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  @AirshipJungleman29: My intention was not to rehash the old argument, but I get your point. I also do not believe this is a productive way to communicate between sections and that a person closing a close review should be able to separate the chaff from the wheat if discussions got off topic in spots. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Scribolt: No comment on your endorsement of the close, but uh... According to a excellent essay I recently had the pleasure of reading... – That's a link to an essay you yourself wrote in your own user space that you edited just before replying to this discussion. Kind of strange to imply and link it as though it's another person's essay. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  I find this revelation quite humorous. Maybe there's a good explanation? Nemov (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  It sounds like someone loves to toot their own horn. Conyo14 (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  So... you thought my masterplan was to try and mislead people into thinking that was someone else's essay, when it quite obviously wasn't, for the reasons you noted, and my edit summary included the phrase "shameless plug"? I can see I'm going to have to work harder at this subterfuge thing. I wrote it a while back and it expresses my thoughts on consensus, which is relevant to this situation and it expands on my vote here (which is why people link to essays). Scribolt (talk) 20:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Scribolt: Well you did reply with "I read" instead of "I wrote". Read has a clear implication of not being something you wrote, which is why I found it comical. I didn't think of some master plan, I just thought it was odd. Keep in mind most people reading through a threaded discussion are not doing so while also looking at the edit history. It's fine to share your essay, but the phrasing really makes it sound like you're linking someone else's essay. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Closing Admin Comment Obviously I endorse my own closure, so I'm not going to make a bolded !vote here. I also hesitated to weigh in, since there isn't much to say that wasn't already explained in the close itself or at User talk:The Wordsmith#NFL Draft. I did expect it to end up here no matter which way I closed it, so I made sure to explain how I arrived at my assessment so that people at AN could understand clearly without my needing to re-summarize the same 4 deciEEng-long discussion here. Firstly, the Xtools page statistics are misleading especially for the amount of text contributed by each editor. The RfC began at the Village Pump and was copied into the separate page by SMcCandlish, skewing the ratios to the point they aren't very useful. Number of edits is a better proxy, but isn't perfectly accurate because some editors have a habit of copyediting their posts which results in multiple edits showing for one actual post. What I did see as clear WP:BLUDGEONING was where the same editor repeats their argument multiple times, with no indication that they took any of the counter-arguments into consideration. For example, the phrases "opinion poll" and "opinion survey" were used a combined 16 times in the RfC page, 14 of them by Randy Kryn to frame the RfC as illegitimate (the remaining two were SMcCandlish quoting Randy to rebut that idea). Randy has continued this framing[2], as well as making other false claims like the close "ignored" WP:RFCNOT when it was specifically mentioned in the close and explained further on my talkpage. I do think Hey man im josh's conduct has been exemplary; it isn't easy to enact a consensus that you disagree with, but he's taken steps to do that as well as tried to de-escalate the issue. Also noting that the practice of dividing comments in a close review into Involved and Uninvolved (I thought we recently settled on "RFC Participants" and "Non-Participants?) is a fairly new one, so it seems reasonable that there would be some confusion on that point.
  I welcome the review from uninvolved editors. Honestly, when I started the closure I expected to to be a complete lack of consensus. As I began filtering out the bludgeoning, writing down the editors and the arguments they made, I was surprised to see a clear consensus emerge based on the strength of the arguments. It took 4+ hours to sort through everything on the RfC and write up a close; I don't think any policy-based criticism reasoning have been raised. The idea that the information page WP:RFCNOT can be "violated" or "ignored" when it is weighted against the policies WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NOT is wildly incorrect and continuing to push it is rapidly veering into WP:IDHT. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  re-summarize the same 4 deciEEng-long discussion here. I approve of EEng's talk page becoming the unit for page length, though maybe a link to the pre-archiving version would be better. JoelleJay (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  I actually just put together a draft of User:The Wordsmith/EEngs. It takes a raw page size and compares it against the current length of EEng's talk, so the RfC length can be cited with the template as 0.39 EEngs. I'll update it to be called with a page name directly in the future. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  "a link to the pre-archiving version would be better" – Sure, if you want to crash people's browsers. LOL.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  It's laughable to single out RK for bludgeoning while ignoring users on the other side who commented much more in the discussion RK did. Their whole MO is to bludgeon every discussion to the point where people who disagree with them no longer feel like contributing to the discussions. Jessintime (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  That was just one clear example of repeating an identical argument over and over, which is why I wrote For example. Other users have already been mentioned here by other comments, including Dicklyon and SMcCandlish and I agree with that. Bagumba also made a lot of comments/replies, but they were fairly short and addressed several different points/asked different questions so I wouldn't characterize their contributions that way. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  Singling me out is fine, and I wish more editors here would read WP:RFCNOT and its use by the Dispute Resolution page as a defining description of what an RfC can and cannot do. It cannot, per RFCNOT, change the title of any page. That duty is assigned to WP:RM. I was convinced from the start that editors would use this RfC to change the casing of titles if a close went in their favor, so pointed out repeatedly, and do so again here, that the RfC was an opinion poll. According to RFCNOT it could not have been anything else. The results, of course, could be reported in a new RM, and the editors who commented at the RfC could be pinged to participate in the RM. But that route seems to have been closed off by editors using WP:IAR to move page titles to lowercase. My question is "How does moving the NFL Draft pages to lowercase improve or maintain the encyclopedia", the criteria for an IAR. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  As has already been pointed out, WP:RFCNOT is an information page and does not overrule policy. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 01:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  The policy Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Requested move defines the parameters and process of how a page title is changed. The policy Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Requests for comment refers to article content, and links to WP:RFC for definition and direction. That page contains WP:RFCNOT, which instructs that RfCs cannot change page titles, and refers editors to Requested moves for that task. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  This cherry-picking of line-items from policy that seem like they support RK's extremist bureaucratic viewpoint (that consensus formation is invalid if it doesn't follow an exact procedural course that he prefers) really needs to come to an end. As was already pointed out multiple times in the RfC itself (and I won't re-quote it all here), other elements of the exact same policy, and WP:CONSENSUS, and various others, specifically recommend VPPOL and RfC for resolving failures to reach consensus. The undeniable facts of the situation are that RM (and MR after it) were tried already, and just produced a "no consensus", so the obvious and policy-recommended solution is RfCing the matter, including at VPPOL in particular. There is no form of WP:IDHT and WP:WIKILAWYER (verging on WP:GAMING) handwaving in furtherance of his extremist pro-bureaucracy position that RK can engage in that is ever going to change this fact.

  An important side point is that RK's non-stop habit of re-re-re-repeating the same arguments endlessly no matter how many times they have been demonstrated to be wrong is why the RfC got mired in circular, repetitive argument (and why this AN thread is heading the same direction, as have so many RMs in which RK has been involved to tirelessly promote capitalization that doesn't fit the sourcing or the guidelines). Every time RK repeats the same nonsense, it needs to be dispelled again, which necessitates another post from me or Dicklyon or whoever. RK would not be the first to use this "drown it in noise" tactic to try to trainwreck MoS/AT-related discussions that aren't likely to go their way because of the sourcing and the P&G at issue. The other habitual abuser of this strategy was topic-banned from capitalization and eventually from all of MoS a long time ago.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  An important side point is that RK's non-stop habit of re-re-re-repeating the same arguments endlessly no matter how many times they have been demonstrated to be wrong pot, please meet kettle. Thryduulf (talk) 12:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  Another kettle, and another name calling rant against me by Mr. McCandlish, but where in it does he dispel with examples that titles per WP:RFCNOT means something other than titles are decided by an WP:RM process and not by an RFC? If consensus is not reached with an RM then another RM is called for, not an RfC. And I "drown it in noise?". After so many insults let me at least point out once, please, that walls-of-text are okay to write and preserve for a good record of topic analysis, but consider learning how to say things in just a few less words. Thanks. As for wanting to ban me from discussions to, I guess, make it easier to get your way, that should not be how Wikipedia works, and if someone tried to ban SMcCandlish for repetitive wall-of-texts I'd be the first to oppose it. Better to have a discussion about WP:RFCNOT though, which is the sticking point to where this RfC likely bit off too much and went in a direction of allowing massive title changes without going through the RM process. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  A bunch of argument to emotion hand-waving about "insults" is never, ever going to dispel the proven fact that you canvassed like mad in furtherance of both capitalization against the source evidence and guidelines and against the ability of the community to RfC the matter (I've diffed it from start to finish, as best I could track it, over the course of weeks). You should have been blocked shortly after that started, and topic-banned. But as usual, as long as style or titles are involved, the admin corps for whatever reason will tolerate unbelievable amounts of disruptive, battlegrounding, advocacy-pushing behavior that would result in action if any other topic of any kind were involved. I have no idea why there's this blind spot, but it's there, and so I'm sure you'll skate without even a administrative warning to never do that again. [sigh]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  Another pot-kettle post. When you and others attempt to replace WP:RM with WP:RfC then I'd think that you'd expect some pushback and wouldn't mind it. As for "capitalization against the source evidence", that's for an RM to decide, not an RfC. Yes, it'd be much easier for you to push through things like this if you could choose which editors could comment and which are banned/silenced/sighworthy. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn based on the considerations discussed in my comments here. The search for perfect capitalization consistency is simply not worth the amount of dispute and demoralization that it has been creating for more than a decade. No criticism of the closer is intended. (I'm not sure whether I'm considered "involved" where I don't edit the underlying articles but I did participate in the discussion, but I've posted in the "involved" section to avoid any dispute.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  I've updated the section headers per recent practice, "Involved" is intended to mean RFC participants rather than WP:INVOLVED The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comments
  1. The OP, referring to Talk:2024 NFL draft#Requested move 27 April 2023 states: ...closed against lowercase being the title. The RfC closed with "no consensus". The statement in the OP is inaccurate. BeanieFan11, please amend this to accurately the close of the RM.
  2. My observation of how messy a discussion (eg RfC or RM) becomes is directly proportional to the degree of participation. If the subject is contentious, this it is exponential. However, more participation, despite this down side, must be a good thing. The 2016 RM compared with the 2016 MR shows the pitfalls of poor participation.
  3. Kudos to The Wordsmith for wading through this and making sense of it.
  4. Appropriate notifications gather participation. Notification at each year article is unlikely to garner appreciably greater participation than a notification at the parent article, National Football League draft. My mother would say that one has no right to complain unless one is prepared to do something about it and come to the table with a solution. To those making such a complaint, the solution should have been self-evident - fix it. If complainants in the RfC chose to do nothing to remedy their cause for complaint, IMO they have no cause for complaint now.
  5. If editors are going to complain about notifications, was this discussion notified at the RfC page? No. Yet there was a notification at Talk:National Football League draft by BeanieFan11 with pings to selected editors. Perhaps an oversight by still evidence of WP:POTish behaviour.
  6. The 2016 RM resulted in the move of multiple pages without notification to those pages. One editor that specifically advocated this is perhaps the most vocal of those asserting the RfC is flawed for lack of notification. This strikes me as particularly WP:POTish.
  7. In the course of the RfC, WP:RFCNOT was cited once by a participant. WP:NOTBURO was cited among other reasons for conducting the discussion as an RfC. WP:NOTBURO is expressly linked to WP:IAR. The closer has assessed the arguments for RM v RFC including WP:RFCNOT. It has not been ignored. Citing WP:RFCNOT herein is not of itself a substantive reason for overturning the close. The prevailing P&G tells us it is not a trump card that beats all others.
  8. The purpose of a discussion is to elicit different views on a question and to debate those views. Both WP:RMCI and WP:CLOSE explicitly refer to discussions as a debate. A robust debate of an issue tests the validity of evidence and conclusions and, exposes the strengths or weaknesses in arguments. A metric such as number of edits or number of signatures to assert bludgeoning does not consider context: whether the edits reasonably contributed to the debate, whether they were replies to questions or other reasonable contributions. On the otherhand, The Wordsmith observes What I did see as clear WP:BLUDGEONING was where the same editor repeats their argument multiple times, with no indication that they took any of the counter-arguments into consideration, Given Randt Kryn's edits as a specific example (38 signatures in the RfC not including collapsed text). The responses to this edit by UCO2009bluejay really do prove their point.
  9. At their TP The Wordsmith would also refer to: aspersions and assumptions of bad faith,[3] which evidence WP:BATTLEGROUNDy behaviour, which is totally unproductive and should be of greater concern.
  10. Notwithstanding my observation immediately two above, if we are going to consider bludgeoning, then, apart from those already mentioned, we also need to consider GoodDay and (50 sigatures), Thryduulf (43 signatures) [in uncollapsed text].
  11. We have heard enough claims of "opinion poll" and "opinion survey" at the RfC. Repeating it again and again here doesn't make it so.

  Cinderella157 (talk) 02:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  No time to read all this, but in response to the ping, I was going by admin @Amakuru: stating that "the difference between 'no consensus' and 'consensus not to move' is largely cosmetic". BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  BeanieFan11, the distinction may be cosmetic in respect to the effect it has on an article but in a discussion such as this, there is a very distict difference between asserting "no consensus" (there is no clear result to favour either) and "consensus against" (there is consensus not to). Amakuru continues to say: ... our guidelines say that such cases default to the status quo, which is functionally the same as if there's a consensus not to move. The OP could be seen as a misrepresentation of fact, which, if intentional is unethical and inappropriate conduct. Having been made aware of this, the appropriate course is to amend an unintended misrepresentation else it would reasonably be seen as deliberate. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  Commenting only on the point where I was pinged, bludgeoning cannot be determined by signature count alone. One editor making 20 identical comments is more likely to be bludgeoning than another editor making 40 different comments. In this RFC I was not advocating for or against lowercasing, but arguing the RFC was an improper attempt to overturn the RM consensus, pointing out flaws in some commenters' arguments and/or methodology. Thryduulf (talk) 03:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thryduulf, where I pinged you, the sentence commences: Notwithstanding my observation immediately above ... [I will amend this] I am referring to point 8. Therein I make a point very similar to what you are saying. While number of comments is indicative of bludgeoning, context does matter. Concerns are being raised in this discussion regarding bludgeoning by certain editors based on their number of comments. I have observed that you should not be excluded from that group based on that metric and consequently, your edits should be subject to the same scrutiny to determine if bludeoning has occurred. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn. The disregard for all the valid concerns about venue, notices, canvassing, RFCNOT¸ etc. mean this was not an accurate summary of the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 03:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  As I already demonstrated with a large diff pile, the only canvassing (and a whole hell of a lot of it, by Randy Kryn) was was on the pro-capitalization and concern-about-the-venue side (which are the same side, i.e. trying to use bogus venue/process bureaucracy to evade the fact that the sourcing and P&G on the matter were entirely clear and could only have one outcome).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  I asked you, multiple times, in the discussion to provide evidence for your aspersions against content editors. You did not do so then and you have not done so now. Thryduulf (talk) 12:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn. Fundamentally, RFC is not the venue for deciding move discussions, and that's particularly the case when a fairly recent RM discussion which attracted lots of participation was closed without a consensus for making the moves that have now been made. Whether RFCNOT is an essay / information page / whatever else isn't the point here. The point is that we have years and years of precedence for using RM as the venue for making these sorts of decision, and that's the way it's done on Wikipedia. For the closer to assert otherwise and decide they have the right to make the close anyway, and then even accuse experienced editors of WP:IDHT when they point this out, is baffling. The reasons for using RM rather than RFC for moves are several - firstly, it ensures a central listing at WP:RM for all discussions, meaning that they're almost always frequented by those with genuine expertise in article titling policy. Secondly, the bots that run the RM process make sure that the talk page of every article that might be affected is notified, something that didn't happen here. The process can also be used for more broad decisions affecting numerous articles, as we saw at Talk:1872 FA Cup final#Requested move 5 January 2023. So that's the procedural reason for overturning this. Now looking at the RFC more specifically, the discussion was hugely dominated by the procedural aspect of it. More than half the discussion was about whether it was legitimate rather than the question itself and many, including myself, did not really take the RFC to seriously or even cast a !vote because we didn't expect it to ever be binding. Hey man im josh, another RM-experienced admin who also questioned the venue of this discussion, actually introduced some of the most relevant information into the discussion, in the form of evidence that a very wide body of sources capitalise NFL Draft consistently. This evidence may or may not have been compelling, but it was lost amid the confusion around the decision to host the discussion in the wrong venue. Certainly I was forced to shift my view somewhat in response to that and it would have been very interesting to pursue it. In short, the RFC should be voided, and if people want to genuinely discuss this issue, a fresh RM discussion at NFL Draft or similar should be crafted, where we can focus solely on the evidence at hand and come to a hopefully final and correct decision.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  the bots that run the RM process make sure that the talk page of every article that might be affected is notified: That did not happen at the 2016 RM, when the system was gamed, only one notification was placed for 2016 NFL draft (not even the main draft page), no P&G arguments were made, but a non-admin closer anyways moved all "XXXX NFL draft" pages to capitalization. The last RM was non-admin closed, vote counting non-P&G votes to reach a "no consensus". This RfC was well-attended, and VPPOL arguably has more eyes—and neutral as well. Nobody has identified what new policy or guideline argument will result from yet another RM. —Bagumba (talk) 05:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse: Closer used accurate policy and accurately took into account the sides of the debate which was well publicized in the appropriate channels. We don't need forum shopping here when time is better spent improving the project elsewhere. Let'srun (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
  • How is this forum shopping? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  How was this "well publicized in the appropriate channels" when it wasn't notified to all the articles affected (as is required for move discussions)? Thryduulf (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Let'srun: I won't argue against your endorsement of the close, but c'mon, forum shopping? Close reviews, and especially not this one, are not forum shopping. You need to do some reading on the definition before accusing others of such. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  Excuse Let'srun if they are confused, when no uppercase proponents patrolled the misuse of "forum shopping" previously at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Capitalization of NFL draft article titles § Forum question. On their talk page, the closer, Wordsmith, diplomatically called it an interesting statistical anomaly that no uppercase supporters called the RfC a good forum.[4] —Bagumba (talk) 01:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  Oops, it should have been The Wordsmith.—Bagumba (talk) 01:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse per my comments about how it was a good forum in the RfC itself (Ctrl+F). Apart from the forum question, there was a rough consensus to move.—Alalch E. 01:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Behavior of editor User:MrOllie

Repeated deletions involving several pages, and in particular the redirection of page Sampling (computational modeling)

