Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
| Welcome to the administrators' noticeboard |
|---|
|
This page is for posting information and issues of interest to administrators.
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose. Sections inactive for over six days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) |
Open tasks[edit]
| V | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 1 | 80 | 0 | 81 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
| MfD | 0 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 6 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 43 | 0 | 43 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 57 | 0 | 57 |
- 7 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 15 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 0 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 0 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 52 sockpuppet investigations
- 6 Candidates for speedy deletion
- 2 Fully-protected edit requests
- 1 Candidates for history merging
- 3 requests for RD1 redaction
- 58 elapsed requested moves
- 10 requested closures
- 55 requests for unblock
- 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
- 19 Copyright problems
Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection[edit]
Report
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Unban request by Roqui15[edit]
Consensus to unblock subject to the restrictions outlined by DFO. Cabayi (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ban appeal by Roqui15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI confirmed suspected) copied over from their user talk (permalink).
For this unblock it's ok for me to be banned from participating in the discussion or editing on the List of largest Empires page, including the talk page. And be able to edit everything else.
I admit my mistake of using more than one account and I understand why I caused a disturbance. And of course, I agree to don't use more than one account again, even when I think it's justified. I will not "bring" anyone else to help me with my wikipedia edits, whether it's family members or friends, whether is in an article or in a discussion. I will always be civilized, courteous, and polite in any editing or discussion with other editors. I would like to be able to contribute again to Wikipedia in general and I will not get into violent disputes with other editors or disturb Wikipedia in any other way like I did before.
And my edits will be always by the support of a trusted source. Thank you Roqui15 (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- Cabayi (talk) 13:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- No recent block evasion as far as I can see, based on checkuser evidence. --Yamla (talk) 13:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support if Roqui15 is actually agreeing to all of the conditions listed by Deepfriedokra on 7 June, 2021 on their talk page. Roqui15 previously stated, "I'm ok with all of the unblock conditions above". I think largely, that means WP:1RR in addition to the topic ban. --Yamla (talk) 13:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- Comment for those wondering, it seems this ban was under WP:3X so I don't think there was a formal cban discussion, although there's quite a lot of stuff on their talk page which may help explain part of the history and also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roqui15/Archive. Nil Einne (talk) 13:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- 3X exists so that we don't have to have a discussion. The discussion that approved that was this one. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
@PEIsquirrel: Not sure I see a reason to discuss 3X here? I didn't say anything which disputed the legitimacy of 3X or suggested there needed to be a discussion. And I linked to the 3X redirect so people unfamiliar with this part of the policy could check it out, and this already links to the RfC for anyone unaware of the history of 3X. IMO if anyone did want to dispute 3X, that's irrelevant to this discussion since it is part of policy and their comments should be ignored. (They are free to try and get that policy changed somewhere else if they follow our norms of course.)
- 3X exists so that we don't have to have a discussion. The discussion that approved that was this one. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
|
Nil Einne (talk) 18:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- As I said below, I'm rather involved in this. Suffice it to say that behavioural evidence indicates that Special:Contributions/2001:8A0:FE8F:8B00::/64 is someone else. TompaDompa (talk) 18:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support if Roqui15 is actually agreeing to all of the conditions listed by me on 7 June, 2021 on their talk page. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- Let's try it with the aforementioned conditions and then revisit them later. And I always forget to say "one account restriction," but of course. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- Adding WP:IBAN with TompaDompa per TompaDompa's comment below. @Roqui15:, please respond to TompaDompa's concerns on your talk page. @TompaDompa: I'm hoping the expanded TBAN does not prove necessary. Successful unban requests are a rarity. I should hope such a boon would not be squandered. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- Let's try it with the aforementioned conditions and then revisit them later. And I always forget to say "one account restriction," but of course. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support with no recent block evasion, I think they may have learned their lesson. Agree with the WP:1RR restriction & topic ban. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support with one-account restriction. User seems to understand now that meatpuppetry is effectively the same as sockpuppetry, so the issues which led to the original block ought not to recur. I don't see much reason for other restrictions at this point, let's just see what happens. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I consider myself too involved for it to be appropriate for me to outright support or oppose this, but I have a few observations/comments to share.Those are my thoughts. TompaDompa (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- One year can be plenty of time for character growth (especially for someone rather young, which I gather this user is), and I think the lack of additional (detected) sockpuppetry for the last year or so is evidence that this has indeed been the case here.
