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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Be sure to include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing discussions easier.

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 433#Closing (archived) RfC: Mondoweiss

(Initiated 29 days ago on 16 April 2024) - already the oldest thread on the page, and at the time of this comment, there has only been one comment in the past nine days. starship.paint (RUN) 03:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Talk:Awdal#RFC - Habr Awal/Isaaq clan

(Initiated 142 days ago on 24 December 2023) ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Tasnim News Agency

(Initiated 93 days ago on 12 February 2024)

Closure request for this WP:RSN RfC initiated on February 12, with the last !vote occurring on March 18. It was bot-archived without closure on March 26 due to lack of recent activity. - Amigao (talk) 02:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 61 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Before I try to close this I wanted to see if any editors believed I am WP:INVOLVED. I have no opinions on the broader topic, but I have previously participated in a single RfC on whether a specific article should include an infobox. I don't believe this makes me involved, as my participation was limited and on a very specific question, which is usually insufficient to establish an editor as involved on the broader topic, but given the strength of opinion on various sides I expect that any result will be controversial, so I wanted to raise the question here first.

If editors present reasonable objections within the next few days I won't close; otherwise, unless another editor gets to it first, I will do so. BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War#RFC on Listing of Belarus

(Initiated 60 days ago on 16 March 2024) Hello, this RFC was started on 16 March 2024 and as of now was active for more than a month (nearly 1,5 month to be exact). I think a month is enough for every interested user to express their opinion and to vote at RFC and the last vote at this RFC was made by user Mellk on 15 April 2024 (nearly two weeks ago and within a month since the start of this RFC). The question because of which this RFC was started previously resulted in quite strong disagreements between multiple users, but I think there already is a WP:CONS of 12 users who already voted at this RFC. Since the contentious topics procedure applies to page Russo-Ukrainian War, I think this RFC must be closed by uninvolved user/administrator to ensure a valid WP:CONS and to prevent further disputes/edit warring about this question in the future. -- Pofka (talk) 09:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Will an experienced uninvolved editor please close this RFC. If there is a consensus that Belarus should be listed, but not as to how it should be listed, please close with the least strong choice, Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it should not be closed with the "least strong choice", but instead with a choice which received the most votes (the strongest choice). The most users chose C variant (in total 6 users: My very best wishes, Pofka, Gödel2200, ManyAreasExpert, Licks-rocks, CVDX), while the second strongest choice was A variant (in total 5 users). So I think the WP:CONS of this RFC question is C variant. -- Pofka (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Libertarian Party (Australia)#Conservatism

(Initiated 47 days ago on 29 March 2024) RfC template expired. TarnishedPath^talk 01:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk: Elissa Slotkin#Labor Positions and the 2023 UAW Strike

(Initiated 46 days ago on 30 March 2024) RfC expired, no clear consensus. andrew.robbins (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

(Initiated 38 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

(Initiated 37 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Brothers of Italy#RfC on neo-fascism in info box 3 (Effectively option 4 from RfC2)

(Initiated 37 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:International Churches of Christ#Request for Comment on About Self sourcing on beliefs section of a religious organization’s article

(Initiated 30 days ago on 15 April 2024) No new comments in eight days. TarnishedPath^talk 01:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Havana syndrome#RfC on the presentation of the Havana Syndrome investigative report content

(Initiated 20 days ago on 25 April 2024) No new comments in 12 days. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 08:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 United States presidential election#RfC: Define the threshold in national polls to include candidates in the infobox - new proposal

(Initiated 0 days ago on 15 May 2024) An RfC on exactly the same matter was literally closed a few days ago. Prcc27 (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	19	13	32
TfD	0	0	0	1	1
MfD	0	0	1	3	4
FfD	0	0	2	2	4
RfD	0	0	22	48	70
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 8#Medical schools in the Caribbean

(Initiated 55 days ago on 21 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 8#Category:French forts in the United States

(Initiated 54 days ago on 22 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 10#Category:19th-century Roman Catholic church buildings in Réunion

(Initiated 53 days ago on 23 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 24#Category:Asian American billionaires