Evidence

This is my second dispute opened in relation to the operate of User:MrOllie, see Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_241#sensitivity_analysis for a record of the first. In this second I would like to look at what happened to other pages supervised by the same editor, as, in my opinion, a troubling pattern emerges. As previously noted User:MrOllie has removed my citations from several pages, in a rather 'deletionist' style, but the action of this person has been particularly inconsiderate in two specific pages, sensitivity analysis (see Talk:Sensitivity_analysis and sensitivity auditing, see Talk:Sensitivity_auditing. I hope that the adjective inconsiderate referred to the action of a person is not censored and is accepted as a criticism moved by an author to the operate of an editor. Plenty of material is available in Talk:Sensitivity_analysis to motivate the adjective inconsiderate - in brief, the works removed are the most cited in the discipline as attested by several authors. In the case of sensitivity auditing the issue is that the reference removed by User:MrOllie is the first reference introducing the method, quoted by all remaining references of the page, see Talk:Sensitivity_auditing. After the systematic deletions I made a public confession (see Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_241#sensitivity_analysis) of my sins - not notifying a conflict of interest while citing my own work. Having learned the lesson, I declared a possible conflict of interest in three talk pages: the two mentioned plus Quantitative storytelling, see Talk:Quantitative storytelling. I then opened three requests for edit under the edit COI template in Talk:Sensitivity_analysis, Talk:Sensitivity_auditing and in the page Talk:Post-normal science. These requests are in the pipeline. During all discussions so far, users User:MrOllie maintained a confrontational tone, although I always addressed this person with courtesy. Another clear inconsiderate deletion - that gives the occasion for this second dispute - took place once user (User_talk:Kozlova_Mariia - a person I know belonging to the community of sensitivity analysis practitioners) created a new page on sampling for numerical simulation Sampling (computational modeling). User:MrOllie eliminates the page with a redirect to the page Sampling (statistics). The talk page associated to this now redirected page explains while the adjective inconsiderate applies here. I copy the page in full below in blue as I find it self-explaining. Listening to reason: the talk page of Sampling (computational modeling) User:MrOllie I just undid your redirect of this page, (you eliminated the page created by User_talk:Kozlova_Mariia with a redirect to the page Sampling (statistics)). My motivation is the following: If one cares to read the two pages one will see that Sampling (statistics) is devoted to empirical experiments, either involving physical objects or individuals (humans) to be polled. This is about extracting entities from a population e.g. to set up an experiment in the laboratory or in a society as to ensure that several characteristics of the population are explored. Sampling in numerical experiments has to do with the exploration of multi-dimensional spaces to the effect of e.g. testing the output of a model, numerically integrating a function and so on. If anything, Sampling (computational modeling) is closer to Design of experiments (DOI) than it is to Sampling (statistics), though very few mathematical modellers use pure DOI but preferentially the methods in the newly created page. There is no conflict of interest in this page, neither mine not of the user creating it, and I consider that noticeably is ensured for this page. An incise, just to be clear: I know and appreciate the work of the user who created the page but the page does not contain self promotional material for either of us. A litmus test of the argument for the difference between Sampling (statistics) and Sampling (computational modeling) is that neither Sampling (statistics) nor Design of experiments contains Low-discrepancy sequences, also known as quasirandom sequences or quasi random numbers that are a best practice in computer simulation. Note the existence of a more specific and technical page on Quasi-Monte Carlo method. The newly created page is a useful bridge for users interested in numerical experiments. I suggest that before deleting this page again the opinion of other editors is polled. Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 11:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC). The linked methods describe themselves as statistical methods and link to Sampling (statistics). This is clearly the same topic, just applied to a slightly different domain. We should not have two articles about the same topic, just as we don't have Samplling (medicine), Sampling (social science), etc. - MrOllie (talk) 12:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC) Sorry to contradict you User:MrOllie, but please note that Wikipedia has sampling (medicine) Wikipedia does not have sampling (social sciences) but has sampling (music) and sampling (signal processing) as well. Even sampling bias. As clearly noted above, in both sampling (medicine) and in the missing sampling (social sciences) that you take as an example one extracts samples from populations (of rats, drugs, chemicals, humans, treatments); bar discipline specific features, this can be covered in sampling (statistics). In sampling for numerical simulation or computational modeling one explores multidimensional space and this is not a slightly different domain. For example the concept of discrepancy - central to the field of sampling for numerical experiments - does not work for drugs and treatments. See the discussion of quasi-random sequences above. As I tried to explain, if redirecting (which I disagree with), this should be to design of experiments, not sampling (statistics). As I proposed, it would be useful to see what other editors think of this disagreement. Though I am not a great expert of Wikipedia procedures, a speedy deletion request from your side would have been preferable to a redirection, as this would have allowed a discussion with more editors. Hoping that you will consider my reasons, I remove again your redirect. Best regards.Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 11:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC) Those aren't repeating the same material about statistical methods, as this article is. Speedy deletion requests are resolved without any discussion, that is why they are speedy. MrOllie (talk) 13:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC) It is quite interesting how my arguments have been dismissed - User:MrOllie is categorical in his judgment, and a second pair of eyes is not needed. I did not continue the conversation seen its futility, but for whomever is reading this I would like to note that not one of the references of the removed page Sampling (computational modeling) appears in the page Sampling (statistics). Of the four methods described in suppressed Sampling (computational modeling): Simple random sampling Latin hypercube sampling (LHS) Quasi-random sampling (QRS) Full factorial design (FFD) Only the first, random sample, is mentioned in Sampling (statistics) - no LHS, QRS or FFD. Why did I not write this as a continuation of the exchange with User:MrOllie? In one looks at the text in blue above User:MrOllie is not receptive to the reasons put forwards and continues repeating rather mechanically that the two pages are repeating the same material about statistical methods. Is this about reason or about power? I hope I have demonstrated that the page cannot be redirected, and especially cannot be redirected to Sampling (statistics): I add that the decision should not be left to User:MrOllie alone. Behaviors such as those described here have been registered by other unhappy authors, even outside Wikipedia, as I move to discuss next. Outside Wikipedia Looking outside Wikipedia, one discovers that several authors - like me - have been unfavorably impressed by the deletionist style of User:MrOllie. One user asks if this entity is a bot or an extremely busy human. Another asks Who is MrOllie and points to the critique of Wikipedia by Tom Simonite. I agree with this author that Simonite's piece -- although old -- is still very much to the point. The loose collective running the site today, estimated to be 90 percent male, operates a crushing bureaucracy with an often abrasive atmosphere that deters newcomers who might increase participation in Wikipedia and broaden its coverage. Author laments these high-edit Wikipedia editors who can "undo" the work of those who do actually contribute. Another author repeats the message that this incessant deletion has the effect of scaring people off, possibly scaring off people who could give a good contribution. These people might find themselves in a rabbit hole trying to comply with the rules and grammar of Wikipedia in a possibly vain attempt to get redress against behaviors such as those flagged here in relation to User:MrOllie. Another wounded author writes: I just want to say: Mr.Ollie is a serious piece of work...Put in serious creditable sources from real authority sites, not some fake ass wannabes, and everything and he just...never mind leaving this thread before I start getting nightmares from him haunting me again.(Signed xReminisce) One more author, apparently a physicist, gives what seem valid reasons why the deletion of User:MrOllie were inconsiderate. Maybe all these authors - who have brought their complaints outside Wikipedia, were wrong or deluded, while User:MrOllie was consistently right. My direct experience of this editor is that in my specific case User:MrOllie was plainly wrong, and consistently aggressive and confrontational. The theme of impoliteness emerges very vividly in one looks inside Wikipedia. Inside Wikipedia User_talk:MrOllie/Archive_5#dealerbid An excerpt: Wikipedia is not here for you to help build your reputation as a writer, I'm afraid User_talk:MrOllie/Archive_18#Shawarma_Page Here a dispute with an author who calls MrOllie lazy for deleting things instead on engaging with the content. just say you're lazy and unwilling to fix a simple error. you only just noticed the link from the previous contributor on this topic, and used it as an excuse to delete the whole thing. I fixed it now, let's see what new reason you come up with to delete it. Plainonlycheese (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2023 (UTC) MrOllie responds that personal attacks are forbidden We also don't allow personal attacks. If you keep on like this you won't be successful on this site. MrOllie (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC) Was this a personal attack? So if an author complains of the behavior of an editor as I am doing in the present note this is a personal attack. While receiving complaints from academicians for his intervention in the Talk:Sensitivity_analysis page MrOllie accused me of 'canvassing'. In other words, MrOllie is always right. Elsewhere [[5]] one Author complains after a series of exchanges But you are not a cooperative person. Not kind either. Neotesla (talk) 02:45, 23 October 2022 (UTC) To which MrOllie replies No personal attacks is a policy here, too. Do not post on my talk page again, I've read enough insults. MrOllie (talk) 02:49, 23 October 2022 (UTC) Is being 'not kind' and 'non cooperative' an attack or a criticism? Interestingly, MrOllie wrote on my own talk page User_talk:Saltean#Managing_a_conflict_of_interest, in reply to a polite expression of my reasons, You've been writing about yourself and your work all over the encyclopaedia. That is obviously a conflict of interest as we define it here. MrOllie (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC) I would typify this characterization of my 17 y in Wikipedia as aggressive, but I would not make an issue of it, were not for the pattern that emerges from the present analysis. User_talk:MrOllie/Archive_18#False_statement_in_Epoch_Times_article Here an author is asked to apologize to User:MrOllie: Don't post on my talk page again unless you're showing up because you've finally read the whole article and are coming to apologize. MrOllie (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC) User_talk:MrOllie/Archive_17#Your_message_to_me_about_removals Too long to be cited but here an author appears as complying with a request of MrOllie and eventually giving up after MrOllie refuses to take notice User_talk:MrOllie/Archive_16#Removal_of_some_citations_and_the_improvement_of_existing_ones_from_the_articel_"Evolutionary_algorithms" Here one author has inserted a group of references including on of her/his own, and MrOllie removed all of them. ... Do you want to prohibit experts who have worked in the thematic field of an article from citing one or other of their own publications in addition to other sources, provided that it fits the facts? The publication in question deals in detail with the complexity of the task being worked on with an EA. In other words, exactly what was described in the article and for which evidence was sought. I am looking forward to your answer. Wilfried Jakob (talk) 10:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC) The reply of MrOllie Yes, I do want to prohibit that. Citing a few other sources is not tax you pay in exchange for putting your own name on Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC) In my opinion here MrOllie should not have removed the extra references but only that object of a COI, inviting the author to use the COI template if to cite her/his own. Conclusions Like the user in I think that 'rabbit hole' well captures the syndrome that might befall an author (academic or otherwise) that after mastering the grammar of Wikipedia and its (evolving) set of norms finds herself or himself confronted with actions such as those discussed here. Once upon a time I spent some energy to convince my fellow academic authors from all disciplines to work in Wikipedia. I was a Wikipedia enthusiast of (almost) the first hours. I wasn't extremely successful in this proselytizing, I must say. I am more cautious now. I have met editors that have helped me and in a sense nurtured my work in Wikipedia. Maybe Wikipedia after the infamous 2005 case involving journalist John Seigenthaler has evolved with time to become more and more intensely policed, so that today, in 2024, the Wikipedia ecosystem needs the deletions of MrOllie more than my entries. Yes policing should not come with a sense of omnipotence. Erring authors needs to be corrected, not humiliated, their work encouraged, not deleted; a moralizing tone should be banned; editors' abrasiveness should be kept in check. Pace MrOllie, Wikipedia should not be an over here, that User:MrOllie defends from an over there of erring authors whose content is cleared acritically. Sentences such as Wikipedia is not here for you to help build your reputation as a writer, I'm afraid are inappropriate and come to a price in terms of deterred contributors. References References

Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 07:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Holy WP:MWOT. Shouldn't reports like this be over at WP:ANI? And about 95% shorter? And (preferably) about 100% more comprehensible? Bon courage (talk) 07:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I've collapsed it for now. Primefac (talk) 08:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Primefac Seen the dimension of this discussion could you now kindly un-collapse my text? Thanks. Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

No. It's huge and there are only benefits to keeping it collapsed. People can still read it (i.e. it hasn't been removed). Primefac (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

No one is going to read all this, here or at ANI. It is an essay, not a report. Dennis Brown 2¢ 08:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I actually went through it, because I was eating a sandwich and couldn't type or do anything else productive at the same time. The gist is that Saltean has a conflict of interest in the subject area and was citing their own publications in at least one of the related articles; does not have a legitimate behavioral complaint to pursue againt MrOllie; is trying to tar him as being part of some alleged "cabal" problem that some off-site writers were venting about; but is probably correct that Sampling (computational modeling) could be a stand-alone article (just using material beyond what Saltean has published). In short, this is a typical content dispute. I would recommend using WP:AFC to create the article, since various reviewers will check it for self-promotion, for WP:GNG passage, for not being a WP:CONTENTFORK, for having WP:Neutral point of view, for lacking WP:Original research, for citing WP:Reliable sources, and so on.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I owe you a sandwich. Just glancing through, I kind of got that same feeling, but I lacked the patience that the sandwich gave to you, enough to read the whole thing. COIs are are such a tricky thing, and this seems to be an example why we recommend that people with COIs don't directly edit. I did read enough that your suggestion would be the best course of action, and for Saltean to be patient, as the average article reviewer may not be experienced enough to reviewing the article. I certainly wouldn't be. They can always ask for others here with the technical experience to review it after it is more or less complete, not just the regular article reviewers. Saltean, you need to understand that the default around here is to keep the status quo, unless it is clear that a change is needed or obviously beneficial, so when you try to do something large, it typically gets pushback until you develop a consensus for it. Developing the article outside of mainspace (per SMcCandlish's idea) is probably the best way to approach this. Writing walls of text isn't. Dennis Brown 2¢ 10:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not just about self-citations. The reverts were factually wrong too. We have been trying to raise that over and over now. If you go look at the pages' discussions, many researchers have been trying to make this clear. And if you look at who these researchers are (because you can as we all publicly give our real names-my second name if you doubt that part as most do), you will see that we are the top researchers in the field. And sure you can argue that we know each other and have a conflict of interest, yes sorry the field is small and we go to the same conferences and are friends. My bad.

I guess my question is the following: are you then saying that, we, the most knowledgeable people on a topic should abstain to write about our own scientific contributions and methods? And then leave that up to people who are making mistakes? Because this is what is happening, people making mistake and we are trying to fix things. Tupui (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I am saying that people that have a conflict of interest need to edit carefully and still must get consensus for their changes, no matter how expert or brilliant they are. The policies at Wikipedia are the same for everyone. This is also why I agreed that a separate article should probably be started over to the side, so they can find tune it before submitting it. That is for their own benefit. Not so much to benefit everyone else. What you don't understand is we are flooded with people who are self-proclaimed experts, some real, some imagined. They still have to follow the same policies. Farmer Brown - 2¢ 00:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Damn, what was in that patience sandwich? El_C 07:03, 17 February 2024 (UTC) Thyme? Dennis Brown 2¢ 07:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC) It was certainly sage advice. Bon courage (talk) 07:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC) With a hint of spicy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC) I fuck with spicy mayo. El_C 08:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC) egg mayo? – robertsky (talk) 10:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC) You are all being quite disrespectful now. A serious matter is being raised and this tangent is showing a deep lack of consideration and inclusiveness. Tupui (talk) 10:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC) Yes, come on everyone, let's keep the humour at bay. Bon courage (talk) 10:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC) Believe it or not, I am actually going through your report while having a bowl of soup. I have nothing much to add to SMcCandlish's except to seek third opinions from another experienced editor for content disputes. The editor giving their analysis or feedback may not necessarily be an expert in the area of interest, but will suffice for determining/mediating the path forward. That being said, since it is here, do consider SMcCandlish's advices which are sound and come from experience. – robertsky (talk) 11:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC) I dunno, a bit hard to pars(l)e(y) :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@Saltean and Tupui: I'll answer the original really excessive length with a bit of length of my own, in the interests of being clear and advisory instead of dismissive. The advice in this thread is sound. Use the WP:AFC procedure to create a new article, and this may be quite slow-going, and potentially rather frustrating. The central problem here is that Wikipedia is not a journal and does not publish cutting-edge primary research. A novel sub-field with few practitioners, who all know each other and are themselves defining the subject (which is a very important factor – see AEIS discussion below), does not generally make for an encyclopedia article, because it is too new, too much of a walled garden, and lacks in-depth coverage in reliable but independent and secondary sources. The onus is on you (collectively – everyone with an interest in creating such an article) to demonstrate that this field-specific meaning of "sampling" passes the general notability criterion with such secondary coverage, and to base the bulk of the draft on that coverage, not self-promotionally on your own primary-reserach publications. It is distinctly possible that Wikipedia cannot have an article on this subject for some time, even if it conceptually merits one, due to insufficient secondary material.

Actually provable outright error with regard to this subtopic that might be found in broader-topic articles should be corrected, of course. But that doesn't necessarily means you are the ones to do it. It again depends largely on citation to secondary-source material, not assertions from your own primary publications. For researchers whose careers are deeply involved in something this narrow, conflict of interest is likely, so such correction requests should be done with {{edit COI}} on the talk page of the relevant article; people are apt to revert your own changes based on your own material (or that of your friends) as improperly sourced and potentially self-promotional of a particular researcher-cum-Wikipedian's own work.

This not an invalid concern. While Saltean has a long history here, the bulk of their editing is within a topical sphere that seems to correlate strongly with their work life (and some of it is questionably encyclopedically constructive, including a lot of writing about rather random-looking academic edited volumes that clearly do not pass WP:GNG, or WP:NBOOK more narrowly, and are tagged as non-notable, so are probably going to WP:AFD at some point. Tupui does not have a long history here at all, with a very low input level, 100% of it focused on their professional interests.

Many if not most long-term and producive WP editors here learn to steer away from writing about their work subject(s), because it is very difficult to avoid conflicts of interest. E.g., professionally, I have been a civil-liberties activist, policy analyst, webmaster, and systems and network administrator, among other things, and I virtually never edit in topics that pertain to areas of my professional focus, because I am too close to them (and often to prominent individuals within those fields) and have strong opinions about virtually everything in those subject areas, which are difficult to discard; this general problem impairs the ability to treat the subjects with encyclopedic neutrality. Conflicts of interest in the broad sense can be subtle, including: selection bias with regard to sourcing; subtle viewpoint-pushing out of a conviction that one professional/academic faction has the facts more on their side even if a real-world consensus has not come to that conclusion; over-reliance on primary-research papers that have stood no test of time and are not subject to any academic secondary-source scrutiny (systematic and other literature reviews); even attempting to rely on such materials for analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis (AEIS), which is not allowed; and so on – instead of relying upon an as-neutral-as-possible due weight analysis across all the available modern reliable source material, with overwhelming dependence on secondary not primary sources. The AEIS issue in particular appears to be pertinent to this topic; it looks like AEIS of these individuals' primary work is the basis of the material that has been attempted at WP on the subject so far.

Finally, fixing errors (outright or of omission, especially omission of what one might feel is deserved attention/credit) can sometimes be frustrating and lengthy. In my case, our article on a topic of some public importance in Internet history in which I was deeply, formatively involved was for a long time miscrediting some obscure organization (who did exist and did have some minor involvement) as being originators of the topic in question, which was completely wrong. (Whether fair to me or not isn't the issue; it was grossly misleading to the reader, and acting as unabashed promotion of the other partty). I used edit-requests on the talk page to resolve this, and it actually took several years. And I still am not mentioned by name in the article content (due to lack of secondary sourcing that makes me an important part of the story), but the other group is no longer falsely credited with work they did not do. That result is actually okay. If secondary sources do not consider it a matter of keen public interest to name-drop me in that connection, then Wikipedia is not in a position to second-guess that "real-world consensus" on what is important about the subject. If you are here to ensure that your name and work are tied by name to this sampling subject, then you are here for the wrong reason. Note that's an if; I'm not saying that is the case (not being a mind-reader). But self-citation and an editorial focus on only that which pertains to your career focus can easily give that impression and raise red flags in the minds of other editors.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to all who kindly contributed to this exchange. A few thoughts:

• I am happy that with the complicity of a sandwich some of my text (pardon, my WP:MWOT) has been read. No, by all means, I do not fault User:MrOllie for belonging to a ‘cabal’, the opposite, I fault User:MrOllie for going alone on a page where User:MrOllie is clearly not at the top of his/her expertise. I also dislike his/her manners but I understand this issue has little currency here. It is only human that you close ranks around your fellow editor, but I hope that among yourselves you have at least a doubt that not all is well with this person – how many of you managed so many complaints as User:MrOllie? What if abusing authors the way User:MrOllie seems to do exceeds the specifications of his/her job?
• Thanks User:SMcCandlish for your kind and considerate advice. At present I am still testing what the Wikipedia own rules permit by way of COI. As I learned my lesson, I will no longer talk about my published work. Yet, since I am an author and not an editor, I prefer to write about things where I have an interest, as you can see at User:Saltean. I believe our roles are different. The present situation is a transient one, where we need to remedy some factual damage done by User:MrOllie. Of course, we could ask others to do reinsert the missing references – and this would be gaming the system, or wait patiently that someone does, but if you do not mind, I would like this to be done following Wikipedia own rules; for me, an interesting experiment.
• Going back to the page Sampling (computational modeling) (no COI) that is the main object of the dispute: I am still unsure of how to proceed: can I undo again User:MrOllie and simply add at the top of the page the WP:AFC label? Will he not redirect it again? Apologies for my ignorance of the mechanics of it. Your editors’ home may be an author’s rabbit hole. Thanks for your help and patience.

Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 11:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Replying to this in user-talk, since we're getting far afield of what WP:AN is for.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• Further discussion: Talk:Sensitivity analysis. Softlavender (talk) 09:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
• Tupui, you would do good to lighten up a bit. Many of us have devoted a great deal of time to Wikipedia (For me, it's 69,000 edits over 17 years, and I'm not unusual or "special"), and take the principles of Wikipedia serious, but not ourselves. Humor is how we deal with issues like someone leaving a tomb for a report, which is very difficult to comb through. SMcCandlish has just provided you with a gold mine of information that should clear up some things for you, much better than I could have said it. We write articles, we don't save lives here, so best if we don't take ourselves too serious. Like it or not, we are all just equal drones here, none of us is special. Dennis Brown 2¢ 10:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  69,000 edits — nice. El_C 11:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  I have been deeply involved in a few open source communities for years and what you are doing right now would have been flagged as a Code of Conduct breach. Humour only works if everyone is indeed laughing.

  On the matter at hand, I do not understand your position. Now we are being told that our field might be too niche though Andrea is pointing out that the EU now has regulatory requirements with regards to sensitivity analysis. The field is also almost as old as the variance.

  My take away from all of that is that we experts are not welcomed to contribute our knowledge. Instead random folks, which clearly have no clue about a subject, are more welcomed to share their non existing knowledge. Tupui (talk) 11:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  Those EU regulations might be a usable source. Bon courage (talk) 11:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  Yes but then it’s again a citation for Andrea… That’s the thing which folks are missing here. The field is not small, there is an extensive literature around it and massive usage. Yet the researchers and professionals making new methods and driving the field are just a few individuals. And I would argue that it’s a chance for Wikipedia that we would be willing to spend time to share our knowledge. Tupui (talk) 11:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not the place for "making new methods and driving the field", rather it's for a summary of accepted knowledge based on secondary, independent sources. Bon courage (talk) 12:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  As I tried to explain, these are not new methods, nor is the field. I am only saying that we are the researchers driving the field, not that we are trying to add our latest stuff to Wikipedia. Tupui (talk) 12:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  Well if there are secondary independent sources there should be no problem. Anyway, there is no user behaviour case to answer here. The conflicted editors should declare themselves per WP:COI and the content issue(s) sorted out on article Talk pages. I suggest this is closed. Bon courage (talk) 12:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  And what if there are no secondary independent sources? Does that mean we could not write anything on a topic? Not saying that's necessarily the case here, just trying to understand the policy here. Tupui (talk) 12:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  Still to me there is a behavioural issue. It should not be normal that an editor with a lack of expertise just remove hard work by the press of a button based on nothing but: "too much self citation", completely disregarding the actual edits and not trying to find a compromise with the citation issues. Tupui (talk) 12:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  If there are no independent secondary sources, then we don't publish it. It's that simple. Verification is more important than completeness, it's one of our core principles. We are a tertiary source, we only publish what is available in multiple, reliable secondary sources, and only allow primary sources under certain circumstances. An editor that reverts because some facts rely too much on primary sources is not a behavior issue, they are likely enforcing our policies on verification. See WP:BRD to understand how reverting works and what is expected from editors. Dennis Brown 2¢ 13:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  Tupui, I have a detailed response to what you've said, which I hope will be helpful, but it's better put in user-talk, since I think the AN crowd is tiring of this thread entirely, and the material is rather detailed and analytical about process, sourcing, WP actual needs for and from experts, etc., none of which is really a WP:AN matter.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  Your take-away is incorrect. A couple of times a year or so someone running afoul of our self-cite norms complains that Wikipedia is unwelcoming to experts. There are plenty of credentialed experts and published authors contributing to Wikipedia. But we don't cite ourselves (or not as much). Wikipedia is not for promoting your own work. Levivich (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't see anything to respond to here that has not already been covered by others. But I do want to note something: Saltean says above that they have no COI with regards to Sampling (computational modeling). Technically true, but it needs to be stated: that article (which just lists a few common statistical methods - it duplicates our existing article) was written by Kozlova Mariia (talk · contribs), who is a coauthor of Saltean's, and has been working on a draft about a book of Saltean's at Draft:Book on the politics of modelling. Between this and the several single purpose editors who appeared at Talk:Sensitivity_analysis to add testimonial type comments, I suspect there is some off-wiki coordination going on here. My question on that talk page was ignored, so I will put to Saltean again here: Did you contact people outside of Wikipedia and inform them about these discussions? - MrOllie (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Please don’t be insulted but here’s the challenge the rest of us face:

• On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog

In other words, we’re all just screen names to each other; we don’t really know for sure if the other person is who they claim to be. We’re flying blind which is why we have to give claimed expertise zero weight.

Since we have to assume nobody here is a legitimate expert, we require reliable sources. With a few narrow exceptions, these reliable sources also have to be secondary sources.

Even with reliable sources, we have to avoid overweighting certain points of view. Someone editing with a conflict of interest potentially hijacks that point of view, even if they’re very knowledgeable.

You’ve gotten advice to avoid topics in which you are knowledgeable because of COI concerns. I disagree with this; I suggest editing areas immediately adjacent to but just outside your narrow area of COI. You can help us a lot.

Thanks for caring and coming here to build out Wikipedia. Just stick within our rules. I know they sometimes seem gratuitously odd and even counterproductive. Nevertheless they represent 20 years of collective experience dealing with hundreds of thousands of anonymous editors including some cranks, self-promoters and imposters. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I entirely endorse that, BTW. Editing topics just outside your CoI but still within your expertise area is a fine way to contribute, perhaps the best for many editors, and something we need a lot more of.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot User:A. B.. I accept this and please note that I am not an expert myself in the exploration of multi-dimensional spaces - I have papers that use methods (one out this week, coincidence, in a good journal) but I am not the one developing them. I would really like not to follow on User:MrOllie provocation to reach out to the wider community. This dispute must be solved here in Wikipedia possibly following Wikipedia existing rules. Authors and Editors can cooperate to do precisely this and do it now.

As I said before, User:MrOllie should stop deleting the page Sampling (computational modeling) because User:MrOllie is patently wrong on the subject matter and continues to repeat mechanically that it duplicate an existing page when (a) none of the references of Sampling (computational modeling) appears in Sampling (statistics) and (b) three of the the four methods in the new page are not covered in other one. Even for a non-expert, this should be a telling sign that User:MrOllie insists in neglecting. In my opinion the person with a conflict of interest is now User:MrOllie.

Why don't you User:MrOllie do the decent thing to let the page live and let other authors decide its fate? Incidentally, with time we can improve this page, and work is also needed in Sampling (statistics), Editors please check if what I say is true. Can some of the editors who kindly contributed to this discussion with their experience and histories volunteer to help with this simple process, so that we can all move on? Please don't make me open another procedure (third opinion?) on this matter when we have, I believe, all already extensively discussed it. Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Saltean, MrOllie explained his redirecting of the article at Talk:Sampling (computational modeling). That is where discussions of that matter belong, not at AN. If you strongly feel that the article should be restored and stand alone, then create an WP:RFC on the subject by following the precise instructions at that link, keeping your question neutral and brief. You can add your extended arguments to that RFC via your vote (Support or Oppose) and rationale. Softlavender (talk) 01:51, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Softlavender Thanks for your reply and for the suggestion of opening a separate WP:RFC but the exchange in the present page is sufficient. One of my fellow researchers has merged the page discussed here into Computer experiment and changed the redirection of User:MrOllie to this page. I discussed at length why User:MrOllie’s redirect was incorrect so I do not repeat it here. One last comment for User:MrOllie and his question about discussing outside Wikipedia. I consider this a question an attempt to distract from the subject matter, i.e. the operate of User:MrOllie. People discuss with friends and colleagues adventure and misadventures. The point I believe is if I set out to canvass in order to ‘win’ this dispute and the answer is a firm no. The administrators can check my social accounts – where I appear with my full name – for hints of canvassing. By way of canvassing I could do better than the FOUR faithful colleagues who have intervened in the page Talk:Sensitivity_analysis against the intervention of User:MrOllie. If User:MrOllie does not like these criticisms maybe he/she could try to be more considerate in intervening. Thanks to those who reached out to my talk page. You are all welcome to meet me there. Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 17:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

By way of canvassing I could do better than the FOUR faithful colleagues who have intervened in the page Talk:Sensitivity_analysis against the intervention of User:MrOllie. If User:MrOllie does not like these criticisms maybe he/she could try to be more considerate in intervening. So, yes, there was canvassing. And there is an ongoing refusal to drop the stick about supposed misbehavior from an editor whose actions have now been repeatedly explained as entirely appropriate. I am all for making a concerted extra effort to be sure we keep academics and qualified experts engaged with WP (which I've seen numerous editors already do in this thread), and I completely understand how the policies and the byzantine rules of Wikipedia can frustrate and drive them away, but there is increasingly a behavioral issue here, and it's not with MrOllie. Grandpallama (talk) 03:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. @Saltean:, you need to step away from this area of editing for a while and learn Wikipedia's processes & rules first before coming back to it. If you persist in your current editing habits, it's likely going to result in your account being restricted. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:00, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

User keeps on making cosmetic, meatbot-style edits after having been asked to stop many, many times

Joe Vitale 5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been discussed before at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive358#User_insists_on_making_hundreds_(thousands?)_of_cosmetic_edits,_refuses_to_stop_or_discuss and that conversation was cut short because he was engaging on his talk page. The behavior there that was disruptive or otherwise inappropriate per WP:MEATBOT has continued and his response to the most recent complaint was mainly about tone and he just kept on doing it, including on pages experiencing increased traffic, which would be particularly disruptive (e.g. Carl Weathers at his recent death). In spite of writing "I will from this point on only do those sort of edits if I’m focused on actually improving an article instead of purely cosmetic edits as you say" a month ago, here are some illustrative example edits out off dozens since then:

• capitalizing the first letter of a template
• capitalizing the first letter of a template
• shuffling around whitespace
• shuffling around whitespace
• adding line breaks that make no difference
• adding a DEFAULTSORT that is identical to the page title
• shuffling around whitespace
• shuffling around whitespace
• capitalizing the first letter of a template
• adding line breaks that make no difference

And lest you think that some of these spates of edits are just part of some larger meaningful changes to an article, this is the outcome of 11 edits and this is the outcome of 19 edits. Etc., etc. He has been asked by many users to stop on many occasions, said he would, and hasn't. As far as disruption goes, it's hardly the worst, but it is annoying to look at your watchlist (or, as I do, my email inbox and RSS feeds) and see what I think are actual edits and then have someone doing three dozen cosmetic edits to move around whitespace. If I'm wrong here, I'll just drop it, but I think this is actively unhelpful and disruptive editing, so I would like an admin to intervene, as nothing so far has been effective. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, rather a large proportion of editors these days seem to do nothing much but this sort of stuff. They are manageable on mobile, where bigger edits perhaps are not. Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Have they explained at all the why behind their edits? Is it an expression of obsessive-compulsive disorder, for instance? It does look like that this is the primary (maybe only) edit type that the editor is engaged in. -- User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

This is the rationale and this was some elaboration (note that I don't want to explicitly state anything and encouraged the user to ask for revdel in case he decided that he didn't want this publicly disclosed). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

There is a known overlap between autism, and OCD. They can even be misdiagnosed for one another due to their similarities. It hurts me when things don’t look perfect to me (I especially love even numbers). Which makes my hairline deeply depressing, but perhaps the former is something I should look into.

Incidentally, I did improve the Poppy article which makes this scrutiny feel harsh, but don’t trust myself to make big edits as I often make mistakes. I even misspelt critical on it which is ironic, given things. But that would happen a heck of a lot more if I did large or even moderate edits. I fork up too much.

Thanks, Joe Vitale 5 (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@Joe Vitale 5: My suggestion to you would be to add a spoonful of sugar to your editing. Something similarly menial, like filling out and fixing broken citations (there are a lot of 'em!), might be a better outlet for your energies than edits that other people might find irritating. (The more otherwise productive your editing is, the more people will let you get away with invisible standardization edits.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, I am an autist myself, and there is no shortage of useful things to sperg about on here. Give Wikipedia:Typo Team/moss or WP:LINT a spin if you want. I'm also trying to fix a bunch of really old Signpost crap -- Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Technical/Index validation#2015 shows 85 articles that need to be tagged (using User:JPxG/SignpostTagger.js) which would be a huge help if somebody did. jp×g🗯️ 22:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

And 143 in 2016! jp×g🗯️ 22:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Spelling is not a strongpoint for me — hence why I try to update redirects, and stuff like that. There are a lot of old links to things that need changing. Like Edinburgh Fringe Festival to Edinburgh Festival Fringe. I do little stuff like this which I think helps as it is the real name of it. Also changing associated acts to either current/former member of or spinoff from etc. I did that today with the Libertines article then removed the whole associated acts thing as it doesn’t show. If there was a way for me to turn off people getting notifications for my extremely small edits then I wish there was an option for that as I’m not trying to ping everyone every time that I edit, and think that’s more disruptive than the edits themselves. Thanks, Joe Vitale 5 (talk) 13:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

putting this out there: Hundreds of articles have sources in another language. If you were to run the titles through Google Translate or Deep-L and add the results to the references (as a trans-title parameter in cite reference templates or in a parenthesis in references that don't use it) that would be very helpful for source verification, even if the results come out a bit stilted. Just a though. There are a lot of these kinds of changes that you could make even if you don't want to do content work. Just a suggestion. Elinruby (talk) 22:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Jól vagyok és nagyon éhes vagyok. Joe Vitale 5 (talk) 09:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

akkor egyél ;) Elinruby (talk) 13:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style extended FAQ

I would like to bring to the attention of the community Wikipedia:Manual of Style extended FAQ and in particular a recent edit to the page made by SMcCandlish (talk · contribs). The edit in question [6] which is incredibly verbose basically boils down "we're right and you're wrong and you can't change it." I find this highly inappropriate for a Wikipedia page and attempted to remove it, only to be told "Go write your own essay if you disagree" a response that to me illustrates SMcCandlish realizes his addition is at best an essay purporting to be a guideline (or a supplement to one, I'm not sure of the exact terminology). I'm posting to AN because I can't help but feel this addition was an attempt to game the system in light of the threads like the close review above (he specifically said it was in response to "RM disputes" in the initial edit summary). Jessintime (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

• I'd just like to add that upon reading some of the other sections of this "FAQ" (all of which were apparently written by the same user) they seem problematic, just like the addition I initially flagged. For instance, it calls "Most proposed changes to MoS...poor ideas" and blames the "vast majority of style-related strife on Wikipedia" to "misguided individual or factional desires," accusing those who disagree with particular aspects of the MOS of gaming the system and tendentious editing (lol). Jessintime (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  I guess anyone can just go on the computer and type words into the posting box huh?? It really seems like a stretch for this page to be claiming itself as some sort of authoritative document (FAQ, supplement, etc). jp×g🗯️ 19:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• Overall I don't like the tone of that page... It does read as more essay than FAQ for the MoS. I don't have much to say about the gaming allegations as I am not familiar with the background, I think that independent of that there is an issue here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
• Shouldn't that be marked as an essay or something? It doesn't appear to be either policy, or an established guideline. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  Per WP:BOLD, or thereabouts, I've added a WikiProject style advice essay template: hopefully that should resolve the issue. If anyone wishes to make it policy/guideline, they are of course free to propose it as such. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  On reconsideration, that's the wrong template - I'll add the more general 'essay' one instead. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  It already had {{FAQ page}} (a type of essay, by definition, being neither policy nor guideline) and essay categorization, but whatever. Adding another essay template to it isn't going to break anything.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