- Besides articles that would be covered by the proposed topic ban, the user has edited biological articles such as Siberian Tiger a fair amount. As far as I can tell, those edits demonstrate their ability to contribute constructively to Wikipedia.
- I would probably explicitly specify "Portuguese history, broadly construed" in the proposed topic ban in addition to what was suggested on the user's talk page, since that area was their main focus on the article and talk page in question and some other pages where they used sockpuppets (e.g. Northeast Passage).
- The user was blocked on Portuguese-language Wikipedia for WP:Harassment directed towards me for things that happened here on English-language Wikipedia. I think a one-way interaction ban should at least be considered.
Threats being made to me[edit]
Someone claiming to be Bill Stevenson (and who is likely him) is threatening me on my talk page, disliking the article created on him (which was created utilizing all the information I could readily find on them). They dislike that it describes their fraud charges, which I wrote about based on credible contemporary news articles. They are making threats of utilizing their fortune to get me kicked off the website, and god knows what else. Just thought this should be brought to the attention of admins. SecretName101 (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- I’ve blocked him for making legal threats such as [1]. If he has a problem with how he’s represented in the sources and on Wikipedia, there are better ways to go about resolving that. clpo13(talk) 17:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
This was mentioned on a Wikipedia criticism site, which led me to look at Bill Stevenson (businessman), and while the threats are indeed nasty, it occurs to me that the user (who is also Delawarebill based on the latter's first edit summary) may have a case under WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE; I'm not sure the article demonstrates sufficient notability for a BLP whose subject has requested deletion. Do we need an AfD or can this be redirected to Jill Biden? See the edit summary by Folly Mox in the most recent edit for their assessment of why this person is notable. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
He's certainly made his bio article more notable. -- GoodDay (talk) 04:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
I've put this up for deletion. Mangoe (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
It should be summarily deleted per WP:G10. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
FWIW, the bio article was created on August 20, 2021, so it's existed for over two months. GoodDay (talk) 05:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Which is an indictment of how Wikipedia fails to enforce its own policies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- He certainly may have a point on the possibly WP:UNDUE nature of the of some of the editing choices. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
The 'biography' in question is no longer on Wikipedia: "speedy deleted shady attack page". [2] AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:36, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Did you say WP:DRV? Don't! El_C 06:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Well, that AfD turned out to be a waste of time. GoodDay (talk) 07:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Nothing that gets trash removed from Wikipedia is a waste of time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Seeing as the article-in-question has been deleted & the possible subject of that article, has no more reason to attempt getting it deleted. I reckon this AN report is rendered moot & should be closed. GoodDay (talk) 07:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- GoodDay, your creation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Stevenson (businessman) has got to be one of strangest I've ever seen from an established editor. What am I missing? Weird. El_C 14:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yes it was quite unique. I voted to 'keep' the article, before the final preparations of the AFD was completed. Now, I see the article has been re-created into a 're-direct' to the Jill Biden article. A lot of twists & turns. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Well, since the article was indeed deleted as a "speedy deleted shady attack page" by El_C, I wonder if User:SecretName101 has something to say on the topic. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yup. Why a long-standing contributor thought that article was even the slightest bit acceptable is one question that certainly needs answering. Along with why responses both here and at the AfD making insinuations regarding the 'Streisand effect' were seen as appropriate either, and whether Clpo13's suggestion above, "If he has a problem with how he’s represented in the sources and on Wikipedia, there are better ways to go about resolving that" is really true, or whether making a 'legal threat' so that attention is drawn to what was self-evidently an attack page is actually the best way to get it dealt with. There was a systemic failure here, and nothing I have seen so far suggests that anyone is willing to learn uncomfortable lessons. Entirely inappropriate reactions to 'threats' brought on by blatantly-biased behaviour by contributors are sadly far too common on the admin notice boards, as the gut reaction is inevitably to circle the wagons in self defence, rather than actually look at the underlying issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- The article is now a redirect. Reckon this AN report is now moot & should be closed. GoodDay (talk) 05:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, well since my comment above regarding insinuations about the Streisand effect was clearly in reference to your posts (here and at the AfD [3][4]), I'd have to suggest that maybe you aren't the best person to decide what is or isn't 'moot'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- The article is now a redirect. Reckon this AN report is now moot & should be closed. GoodDay (talk) 05:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yup. Why a long-standing contributor thought that article was even the slightest bit acceptable is one question that certainly needs answering. Along with why responses both here and at the AfD making insinuations regarding the 'Streisand effect' were seen as appropriate either, and whether Clpo13's suggestion above, "If he has a problem with how he’s represented in the sources and on Wikipedia, there are better ways to go about resolving that" is really true, or whether making a 'legal threat' so that attention is drawn to what was