(Initiated 21 days ago on 24 April 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Maersk Hangzhou#Second merge proposal

(Initiated 112 days ago on 24 January 2024) Merge discussion involving CTOPS that has been open for 2 weeks now. Needs closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter: I would give it a few days as the discussion is now active with new comments. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

As nominator, I support a non consensus closure of this discussion so we can create an RFC to discuss how WP:ONEEVENT applies in this situation. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:1985_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Ignacio_(1985)_into_1985_Pacific_hurricane_season

(Initiated 106 days ago on 30 January 2024) Listing multiple non-unanimous merge discussions from January that have run their course. Noah, AA^Talk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Pharnavaz_I_of_Iberia#Requested_move_6_February_2024

(Initiated 99 days ago on 6 February 2024) Requested move open for nearly 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Has now been open for three months. 66.99.15.163 (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:12 February 2024 Rafah strikes#Merge proposal to Rafah offensive

(Initiated 92 days ago on 13 February 2024) The discussion has been inactive for over a month, with a clear preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 29 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me that there is a consensus here to do anything, with most editors couching their statements as why it might (or might not) be done rather than why it should (or should not). I will opine that I'm not aware there's any precedent to exclude {{Press}} for any reason and that it would be very unusual, but I don't think that's good enough reason to just overrule Hipal. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Forest_management#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 17 days ago on 28 April 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

(Initiated 13 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 12 days ago on 3 May 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Closure Review

This is a request to review the close at Talk:Grand_Theft_Auto_V#Merger_proposal to determine whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. I discussed this with the closer at User_talk:SNUGGUMS#Closure_Of_Merger_Discussion.

The closure appears to have been made based on the opinion of the editor that closed it rather than the actual consensus. As I said when talking to the editor that closed it, I am aware that consensus is not determined simply by counting heads but there are significantly more editors in support of the merger than against it, and neither side cited any rules. Mainline421 (talk) 11:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Overturn and merge as per consensus - and I will tell you for why: The closer concentrated mainly on sourcing/notability of the re-release, however that was addressed clearly by the support voters. Demonstrated notability means that a subject *can* have its own article, not that it *should* have one. In this case the support merge group clearly demonstrated that a re-release of the game for a later console can easily be incorporated into the original article. Its just not that different a product *its the same game*. There are differences but if we had different articles for re-releases of all media.... At best it merits two paragraphs with a list of the major changes and its reception. Secondly a number of the oppose votes are along the lines of 'otherstuffexists' which is not a valid reason for not merging. Lots of other stuff exists. Often those articles have their own reasons, or often, no one has got around to propose merging/deleting them. On the whole, the support merge group had both stronger arguments and none that are against policy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

ANI is not the place for this. As I previously stated, the closure isn't something I made based on my own opinion. If you look again, another editor did cite that the re-release meets WP:GNG, and WP:Article size was also brought up (even if indirectly). Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures this is exactly the place to bring a challenge, I'm not making an opinion on the close but just pointing that out. Kharkiv07 (T) 13:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Snuggums, as a general rule, whenever someone makes a claim like "ANI is not the place for this", they should specify where they think the right place is. Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures says "If you are unable to resolve the issue through discussion with the closer, you may request review at the Administrators' Noticeboard". I am also a bit uncomfortable with the claim you made at User_talk:SNUGGUMS#Closure_Of_Merger_Discussion that "one compelling reason can override multiple weaker reasons". While technically true, and often invoked when there are a lot of "I llke it/don't like it" !votes, in this case it appears that those who opposed the merge were well aware of the "compelling reason" and did not find it compelling, even if you did. In such cases the opinion of the majority should not be disregarded. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'd endorse that, because the only real alternative is "overturn to no consensus", and "no consensus" means the status quo ante should continue, so it has exactly the same effect as endorsing the close. I can't see any way to get to "overturn to merge" based on that discussion.—S Marshall T/C 23:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Overturn and merge. I don't see how anyone could read any other consensus into it. Seemed simple enough even to my addled admin brain. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 02:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Use of statistics on responding editors to try and sway a RFC