• What I said in edit summary applies: If you disagree with it, go write your own essay. I wrote 99% of that one, and will just move it back to userspace if Jessintime wants to editwar over its content. Everything in it is demonstrably sound reasoning and factual observation, and advice based thereon. If Jessintime (or whoever) wants to quibble with some wording, it has a talk page for a reason. Jessintime's GAMING accusation is false aspersion-casting (GAMING being defined as a form of bad-faith editing) without any evidence. And how could there be any? An essay, with any kind of essay-class template on it, is just an essay and cannot be used to system-game anything. It's a nonsensical proposition. This kind of "style warrior" behavior of weaponizing bureaucracy, ad hominem, and argument to emotion against anyone who cares to actually follow our style and title guidelines and who is tired of ranty opposition to them from lone wolves who are not getting some style pecadillo that they want, really needs to stop. The entire point of that essay is that this kind of behavior is disruptive and corrosive to community good will, and this is a good proof of the point.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
• This can be handled thru our normal BRD processes. SMcC made a bold edit; Jess reverted; SMcC re-added it (but, oddly, accuses Jess of edit warring?). Since it is disputed, If SMcC wants to add that section, he can propose it on the talk page, and they can both abide by consensus. However, if SMcCandish is unwilling to allow others to participate in deciding the content of the page, then he should userfy the essay now. As a general rule, something purported to be a "FAQ" in main project space should rarely be 99% written by one person. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  I did not acuse anyone of editwarring. I posed an "if" hypothetical; please get your facts about other editors right, especially in this venue. Jessintime had every opportunity to raise a talk-page discussion (BRD's "D" part), but instead has abused AN process to try to WP:WIN in a content dispute, engaging in a great example of the disruptive behavior that the essay is about.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• If this is just an essay where one editor has a certain amount of WP:OWNership over the content, it should not be linked from talk page templates like at WT:MOS or Talk:MF Doom. That gives the appearance of it having more "official" standing than it actually does. Probably should be userfied as well, or alternatively converted into an essay or information page that has wider community input. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  I agree; I've removed them. [7][8] Some1 (talk) 00:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• While looking over the disputed text, I was a bit bemused by the following excerpt: If you are going around looking for potential exceptions to push against any MoS rule, please find something more productive to do. That seems needlessly adversarial for an FAQ page. Further examination of other sections of that page showed that the combative 'We're right, you're wrong' tone is pervasive throughout. This definitely needs to be userfied due to the undisguised OWN issues or rewritten. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  This isn't WP:MFD. There is no WP:AN matter at issue here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  You do bring up a good point, maybe it should be at MfD even if userfied. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  Good luck with that; there is literally a 0% chance MfD would delete this. Your desire to MfD it (in the deletion sense) has come off as trying misuse process AN to silence someone who disagreed with you on some trivial style matter. That would just demonstrates the spot-on correctness of the material in the essay.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC); revised per HMIJ's complaint.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  I think 0% chance is underselling it given the misleading nature of the essay, but that's not really a debate I want to get into at the moment since there's clearly some bad faith assumptions from your end going on. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  I'm also not convinced that the essay would survive MfD. It certainly isn't serving any useful purpose in its present state as a polemic. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  You must not do MfD much. It will not delete anything if it's pertinent to editing or editing culture, isn't an attack piece, and isn't advocating something that is contrary to the WP:P&G. The fact that at present its a bit unnecessarily strident about following guidelines instead of trying to invent "exceptions" to evade them, and about using normal proposal process on talk pages to effectuate changes instead of engaging in WP:REICHSTAG defiance antics (all of which applies to the P&G in general, not just MoS pages), doesn't make it a polemic, but a pretty normal user essay. Which, yeah, doesn't really make it ideal as a FAQ piece. It could either be collaboratively retooled, or userspaced; the former would probably be more productive.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, I doubt it would actually get deleted, especially now that this thread has unexpectedly turned in a positive direction. Much as we don't see eye-to-eye on a lot of things, I respect you for dialing it back and looking for a collaborative solution. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  Even if there wasn't something there given the persistent personal attacks and bludgeoning on this page there's something there now. Characterizing people who disagree with you as censoring you and mocking them is a bit much given the context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  I overreacted a bit, because of the bad-faith-assumptive nature of the opening accusation, and the aggressiveness of heading straight for AN after a revert. Jessintime's behavior was unconstructive, but my initial reaction was as well, I have to concede after a breather.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• Why does the note at the top say Please feel free to change this material in light of new discussion. if the response to changes is "go write your own essay?" This reeks of WP:OWN RudolfRed (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, except I was the one trying to expand it in light of newer discussions, and Jessintime simply tried to reflexively censor every word of that, with no substantive input about why even a single clause in it was incorrect (or badly worded, or anything). There is no evidence of any kind that the editor has an interest in making the material in the essay more accurate, better worded, or otherwise improved with regard to its subject and intent, which is what is expected of editing topical essays; there are zero posts by that editor to the essay talk page, to my talk page (other than an AN notice), or to the essay itself, other that reverting material with an edit summary meaninglessly claiming "inappropriateness" (which verges on another bad-faith aspersion) and striking some strange "be all and end all" pose that has nothing at all to do with any of the content (in the essay at all, not just that particular content). Jessintime has done nothing but attempt to suppress, only abused WP:AN process to make false accusations and try to get an admin corps to help them "win" a content dispute they refuse to substantively engage in resolving.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  On reflection, that's all a bit too butthurt. I really don't react well to dramaboard stuff. More moderately, I should have thought much more about what I was writing at the essay (or not written there at all until much more time had passed). Also should have taken the talk-page step myself. I do still object to Jessintime going to AN instead of the talk page, and I object to the bad-faith-assumptive nature of the accusations, but such finger-pointing is par for the course at AN[I], so I do not need to get bent out of shape about it. Everyone's tempers are perhaps running hot with regard to that RfC and anything even on the same continent as it, so I should have known better.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• Userfy: The title of the page implies it's more official than it is, and SMC displaying ownership over it is not appropriate given the implication of the page title. If SMC wants to claim it as "their" page which no one else can edit then it shouldn't be in the namespace that it's in. It has issues, but this is the most apparent one. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  Repeat: This is not WP:MFD. If you want to forcibly userspace something, that would be the venue for it. For someone joining RK on his "process must be followed at all costs no matter what" crusade in trying to invalidate a community RfC in another thread here, you seem to inconsistently disregard process when it suits your position in our content dispute (i.e. the RfC under review above), which on this subject boil down, from my perspective, to defying clear guidelines and unmistakable sourcing facts to try to get a desired style pecadillo – the exact sort of unconstructive and style-related behavior that is the subject of the essay).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC); revised per complaint by HMIJ. 08:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  @SMcCandlish: For someone joining RK on his "process must be followed at all costs no matter what" crusade in trying to invalidate a community RfC in another thread here... – What in the hell are you talking about? I haven't even voted in that discussion and I've been the one implementing most of the changes to downcase "Draft" to "draft". I've in no way tried to get that RfC overturned and it's ridiculous that you're dragging that conversation into this just because we're interacted. I'm noticing a pattern the more we interact, one where you create your own enemy to argue against and point to, cast aspersions, then act as if you're some kind of victim and we're silly for even discussing this. Focus on THIS discussion and drop the battleground mentality.

  You also said I'm joining in on some process must be followed thing and then you state this isn't WP:MFD. If I'm arguing for userfication, and this isn't the proper venue for such a suggestion, how can I really be joining in on this supposed crusade of forcing process to be followed?

  My main problem with this essay is that it's masquerading as if it's an official FAQ when it has misleading information, tone issues, and discourages users from questioning the MOS. FAQ pages should be community sourced and neutral in their wording, which this is not. Someone tried to revert changes that were made and YOU reverted it telling them to write their own essay. If that's not ownership, then I'm really not sure what is. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  Nah. It's had an essay-class tag on it the entire time, and essay catetgories (and no longer is linked from various places it was, so your "is" is meaningless). More to the point, it specifically advises, in great detail, the exact proper way to "question the MoS"; it's a short-form manual on how to do it. That said, "questioning the MoS" has seemed to me like rather battlegroundy wording, given all the "questioning the RfC legitmacy" and "questioning MoS's applicability" squabbling in the RfC; I can't read minds and be certain that was encouragement of more heel-digging, but it came off that way. No one would write "questioning the canvassing guideline" or "questioning the MEDRS guideline". This is not AnarchyPedia. We don't "question guidelines". We read, understand, and follow them as long-accepted community consensus. Iff we run into an interpretation or applicability question, a wording clarity problem, a concern that something has become out-of-step with current practice, an observation that something important is missing, a belief that something included should not be, or some other issue, then we take it to the guideline's talk page.

  Deciding to ignore that normal process and instead foment an anti-guideline micro-topical rebellion is the cause of virtually all style-related drama, and it needs to stop. This behavior would never be tolerated with regard to any other guideline (except maybe naming-conventions ones, which are largely just MoS as applied to titles). Imagine people engaging in these sorts of defy-until-I-die antics, complete with blatant canvassing at firehose levels, sourcing denial and falsification, a putsch to try to prevent the community being able to examine the underlying question via RfC, etc., etc., with regard to whether any other guidelines, such as WP:Notability, WP:Categorization, WP:Subpages, WP:Be bold, WP:Plagiarism, WP:Citing sources, WP:Non-free content, WP:Spam, WP:Conflict of interest, WP:Rollback, WP:Linking to external harassment, etc., etc., somehow should not apply to their pet topic. It would not be tolerated for a moment. WP just has a problem of addiction to style-related drama as a form of "debate for sport" or something, and it's a drag on community productivity and collegiality.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:33, 23 February 2024 (UTC); revised to address objection by HMIJ. 08:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• Userfy, no prejudice against MfD. It suggests it's got more community backing than it has just by being in mainspace (in this case, very much a minority viewpoint). And if The questions addressed in this page are not in MOS:FAQ, or vice versa, then they are literally just personal opinions. Undoubtedly based on a good-faith application of experience, but still the equivalent of original research. ——Serial 12:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  It is not AN's role to decide to userspace things in response to content disputes. The material in the essay is not a minority viewpoint at all, or we would not have a style guideline and title policy (at least nothing like the ones we have), and they would not be followed by everyone except the tiny handful of editors who keep trying to defy them in particular topics. The central theme of the essay is that the latter behavior is generally counterproductive and often disruptive, and the community is tired of it (which is certainly true; these flare-ups are often labeled "battlegrounds", "disheartening", "demoralizing", etc.). WP:OR applies to factual claims in article content, and has nothing of any kind to do with editors recording their views about internal community processes in essays. Finally, if you think something in the content of the essay is wrong, it has a talk page. If you think something in the content of MoS is wrong, it also has a talk page. This is not the venue for grandstanding about having a bone to pick with MoS. Everyone has a bone to pick with MoS (and would with any other style guide) because it is the nature of style guides to advise a particular answer for the sake of consistency and dispute-avoidance, in a sphere in which actual usage varies wildly, which guarantees that any given person will disagree with at least one line-item in it, and no line-item in it will have agreement from everyone. As with all our other P&G and internal process, it is not possible for everyone to be 100% happy with everything in it; this is the nature of consensus compromise.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  RFCs are also not the standard place for move discussions, but sometimes the validity and content of a discussion outweighs the venue it's at. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  Go say that in the RFC related discussion above, then. Good for the goose, good for the gander.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC); revised 15:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  @SMcCandlish: I'm not interested in participating in the close review above. Perhaps it would behoove you to focus on the current discussion instead of deflecting and focusing on whether this is the appropriate place for such a discussion. Frankly I can't understand why you've dug in so hard on making your personal essay the FAQ. Editors have expressed some very valid concerns and most reasonable folk would at least try to meet in the middle. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  The current discussion should simply close. There is no AN issue to address here. If someone wants to (instead of abusing AN) engage in what the normal process is, which is use the essay's talk page to suggest revisions, then they're welcome to do that. If someone's determined to mess with the central message of the essay (that engaging in anti-guideline battlegrounding is a disruptive waste of time and editorial goodwill and that the thing to do if you want to effectuate change in a guideline is propose that change on its talk page – all of which is obviously true), I'll happily userspace the essay, and they can go write their own counter-essay. If someone's determined on forcibly userspacing this just because they disagree with it or they have a bone to pick with me personally, but aren't going to mess with the message of it, they know where MfD is. This is the wrong venue for any of this. If this were any other subject, in the entire history of Wikipedia, this thread would have been closed immediately as wrong-venue and a misguided attempt to get the upper hand in a (brand new) content dispute, instead of engaging in normal discussion. But various people love to drag out any argument if style, titles, MoS, AT, or RM are involved in any way, for some damned reason.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  @SMcCandlish: Once again, I urge you to focus on the topic of discussion instead of focusing on the venue and deflecting based on that. Do you not see an issue with the fact you reverted someone and told them to write their own essay? Do you really believe this doesn't come across as ownership of a page that's implied to be official?

  You're acting like talk page was an option when you told them to write their own essay. That's not working well with others and it was clearly implied that you weren't open to changes.

  Why didn't YOU propose the change on the ,tas you're saying they should have done, alk page instead of reverting someone to re-add wording that you were trying to inuce? The Hey man im josh (talk) 03:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I should have just taken it to the talk page (WP:BRD does suggest that the one making the change should do so), and my temper was a little short in that moment for whatever reason. It's also completely normal for essays to have contra essays (WP:BLUE and WP:NOTBLUE and a bunch of other examples), but I didn't need to word it so dismissively, I'll confess. But that is hardly cause for an AN thread. We all get reverted (and counter-reverted) from time to time, but we do not manufacture a noticeboard drama about it, we just go open a talk page thread. WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY matters; there is no policy requirement that the one making the edit some else doesn't like must open the discussion. BRD is an essay, remember, not a policy or guideline, and following it is not mandatory, even if it's conventional. (It is actually rather at odds with both WP:Editing policy (especially WP:PRESERVE) and the WP:Be bold guideline. But also, when it comes to actual article content, more consistent with WP:BURDEN. The community isn't entirely of one mind on this.) Imagine if you will what would happen if everyone opened an AN thread every time someone counter-reverted after a vaguely justified and grandstanding revert? This page would consist of nothing but pointless brand new content-dispute kvetching that belongs somewhere else. AN[I] is a late-stage DR process, not the first step.

  I'm always open to changes; much of what I do outside of content improvement is brokering compromise on guideline changes, to a set of guidelines everyone and their dog wants to change (in completely conflicting ways and mostly to invent new rules we should not have). What I don't take kindly to is a finger-pointing mass-revert of well-thought-out content by someone angry about some style pecadillo (at an essay the theme of which is avoidance of pecadillo activism), which had no substantive justification. It came off as a bad-faith accusation (made more explicit here at AN, without evidence) and an attempt to control the content and thwart the intent of the essay. OWN feelings can run both ways; in this case, it had the feel somewhere between gatekeeping and a partisan takeover in furtherance of the viewpoint of those trying to overturn an RfC closure. PS: The content in question wasn't even about this damned NFL stuff (which was always just going to be a matter of whether "a substantial majority of independent reliable sources" capitalize "draft" in that context; cut and dry). It was mostly about a bad habit of assuming that something "should" be an exception by default instead of defaulting to being consistent, absent strong evidence that an exception applies, especially with titles of published works. I mean, just go read the material. Anyway, I'm sorry that being momentarily testy had me come off as uncivil. I argue forcefully sometimes, but try not to be flippant/dismissive.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• Out of curiosity, is there a minimum number of times SMcCandlish has been instructed to post, or is it just good old WP:BLUDGEONing? I mean, this post... in nearly 5K bytes responded to 5 different editors simultaneously! ——Serial 16:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  Replying to every point with a wall of text reiterating the same thing in several locations couldn't possibly be bludgeoning! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  Why is this battleground/bludgeoning behavior over something as silly as proper nouns continued to be tolerated? If anything it's being encouraged. Nemov (talk) 13:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  That's actually the concern the essay is trying to address in the first place. The entire community is tired of grandstanding about capitals, hyphens, italics, or whatever the pet peeve of the day is. But I guess I've managed to word it poorly. It's a simple matter to just go to the talk page of the guideline in question and propose a change, with sound reasoning and solid evidence behind it, and see if consensus agrees (and drop the stick if it doesn't). Instead, some editors seem to prefer using virtually any and all other means to attempt to impose some questionable style quirk in a particular topic and require all other editors to "obey" it, no matter what the guidelines and sources indicate. It too often turns disruptive. The very reason we have WP:CONLEVEL policy is to prevent this sort of thing, but it's been happing quite a bit lately for unclear reasons. The RfC at issue above is actually pretty typical in its underlying particulars, just not in the amount of heat it generated. We don't need a repeat of that heat level.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• We should remove the rest of the trappings and wording that make it to appear to have more status than just an essay. (and yes, it still has some of that) Then just leave it alone as an essay. There is no strict criteria for existence as an essay. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  According to WP:POLICIES, Essays the author does not want others to edit, or that contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• I don't really think we need to user-fy it, but if it's in mainspace, it's not SMC's essay no matter how much they contributed to it. Other than the WP:OWN issue, this appears to be a pretty normal dispute about the contents of an essay that should ultimately be resolved at its talk page. Loki (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
• Just to clarify a couple points, I'm copying my statement from the related thread at WP:AE. I would like to clarify my statement at AN in regards to "gaming." My belief upon seeing the edit summary used "New section based on various talk-page discussions (user talk, RfCs, RM disputes, etc.)" [9] and the actual content added (which almost everyone at AN has since taken issue with) was that SMcCandlish was effectively attempting to amend a purported part of the MOS amid an article title dispute currently being reviewed at AN. This seemed to run afoul of Wikipedia:FORCEDINTERPRET or "Attempting to force an untoward interpretation of policy, or impose your own novel view of 'standards to apply' rather than those of the community" by amending the MOS to suggest it is inviolable or/and discouraging other editors from questioning it. As for why I went straight to AN, I felt that any discussion at either the FAQ's talk page or the MOS talk page would have been met with the same bludgeoning that occurs regularly at WT:MOS (or has been seen in the ongoing title dispute). I also considered MFD but felt it would be WP:POINTY to nominate it myself given my prior revert. Jessintime (talk) 16:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Jessintime: Thank you for clarifying. For my part, I apologize for the flippancy of my edit-summary response to you, and for taking an unnecessarily butthurt tone in this proceeding; I don't respond well to dramaboard stuff, and it's been a stressy week for unrelated reasons. Anyway, to address your points, I do lots of RMs; mentioning RM doesn't make it related to the RfC-related hooey above (which is long past RM, and MR, and RfC at this point – its own weird animal). The essay never purported to be part of MoS, though I guess some kind of confusion about that could happen. (WP has too many different page-top labeling templates, and should get rid of most except policy, guideline, and essay. All the "supplement", "information page", "FAQ page", etc. things are all essays, but not everyone's going to understand that.)

  It's not reasonably possible for an essay that in large part is a handbook on how to propose amendments to MoS and why and where, to be implying that MoS cannot be amended. That's the part of your reaction/interpretation that I still don't get. Even the new material suggested nothing of the sort, and was mostly about avoiding a default presumption that one's favorite topic is a "magical exception"; exceptions require strong evidence. Commenters here have taken issue with the recent material because of its tone, but the underlying points in it, about how process works and what doesn't, aren't at issue. Really, the same principles apply to all of our policies and guidelines (a point I've beleaguered above with examples like no one would say MEDRS or COI somehow don't apply to a topic they like to work on). In my short-tempered state at the time, my undies got in a bunch because you did a blanket (and accusatory) revert that didn't raise any specific-wording issues that could have been worked on. In a different week, I would not have reacted the way I did. Not an excuse; just saying it's not personal, nor my usual approach. I would have taken a talk-page discussion more seriously and calmly, though I can see why that might not have seemed evident.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you. I appreciate your apology. Jessintime (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• Update: I just did a top-to-bottom tone cleanup on it [10], removing various opinional wording, unnecessary adjectives, statements that might come across as unreasonable dichotomy, most instances of "you" (except where giving direct procedural advice), and most instances of "rule" (except where particularly sensible in the context). It's still too long, but it's better.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
• I would strongly suggest voluntary userfication, since I don't think that the tone or focus of that essay really reflects Wikipedia practice or policy; it very much reads as written in a single person's voice. I take particular exception to the section What if I don't agree with something in MoS? and the subsection that it is not appropriate to campaign against site-wide guidelines - it absolutely is permissible to campaign against site-wide guidelines; I think that that basic right is guaranteed by WP:5P5 and is therefore non-negotiable. I understand that the way it was articulated comes from a place of genuine frustration, but the manual of style simply does not have the draconian, unquestionable level of force that this implies; parts of it are open to interpretation, parts of it lack clear interpretations or clearly have a variety of accepted interpretations, and not all parts of it necessarily enjoy the same levels of consensus (I would highly WP:WTW as a part whose implementation is highly controversial and lacks a single agreed interpretation on many key points.) Even beyond that, editors are entirely entitled to campaign against anything they wish provided they don't reach the point of WP:BLUDGEON or WP:DEADHORSE - the advisability of such a campaign is another matter, but it is not against the rules for an editor to be "in the wrong" or to hold a minority interpretation on something provided that they know when to stop pushing it and don't actively misrepresent the MoS or the consensus on interpreting it. --Aquillion (talk) 01:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  Userspacing is fine, but you're engaging in equivocation to redefine "campaigning" on-the-fly to mean what you want it to mean (raising objections or proposals, airing disagreement, pointing out interpretation problems, seeking consensus and, as needed, changes; and "know when to stop pushing it and don't actively misrepresent" – all things that the essay actually advises doing and provides advice for doing well), instead of what the essay really clearly means by that term (in short, not knowing when to stop, actively misinterpreting, and/or trying to organize topic-specific defiance instead of consensus building and changes that consensus agrees should happen). Arguing against a fake version you made up, that means in your head various terrible things, instead of addressing the actual text and its meaning, is a straw man fallacy. I'll repeat what I said above: it's not possible for the essay to in large part be a guide on how to effectively change MoS, to simultaneously also be positing that MoS cannot be changed and is inviolable. That's just self-contradictory, and not a word of it suggests anything like the latter. The tone and wording of the essay has significantly changed recently anyway. If you have a specific issue to raise with something it says, it has its own talk page. I'll also repeat that no other guideline or policy on the entire system would be treated the way you seem to want to treat MoS. No one goes around arguing that they have a "right" to blockade the application of, say, WP:FRINGE or WP:SPAM to their topic of focus and to canvass for others to help them do it, rather than address whatever their concerns are at WT:FRINGE and WT:SPAM (or even WP:VPPOL if it seemed warranted).