self-evidently an attack page is actually the best way to get it dealt with. There was a systemic failure here, and nothing I have seen so far suggests that anyone is willing to learn uncomfortable lessons. Entirely inappropriate reactions to 'threats' brought on by blatantly-biased behaviour by contributors are sadly far too common on the admin notice boards, as the gut reaction is inevitably to circle the wagons in self defence, rather than actually look at the underlying issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- WP:DOLT strikes again. Levivich 06:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Precisely EvergreenFir (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- I researched the individual, his operation of an influential nightclub seemed to warrant notability. From there, I created an article utilizing all the contemporary news sources I could find. The fact that there were strongly negative aspects was a reality of what I could find published on the subject, not any personal vendetta against the subject. I disagree with the deletion being an "attack page", but do not contest that the marginal notability meant we could veer on the safer side of deleting it. SecretName101 (talk) 06:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- So what led you to decide to 'research the individual' in the first place? Why have you suddenly started taking an interest in former owners of defunct nightclubs? And which of the sources you read discussing Stevenson emphasised 'strongly negative aspects' concerning events occurring almost forty years ago? If you, a prolific creator of articles on US political figures, are really going to try to convince people that this article had nothing to do with Stevenson's former marriage to Jill Biden, and to his more recent comments on the marriage, I think you'll need to be a bit more explicit with your explanations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- SecretName101, your bio about this marginally-notable living person opened with
...is an American businessman and convicted fraudster
— you being unable to recognize a serious problem with that —as an attack— calls to question your competence (WP:CIR) in this area. And that you still don't get it after all this, even more so. At the very least, you need to review WP:BLP wide and deep (and maybe look at WP:ARBBLP as well). El_C 13:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- SecretName101, your bio about this marginally-notable living person opened with
- It should be noted that the biography said next to nothing of any consequence regarding the operation of 'influential nightclub', merely stating, without further explanation, that it "became one of the leading rock clubs on the East Coast of the United States". Said assessment of its significance being cited to a Wilmington, Delaware local newspaper, which I'd have thought was a less than ideal source for such a sweeping statement. Likewise, the statements later in the article referring to Stevenson's 'influence' and to "his role as a supporter of the Delaware rock scene" are based on assessments from local papers, and to a 'Delaware Rock and Roll Society' website that does nothing to indicate said society is anything more than an enthusiasts project. Unsurprisingly really, since the other source cited for the 'Hall of Fame' award by the Society notes that it only has eight or so members. Said source being based on information provided by the Society members themselves.
- Rather than discussing Stevenson's supposed claim to fame, the section entitled 'Stone Balloon and convictions' instead concentrated almost entirely on Stevenson's legal and financial troubles. The section header was less than honest too, since it highlights 'convictions' while failing to mention the 'dropped charges' also discussed therein. This was a blatant hatchet job, and I don't believe it is in Wikipedia's interests to permit someone capable of producing such work to continue to edit biographies of living persons. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- I too hold concerns about SecretName101's judgement (and motivations) for creating that BLP. I should have just deleted it myself (thank you El_C for doing it). That SecretName101 created the article in the first place suggests to me that they need to be remiinded of WP:ARBBLP and strongly cautioned to exercise better judgement in the future. At minimum, use WP:DRAFT so that it can be reviewed before going on the mainspace. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Rather than discussing Stevenson's supposed claim to fame, the section entitled 'Stone Balloon and convictions' instead concentrated almost entirely on Stevenson's legal and financial troubles. The section header was less than honest too, since it highlights 'convictions' while failing to mention the 'dropped charges' also discussed therein. This was a blatant hatchet job, and I don't believe it is in Wikipedia's interests to permit someone capable of producing such work to continue to edit biographies of living persons. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Charges were dropped only in one case against the subject. Two cases resulted in convictions. From other articles I had seen, you mention in the opening lead when a subject has been convicted. SecretName101 (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- I thought it to be in line with articles like Patrick Cannon and other articles (which, I had recalled mentioning pretty early in its lead the convictions of the individuals, and which took care to elaborate on those charges). Perhaps the articles I was considering recollection of are problematic as well, and that led me to not practice best-practices. SecretName101 (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- You have yet to explain why you decided to "research the individual". What brought on this sudden interest in former owners of 1980s Delaware rock venues? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- I had read about him in the news once or twice, such as when the whole Kathy Durst connection was revealed by him in and interview. When I later learned he had a prolific success for a period as an influential club operator, I decided “huh, maybe this guy has some notability.” Is that relevant? SecretName101 (talk) 17:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- So it wasn't Stevenson's rock-venue-management career that interested you in him in the first place, but the fact that he has made apparently unsubstantiated claims to have a connection to someone who disappeared in the early 1980s? Claims which the article again fails to elaborate on in any depth? Why, if that was indeed what led you to engage in "research", does the article say so little about the episode?