I am unable top find a policy or guideline that specifically addresses the behaviour in this section of a contentious RFC [1]. The closest thing I can find is here [2] and it does not appear to be consistent with this intent. Another editor has tried to hat the section[3] only to have it removed.[4]. I am not 100% sure this is the best place to bring this, so if another board is more appropriate please direct me to it. Thanks AlbinoFerret 00:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Getting uninvolved opinions (as well as involved ones) is one of the points of a RFC, and helping identify who might count as "involved" in a discussion is common, though less commonly with this rigor. It's odd, but why is it wrong? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

It appears to be skewed in a number of ways, statistics can be formed to say whatever the person creating the way data is presented wants it to. It only counts edits to talk pages. The terms searched for are chosen by one person. Those terms were pages outside of the one the RFC is addressing. The comparison is to total talk page posts, so someone who posts a lot can have a large involvement but be counted as uninvolved. This is also not geared towards consensus building as the RFC page recommends, but to exclusion. That it is being done by someone very involved in the RFC is another problem. Lastly, it may sway late comers to the RFC to jump to whatever side they think is "winning" by these statistics. I think the whole uninvolved section should be hatted as inappropriate for an RFC, and it has been, but the person who created the skewed information reverted it. AlbinoFerret 02:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

It's wrong because the one doing the calculation is an involved editor and it is a non-neutral approach with skewed results. I'm sure the opposition could have managed something equally as skewed but that wouldn't be the right thing to do. The stats should have been hatted and stayed that way. Bias, inadvertent or not, is still bias and it effects neutrality. Atsme^📞📧 02:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

As another involved editor: correct me if I'm wrong, but the conclusion you seem to be inviting people to draw is that Kingofaces manipulated the statistics deliberately (and unethically) to give their "desired" result. Is that the intention? Sunrise (talk) 03:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Its not hard to draw that conclusion because of the choice of how the data was designed and is presented, but it is possible it may not have been a conscious act. Editors with more than 50 posts on the subject that oppose are more likely to be "involved" whereas its the opposite for uninvolved. Favoring the presenters desired outcome. In fact one editor with 220 posts on the subject is in the uninvolved sections. This is not a complaint on my personal designation, its uninvolved. But the skewed presentation, because the presenter chose not to look at posts but percent of posts, from a editor that is involved in the RFC is inappropriate in any case. As the person bringing this here, all I am looking for is this be hatted with a "inappropriate" label and a warning not to remove the hat. AlbinoFerret 12:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so you're suggesting that good faith is unlikely on their part. In that case, I suggest making it explicit and providing evidence.

Also, are you aware that reordering the table based on number of posts leads to the same conclusion? You can easily verify this for yourself in a couple of minutes - the greatest amount of support came from the editors who were least involved. I would certainly object if it was solely a votecount, but it's more than that (and even votecounts don't typically get hatted in any case). Sunrise (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This would probably have been better brought up at ANI or WT:RFC because the discussion doesn't affect administrators. Since we're here... I'm not seeing a problem with the table. The table doesn't violate policy and the closer doesn't have to use it. It may be useful to know who hasn't commented much on the issue in that and related articles when determining what the broader community thinks. If so, the table provides a single clearly-defined method for determining who is in that broader community. That there are other ways of determining the data doesn't make the table wrong or biased. What matters is that the method for creating it is clearly-defined: that way, all entries can be compared to each other, and the closer can decide whether the table is of use to them based on the criteria for inclusion in the table. The existence of the table is also unlikely to sway RfC respondents any more than the survey and discussion will; the possibility of people being swayed is always present when votes (or !votes) are public. Full disclosure: I !voted in the RfC. Ca2james (talk) 04:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I see various editors are attempting to kick up drama here now that have been involved in the RfC. I explained rather transparently how I gathered those numbers, and anyone can use the edit contribution tools to verify that [5]. Instead we have various editors slinging around accusations. The only intent was to provide the two different sets of numbers showing involvement for the closer to use however they see fit and not for any RfC respondents (including myself) to make any interpretations themselves. The methodology itself is neutral and picks up on involvement in the general related topics regardless of support/oppose votes at the RfC. If someone is trying to say I skewed those results somehow, we'd see a much less even number of heavily involved editors on either side that show up in that first summary table (which I'm included in even). I went out of my way to make sure the process was extremely even handed to all editors involved. Obviously some people are not happy with the results, but that's what they show. The rest of the conversation that has occurred there should dismiss that various aspersions editors above are making about me on what I actually did: [6].