  Anti-P&G campaigning, as defined in the essay, is against our rules. See WP:CONLEVEL policy and the WP:CANVASSING guideline for starters. To quote from WP:P&G: Use common sense in interpreting and applying policies and guidelines; rules have occasional exceptions. However, those who violate the spirit of a rule may be reprimanded or sanctioned even if they do not technically break the rule. Whether a policy or guideline is an accurate description of best practice is determined through consensus. Exceptions are established through consensus not through defiance and topic-specific walled garden antics. What often happens is that the first half of the "Implement" subsection at P&G is employed while ignoring or defying the caveat that is the rest of it (if there are no objections to the change and/or if a widespread consensus for your change or implementation is reached through discussion; instead, WP:FAITACCOMPLI is attempted too often). Material higher up in that policy is also frequently ignored: because policies and guidelines are sensitive and complex, users should take care over any edits, to be sure they are faithfully reflecting the community's view and to be sure they are not accidentally introducing new sources of error or confusion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Sporting CP versus Sporting Lisbon

This [11] short explanation was reverted without a valid reason by a SL Benfica advocate. I would ask the administrators to pay attention to the multiple abuses by this user, who has absurd prejudices towards Portuguese football and is against anything that is not in the interests of his SL Benfica. A. Landmesser (talk) 08:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

So you made a bold edit, that was already contentious years ago (Talk:Sporting CP#Sporting Lisbon), they reverted it and instead of discussing it, or any other form of Dispute resolution. You take them to the Administrators' noticeboard without notifying them? Nobody (talk) 12:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

No, we are not talking about the same thing. The issue with Sporting Lisbon they were taking about is in the top of the article at the very beginning of the text not in the section Crests and motto. My recent contribution was placed in the proper section and has a bunch of references about the topic. A. Landmesser (talk) 23:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Your accusations are absurd. On the subject: The section title is "Crest and motto", it has nothing to do with "Sporting Lisbon", that's why I removed that part. It's important to note that (if I'm not mistaken) edits to that article are subject to review because of the "Sporting Lisbon" dispute in the lead. SLBedit (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

The crest was changed in 2001 to raise awareness about the Sporting Lisbon error. Since then the crest has the words Sporting and Portugal to refrain people from calling the club Sporting Lisbon. A. Landmesser (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

User added the same advocacy to José Alvalade, and I've removed it per off-topic. SLBedit (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

The founders didn’t found Sporting Lisbon but Sporting Portugal. A. Landmesser (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Nihonjoe and COI

It was recently brought to the community's attention – through an external online publication which I won't link to here but which can be easily Googled up – that Nihonjoe has been editing articles in which he has a significant conflict of interest. These are articles about his employer, which Nihonjoe has significantly expanded mostly with promotional material, and three articles about his employer's products.

• Auqaveo – Nihonjoe's employer. Nihonjoe adds promotional stuff, mostly a high-profile customer listing[12]
• GMS (software) – product by Aquveo; Nihonjoe adds version history and a Reception section with customer testimonials[13]
• WMS (hydrology software) – product by Aquveo; Nihonjoe adds customer use cases[14]
• SMS (hydrology software) – product by Aquveo; Nihonjoe makes minor amendments[15]

It may be worth noting that Aquaveo is a small privately-held company that occupies just one office suite on a multi-office floor of 14,000 sq feet.

Nihonjoe has been anything but forthcoming about his COI:

1. First, Sagflaps politely asked Nihonjoe about his COI[16]. Nihonjoe replied evasively, stating that he was never "paid to edit the article" [17], repeating it twice. An admin of 18+ years will surely know the difference between COI and PAID.
2. Nihonjoe did not acknowledge his links with Aquaveo until later, initially claiming that the company is just found within one of many topics I find interesting because he's edited a fair number of river and lake articles over the years, and Aquaveo's software is used by a lot of people writing academic papers analyzing rivers and lakes[18][19] It needed a direct question from Sojourner in the earth for Nihonjoe to confirm that he had indeed been employed by Aquaveo.
3. At first, Nihonjoe claimed that he had edited these articles before he started working for Aquaveo.[20] Then he refused to say whether he had a COI when editing them,[21] and only after a further challenge by Sojourner later conceded that he had edited them while being employed.[22]
4. Nihonjoe claimed that all his edits had been to improve the article by adding references, removing marketing speak, and expanding it based on references.[23] It is unclear whether "removing marketing" also included pushing the article about Aquaveo to the front page of Wikipedia.[24]
5. Other than Nihonjoe, the four articles were created and edited mostly by two other accounts: Edit42 and 42of8. While Nihonjoe asserted that he doesn't know these accounts, a long-time Wikipedia editor and admin unaware who else in a small team could have worked on the company's Wikipedia presence, additionally with a shared interest in Brandon Sanderson as the case is, feels highly unusual.
6. I have not scrutinised Nihonjoe's alleged edits to competitors' products as mentioned by Levivich.[25]. Also, I did not go into other allegations mentioned in the external analysis (e.g., allegations of posting promo reviews for a book allegedly edited by his wife, etc.), as they are unrelated to Wikipedia.

It was a week ago that Sagflaps asked Nihonjoe about COI. Yesterday I politely suggested to Nihonjoe to come clean on it before the community starts its own investigation. He responded that he doesn't have time and anyway wasn't inclined to share "personal information".[26]

The Aquaveo article is now on its way to deletion due a forming consensus that his employer lacks notability.

I wouldn't like for this COI problem to overshadow Nihonjoe's 120,000+ positive contributions to Wikipedia over 18+ years, and countless hours of unpaid (?) work he has put into this project. However, if the editor community is to trust him – an admin and bureaucrat – to enforce Wikipedia policies fairly and transparently, it becomes necessary to address the evidence of the alleged policy violations.

With this, I'd like to open the floor for discussion. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Excellent summary, Kashmiri, thanks. Yes, it would seem, to an uninvolved eye, that Nihonjoe has, through evasive and occasionally outright misleading statements, been gaslighting the community since the issue came to light elsewhere. This is a clear breach of both his conditions of conduct (undeclared COI, for example) and accountability (failure to adequately communicate). ——Serial 12:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

My first immediate thought was: "This all could easily have been avoided if he simply followed the disclosure policy." Then I next began to wonder as to whether an employee of a company could escape needing to disclose COI if the company were particularly large and there was no immediate bright-line connection between them and the business ownership, i.e. they were too far down the totem pole to have a legitimate interest in making the company articles look "nice". As WP:EXTERNALREL says, how close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. However, in this case as Kashmiri has said, Aquaveo is a very small company that develops specialized scientific software, so this seems far more concerning. In particular, the response regarding the other two accounts editing the article also sets off alarm bells in my mind immediately.

I am taken aback that we are having this discussion about a bureaucrat. In the interests of WP:AGF, I cannot immediately assume paid editing; I hope maybe this could be a case of misinterpreting or misunderstanding the policy. But the only way to be sure of that is through Nihonjoe holding himself accountable, and I feel only the Arbitration Committee has the capacity to deal with private evidence in this manner, particularly if it is potentially revealing of personal information as Nihonjoe says. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Diff #1 is eight years old. The rest (which are mostly formatting) are five years old. The community's attitude to COI/paid editing has changed significantly in that time (largely as a result of professional marketing firms using significant resources to covertly influence our content). Is there anything more recent or that was explicitly against the rules as they stood at the time the edits were made? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Not quite that though. They have known for many years that they have had an undisclosed conflict of interest with each of these companies/products, and have edited their articles up until relatively recently (for Aquaveo, Nohinjoe's most recent edit, while a couple of years ago, was only seven edits ago). In some cases, as recently as last year. Community attitudes towards PAID and COI have indeed changed (they've got tighter). But admins are expected to keep themselves fully informed of changes to, and stay up to date with, policy. So either they did that and ignored them or did not and did not realise.

None of this addresses possibly the greater issue, of course, which is vague communication and repeated attempts at swerving questions. ——Serial 13:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell I recall COI policy was fairly strict in 2015 when Nihonjoe first edited about his employer: [27]. It has remained that strict until today, and Nihonjoe's last COI edits were as recently as last summer.[28]

Already at their 2007 RfB, Nihonjoe proclaimed: I think it's very important to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. [29]

In view of this, I find it challenging to try to justify his editing by a "changing community attitude" as you seem to suggest. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I have sent the private evidence to the arbcom email, so they should be aware of it. Sagflaps (talk) 15:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Who is BurroWrangler? They appear to be a very old account, which has only edited things related to WMS. Now, they have made an edit out of nowhere. See Special:Diff/1209231706 Sagflaps (talk) 14:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

They were likely notified by email after their article was nominated for deletion. Their commented in the wrong place, too (shouldn't be Talk). — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I've reviewed some information, and it generally seems like the editor BurroWrangler is not a sockpuppet. For privacy, I won't discuss here. Sagflaps (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• It's no surprise that the environmental modeling software company with four Wikipedia articles is the one that has a Wikipedia admin on its payroll. Levivich (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
• This is all deeply unfortunate. It brings to mind the oft-repeated truism that the cover-up can be as bad as the crime. With the way this has played out so far, the community's level of trust in Nihonjoe at the moment does not seem to be at the level needed for him to effectively serve as a bureaucrat. Given the off-wiki evidence, this seems like a matter where there is a role for ArbCom, who I trust to take appropriate action. Sdkb ^talk 16:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
  • The thought that I've been mulling over is that there's no indication of administrator tools or bureaucrat tools being abused here, or that they would be. The lack of trust is squarely the lack of trust to write article content properly, with a tool that even people without accounts have. Although Nihonjoe removing praise published in a predatory journal in Special:Diff/829120321 and in Special:Diff/828998968 in 2017 removing much of the content that had earlier been added in 2015 by Edit42 and a Utah IP address in Special:Diff/608274825/650181752 does indicate that the diff above that covers 21 edits and several users is perhaps blurring some details here. Uncle G (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

    Trust unfortunately isn't something that can be segmented out that narrowly. The lost trust here applies not just to whether or not he will COI edit in the future, but more broadly to whether he will abide by the rules, show accountability, and overall behave responsibly. And even if we're looking more narrowly at only COI, that's still something that could intersect with 'crat work (e.g. judging consensus on whether to promote/demote an editor with COI issues).

    I'm not yet at the point where I see no path for him to retain his 'crat bit, but to do so he will need to show accountability rather than defensiveness to begin to restore the lost trust. Sdkb ^talk 17:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

    Generally, sysops in the past have lost their permissions for things that are not related to their actions as administrators. As you said, it's more about community trust. Sagflaps (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

    Yep. Blatant COI is often blockable at sight. Not using admin tools when COI editing makes no difference. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

    Bureaucrat in particular is fundamentally a position of community trust more than it is a technical position. The technical right to add administrators and bureaucrats isn't really necessary, because a steward could do it. Bureaucrats are trusted for their good decision making. Sagflaps (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

    Well, that wasn't the entirety of your edits on that day, right? Actually, in that edit series you replaced some of the content (including a single predatory reference) with much longer content of similarly promotional character.[30] Anyway, I'm not sure what benefit you see in going edit by edit and trying to defend them when the problem is not really in the quality of your editing. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC) Striking the entire comment – I regret I was quicker to respond than to read. Thanks, Primefac! — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

    Kashmiri, you are replying to Uncle G, who did not add the text to which you refer. Primefac (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

To address various things brought up here:

• It's already obvious I didn't create any of the articles in question. Just making sure that's stated.
• Yes, I should have declared a COI when I first edited Aquaveo. That was a mistake on my part. As for why, that was going on a decade ago (around 9 years, I think), so I don't know exactly what might have been going through my mind at that time. I suspect I did not because I wasn't editing while on the clock, I was not ever directed by anyone there to make edits or told how to edit, and all of my edits were attempting to improve the articles to better meet the neutrality and sourcing requirements because they were not very good before I worked to improve them. So, my brain likely interpreted it as not being a COI because Aquaveo wasn't involved in any way in the decisions I was making, and I wasn't trying to promote them. And, as I mentioned, I have edited many river and lake articles over the years, and often run across Aquaveo-related references and such when doing so, even before I worked for them. Within that small niche of river, lake, and related water science, they are well known. I nominated the article for DYK because I do that for many of the articles I improve significantly or create. Even with the work I did, however, I don't think the Aquaveo article currently meets the requirements to be kept (and I've said as much in that discussion). I haven't participated in the WMS discussion, but I suspect it's also not quite meeting the requirements to be kept after a quick glance at its current refs.
• I don't have any way to prove the other accounts mentioned here (Edit42, 42of8, and BurroWrangler) are not mine (it's really impossible to prove a negative like that). I can only say that I didn't create those accounts, I don't know who did, I've never used any of them, and I don't know who did/does use them. Given the somewhat geeky/nerdy nature of Aquaveo's products and how many geeky/nerdy people use them, and given how popular Brandon Sanderson is around the world, it's not a stretch to imagine that others who use or work on Aquaveo products might also be fans of Sanderson.
• Kashmiri's representation of my comment as He responded that he doesn't have time and anyway wasn't inclined to share "personal information". is rather disingenuous. I said that I have a life outside of Wikipedia, and I can't spend every waking moment here. in response to him posting a section on my talk page claiming that I was being silent and not responding to things. He posted this around 24 hours after I had last responded to something from him. He may have had a point if it had been a week or even a few days, but he needs to be a little more patient in waiting for someone to reply or make a comment.

I should have indicated my COI. That was a mistake on my part. I take following the policies and guidelines here very seriously, and I didn't do that here when I should have. It was never my intention to be evasive, but rather to protect my privacy. I apologize for any appearance of evasiveness and for not indicating my COI as I should have done. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I'm willing to accept this. My intent when I posted the original message on your talk page was that you would realize it's not worth fighting over and declare the COI to avoid further scrutiny into your personal life, and to placate the issues mentioned in the external site where this was originally brought up. Are there any other COI concerns that might come up? If so, I think it's better to just declare them now, since people on the internet can be ruthless. Sagflaps (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Not disclosing a COI is a big mistake, but the impact has been pretty trivial and they've owned up to it now. To me, a bigger concern is that participants here don't seem to care about the effort to dig into Nihonjoe's personal details off-wiki, outing and doxing him on a site known for harassment of Wikipedians, and publishing all of those allegations (even the thin speculation about sockpuppetry) here on-wiki. Is outing and doxing really tolerated by this community as long as you actually find a speck of dirt in their past? Could this really not have been settled in a completely private manner? I suppose it does send a clear message: watch those COIs or you lose all rights to privacy and discretion. The cat's out of the bag at this point, so fair to have a conversation about what to do, but it's not Joe who's primarily lost my trust here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

What can be done, though, about a place "known for harassment of Wikipedians"? A description, incidentally, that could perhaps as easily describe One Montgomery Tower, San Francisco  :) ——Serial 19:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Doxxing that occurs on another site - even if it's triggered by WP editing - is something that's essentially impossible to deal with. People suck. I imagine most of us think COI editing is bad, and doxxing is bad, and different people assign different levels of outrage to each. The change I feel I've seen in recent years is that people seem almost unconcerned about doxxing if it's in the service of sniffing out a COI. I know others disagree, but this feels like if I got 5 years in jail for shoplifting a Snickers, and when I complained, I'm told "well you shouldn't have broken the law". I suspect there are those here who don't understand the point I'm trying to make because they would agree with the 5-year sentence. I can simultaneously be disappointed in NihonJoe, but even more disappointed in "Eddie Lands-something", who I'm sure has no WP account and no history of disagreement with NihonJoe on-wiki. The moral of the story is threefold, kids: (1) Don't edit with a COI, (2) Don't link your WP username with a username anywhere else in the world, and (3) Always remember that there are a lot of smart and mean-spirited people out there, who think they're on the side of angels. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

We don't have to prevent bad behavior off-wiki in order to decide it should stay off-wiki. To deal with it, all it takes is an admin to decide WP:OUTING, WP:PROBLEMLINKS, the rest of WP:HA, etc. still exist and that it doesn't matter if a few influential editors try to add an "unless I think they deserve it" clause to the policy. It's disappointing, along the lines of your Snickers example, that even in such a frankly pretty trivial case of wrongdoing that nobody has any reservations about outing a fellow editor. I might expect to see the erosion of our harassment enforcement in the case of, say, the uncovering of a large UPE sockfarm, or an admin showing a pattern of blocking users to win disputes or something more egregious, but this is just some mild COI editing-while-crat. We can have all the proposals we want at WP:RFA2024, but if our admins are specifically targeted for harassment because they're an admin and nobody will go to bat for their basic humanity and dignity, it's pointless. Speaking of unfair things asked of admins: you're drawing a moral here, but you're an admin; by choosing what rules to enforce or ignore, you are creating the conditions from which we can extract a moral. Adding for the record, in case I need to be clearer: My point is not that there's "no there there". COI editing bad. Yes. But if outing is required to prove it, though, keep it private. Go to the editor, go to arbcom, and let them do what needs to be done. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not aware - beyond obvious hints about what external site this doxxing is on - of any personal info disclosed on-wiki that NJ hasn't admitted to. If it exists, please tell Oversight. If there is more adminning (rather than OSing) to be done (policy-based, which an admin can act on, not morals-based, which we can complain about) then point it out here. Do you mean redacting references to that external site? Do you mean any mention of the COI editing, based on a "fruit of the poisonous tree" philosophy? I think at this point that would be pointless. If you have concrete suggestions of what admin action could be taken, I'm open to hearing them. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

regarding the part you added after I started typing: I agree, private arbcom or private discussion would have been more appropriate. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

(Putting this here as a response to Rhododendrites, never sure where to go in these long threaded discussions.) Yes, this is unpleasant. But COI editing is a breach of trust and the community has a very high expectation of bureaucrats, higher than for admins and I believe higher than for arbitrators. People differ. But for me personally, the argument in the off-wiki article was a bit mountain out of a molehill-ish, but Nihonjoe's responses to the issue being raised on his talk page fell short of WP:ADMINACCT. I expect any admin, when someone queried whether they had edited articles about their employer, to check the timeline to see whether they had indeed fallen afoul of the (current) standard. I expect that all the more of a bureaucrat. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree about COI and initial responses. I'm not trying to absolve Joe. My question is, why are you ok with people talking about, linking to, and repeating the outing/doxing publicly on-wiki? If it were handled privately, Joe would get his trouting (or worse), own up to COIs, etc. As soon as it's on-wiki, however, it's a violation of our behavioral policies on harassment. Both can be true: Joe should've addressed this/fixed this after contacted about it, and Kashmiri, et al. have violated our harassment policy. It's extremely disappointing that the former is treated as a cardinal sin and the latter as, basically, worth it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