- A simple question. Was your decision to "research the individual" in any way motivated by his connections to Jill Biden, and/or by his recent comments regarding the marriage? I'd recommend thinking carefully before answering. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'm especially interested in the answer to this, given the inclusion of accusations against Biden sourced to (a) a wingnut right-wing site and (b) a local tabloid that merely reports what Stevenson said. Black Kite (talk) 18:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Which site was a wignut right-wing site? And the article said so little on that because there was not much to say. He said he had an affair with her, That was it. Until after the article was deleted (when it came out, just now, that police evidently have talked to him), there was nothing else to say on the relation to Durst. And I only said that the story (along with some others that mentioned him) were the reason I knew the person existed. SecretName101 (talk) 02:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- And, yes, I had become aware he existed in part because another article I had come across mentioned he was the ex-husband of Jill. Did that fuel any vendetta against the man? Hell no. SecretName101 (talk) 02:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- I was legit in the "anyone but Biden camp" when it came to those seeking the Democratic nomination. So I have no rabid enthusiasm for the man. Would likely rate his presidency with "mild approval", extra-emphasis on the "mild". SecretName101 (talk) 02:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- And, yes, I had become aware he existed in part because another article I had come across mentioned he was the ex-husband of Jill. Did that fuel any vendetta against the man? Hell no. SecretName101 (talk) 02:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Which site was a wignut right-wing site? And the article said so little on that because there was not much to say. He said he had an affair with her, That was it. Until after the article was deleted (when it came out, just now, that police evidently have talked to him), there was nothing else to say on the relation to Durst. And I only said that the story (along with some others that mentioned him) were the reason I knew the person existed. SecretName101 (talk) 02:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'm especially interested in the answer to this, given the inclusion of accusations against Biden sourced to (a) a wingnut right-wing site and (b) a local tabloid that merely reports what Stevenson said. Black Kite (talk) 18:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- A simple question. Was your decision to "research the individual" in any way motivated by his connections to Jill Biden, and/or by his recent comments regarding the marriage? I'd recommend thinking carefully before answering. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- So, you "became aware he existed" because he was Jill Biden's ex-husband. What made you decide to "research" him? And what, from the sources you 'researched' led you to conclude that such sources weighed the 1980s convictions so significantly that they merited describing him as an "American businessman and convicted fraudster" in the first sentence of the lede? Which of the sources you cited have done that? Are there any sources you have seen that did that? Have you seen such a description, or anything approximating to it anywhere other than in your own article and in the search engine results (e.g Google) which subsequently mirrored the article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- I decided to research him when I learned he had operated what was apparently a very successful nightclub/college bar. I thought that might merit notability. I have said that before that that is what made me decide to research him. And I explained that articles I had seen before describing convicted politicians (such as those convicted of single charges of bribery) as convicts in the lead were what I was considering when I (mistakenly) thought his past convictions merited mention in the lead. 14:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- So, you "became aware he existed" because he was Jill Biden's ex-husband. What made you decide to "research" him? And what, from the sources you 'researched' led you to conclude that such sources weighed the 1980s convictions so significantly that they merited describing him as an "American businessman and convicted fraudster" in the first sentence of the lede? Which of the sources you cited have done that? Are there any sources you have seen that did that? Have you seen such a description, or anything approximating to it anywhere other than in your own article and in the search engine results (e.g Google) which subsequently mirrored the article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- SecretName101 The site concerned is www.independentsentinel.com, which as of today, is currently, amongst other things, running a story claiming that COVID vaccines only work for 12 weeks, which contains the line "On that note, the man with dementia in the White House has instituted COVID traveler rules while allowing anonymous illegal aliens to pour in non-stop, by the thousands each day." Clearly a reliable source, that one. (Note: I just ran it through the source finder and luckily it is used on precisely zero articles in Wikipedia, which is both good and suggests how reliable it actually is). Black Kite (talk) 14:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- AndyTheGrump has noted