I'm seeing no policy violations in my post as there is no uncivility in simply listing the numbers, and everything was done in good faith. As RfCs are intended to mainly bring in uninvolved editors in addition to those already involved, it's very difficult to figure out who's who in larger RfCs like this. That's especially the case when involved editors tend to dominate the conversation. This was a good-faith attempt to follow the spirit of WP:RFC. Looking at the various comments in the subsection at the RfC, I'm getting the feeling a few editors are looking for insults or something nefarious rather seeing what is was intended as. I'd be fine with someone uninvolved simply closing the section rather than hatting if it continues to be a such distraction and source of wild speculation for other editors (oddly those who would appear to be heavily involved from the support side don't have issues with their involvement shown). In the end, it was only meant to be a tidbit for the closer in addition to everything else that is considered in an RfC. Either way, I for one intend to enjoy my 4th of July weekend largely away from the computer. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The issue with the analysis is not incivility. The primary issues are (1)the focus on edit counts/contributors rather than content, (2) the sidetracking of an already lengthy discussion into meta-discussion without clear justification. Such a section is inherently a distraction and hatting it was appropriate. There may be issues with the methodology; even if the methodology is totally transparent, the primary problems with such a table stand.Dialectric (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

^I agree 100%. Will comment further. David Tornheim (talk) 21:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Once again Tsavage said it well:

By the fact of it being posted, it is intended to influence the RfC outcome. And as I pointed out, it is not raw data, it is your novel construction, beginning with your selection of which articles to categorize as GMO-related (what was the set of keywords you used to identify GM articles?) to arrive at your GMO-related percentage. Meanwhile, "uninvolved editors" simply means fresh eyes to the discussion, it doesn't invalidate or devalue any other editors' comments: in principle, at least, it's all about the substance of the discussion.

And regarding the discussion, it focuses on a pro-GMO interpretation (SYNTH/OR) of the science on GM food safety and a supposed scientific consensus. What is disturbing is that after much examination, the sources that have been used to support this statement across many GM-related articles on WP for a number of years, turn out not support the claim at all. After throwing out advocacy sources, not only did no RS claim a SC exists, but the RS cited (like the WHO) was misrepresented. It is disturbing that any editor(s) would be more interested in constructing or defending this chart than in addressing this serious problem and signs of advocacy editing in biotech-related articles as evidenced by the RfC. petrarchan47คุก 21:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

^also Agree, and especially with the quote from Tsavage David Tornheim (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• Above Kingofaces43 says:

The only intent was to provide the two different sets of numbers showing involvement for the closer to use however they see fit and not for any RfC respondents (including myself) to make any interpretations themselves.

But if you look at the introduction it is clear he has indeed interpreted the results in such a way to try to bolster his position (support):

At this time of posting, we have 20 supports and 14 opposes overall, but when you look at the number of edits under 10% (where I start to see names I don't really ever see here at least), we end up with 65% supporting and 35% opposing as far as definite responses go.