The community as a whole has become very concerned about COI, particularly when it's about one's employer. It's important to avoid the appearance of a double standard for admins, since we are coming down like a ton of bricks on ordinary editors. On private handling, I don't know that it wasn't raised privately (via e-mail or at ArbCom). So far as I can see (I obviously can't see the suppressed IP edit in the same location that preceded it), the first on-wiki mention was Sagflaps' hypothetical at Nihonjoe's talk page. That looks to me like an attempt to have a quiet word. The response was less than forthcoming. So while as I say I think the exposé was overblown, my disappointment in Nihonjoe remains greater. (This later misstatement, which I assume was based on faulty memory, doesn't help my impression of Nihonjoe's responsiveness to concerns; as I said, as part of accountability I expect an admin, when the serious issue of COI is raised, to immediately check the timeline to see whether they had in fact contravened current standards.) Yngvadottir (talk) 02:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• A major red flag for me was when Nihonjoe told the OP at the AfD to Please stop harassing me (diff), seemingly for no apparent reason... El_C 22:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
  • OP effectively outs him, opens an ANI thread, nominates an article at AfD based on that outing, publicizes a link to external harassment (all of which is a flagrant disregard of WP:HA and WP:PROBLEMLINKS), and in your judgment not only is none of that actually harassment ("no apparent reason"), but it's a red flag that Nihonjoe called it harassment? This place sometimes... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

That is an incredibly distorted view, but I see that you've decided to defend Nihonjoe at all cost, which is a position I suppose. El_C 23:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC) — My edit summary was meant to read no to entrenched defense of wrongdoing — that at was a typo. El_C 23:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Flummoxing response. Haven't defended Nihonjoe at all. Just wishing someone would defend our harassment policy. With that, I think I'll part ways with this thread. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

From my perspective, you've done little but that. You taking a break from this thread is a good idea, though, I'd grant you that. El_C 00:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I read through the discussion and it definitely comes across as strange to ask them to "stop harassing" them. I thought that was a perfectly acceptable conversation that was moving forward productively. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• As I've mentioned off-wiki, this is a misdemeanor rather than a felony. I liked the earlier TROUT close and think that's still an appropriate way to end the dramahz. Carrite (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. This conversation, which was disproportionate from the outset, has outlived its usefulness. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  When an advanced permission holder is credibly accused of violating core policies and admits it (after first being evasive and then giving an untrue answer), shutting down the discussion within hours just seems like an effort to sweep it under the rug. This is especially true when the discussion is still very active, and when "loss of trust" has been raised. Personally I don't think this will go very far unless there are more violations, but trying to stifle discussion of a serious issue before it has run its course just doesn't look good. "I don't think this is serious enough for sanctions" would be a legitimate opinion, but "Stop discussing this confirmed violation" isn't. I'm sure there are functionaries keeping an eye on this thread for actual outing that we really can't discuss on-wiki. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  Then maybe someone should move the discussion forward in a constructive direction. Because the biggest thing that's happened since the thread was reopened is that the admin who reopened it belittled Rhododendrites into leaving the discussion and then took a parting shot for good measure. Did that look good? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

So says the person who chronically diminishes civility. Looks like they moved on to diminishing COI now. Not an improvement. El_C 04:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

As for the the biggest [biggest?] thing that's happened since the thread was reopened -diminishing: Yngvadottir made an insightful comment since (diff), as did Hey man im josh (diff), as did Usedtobecool (diff). The diminishing runs deep. El_C 04:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll admit I communicated rather clumsily in that thread from a month-and-a-half ago, but I don't think that gives you the right to cast aspersions against me. Your treatment of Rhododendrites and myself is verging on conduct unbecoming of an admin. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 05:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Not that you seem concerned with fairness towards me, but the Usedtobecool comment came 40 minutes after my comment. Evidently you were too focused on discrediting me to pay careful attention. The other comments are certainly insightful, but I believe the negative impact of your behavior outweighs them (a belief that is not consistent with your claim that I chronically diminish civility; perhaps you should set aside your disdain for me and revisit that assertion). Frankly, I don't believe I've done anything to deserve this level of contempt from you. I don't expect you to like me, but I do expect an admin to refrain from grandstanding against a fellow editor. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 05:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I am unmoved by your accusing me of "grandstanding." I speak plainly and directly, also about you diminishing others, which I maintain the facts bear. You attempting to turn what you called a parting shot, or my criticism of you ("contempt"), into some kind of egregious conduct — well, I obviously disagree. But the timeline, okay sure. El_C 06:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

If you want plain and direct speech, that suits me just fine. Broadly speaking, I support our civility policy; at times I have criticized the manner in which others sought to enforce it. If you intend to persist in publicly labeling me as someone who diminishes incivility despite my protestations to the contrary, it would appear that I will just have to put up with having my name dragged through the mud by an admin.

At any rate, your decision to personalize our interaction has clearly added more heat than light. Likewise, your snippy replies to Rhododendrites added more heat than light, even after Rhododendrites announced he was withdrawing from the discussion. In short, regardless of how much insight one derives from the comments that were made by other editors since you re-opened this thread, you have been raising the temperature and pushing the discussion in directions that are not constructive. I don't appreciate being mocked by an admin for my suggestion that this thread should be either pushed forward constructively or closed. You aren't above criticism, and you certainly shouldn't respond to criticism with aspersions. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't mock you, I criticized you. If you're unable to distinguish the two, then I'm sorry to say, but that's on you. Everyone is subject to criticism, which I'm obviously not exempt of, but neither are you. I've nothing further to add at this time. El_C 06:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Now it's my turn to be unmoved. So says the person who chronically diminishes civility has an unmistakable mocking, dismissive tone. It's certainly not constructive criticism; it's nothing more than a bald-faced aspersion. It's too bad you have nothing further to add beyond doubling-down. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• Basic facts do not seem to be in dispute. And there is no consensus so far on how bad it was. The community has been moving heavily in the direction of giving crats more responsibility. The level of trust required for that position has increased if it's moved.
  If this were the case of a regular non-admin, with a comparable amount of contributions, I do not think we would immediately move to ban. But a topic ban seems like an obvious outcome. Said non-admin would not pass RFA for the next 5-6 years, maybe ever. Now, do we want admins who clearly wouldn't pass RFA, not because they've made enemies doing their job but the opposite? The answer has not always been a no, in the past. The bigger question yet is, do we want someone who would not pass an RFA, clerking RFAs, closing RFAs, partaking in cratchats and closing cratchats?
  To concerns of outing, they are not without merit. OP could/should have said, offwiki evidence exists and functionaries/arbs have been made aware of it. It was a ways too far to say the evidence was easily googled. OP has previously been oversighted recently, and presumably made adequately aware of OS policy, so it is truly unfortunate that more than was necessary was revealed yet again. It is also worth pointing out that ARBCOM as a institution is partly responsible for these kinds of incidents. They take a millennium to do anything, and routinely fail to assure the community that they are even doing something, making people impatient. When matters become public that should really be handled by arbcom, and it is obvious that arbs know of it, it should not require three days of ten people calling on them to say something for them to give a "yeah, we know."
  tldr; Nihonjoe should not be editing those topics anymore however that is achieved, and we need to find out Nihonjoe still retains the trust of the community to act as a crat in RFAs, however that is achieved. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• Given the edits and the timeframe, this does seem to be a mountain out of a molehill. Nihonjoe did screw up by not owning up more aggressively, but I disagree that the policies on COI was that strong in 2015. They were still be developed and there was a very strong anti-paid attitude at the time, much stronger than now (many, including Jimbo, said paid shouldn't edit AT ALL), so anyone with a mild COI was incentivized to not mention it if they really were not paid and not spamming their COI articles. I think Nihonjoe now need to either choose to avoid all COI editing completely, or declare their COI on the talk page. I did the same before I semi-retired. I think a lot of people are rightfully pissed at Nihonjoe, but mainly for wasting their time by not being more forthcoming from the start. Most of us have some kind of COI, most of us have some kind of job, after all. It's how you manage the COI, and disclose it that matters. I don't see any reason for a larger case, or continuing this. Dennis Brown 2¢ 06:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

So when they write in their RfB that: I think it's very important to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest (diff) — that is immaterial to you? El_C 06:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

The question was about how they would use the Crat bit. Not the admin bit, not the editor buttons. ":4. Do you pledge never to promote a person you are affiliated with or to discuss their RfA with them in a bureaucratic sense?", so it doesn't apply here, as there isn't any claim he misused any Crat tools or supposed authority as a Crat. Dennis Brown 2¢ 06:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd say that conflict of interest (even the appearance of) is still the thing that it is (i.e. WP:COI), but I concede your point. El_C 06:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Had he simply put a statement saying he had a COI on his user page back in '15, there wouldn't have been a problem with the actual editing (even if others reverted him), so the real problem is disclosure, not editing. Was not disclosing the COI stupid? Probably. Was it so egregious that I have lost faith in his ability to properly use the admin and crat tools? No. My guess is the majority of people have some COI and edit without disclosing, but try to be reasonable and fair, including a lot of admin. I would bet money on it. For me, it's about having a response that is proportional to the actual "crime". Arb can look closer if they feel they need, but dragging him in the mud, publicly, seems overkill. We have our pound of flesh, I think we can quit whipping this horse. Dennis Brown 2¢ 07:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

RE: My guess is the majority of people have some COI and edit without disclosing — I wouldn't have thought that to be so. I certainly do not have one, nor have I ever (though you'd have to take my word for it). RE: Was it so egregious that I have lost faith in his ability to properly use the admin and crat tools? — I don't know. Like Usedtobecool above, I have reservations. Finally, I personally will not undo another closure of this thread (once is enough for me). El_C 07:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Dennis, I can entirely understand his failure to disclose back then (I see you've adopted the same mountain out of a molehill phrase as me). But now in 2024, we're bound by current rules. What concerns me, a lot, is that when Sagflaps asked, he didn't say "You know, now that I think about it, you have a point" and fix the omission at that point. Issue defused—consensus and procedures change—and we might even have been able to keep the article. But it's more than wasting the community's time (hell, all noticeboard discussions waste some time). I'm weighing in here because of the accountability issue (under 2024 rules). He's fallen well below my expectations on that. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• Yngvadottir mentioned double standards. Well let us not apply them as a couple of people are doing, then.

  How would we treat use of the ordinary editing tool in this manner if it were a person that did not have any extra tools? I know what I would do, because it is what I have done for years, which is point to User:Uncle G/On notability#Writing about subjects close to you and observe that Special:Diff/828998968 is completely contrary to that, citing the company's own wiki as a source. (Even if one grants that in practical terms only company employees can edit the wiki, citing a wiki that is "user-supported" and apparently open to all is by itself a well-settled poor choice for sourcing, let alone combining that with what I talk about which is citing a company's own WWW site, which of course that wiki is. And whatever the back-and-forth over conflict of interest standards as of 2017 may be, citing wikis and autobiographical sources where companies write about themselves has been regarded as poor practice since years before I wrote Special:Diff/66348491 in 2006.)

  I would definitely ask Nihonjoe what on Earth xe thought that xe was doing removing the Journal of Hydrology (peer-reviewed, Elsevier), the Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics (peer-reviewed, CUP/SAEA), and Sedimentary Geology (peer-reviewed, Elsevier) and replacing them with the company's wiki. But I certainly have never called for the Arbitration Committee to remedy such a situation, in the many times that I have encountered people writing articles using the subject's own WWW sites. I'm not in favour of applying a double standard in that respect here.

  As I said above, there is no evidence here of mis-use of any tool other than the tool that everyone has, or any indication of, or even logical scenario for, there being so. About the only scenario that I could dream up is the utterly outlandish one of a bureaucrat getting all of those company employees administrator accounts on this wiki, which has many practical difficulties on the English Wikiepdia (in contrast to the recent very different situation on the Croatian Wikipedia with a bureaucrat). The trust issue is about the edit tool.

  And when it comes to trust, certainly my trust has diminished slightly in editors who just parroted off-wiki accusations of sock-puppetry without looking into them, and who even went as far as to rail against going through things edit by edit. Someone who is unwilling to look conscientiously and diligently at an edit history in detail to work out the facts of a matter is someone who I think is the person whom we should be wary of entrusting advanced tools to. Let's avoid that double standard, too. How many times does the world have to be burned by bad World Wide Web Detectives before the caution to be wary sinks in?

  I know that I for one (and I suspect many other administrators) have seen enough sock-puppeteers to know that a claim that account B waits 3 years and entirely undoes the edits of account A is a foundation for a claim of sock-puppetry that wouldn't pass muster at SPI. The person who adds content and cites peer-reviewed journals I for one would not conclude to be the same person as the person who removes that content and cites the company's wiki. (The only conclusions I might draw is that Edit42 was editing logged out at one point, and from deleted edits 42of8 definitely has some conflict of interest concerns and from talk page contributions such as Special:Diff/572217141 has a far stronger behavioural connection to Edit42.) I'll let Beeblebrox and JzG (who even edited the same article to remove predatory journals just like Nihonjoe) speak to the asinine idea that putting HHGTTG references in a username is grounds for drawing any conclusion at all.

  Uncle G (talk) 09:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  Uncle G, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that in the 2018 edit you linked, Nihonjoe removed only 2 of the journal articles you mention: the Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics citation was retained, and in fact became the focus of the paragraph. Nihonjoe replaced a section headed "Examples of GMS implementation" with bullet points with a briefer summary in which this one implementation was highlighted and a table of versions of the software, which so far as I can see is the only place where he cited "xmswiki.com": a named reference to the version history there. He changed the balance of the article towards the technical; I don't see why he shortened the material on implementations, removing those 2 journal citations and giving added prominence to the one he left, but the wiki use was understandable given that he wanted to add the table and reference every line in it. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• Nihonjoe did a stupid thing. (Personal attack removed), but a slap with the Wikitrout seems more appropriate. And Kashmiri does not come off well here, for obviously frivolous and vindictive AfD nominations. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  @JzG: Please desist from attacking fellow editors. Please assume they are here to help rather than hinder. ——Serial 13:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• Just a note that there may also be COI issues with Nihonjoe's Latter Day Saints related edits. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The heat/light boundary

• "More heat than light" is such an overused cliche for closing threads. Dear colleagues, if there is more heat than light, remove the heat not the light! Not both. It's not a good idea to tell everyone they can't have a discussion because some people are acting like jerks. Let's stop doing this. The next time you see more heat than light, remove the heat so the light can continue. Don't just shut it all down with a cliche. This public service announcement brought to you by Levivich (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  And if I hadn't used those words you'd find something else to complain about. I've re-opened the above section. Primefac (talk) 07:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  To save everybody time I've started WP:WIKICLICHE. Levivich (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested specific subsection

I propose that ArbCom formally remind Nihonjoe that communication is required, and that under WP:ADMINACCT, the expectations for administrators to respond to concerns are higher than for regular editors. I am sure that regardless of what discussions they may have conducted or still be conducting on the matter, they will be able to post such a statement on their noticeboard or at his user talk without much extra effort.

The closure of this discussion when the last substantive posts to it were (a) a long post by Uncle G a primary focus of which was raising a new point about Nihonjoe's editing and (b) a gross personal attack by JzG is not merely bad optics; it risks establishing a precedent in favor of Nihonjoe's inadequate responses prior to his statement here. The closure has made a statement from the Arbs necessary, in my view. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Speaking with my Arb hat on, and asking a genuine question - Nihonjoe has declared their COI; what more do we need to tell him? (please do not ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 07:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I would like for arbcom to find facts; they are the ones with access to all the evidence and the authority to investigate. Nihonjoe is still editing the AFDs. We need them to declare all their COIs and promise that there aren't any more of them. We need arbcom to determine that their story checks out with the timeline of verifiable events. After all that, we need arbcom to tell us that they are satisfied we can all move on. If all arbcom gives out is a reminder, it is completely fine, but we need to resolve these questions properly. Because it concerns a crat, a position considered so above reproach that our page on crats doesn't even say what to do about a bad one. If we need a case for that, we should have a case. But it is untenable for Nihonjoe to go back to cratting RFAs while there isn't an established version of events about what they are supposed to have done and how bad it was really. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I was not kidding about a need to determine whether Nihonjoe still retains the trust of the community to continue to act as a bureaucrat. I thought we were going to have an on-wiki discussion because the cat was out of the bag. But if we feel that it could be worse, it is very good that arbcom looks into it instead. But we need an arb to come here and say arbcom is looking into it. What we don't need is an arbcrat being the one to close the discussion referring to completely irrelevant matters, giving last say to people who added nothing but abuse people raising concerns. I don't usually get deep into conflicts between regulars because Wikipedia works just fine with or without the input of a single editor such as me. But we've lost perspective indeed if we fail to consider the optics of extremely long-time admins shutting down discussion when concerns are raised about a top-ranking member of the community, and not even pretending to be nice about it. I did not say Nihonjoe should not be an admin or a crat. I said we need to determine where the community is. What's Nihonjoe going to say in the cratchat if an RFA is started tomorrow and it comes out during the RFA that the candidate had once created a undisclosed COI article and that takes it to the discretionary zone? Smaller issues have been known to become central in RFAs. Everything does not become fine just by pretending it never happened. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Not an arb, but I sent the private evidence in question to them, and they replied that they are looking into it. Sagflaps (talk) 02:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I was acting in my individual capacity as an admin, with neither 'crat nor Arb affecting my decision. Since yall want to keep going at it, I have re-opened the above discussion. (please do not ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 07:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Primefac, I apologise unreservedly. I did disagree with the timing and rationale of the close, and with the closer being an arb and a crat at that particular juncture. My concern with the latter was wholly about appearances; I do not and have never doubted your integrity. I regret everything else that I said, and for things I did need to say, I regret the manner in which I said it. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

As the first person who tried to close this, it's unclear to me what the folks who want to keep this going would like to see happen. If you want Nihonjoe to be desysopped, file a case request with arbcom. If you want to get them decratized, I'm not sure what the process is for that, but filing an arbcom case is probably the place to start. If you want them investigated as a sock, file an SPI. If you think some type of community sanction should be enacted, propose it here. Short of one of those things, continued angst over past actions doesn't seem useful. RoySmith (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I concur. Even though I have my opinions on this matter, there is absolutely nothing of positive value that can be accomplished with continuing to have this thread open. Anytime we start talking about issues of trust when it comes to administrator or bureaucrat roles, then by explicit process, that is something which needs to be handled through WP:RFARB. It becomes even more so when you add to that the discussion of conflict of interest, where there is an attendant and increasing risk of outing personal information. As I said previously: I feel only the Arbitration Committee has the capacity to deal with private evidence in this manner, particularly if it is potentially revealing of personal information as Nihonjoe says. By continuing to keep this thread open, we are indeed creating a venue through which actual harassment can occur, which grows the size and scope of the case and makes everybody's Wiki-lives that much more difficult. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

How about a closing statement? Like a real one, not one that says everybody shut up. One that focuses on the behavior of the reported editor, not on the behavior of the editors discussing it. One that summarizes what happened, what the consensus is, and hey how about a warning not to do it again?

Not for nothing guys but why is it there is no problem processing COIs for non-legend-status players but when it's a functionary it's like "he finally admitted it, what more do you people want?!"

Neither of the closes were like normal closes with normal closing statements. Is that too much to ask?

And is it too much to ask for one of the dozen arbs to speak on behalf of arbcom and let us know if they're going to do anything or not? Am I the only person who wants to know if arbcom received private evidence of this before or after the off wiki blog post made it public?