that Wikipedia has failed to apply its own policies in this case by allowing this article to persist for two months. One of the ways in which we enforce our policies is through the new page patrol process, where experienced editors cast an eye over new articles to ensure, amongst other things, that they aren't attack pages. It's not a perfect system (and it can always do with more reviewers), but it catches a lot of dodgy articles. It didn't have the chance to catch this one though, because SecretName101 had the Autopatrolled flag. Given the concerns that have been expressed here, I believe that it would be a good thing for their articles to be reviewed, so I have revoked that user right. Girth Summit (blether) 05:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Honestly, Girth Summit, I'm not sure how effective such a measure can be in preventing further disruption of this nature. I've given SecretName101 ample opportunity to explain, but found their responses to have been subpar. As a result, I have topic banned them under WP:ARBBLP (direct link). El_C 09:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Apologies, El C, I should have been clearer - I didn't mean my action to be a barrier to any further action if others thought that necessary, or an indication that I don't think any further action was necessary. I saw it more as a bare minimum step - I haven't looked at the deleted article, but concerns that rise to the level of a G10 deletion are obviously not compatible with someone holding the Autopatrolled perm, so I pulled it. No objection to your topic ban, you've looked at this more closely than I have. Girth Summit (blether) 10:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- No apology needed, Girth. I just felt that if we're gonna do anything, we might as well nip this particular problem in the bud. Which is to say: these sort of egregious BLP violations bring the project into disrepute, so I'm of the view that a firmer hand is called for. El_C 12:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Honestly, Girth Summit, I'm not sure how effective such a measure can be in preventing further disruption of this nature. I've given SecretName101 ample opportunity to explain, but found their responses to have been subpar. As a result, I have topic banned them under WP:ARBBLP (direct link). El_C 09:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'll admit that the article should have remained as a draft, as was published far too early (if it ever should have been published). Should have not left the draft space. I have only been trying to explain I had no ill-intent in writing it, because that feels like what I am being accused of. SecretName101 (talk) 14:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- To avoid any doubt, I will state outright that I am accusing you of ill-intent in your creation of the Stevenson biography. I find your going-in-circles explanations for why you "researched" Stevenson, and on why such research made you believe he met Wikipedia notability criteria, anything but credible. And it should be noted that I have arrived at this conclusion not just because of your actions in regard to this article, but elsewhere. For example, the discussions at Talk:Michelle Wu (see e.g. here and the surrounding discussion) make it absolutely clear that your editing has been deeply skewed by political considerations, to an extent that simply shouldn't be permitted in such contexts. And I say that as someone who's own personal politics probably aren't that far from yours. All of us are influenced by our politics, all the time. That's a fundamental part of being human - homo politicus. A project like this though needs people with enough self-awareness to realise they are being influenced, and enough judgement to step back and ask if it is wise to use the project in such a partisan manner. Doing so may win a battle or so, but ultimately lose the war as the project becomes less and less credible as a source of information to those using it. And even from the most cynical analysis, as a tactic for political shenanigans, creating attack biographies concerning people who's political relevance is only even potentially of marginal significance is a poor use of your own limited time. I see that El_C has imposed an indefinite WP:BLP topic ban, a sanction which I consider entirely appropriate. At the very least, this might lead you to have sufficient time to put a little more thought into any other editing you do on Wikipedia. Or possibly to consider taking your political enthusiasms elsewhere. There are plenty of contexts where overtly-partisan political writing is appropriate, expected, and effective. Perhaps you might consider using some of your free time to learn how to do it properly: I'd recommend reading a little George Orwell as a starting point. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- @AndyTheGrump: With Michelle Wu I did not skew either way. I went overboard in outlining her policies and work, but neither attempted outright described her policies as having negative or positive implications. Which is what we are meant to do when we describe people's policies in their articles on Wikipedia. A liberal would have probably loved what they read, while a conservative would have been outright horrified by what her policy was. A moderate might have had mixed opinions. I attempted to let the positives or negatives of her policies, arguments, and actions stand on their own, for interpretation by the reader. That is not skewed writing. SecretName101 (talk) 21:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- I think the comment you made at Talk:Michelle Wu that I linked above speaks for itself. You were arguing that content should be included in the article because of your personal belief that she may in the future be "primed to run for POTUS", thereby "fulfilling the dream some had of a Warren-style president". And the surrounding context in the discussion makes it clear that I'm not the only person who considered your behaviour in regard to that article inappropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- @AndyTheGrump: With Michelle Wu I did not skew either way. I went overboard in outlining her policies and work, but neither attempted outright described her policies as having negative or positive implications. Which is what we are meant to do when we describe people's policies in their articles on Wikipedia. A liberal would have probably loved what they read, while a conservative would have been outright horrified by what her policy was. A moderate might have had mixed opinions. I attempted to let the positives or negatives of her policies, arguments, and actions stand on their own, for interpretation by the reader. That is not skewed writing. SecretName101 (talk) 21:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- To avoid any doubt, I will state outright that I am accusing you of ill-intent in your creation of the Stevenson biography. I find your going-in-circles explanations for why you "researched" Stevenson, and on why such research made you believe he met Wikipedia notability criteria, anything but credible. And it should be noted that I have arrived at this conclusion not just because of your actions in regard to this article, but elsewhere. For example, the discussions at Talk:Michelle Wu (see e.g. here and the surrounding discussion) make it absolutely clear that your editing has been deeply skewed by political considerations, to an extent that simply shouldn't be permitted in such contexts. And I say that as someone who's own personal politics probably aren't that far from yours. All of us are influenced by our politics, all the time. That's a fundamental part of being human - homo politicus. A project like this though needs people with enough self-awareness to realise they are being influenced, and enough judgement to step back and ask if it is wise to use the project in such a partisan manner. Doing so may win a battle or so, but ultimately lose the war as the project becomes less and less credible as a source of information to those using it. And even from the most cynical analysis, as a tactic for political shenanigans, creating attack biographies concerning people who's political relevance is only even potentially of marginal significance is a poor use of your own limited time. I see that El_C has imposed an indefinite WP:BLP topic ban, a sanction which I consider entirely appropriate. At the very least, this might lead you to have sufficient time to put a little more thought into any other editing you do on Wikipedia. Or possibly to consider taking your political enthusiasms elsewhere. There are plenty of contexts where overtly-partisan political writing is appropriate, expected, and effective. Perhaps you might consider using some of your free time to learn how to do it properly: I'd recommend reading a little George Orwell as a starting point. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
WP:NLT and WP:DOLT[edit]
Right now, the first is a policy, the second is "just an essay", a phrase I've been subjected to numerous times by people resisting what IMO was common sense. And right now it seems that the way everyone understands the policy is that "we just up and block anyone who makes a legal threat." Maybe that's appropriate for two established editors in an ongoing argument, but to someone who creates an account specifically because they feel they are being slandered or otherwise being attacked through our platform, it sends the message that because they are an outsider they are being deliberately dismissed. These people shouldn't have to be put through a bureaucratic obstacle course simply to have their complaints heard. At a minimum some of the essay needs to be moved into the policy, but it seems to me that a better process needs to be set up to deal with these complaints to ensure that they are addressed. As it is, this required an alert on an external site and a response by at least one third party to raise awareness of the problems with the article. Mangoe (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Like. Kind of a flip of WP:AGF and WP:PACT. Will Remix. El_C 23:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)- I'd support merging DOLT into NLT. Levivich 00:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Necessary, but not sufficient. WP:BLP exists as policy now, and yet a long-established contributor seems to think that it can be ignored for no better reason than vague assertions regarding 'research'. Ignoring essentially all of relevant WP:BLP policy: WP:AVOIDVICTIM,WP:BLPCRIME,WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE,WP:BLPPRIVACY,WP:BLP1E,WP:BLPKINDNESS - the whole damn lot. That such a contributor can think this is even remotely appropriate is astonishing. That nobody else should identify the obvious issues over a period of two months is far worse. It is clear and unequivocal evidence that there are systemic flaws in the ways that Wikipedia creates biographical articles, but fails to apply its own policies to them. This in a context where Google for instance will, as a matter of course, cite and directly quote Wikipedia ledes as its top search result for biographical content. Directly