The creation and use of the table is not neutral as he is claiming. There can be no question he is attempting to skew the iVote interpretation of the RfC, to show a 2:1 super-majority (65%) support of iVotes (by arbitrarily excluding "involved" editors), rather the slight majority 59% considering all iVotes. What's worse, many of the people identified as involved are not involved as I proved at the section here. To suggest editors such as GrayDuck156 here, 66.169.76.198 here, Tsavage here, TypingAway here are more "involved" in GMO articles than Jytdog here is ludicrous (which can be easily verified by clicking the links I provided here). What is strange is that he says that "but when you look at the number of edits under 10% (where I start to see names I don't really ever see here at least)". That is hard to believe, since the editors I have named as less involved than Jytdog have not participated in any way in the GMO articles until only very recently at about the time this RfC was created. The table is bogus and misrepresents the concept of "involvement" and I think the section should be hatted. David Tornheim (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC) (minor revisions David Tornheim (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC))

and... i am not complaining. This thread is dramah. Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

We are all grownups here and we all know that statistics or their interpretation can be manipulated/stated in very subtle ways to bias thoughts and therefore !voting. ("Lies, damn lies and statistics") This table and it's discussion should be hatted to avoid such a possibility. I did this, and the hat was reverted by the creator for the second time, without justification (is unhatting by an involved editor allowed?) I am sure we can trust that the closer will also be a grown up and will deal with the matter according to the strength of arguments, rather than a table of statistics (even though this may or may not be considered). However, in the mean-time, it should be hatted to avoid biasing non-involved editors.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

David, you're now fabricating ideas about what I intended (i.e., creating strawmen to misrepresent someone). I already stated that an editor like TypingAway would not fall into the same grouping as someone like me or you in terms of involvement. That's only how the numbers turn out. There's more to consider than just looking at the table blindly. Again, please don't misrepresent me when I've already addressed a certain point. Doing so only creates drama. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• I can't be bothered to read this, does anyone have aTL;DR version? From the names I assume an RFC went against the narrative of GMOs as the Antichrist, and the usual suspects don't like it? Guy (Help!) 23:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • It seems rather unusual (irresponsible perhaps?) behaviour of a user to admit they have not read a thread, but then to post their opinion of it. How would this posting be included in the disputed table of statistics I wonder?DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

There you go again reading incorrectly between the lines. I didn't venture an opinion, I stated my assumption. If it's more than that then I hope another admin will post a short, neutral summary (the original request is neither short nor neutral). Anti-GMO activists view Wikipedia as the front line in their battle to influence popular opinion against the current scientific consensus, and this sometimes requires admin action, whereas the usual kvetching by the usual suspects usually does not. Guy (Help!) 16:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

@User talk:JzG"There you go again reading incorrectly between the lines." Please provide diffs to support this accusation.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I repeat - @User talk:JzG"There you go again reading incorrectly between the lines." Please provide diffs to support this accusation or consider striking your personal attack.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@User talk:JzG Ok - I must assume you are unwilling to engage in this dispute. Your behaviour is very unbecoming of an admin.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll just chime in Guy and say the RfC hasn't been closed yet. What you see here is just the result of my posting a table showing the how much each editor in the RfC has posted in the general topic to help the closer tease out who's generally uninvolved vs. someone who's pretty entrenched in the topic in some way since it's tough to determine who's an uninvolved editor in a large RfC. Many of the above editors ran with that table well beyond what I intended it for and are kicking up drama trying to claim many things I never intended. If I really was going to try to interpret who's involved if I was a closer, I do see some really interesting trends, but I'm not commenting on my thoughts at the RfC for obvious reasons. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious who's who, from the comments they make, but whatever. I do hope nobody relied on the infamous Séralini paper: [7] Guy (Help!) 18:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Guy, here is a relatively neutral summary of what is being discussed: Kingofaces43 recently posted a set of tables which he created to Talk:Genetically modified food; the tables cover each editor voting in the current rfc on the 'consensus' statement used in the genetically modified food article. The goal of the posting was apparently to quantify 'editor involvement' in the area of gmo's.The discussion here should focus on Kingofaces43's conduct and whether such tables are appropriate for an article talk page/rfc discussion. This noticeboard posting is not about sourcing, Séralini, or a disputed rfc closure. The rfc is still open with a number of votes and policy-based arguments from both sides.Dialectric (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