And maybe one of the advanced perm holders can do something about the ridiculous personal attack I removed?

thanks. Levivich (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

My personal opinion: WP:COI doesn't strictly forbid a lot of behavior that people sometimes seem to expect being forbidden. WP:PAID does, but it's very narrow in scope. There is no "COI policy" and Nihonjoe is not a "functionary". WP:ADMINCOND exists but there is no formal higher standard for bureaucrats beyond this. And as currently the amount of actual private evidence involved and necessary to determine if there have been policy violations appears to be close to zero, or zero, I personally see no need for ArbCom to do anything at the moment – not even to provide a definitive official statement about whether the committee is going to do anything or not. This is a community discussion to me unless WP:COI becomes policy and gains strict prohibitions that it currently lacks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• Close The primary section has been re-opened for the 3rd time. If you want ArbCom to do something, there is a forum to request that. While this thread has arguably outlived its usefulness, we definitely do not need a third section for an outcome that AN cannot provide. Star Mississippi 17:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  I move that ArbCom formally sentence Nihonjoe to 25 wacks with a wet trout. Or, if ArbCom is feeling bold, five squishes with a whale. Sagflaps (talk) 18:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. This has gone one well past its usefulness and just turned into a platform for users to snipe at each other. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: Nihonjoe admonished and reminded

Administrator and bureaucrat Nihonjoe (talk · contribs) is admonished for failing to abide by community guidelines on conflict-of-interest editing over an extended period. They are reminded of the high level of trust placed on bureaucrats and an expectation to lead by example.

• Support as proposer, in light of the fact that admins and arbitrators have shown no interest to take any further action, and community-at-large has similarly been apathetic, which leads me to believe that not enough people care; even if they do, we get what we deserve. Further, we do not have anything that codifies a higher level of expectation from bureaucrats, nor do we have established procedures for evaluation of bureaucrat conduct, separate from adminship. And this case does not rise to the level of desysopping, even though there were WP:ADMINCOND shortcomings. I continue to believe that we need something official to bring the matter to a close, this can be it, even if it fails. Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support. I should point out that my attempted close (i.e. "TROUT") was essentially this. RoySmith (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose & Close - This has gone on well past its useful point. Nihonjoe has already apologized, formal admonishment at this point is just trying to get a pound of flesh. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose, that's not a community sanction. He has apologized. Take it to ArbComm if you feel you have a case. Otherwise this is just a ridiculous waste of community time and energy. Star Mississippi 18:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose this thread has not become more useful since I first observed that it had outlived its usefulness. It was time to move on then, and that hasn't changed. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support Since at the end of the day, this is just a formal reminder to not do it again, and has no real consequences unless he were to COI edit in the future without disclosure. Sagflaps (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
• Close and maybe trout the people who keep demanding this be reopened. Grandpallama (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
• Reluctant support. In my view, it's at least as important, if not more so, for him to be officially reminded of the need to engage with ordinary editors in response to concerns (and for both Sagflaps and Kashmiri to be endorsed in their attempts to raise the issue collegially). It seems evident that no one has raised the issue of desysopping because no one—including me—believes his conduct has been so egregious as to merit desysopping. But that's a red herring, as is hypothetical de-cratting. A range of sub-par conduct exists for which admins are censured in lesser ways (above trouting), and these include non-responsiveness to concerns. For which we don't need ArbCom, but we do need to know that ArbCom takes issues seriously even when the editor in question is also a bureaucrat. Minimizing concerns about conflict of interest and ADMINCOND and countenancing personal attacks are highly concerning. Even Uncle G's carefully considered and laid out opinion has not received any response. But the posts here by arbitrators and other senior members of the admin corps make it clear that this is the only resolution I can hope for that places on the official record that Nihonjoe's behavior has been below the expected standard. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support - basically, this proposal could have been the closing statement for the above discussion. Levivich (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support. I appreciate that Nihonjoe has apologized. What I don't appreciate is that it took an obnoxious WP:AN thread for them to acknowledge error, and I'm concerned by the continuing phenomenon of defending a user by engaging in personal attacks against other users. Just in this thread we have HandThatFeeds saying users are out for a "pound of flesh." That's a personal attack, and over a proposal to admonish. Admonishments mean nothing! It's the community putting on record that Nihonjoe's behavior fell below what was expected of them, and that community expects them to do better! They agree! It's the most anodyne possible outcome short of doing nothing, and it's still too much somehow. Mackensen (talk) 02:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  Admonishments mean nothing!

  Exactly my point. It's performative and just to make the proposers feel good about smacking someone on the nose with a rolled up newspaper, hence my "pound of flesh" comment. This accomplishes nothing except assuaging some egos. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support as a proportionate response to the issue given the (late) apology (and one that will lay the groundwork for future actions, in the hopefully unlikely event that there are further or ongoing issues). Sdkb ^talk 05:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
• This has gone on long enough that it is no longer useful, and is almost bordering on running an editor off. This proposal doesn't accomplish anything that hasn't already been done and said. Not only are we beating a dead horse, but the horse is nothing more than a puddle of goo, and we are still beating it. Dennis Brown 2¢ 09:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support I'm sure it won't reoccur, but recidivism should bring with it consequences which will be harder to establish without a preexisting record. Likewise its been pointed out that an admonishment is really nothing on its own, and it's hard to see how an ordinary, particularly a new, editor would have gotten away with much less. ——Serial 12:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support (Non-admin) accountability is important and this behaviour falls far below community expectations of admins and bureaucrats. An admonishment and formal reminder of these expectations is proportionate and prudent. Polyamorph (talk) 12:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose A years old incident involving a lapse of judgement for which Nihonjoe has apologized is being blown way out of proportion. It is inconceivable that they would engage in similar behavior going forward, especially given the response here. This is starting to take on the appearance of the proverbial mob with pitchforks and torches. Enough. It's time to close this, definitively. If anyone wants to pursue this further, WP:ARBCOM is that way. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
• Storm in a Teacup kinda rhymes with Shave and a Haircut ... Two Bits. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support per Yngvadottir et al. As a bare minimum. The COI editing may or may not be historical; but the prevarication & dissembling when called on it, is not; and falls far short of the standards to which we should hold bureaucrats. Rotary Engine ^talk 16:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

So, who were the harassers?

Just wondering, do we know specifically which people were involved in the WP:OUTING and WP:HARASSMENT of Nihonjoe off-wiki? And do any of them have accounts on-wiki that should absolutely have some sort of consequences for their actions? I don't really care about the ones that only exist over there, because we already know they're sad people who seem to spend all of their time obsessing over Wikipedia (also, many of whom are already global-banned here anyways).

But I have questions in addition, such as, why did Sagflaps suddenly ask about COI for an article Nihonjoe hadn't meaningfully edited outside of a tag removal in 6 years? What prompted that? Something to do with said off-wiki outing and digging to try and find something, anything, to accuse Nihonjoe of?

Just wondering if we're, yet again, going to bury under the rug the frequent and constant harassment of editors' personal lives. Probably because many of those involved in the harassment over there are admins here and actively work to prevent any sort of consequences. Silverseren^C 00:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The answer, as usual, is "it depends". If someone is not blocked on-wiki and starts outing and/or harassing other editor(s), we should (and often do) block them for it. Whether this block takes place as a normal admin action or as an ArbCom action (or something in between) largely depends on if the connection between on- and off-wiki accounts is public or private. On the other hand, if User A is already indeffed here (or has no account), there really isn't anything we can do if User B sees the off-wiki comment and then asks about it on-wiki (assuming they don't break the outing rules themselves in doing so). Primefac (talk) 09:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

we don't know. anyone can submit blog posts. ltbdl (talk) 09:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not involved with the blog in question. I did read it however, and figured I might as well suggest that he declare the COI to quash any future concerns over it. Sagflaps (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Policy question

• WP:AVOIDOUTING

So WP:AVOIDOUTING is a section of WP:COI. And in reading everything above, unless I missed it, I'm not seeing that this was followed at all.

Per WP:COI - "When investigating COI editing, the policy against harassment takes precedence. It requires that Wikipedians not reveal the identity of editors against their wishes. Instead, examine editors' behavior and refer if necessary to CheckUser. Do not ask a user if they are somebody; instead one can ask if they have an undisclosed connection to that person."

So above, someone saying that someone is being non-responsive to a public question - and thus of being outed? Wow. That's a really bad idea to be placing people in that position.

What's to stop someone from randomly asking anyone whether they have a COI about some article they've edited? Doesn't the act of asking create a question of outing?

That some external website did the initial outing is no excuse. We at Wikipedia do not follow the lead of some external website for our best practices.

Reading over the policy pages, it seems to me that none of this should be being discussed here on WP:AN. And instead should have happened in private communication with checkusers (which could include arbcom).

So my question is this:

Where do we go from here?

What can we do to stop this type of situation happening in the future?

I am dead serious - should blocks have been handed out once the outing started? If it turned out that Nihonjoe had a COI, that can be handled. I mean seriously, on Wikipedia, things like copyright infringement edits get handled, so cleaning up COI in an article is presumably pretty easy by comparison.

But outing people?

So, everyone here is part of the Wikipedia community. What do you think should happen in the future? - jc37 06:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who's been following this thread but who hadn't (previously) participated in it, I have to say that it made me uncomfortable that this was being discussed on-wiki at all - especially the connection to an external site which can be easily Googled up. I was thinking of emailing Oversight due to the (in my opinion) veiled link to offwiki outing, but I decided against it - for one reason, as I thought there would be Oversighters already aware of this thread, who would have suppressed anything if they thought it was needed. In my opinion, this should have been dealt with privately (by email to ArbCom) from the beginning. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 07:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

That line made me uncomfortable as well. It exists on a spectrum between naming the website (which would have been clear outing) and providing no information about how the info was recently brought to the community's attention (which would have been more alright). Part of what this incident has revealed is that different editors have different views about where to draw the line along that spectrum, with the practical effect that we end up at the intersection point between the editor with the narrowest view of outing and the oversighter with the broadest view of what's oversightable. Given that oversighters are (understandably) cautious about using their tools in borderline cases, it seems that that intersection point is perhaps less protective against outing than community consensus might wish. Sdkb ^talk 08:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The reality is there's symbiosis between Wikipedia and certain WP:BADSITES, to the point where many long-time editors, admins and arbitrators are active at those sites, and what is discussed can be quite influential on what happens on Wikipedia (or, to Wikipedians). That may even be a good thing. However, linking or invoking that stuff on-wiki just creates drama and is unlikely to get traction, especially if it's "just" from editors. The shadow governing needs to stay in the shadows. Perhaps the community could revisit WP:BADSITES and see if it has the stomach to prohibit linking-to (or invoking) outing material? Bon courage (talk) 09:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• The outing question is central to my concerns, and comments to just move on (and one failed attempt to close the discussion that got edit conflicted, so I didn't close and commented instead) even if I haven't said as much. People here have to understand this risk, but they just don't seem to give a damn if an editor keeps getting outed. It isn't our best moment, and the several failed closes are proof of that. Dennis Brown 2¢ 09:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  Dennis Brown, ditto. My vote to close and trout those reopening was not because I don't consider this a serious breach of the community's trust, but because the thread itself seems to be creating damage in ways that are not desirable for an issue that should have been handled privately from the outset. Grandpallama (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The balance between outing and investigating COI issues is always problematic. I haven't looked at the "other" website nor at the name mentioned there, but on the other hand it isn't hard to find (Redacted) (and one wonders how nihonjoe found the draft 3 minutes after creation in the first place[31]). (Redacted)

Note how Nihonjoe also used their admin tools here and here, which may or may not be a COI use of the tools (directly with the person, the Mormon/BYU angle of COI may perhaps be too tenuous to be objectionable here and with other articles). Fram (talk) 10:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

What the hell Fram. Primefac (talk) 13:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

He uses his real first name, he uses his wikipedia handle elsewhere to connect his full name to it, he edits multiple pages he is very closely connected with (more than was initially raised), and he uses admin tools on another page which seems likely to be a COI page as well. Why are you still protecting them? They should be stripped of their rights instead. Fram (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

One practice I find somewhat inexplicable is the one where nobody is allowed to say the name of the BADSITE. People are allowed to read the BADSITE, they are allowed to bring stuff up here that was mentioned on the BADSITE, and they're even allowed to go to the BADSITE themselves and post there about stuff here -- and information from the BADSITE is allowed to be used in our decisionmaking processes -- but we draw the line at forbidding people to mention its name (despite it being notable enough for us to have an article about it, in fact, the only currently-active web forum in Category:Critics of Wikipedia)? Incidentally, this Voldemort procedure is the only thing that doesn't actually affect the situation, and simply makes it imposible for non-power-users to participate in the discussion. jp×g🗯️ 13:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

But, do we? Is an arb going to block someone for mentioning Wikipediocracy, knowing that it's been mentioned multiple times on WT:ARBN, for example? Or will an admin block on this page for mentioning Wikipediocracy, even though it's been mentioned loads of times on the usual notice boards? I mean, if people want Wikipediocracy to be unmentionable, actions speak louder than words. But it would presumably have to codify all the other aspects of Wikipediocracy you touch on—intersite participation, for example. Wasn't that recently tried, whereof the committee emerged covered in less than their usual glory? Man, it's a tricky one. ——Serial 13:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The very good reason not to mention it was the same as why OP should have shared less. It's the same reason why arbcom should have so been on top of this that as soon as a concern was raised onwiki, they were able to shut it down with "we're looking, we'll post our findings; meantime, no one mention this on wiki again", or maybe I'm just too stupid, but how about do that preemptively when half of you would have found the offwiki evidence all your own faster than most everyone else and knew full well it was only a matter of time? Instead, you go, after days of being asked, "there's actually nothing new to investigate, so we aren't doing anything; btw COI isn't even a policy, so who cares?" Well, it looks like there was a need to investigate. And if only arbcom had handled this sensibly, we would not have more things coming out publicly that should have all been discovered and discussed privately. In one of the most valuable human undertakings ever, with more than 20 years of experience, we can't find a balance between protecting the encyclopedia and protecting an individual's privacy? It has to be a choice between sweeping everything under the rug and doxxing someone who's contributed more than most? Because, why? Because arbcom has to appear on high and aloof and say as little as possible for whatever reason that's more important than maintaining trust and protecting privacy, I guess. What a let down! — Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely. What the hell Primefac. El_C 16:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

This is also my primary concern. As I understand it -- and I don't know if this is true -- but the COI editing was reported privately to arbcom before the off-wiki blog post that exposed it, and the blog post was written in part because arbcom didn't do anything. If this is true, this is a problem.

As to JPxG's point above, I don't think the issue is so much that we aren't allowed to say the name of the site, but that people choose not to name it, in order to not bring attention to it.

I don't think the COI/outing concern Jc brings up is that major of a concern. For me, it's pretty basic that you do not edit the article about your employer, just like you do not edit the article about yourself, just like you do not edit the article about your friends, etc. If you choose to edit COI subjects like that anyway, then you must disclose it. (And it doesn't matter if the edits are good edits or vandalism. Improving an article you have a COI with is still very bad, and that's the reason there are COI rules.) People violate this rule all the time. Outing is essentially required to police COI editing.

Personally, I'd much rather any such outing be done in private, by email arbcom@ or paid@. However, if those reports are being made and sat on, then that's a problem, and a problem that begets off-wiki outing.

I'm still waiting to hear some official word from Arbcom about this. (And I'm hoping the rest of the committee doesn't share the views expressed by PF and TBF in this thread.) Levivich (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich We learned about this the same way the community did, we weren’t contacted in advance. No comment on anything else here (for now). Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Seeking feedback on my own behavior and ensuring compliance with an editing restriction

Similarly to this thread, I am seeking some guidance on a series of edits I made to Drive-Away Dolls. I am under an editing restriction that does not allow me to revert anyone (i.e. 0-RR). When this was discussed there was clear consensus against standard rollbacks, undos, etc. and a clear consensus that I could in no way engage in edit-warring and must always seek consensus. Since then, I have not used these tools to undo anything, including clear vandalism and have instead reported it elsewhere and posted to talk pages to have it removed. I don't want to potentially accidentally break 0-RR, even including its explicit allowances.

At that prior thread, there was some ambiguity discussed about what exactly is edit-warring and removal (e.g. see the section on how my edits could via sheer happenstance trigger the "Undo" tag). I am trying to ensure compliance so in an abundance of caution, I posted to a relevant user's talk page, the article talk page, and here to see if my edits are acceptable to admins per the requirements of how I am obliged to edit. No one prompted this other than a review of my own edits and I hope that this is a good use of others' time to ensure compliance and that I can be a productive member of the community.

Another example of a kind of edit I have done is just removing some kind of content that I come across organically in the encyclopedia. There will be times that I see (e.g.) unsourced information on a biography of a living person, so I remove it per WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:OR, etc. but I am not directly engaged in removing anyone in particular's edits and under no circumstances have I edit-warred to take material back out, etc., if it's put back in. If I just happen across information that someone has added at some point, but I am not directly engaging to edit war with someone, I am allowed to remove that, correct? Or if I substantially rewrite existing content that effectively removes something that someone added along the way, that's not inappropriate, correct? (e.g. this)

If anything I've done above violates the spirit or letter of the restriction, please let me know, so I can ensure that I'm a productive editor who is not blocked. Thanks again for reading all this. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

For convenience: Koavf (talk · message · contribs · global contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · user creation · block user · block log · count · total · logs · summary · email | lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · spi · socks | rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp | current rights · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) | rights · renames · blocks · protects · deletions · rollback · admin · logs | UHx · AfD · UtHx · UtE) and Koavf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

For reference, WP:NOT3RR cites several exemptions to the general policy against edit warring, one of which is "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." The other exemptions may be relevant to you. Now here's the thing -- those exemptions are *specifically* to the policy on edit-warring. There's some ambiguity as to whether those exemptions would apply or not if the source of your 0RR restriction comes from something else -- arbitration enforcement, community sanctions, etc. I do not know if we have any prior precedent about this, but my personal reading of the exemption policy (based on the specific decision to call them exemptions to the edit warring policy, and the existence of a separate 0RR section) would be that in those scenarios the exemptions likely would *not* apply (though arguably perhaps they should). As to your other question ("if I just happen across information..."), the term "revert" is defined as any edit that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually. So yes, regardless of your lack of intent to edit war, those removals would constitute a revert. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Noted. I'll change my editing accordingly. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Resolved

 – ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

1RR appeal by Marcelus

I would like to ask the community to remove or reduce the 1RR restriction imposed on me. I received 0RR on March 7, 2023 ([32]), this restriction was reduced to 1RR on July 3, 2023 ([33]), for appreciating my trouble-free editing history. On September 27, however, after my 2nd revert on the Povilas Plechavičius article, I received 0RR again ([34]). It was once again reduced to 1RR on November 29, 2023 ([35]).

After another three months of trouble-free editing, I would ask that the sanction be removed or reduced. Marcelus (talk) 11:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sagflaps: I received 0RR for waging the editing wars. Since then, I have changed my style of working and communicating with other editors. I avoid making reverts, in complicated situations I initiate discussion. Except for this one case on Povilas Plechavičius, I have not had any problems related to reverts. My revert to Povilas Plechavičius was due to my misinterpretation of the revert (I restored the deleted content with the addition of sources, responding to the objections of the user who removed the content under the pretext of a lack of sources), and not out of bad faith. Marcelus (talk) 09:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

You haven't given much information on why the 1RR/0RR was given in the first place, and why those concerns are no longer applicable. Sagflaps (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

this comment should follow the one that it answers. Maybe someone will move the question above it. @Marcelus: Do you feel that the way you initiate discussion is collegial and in compliance with Wikipedia policy? Elinruby (talk) 12:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Histmerge and deletion of duplicated page needed

Moved to WP:REPAIR

Primefac (talk) 16:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

FC Internazionale Milano

I would like to ask if an administrator could kindly move the page, currently under the incorrect and unofficial name of Inter Milan, to the correct name FC Internazionale Milano. This can be done immediately as most Italian clubs are under the real official name (Juventus FC, AC Milan, AS Roma). Thank you very much and kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done, please see the long list of previous move requests at Talk:Inter Milan. Primefac (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Primefac I don't see anything like that. There is only one (1) comment by an unregistered editor. There is no reason for keeping the incorrect name. Let me know as soon as possible. Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Apologies to everyone else, but apparently this banner isn't obvious enough on the talk page.