If I were closing that RfC (which I would not of course) I would simply ignore that table. I am old and wise enough to check contribution histories for myself, and also to read the arguments based on weight of policy-based support. I suspect that whoever does close it will be of much the same bent. It would be silly to act surprised when a discussion on GMOs becomes heated and is dominated by the usual suspects. Our articles on GMOs have been a battleground for a long time, largely because the anti-GMO brigade are by now fighting a losing battle in the real world, with GMOs being increasingly mainstream and the apocalyptic predictions of the early days failing to materialise. Science is moving away from their viewpoint, which is why crap studies like the Séralini become the focus of such bitter dispute. Like homeopathy, only worse because a few scientifically literate people still believe anti-GMO tropes. Guy (Help!) 19:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• In a nutshell, when an editor breaks in the middle of an RFC to do an analysis of the other people participating, this is offtopic. Tagging SPA is one thing, but breaking down a chart with percentages of participation, etc. is a method of trying to convince the closer to discount or consider votes based on something besides the merits. Graham's hierarchy of disagreement covers this well as one of the lower forms of argument, as you are speaking about the editors, not the merits. Whether the charts was right or wrong, had I participated, I would have hatted it myself as it has no bearing on merits and is cluttering up an already long RFC. If I were closing, I would not have considered it and done my own homework. It isn't sanctionable, but it is improper, thus hatting is reasonable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Dennis Brown fwiw, the RfC has timed out, I've requested a close, and there has been lots of polishing/preparing for the close. So in terms of time, it was not added to the middle of an RfC. And the table was placed at the bottom of the RfC, under the discussion section. So not in the middle physically, either... Jytdog (talk) 12:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't matter when or where. It isn't the place of the participants to try to persuade the closer with anything except merits. Regardless of intent, it should be avoided. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for replying! I hear you. I've recently become aware of Template:Spa - do you find use of that template to be legit? Seems like it is used in somewhat the same way. Jytdog (talk) 13:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

One actually could have gone and tagged some accounts as SPA's in that RfC, but I would have seen that as even more invasive and interjecting too much on editor behavior in the main part of the RfC. If inserting an SPA template is fine, there shouldn't be any issue with something even less pointed like this after the RfC has mostly wrapped up. The whole point of an RfC is to get opinions from uninvolved editors. In long RfC's, it's difficult to tease out how involved someone has been in the topic, so that's all that table was there to address. The table shows general involvement of editors regardless of which side they are on, so it's very difficult to say it was intended convince the closer one way or another. It's only intent was to show involvement in the topic and nothing beyond that. One can argue that is within the scope of WP:RFC when done right, which is bit different than normal talk page discussion. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit filter request

Is there not an edit filter flagging variants of profanities somewhere? [8] seems like it would be an obvious candidate for ... something. Obviously, there are legitimate profanities in articles, but puerile vandalism like this seems like it would be relatively easy for a bot to auto-revert or an edit filter to flag. --B (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• It would seem basic enough to have a filter disallowing edits where any regex variant of "bitches" and "money" are in the same edit. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Pedigree Alsatian bitches can sell for a lot of money. DuncanHill (talk) 23:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• That might be too specific to be very useful often ... and it's possible that there would be a legitimate edit (say, quoting lyrics from a piece of rap). But a profanity filter that simply flags the edit for review where someone going down the list could check would be very useful ... and I'm assuming that there's a small enough amount of legitimate profanity in articles that the filter wouldn't take an excessively long amount of time to review. --B (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
• There's Special:AbuseFilter/285 which flags some common swear words added by non-autoconfirmed editors. There's also Special:AbuseFilter/380 and Special:AbuseFilter/384 doing similar. Sam Walton (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• I semi-protected it. There are too many possible variant, such that you would get false positives at times. SP seems the better choice since this has actually been going on a while there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ — Preceding undated comment added 20:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• People often add asterisked "fuck", "cunt", etc. as vandalism, and it seems that they always asterisk out the vowel; it's never "fu*k" or "cun*", for example. Is it practical to add those to the filter? I don't know if it's possible, since of course we would want the software to interpret the asterisk as an asterisk instead of as a wildcard. Nyttend (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

It would be possible to do a RegEx filter for stuff, but impractical I think. Honestly I don't think we need such a filter beyond what we already have. Just template the trolls and report anything egregious to AIV. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to Invite NinaGreen Back to Editing

Hello. I propose that NinaGreen be unblocked and invited back to editing. NinaGreen has been a productive editor with a record of over 24,000 edits and numerous new articles. She is the subject of topic restrictions imposed by the ArbCom. More particularly, she may not make edits about the subjects of William Shakespeare or Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. Since receiving the restrictions, she appears to me not to have concentrated her edits on those subjects, though I could not say whether or not there was an instance when she subsequently edited in violation of those topic restrictions.

On 12 February 2014, she was indefinitely blocked, in response to her making large posts (about 5kB each) to 14 user talk pages, mostly of ArbCom members at that time. The indefinite character of the block has bothered me since I first saw it. She since had her talk page access revoked. Before trying to have this reviewed, I decided to wait and see if NinaGreen would have this resolved on her own. She has still not been unblocked.

I do not aim to assail the judgement of any administrator who has blocked NinaGreen. I am only advancing the idea that the block does not serve Wikipedia's interests at this time, and that it can be given fresh thought. Italick (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Has NinaGreen made any request to be unblocked? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of such action or inaction. Her talk page access is disabled right now. Italick (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

To update, I recognize that she came back to edit after a ban lasting one year. I meant to say that I don't know whether she violated her topic restrictions after coming back from that ban. She engaged in significant editing activity since the ban, on other notable historic British persons. Italick (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The ArbCom case name is "Shakespeare authorship question" [9]. I'm not expert at following ArbCom cases, but the year-long ban may have been one of the first remedies used against her. I think her ban was extended for her use of sockpuppets but I do not recall seeing that she was breaching the topic sanctions. Italick (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

One alleged sockpuppet is TurquoiseMountain. I am not about to look over the entire edit history of TurquoiseMountain, but the edits do not appear on their face to be concentrated on Shakespeare or Edward de Vere (17th Earl of Oxford). Italick (talk) 17:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that this is not a sockpuppet since because from what I see that user was not simply suspected buy was confirmed to be one by a Checkuser? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.254.210 (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a serious doubt about whether the account is a sockpuppet of Ninagreen. Italick (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I think without an unblock request all we can do is return access to their user page and inform them of the standard offer. One of the reasons to get an unblock request prior to unblocking someone is to make sure they will not repeat the same behaviour. Chillum 17:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Could the same latitude to return that was given to Barney_the_barney_barney on 10 December 2014 be given to NinaGreen? Italick (talk) 18:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Not in my opinion, Italick. The arbcom case is here. The arbitration committee sitebanned her for one year, and indefinitely topic banned her "from editing any article relating to the Shakespeare authorship question, William Shakespeare, or Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, all broadly construed."[10] She violated her one-year ban in 2011, using the socks TurquoiseMountain (talk · contribs) and NotRecommended (talk · contribs).[11]. I'm pretty sure she later used at least one sock to violate her indefinite topic ban, but I don't know where to look for them. It's my opinion that Nina Green was extremely disruptive, and that even after after her one-year siteban had expired she squandered a lot of second chances and assumptions of good faith. I'm not sure there should be any more, as I have little faith in a change of attitude, but I won't rule out that it's possible for anybody to change. I agree that she should apply for unblock herself, though. She doesn't need talkpage access for that: she can e-mail UTRS, WP:BASC, or Jimbo. There were good reasons for revoking her tpa. Bishonen | talk 18:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC).

If her talk page access were restored, a new block would be cheap. Really cheap. It is only unblocks that are expensive. Then the appeals process would be transparent to the Wikipedia community, which no doubt engenders more faith in it. Italick (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, I am not interested in her having WP:ROPE limited to her talk page, so that she could go on diatribes again and be reblocked. That outcome could make her less likely to be able to edit again. Italick (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Do not invite her back, ferchrissake. I'd be unlikely to support accepting a request, either, but certainly don't invite her! She continued violating her topic ban after it was imposed, and refused to acknowledge that her behavior was improper. After she was blocked, she continued this refusal to acknowledge any wrongdoing, instead posting walls of text that painted herself as a victim of a corrupt system and claimed that admins didn't have the authority to impose sanctions on her. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• I concur with Bishonen. NinaGreen is perfectly aware of how she can appeal (and how she should not, for that matter). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Did you say that she should not appeal? Do you think that she is talking in this discussion, or even knows about the discussion? Italick (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• (I think Kudpung might have accidentally deleted part of his post.) Italick, I have a feeling you might think differently if you had a read of Nina Green's input on the RfAR evidence page and especially the Workshop. Worth trying, anyway. Bishonen | talk 18:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC).