There are 8 old move discussions; you are welcome to read them through at your leisure. Primefac (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

If you edit on a phone [36] the banner is less obvious. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, that is true, so my apologies for the snark in my reply above. Primefac (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Primefac Well, in the two most recent discussione there was a majority in favor of the move. No idea why it has not been done yet. Please let me know what is the problem for moving. If there is one, I shall open a new talk. Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Primefac Also, for WP:TITLECON, we should use the official name, not the most common; this is what happens with almost all other clubs. Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Just start a new WP:RM since this is obviously not uncontroversial. Lightoil (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed; I declined the initial request because it is clearly not something that can be done unilaterally. Primefac (talk) 19:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Lightoil @Primefac Thank you very much for your helpful suggestions. Kind regards. 14 novembre (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@14 novembre: FYI, while I haven't looked deeply at the previous RMs in question, consensus in discussions (or lack thereof) is based on the strength of the arguments, not on a head-count basis. (Also, arguments regarding whether or not the page should be moved would be better suited to a new RM, rather than the current noticeboard.) All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 19:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@A smart kitten Thanks. I actually was thinking that the arguments in favoir of the move to FC Internazionale Milano were stronger. Anyway I understand this is not the best place for such discussion. Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

we should use the official name, not the most common That is incorrect, see WP:COMMONNAME. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

(after many edit conflicts) The club is almost universally known in Britain, the major English-speaking country where football is widely played, as Inter Milan. This may not be "correct" but is the English name, which the English Wikipedia uses. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger I suggest replying in the article's talk page. Thank you very much 14 novembre (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1148#User:14_novembre from earlier this month is semi-related to the above. Daniel (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Could you kindly explain how this is related with the subject? Thanks and kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Not the subject, but what I (and I assume others) would assess as some less-than-optimal editing behaviours that were again exhibited above. Daniel (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Is kindly asking a page move "less-than-optimal editing behaviour"? Could you explain better? Thanks 14 novembre (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel . 14 novembre (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

"This can be done immediately as most Italian clubs are under the real official name" - disingenuously doesn't mention the 8 prior move requests.

"I don't see anything like that. There is only one (1) comment by an unregistered editor. There is no reason for keeping the incorrect name." - see point one.

"Well, in the two most recent discussione there was a majority in favor of the move. No idea why it has not been done yet. Please let me know what is the problem for moving." - this shows a total lack of respect towards previously-established consensus and the consensus-building processes, as well as a lack of respect to the editors who closed the previous discussions.

I do not offer you the assumption of good faith regarding the above, given your previous issues earlier this month (hence why I linked it). I think you were trying to bludgeon through a change outside of process and against established consensus by forum-shopping to AN. I think you are a disruptive editor and I also believe if you continue to be disruptive and try and subvert Wikipedia processes, your track record (ie. repeated examples of less-than-optimal editing behaviours) will see you blocked. Daniel (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Re points 1 and 2 - I don't want to get involved in this too much (especially as I'm not familiar with the previous ANI report), but the edit tags show that this AN section was added on mobile; which hides talk page banners by default. To me, it's plausible that 14 novembre genuinely didn't realise any previous RMs had occurred (and therefore intended this section as a technical request - albeit one that would have been better suited to WP:RM/TR). All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 23:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Understood, but my personal view is (as mentioned above) that the assumption of good faith is not offered by myself here given the previous issues from only earlier this month. Further to that, the editor requested this move earlier this month diff, but was rejected due to "Absolutely not uncontroversial. This article has a long RM history" - so they absolutely should have been aware of the RM history from that. The editor has a history of disruption which, in my opinion, far exceeds the amount you would expect from someone with less than 500 edits. Daniel (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel: Ah, I was not aware of the previous RMTR request. I no longer feel qualified enough to offer an opinion on this matter, but my comment above can be viewed in light of this - I apologise that it was made while I was lacking information. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 00:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Attention requested at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 February#Pākehā settlers

The discussion so far has been dominated by involved editors; participation from additional uninvolved editors would be appreciated. BilledMammal (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I find this notification really a bit odd - this has been up for nine days already, four uninvolved users including myself have already reviewed the move, which is a common number of editors for move review (or even large - the last move review closed with two editors pitching in), but three of the four so far have disagreed with your viewpoint, including myself. I don't really care about this one way or another - I enjoy reviewing decisions on appeal - but that move review was very contentious, and I'm not convinced this isn't a late attempt to WP:CANVASS to try to win the argument even though notifying administrators shouldn't normally be considered as such. SportingFlyer T·C 23:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring by User:AlNahyan

This user consistently imposes unconstructive edits with vague/pretentious edit summaries ("Fixing grammar and format"/"Format fix"/etc.) [37] [38] [39] [40] And this user's track record involves edit warring behaviors at pop-music articles [41] [42] [43]. This user's main issue is WP:FALSETITLE, which I know is not an official MOS/guide whatsoever, but per WP:STATUSQUO articles that have implemented them before are being consistently messed up by this user without adequate explanations. Ippantekina (talk) 03:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I find this entire situation quite funny as you seem to always be "reverting false titles" non-stop but when told its not an official policy, you ignore the fact and continue doing so.

In addition, "Fixing grammar" and "fixing format" is literally the correct edit summary and not vague because most (not all) of my edits with that summary also include general grammar fixes of the article in addition to removing your reverting of the "false title". Do you want me to write a whole essay on which edits I've done to an article or what?

Also I'm on my phone and having issues logging in, which is why I'm commenting via an IP address. Also editing warring hasn't occured as of yet, just so you know. x 2404:4401:9404:EB00:6829:2AB5:7D28:BD5B (talk) 03:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@AlNahyan: The issue is WP:STATUSQUO. False title is not an official policy, but users who find them useful are free to implement it. The problem is that you disregard this and continue imposing your "MOS" to articles that are fine before. For example, at the article OMG (NewJeans song), which I'm nominating for GA, you jumped in and reverted my edits that disrupted the status quo prior (it has since been reverted by the GA Reviewer). Had you understood the issue I wouldn't have gone this far. Ippantekina (talk) 04:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

"your MOS" the MOS in question is Wikipedia's Manual of Style, not something which I just made up on the spot and shoved down your throat.

My issue with people like you who seem to be obsessed with "removing false titles" on every article is the fact that false titles and their existence in general are a subjective thing - many people (me included) believe that removing "false titles" simply don't improve the article in any major way and it makes the first sentence just look odd and incorrect even though it may not me.

Moreover, because false titles aren't actually an official policy, there's not a whole lot which you or anyone can do towards those (me included) who have an issue with removing "false titles".

But I'd like to apologise nonetheless for disregarding WP:STATUSQUO because that was definitely not the right thing to do in this situatio following reflection. @Ippantekina 2404:4401:9404:EB00:6829:2AB5:7D28:BD5B (talk) 07:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

(Again) WP:FALSETITLE is not an official policy but STATUSQUO should be respected. Furthermore, I also follow other essas (such as WP:ELEVAR, WP:RECEPTION, WP:PLAINENGLISH to name a few). These essays, alongside FALSETITLE, are not MOS but they are insightful w.r.t more encyclopedic writing. Thank you for your understanding. Ippantekina (talk) 08:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

What I see is a lot of groundless reversions on your part, and constructive editing on the part of AlNahyan. In fact, in almost all of those diffs you provided, his so-called "pretentious" edit summary is an accurate description of his edit, which fixed grammar and formatting issues that you and other users subsequently inexplicably undid. What I'm seeing is edit warring and serious ownership issues on your part, to the degree that a boomerang might be warranted. All of this is even before we address the fact that you're using an essay that has not been accepted by the community--in any way--as a justification for your behavior. Grandpallama (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• Sidenote: As User:Popcornfud/The problem with false titles is not a page in the Wikipedia: namespace, I've removed the WP:FALSETITLE shortcut from it. NebY (talk) 13:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for doing so. Grandpallama (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring on D'Arcy Wentworth

The article on D'Arcy Wentworth is the subject of an ongoing edit war regarding unverified claims (from a self-published, unreliable source) that he had a long term affair with Jane Austen that ended when her family blocked it and the characters of Mr. Darcy and Col. Wentworth were named after him. Please could an uninvolved admin step in to adjudicate? 81.174.149.183 (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

The person who keeps introducing these unverified claims seems very keen on calling everyone else vandals. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

The author of the self-published book in question lives in the same area that the IPs geolocate to (and which use the same language in their edit summaries as the SPA that has now shown up to also revert). There's good reason to believe this is a COI situation. Grandpallama (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Seeing Special:Diff/1093334907 reveals that this back and forth has been going on since 2022. The disputed content was added to the article in 2020.

On the other side we have "Removed vandalism.", "Remove vandalism", "rm fiction". "The relationship between Austen and Wentworth is a hoax.", "Removed a section about Jane Austen that cited a fake book (false ISBN)", "removed libelous conspiracy theorist falsehoods from the article. Stop restoring this ridiculous crap. It is a terrible blight on wikipedia.", "Reverting con artist lie - and that search brings up a blank page. Jane Austen was thirteen at the time, by the way, and living in rural Hampshire. How exactly did they meet at a party?", and "Huge 100% hoax. The book doesn't exist - the ISBN isn’t real - and the website is highly unreliable.".

It is apparent from Special:Diff/950880377 that 1 person with a conflict of interest wrote not just the Austen stuff but the other problematic prose in the article also called out on its talk page. 1.144.105.121 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 1.129.108.254 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 1.145.112.185 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 1.145.62.39 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 1.144.105.166 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 1.145.52.39 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 1.144.105.166 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) all seem to be making this same edit in this slow-motion edit war.

The address range is 1.128.0.0/11, which is too large a range for a block it seems. And unfortunately it is several editors without accounts that are helping to combat the conflict-of-interest edits, and DetachedPeices (talk · contribs) appears to be the same person, and so semi-protection would probably harm more than it would help. This person is prepared to edit war about this for, so far, one and a third years (Special:Diff/1102820283), which potentially means the patience to wait out any full protection.

I'm not really sure what can usefully be done with administrator tools, here.

Uncle G (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

It looks like Ponsonby100 reverted the material a few times, and may have the article watchlisted. An experienced user keeping an eye on the page plus long-term extended confirmed protection would prevent further Austen disruption. Grandpallama (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Copyright or non-copyright

I would like to upload the table shown in this LinkedIn post. It is part of a larger research by Times Higher Education shown on their website. I need your help on what Copyright options I should use when uploading the picture of the table (Can I in the first place?!). Thanks. Kazemita1 (talk) 10:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I have my doubts. This seems like the kind of table that is assembled using a creative criterion and thus copyrightable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it depends on how the table information is being used here. If you are taking a picture of the table, that would likely be a copyright violation because you are copying not only the content but also the style of the table. On the other hand, if you are using just the data and using standard wikitable format, that would not be a copyright violation as data (as a standalone entity without context) cannot be copyrighted. Primefac (talk) 12:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

That particular table's value's are described in the LinkedIn post as "Drawing on the millions of data points on global higher education ... scientists have given each institution in the rankings a score by using three income metrics ... and comparing them with the scores for research, teaching and working with industry". That involves so many choices and so much processing that it arguably already has copyright under UK law. NebY (talk) 15:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@NebY: The English Wikipedia only cares about US law. —Matrix(!) (a good person!)_{[Citation not needed at all; thank you very much]} 18:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I know. As I only got the tee-shirt for UK copyright law, I deliberately qualified my comment. I believe US and UK law is aligned on whether content is creative or mere data. I think US law has at times been more onerous in requiring publishers to register copyright so I also avoided saying that the table would already be copyright under US law, but international agreements may mean that it is anyway and besides, our attitude is not simply one of adhering to the letter of US law and no more. NebY (talk) 19:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Wow how did enwiki achieve this? Levivich (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@Primefac and Jo-Jo Eumerus: No that wouldn't, the threshold of originality of the US is high, and the creative merit of a simple table with no extra formatting is low. After all, this map which has complex shading and labelling was ruled to be below the threshold of originality. Data and simple words by themselves aren't copyrightable. By your definition, a map/table of all the Human Development Indexes of the countries of the world is technically copyrightable by the UN, which is absurd. Please see this page for more info. Also, I think this should be moved to MCQ. —Matrix(!) (a good person!)_{[Citation not needed at all; thank you very much]} 18:56, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

That's for the HDI which has a fairly simple computational procedure. It might not apply to a more complex system. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) A table showing THE's Bang for Bucks scores is probably covered by copyright. I wouldn't even upload the top ten. (We can't upload US News rank tables either.) I think in these cases we can say that school X received score Y but we shouldn't be giving away the compilation both for WP:NOTDIRECTORY/WP:DUE grounds and copyright grounds since the listing of scores is what the author is creating and selling. Levivich (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The data is 100% copyrighted, as its data compiled by that organization by their own internal rules, and while the graphic of the table is simple enough to not be copyrighted, the replication of the copyrighted data would be a problem. What Levivich said is the better approach here. --Masem (t) 19:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with previous comments that the "Bang for buck score" appears to be creative and copyrightable. The "three income metrics – institutional income, research income and industry income" (quoted from the LinkedIn post) may be facts if they were simply collected from the institutions' public filings, but they are inputs to THE's analysis. WP:TOP100 (shortcut to WP:Non-free content#Text 2, guideline) and WP:Copyright in lists (essay) are relevant. Flatscan (talk) 05:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Draftify

Could anyone draftify Megara (band)? It is clearly not ready for mainspace, and is promotional in tone. 94.44.97.18 (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• Doesn't seem draft-appropriate to me. The only vaguely promotional part I see is "the band began rising in popularity". Schazjmd (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Or to me. This is a perfectly normal article on a band that will be performing at the Eurovision Song Contest this year. It doesn't particularly float my boat but there's nothing wrong with it. I note that the OP of this thread nominated the article for speedy deletion, and when that was turned down, for WP:PROD, at the same time as coming here. They also nominated a perfectly non-promotional article about a Formula One car (another of my least favourite topics) for speedy deletion as promotional. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
    • There has been a determined attempt by IPs from Budapest to create an (unsourced) article about a band from New Haven, CT, infamous for their vulgar lyrics apparently, also called Megara, e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, at that title. I assume this is more shenanigans. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
• Good grief! One PROD, three speedy deletion requests, several hi-jackings (of the initial redirect and the later article) completely blanking the original subject, a bogus edit filter request, and disruptive taggings. All within the past 24 hours from different IP addresses in the U.K. and Hungary. With apologies to the one good faith editor without an account who fixed a typo, 84.248.115.155 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), I've semi-protected for a time over which the sourcing for the recently selected (day before yesterday) Eurovision entrant should have settled down quite a bit, although the competition is a fair way off after that. If the disruption goes away or the good faith people without accounts outnumber the bad faith ones, feel free to unprotect before the time runs out. Alas, Special:Contributions/94.44.0.0/17 has too much collateral impact. Uncle G (talk) 04:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  if you think that's bad, check out this. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 16:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Unblock request for Eni.Sukthi.Durres

• Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Link to ANI thread

Appellant was blocked by @Kinu: for WP:CIR and WP:NPA related to their English language skills. Both their language skills and comportment have improved, but is it enough? I share Kinu's hesitance, so I bring it to you. I will copy the latest unblock request and ensuing discussion in separate blocks.

;carried over latest unblock request--

Hello dear Wikiedians. During these times I've had some serious problems that I had to solve so I couldn't speak more about this issue of unblocking, sorry. Ok then, for the question that 331dot (talk · contribs) did to me, I want to tell you that I didn't had anything serious there but however I must admit that it wasn't anything good, but I was misunderstood for what they said to me. For short, I want to say once again that the reason I love Wikipedia is the passion for information, biographical content, their correction, so I promise once again that I will do useful work whenever I can, even in cooperation with fellow editors here.

;carried over unblock discussion

Please describe concisely and clearly how your edits merited a block, what you would do differently, and what constructive edits you would make. Please read Wikipedia's Guide to appealing blocks for more information. For instance, you made a threat of violence. Please, in the context of this threat, please tell us why we should unblock you. Do you think that your English is good enough to understand a conversation? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Why when anyone answered one of your questions did you come back with a challenge? Is that the sort of behavior we can expect from you if you are unblocked? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you understand that we don't know from text on a screen whether you are serious or kidding? Any person receiving such a comment would likely be fearful. Is English your main language? [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 08:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

{{ping|Deepfriedokra}} {{ping|331dot}}

-Style of editing

I have changed my style of editing compared to the one I had before being blocked. My edits will start from simple stats update to helping improve the quality content of the articles I plan on working with.

-Reaction to the threat!

As for the threat. It came at the heat of the moment and it wasn't meant as a threat. I didn't mean it and I have apologized for my mistake. It wasn't polite and it wasn't surely professional.

If I'm granted unbloking, I'll do my very best to help improve this project while cooperating with the fellow editors.

My English has been improving alot since the last time I contributed in the English Wikipedia. I've taken classes outside and my level of knowledge and understanding has gone up. Thank you and greetings. Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: @331dot:

Hello. SOrry mates, have you received MY message. I can understand you are busy with other requests but however I mentioned again to be sure you received it, thank you. Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

In addition I will wait patiently for an answer. Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@Kinu: OK to unblock? Does it need to go to WP:AN as a WP:CBAN?

Link to ANI thread -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I am admittedly somewhat hesitant. The text of the unblock request above and other comments herein do not convince me of the editor's ability to write in English at a level that would be required for an encyclopedia. However, that is not as problematic as the persistent behavioral issues. The extensive block log, which includes sanctions not only for the aforementioned threat but also for this horrendously inappropriate edit summary (RevDeled but still visible to administrators) and for prior harassment (per the logged reason), is problematic. It came at the heat of the moment (as mentioned in the reply above) could be a justification had this happened once, but it does not excuse overall pattern of WP:NPA-violating behavior. With as much objectivity as possible (given that I am both the blocking administrator and the recipient of the aforementioned threat), I personally feel that an unblock is not justified. However, if any other administrator who has commented here and/or at the relevant discussions feels otherwise, I would not consider it wheel-warring. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Kinu: I appreciate your consideration in replying to me regardless of the many conflicts that have occurred here which are the reason of my blocking.

I must say that since I'm insisting all this time to get unlocked, it's because I like working here on the wiki and that I've also understood my mistakes which I've said even before that I didn't had any serious intention but simply I felt offended, you don't know me I don't know you personally. I also readed WP:NPA and I really found myself at section First offenses and isolated incidents where says that sometimes they aren't meant as attacks at all...

Dear admin, I humbly ask you to look positively at me to appreciate my true passion for Wikipedia and once again I tell you that I have changed my behavior even though I didn't gain anything from all that. I'm open for discussions, only tell me what else needs to do to justify the negative things I've done in the past, thanks. Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 08:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I might well take the request and this discussion to WP:AN as I am also hesitant. If no one unblocks first. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: I appreciate that. Greetings. Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 07:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Kinu: Ima formatting for WP:AN. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Carried over by -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• No to unblocking Based on what I have just read (as I am new to the issue), and seeing the horrendous (revdel) edit summary, I say no to unblock. That behavior is unacceptable. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) I can't view the edit summary, but can you explain what it was about? The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 16:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)