I had made one small typo. But FWIW I meant she is more than perfectly aware how she can appeal if ever she wants to. And with that, I think we should let sleeping dogs lie. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• I was the drafting arbitrator in the Shakespeare case and suffice it to say that the sanctions the Committee imposed against NinaGreen were well-warranted. In my view, her deep commitment to the "Oxfordian hypothesis" makes it impossible for her to edit neutrally in this area, and she showed little interest in any other. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, I am not aiming to assail the judgment of administrators who blocked her or imposed sanctions. And arguing the ArbCom case here would not occur at my own bidding, as I only propose that she be unblocked. She has shown interest in creating articles that are not about any Shakespeare authorship hypothesis. That she is not interested in another Shakespeare authorship hypothesis is tangential to what I asked, and she may not edit on any of those hypotheses now. She should not continue to be blocked merely for her ideas. Italick (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Is there even any precedent for a request like this? It seems to me that there are very good reasons for requiring a person in such a position to request the restoration of his or her privileges rather than have it done by a third person, no offense to Italick intended. Dumuzid (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I posted precedents that are here [12] and here [13] on 1 September 2014, using her talk page: Italick (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) She was blocked for her actions not her ideas. Could you provide a link or three showing where in interest has been expressed an "creating articles that are not about any Shakespeare authorship hypothesis" as you put it. MarnetteD|Talk 19:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Fine, she was blocked for her actions and not for her ideas. Would we entertain an argument against unblocking her because of her ideas? To find out her editing interests, look at the edit log of NinaGreen and TurquoiseMountain. Italick (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

OH yes, TurqoiseMountain, I forgot about that one. A cunning choice of name. How did anyone see though that? Paul B (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

She violated her topic ban on Greene's Groatsworth of Wit, but that just led to a block. She had violated it before, but most editors turned a blind eye because the violations were really just technicalities. She only "sockpuppeted" in the sense then she edited as an IP. But the main problem was her attempt to change policy and her bombarding of admins with emails. In the words of Shakespeare, I would hope the answer is "never, never, never, never, never". She is a highly disruptive editor. Paul B (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Looks to me like a user who has a gripe with ArbCom and isn't interested in working constructively with the community to resolve their issues, but instead wants to soapbox through their block on their talk page and directly to the WMF after being repeatedly asked to stop in multiple venues. They don't listen when the community tries to explain things to them, and that's why they were most recently blocked. It would demonstrate that they're willing to understand our policies and procedures and willing to take responsibility to follow them if they take responsibility for this one and follow the community's process to be unblocked, by appealing to WP:BASC as they were instructed to do. Otherwise, no, we should not "invite them back": we have no evidence that the situation which led to the block has been resolved. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• What exactly are you proposing? Email the editor and invite them to come back, no one is stopping you from doing that. The editor can request unblock by email to Arbcom or the blocking admin if they want. At the very least, the editor can request restoration of talk page privileges. We aren't going to unblock someone without some input by the editor and especially not overturn an Arbcom-related block without some serious evidence about it. This is pointless navel-gazing until then. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Good point. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

MRV

We could do with some more commentators over at WP:MRV (DRV's less attractive cousin, used for reviewing requested move closures). Although I'm posting this here on the admins' noticeboard, non-admins are also more than welcome. A lot of MRVs seem to languish for several months because of the simple reason that not enough people have commentated on them, especially people uninvolved with the original RM. MRV generally only gets a couple a couple of discussions per month, so even if you just drop in every few weeks you'd be a significant help in making the process run more smoothly. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)