quoting gross policy violations like 'convicted fraudster', because nobody has taken the necessary action to rectify it. The system is broken. It doesn't work. It fails to enforce its own policies. It needs fundamental changes in regard to how such material is checked and approved. This isn't 2001 any more. Wikipedia has a presence on the internet now where 'let anyone edit and we'll hope it all gets sorted out later' isn't even remotely appropriate. Wikipedia has to either find a way to ensure that such things cannot happen, or simply stop pretending that amateurism-by-design 'always-improving' wishful thinking is capable of producing appropriate biographical content in the context it now finds itself in. Tinkering with WP:NLT is not enough. Not remotely. The system is broken. Fix it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Just spitballing here but what about 1. an edit filter that checks for WP:WTW in Category:Living people, or 2. some kind of "enhanced" WP:NPP for BLPs, perhaps a feed that also checks autopatrolled creation of BLPs? Levivich 05:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Relying on edit filters to enforce fundamental Wikipedia policy would seem to be an indication of a deep-running issue that needed further attention, even if it worked. As for an 'enhanced' new page patrol system, I proposed something along similar lines in an off-Wikipedia discussion: that biographies of living persons are not permitted to go 'live' until they have been vouched for as properly-sourced and policy-compliant by at least two established editors other than the article creator. As for what would constitute an 'established editor', that would probably need some thought (maybe a new user-right?), and it should note that even this doesn't prevent blatant policy violations being added later. What is actually needed is a system that ensures that biographical material receives greater scrutiny throughout its lifetime. And a cultural change in Wikipedia that treats WP:BLP policy as one of its core values, not just another set of rules to be wiggled round when they get in the way. A free online encyclopaedia would seem to be a worthy project, but is it really so, if it also acts as a venue for free online character assassination? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Just spitballing here but what about 1. an edit filter that checks for WP:WTW in Category:Living people, or 2. some kind of "enhanced" WP:NPP for BLPs, perhaps a feed that also checks autopatrolled creation of BLPs? Levivich 05:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Like. Kind of a flip of - I also support promoting DOLT to be a requirement before action is taken. I think too many people know the rule (one strike and you're out) and enjoy the circus, and too many admins act without thinking first because rules. I am not commenting about this particular case as I have not investigated what the NLT-violations involved, but I agree with AndyTheGrump above that the (now deleted) article was a monstrosity. Johnuniq (talk) 04:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Sounds like a great discussion to bring up at WT:NLT, it certainly would not be decided here. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 09:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Unban request for Soumya-8974[edit]
Unanimous consensus this user should not be unbanned at this time. Reasons given were their their demonstrated lack of competence and widespread, cross-project, disruption. --Yamla (talk) 10:37, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Soumya-8974 makes the following request to be unbanned:
- I was blocked in 9 January 2021 by Rosguill because of "Disruptive editing, WP:CIR and racism per Special:Permalink/999244891#Soumya-8974,_again". In my earlier requests to unblock, the sysops pointed out that I did not understand the rules of Wikipedia back then. Now I have learnt that competence is required to edit, ignoring feedbacks from others will tell unwanted consequences, personal attacks will make Wikipedia a harsh environment to edit for others, etc. If I am allowed to edit Wikipedia again, then I will promise that I will listen to the feedbacks carefully and try to address them, I will edit very carefully to avoid disruption, I will respect all editors irrespective of age, gender, religion and ethnicity and I will follow the rules of Wikipedia. Just like most of you, I am here to build an encyclopedia. I want to help improve the quality of existing articles, and avoid creating unnecessary redirects. --Soumya-8974 (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
There's some debate on whether or not they were banned. I read it as a WP:CBAN; the discussion was at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1055#Soumya-8974,_again. Soumya reports they are currently subjected to a topic ban on creating redirects, and expresses a willingness to adhere to an additional "topic ban on controversial topics like Kashmir, Pakistan, Afghanistan, terrorism, where disruptive edits by me are possible due to lack of competence in those topics. I have no such history of disruptive edits related to astronomy and spaceflight, however". I previously refused to copy over a request on WP:SNOW grounds. I believe this request is better, but has already been opposed by two editors. I will copy over their statements here and notify the blocking admin. I take no position on whether or not this user should be unbanned and/or unblocked. --Yamla (talk) 11:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. This user has been given many chances to improve, and WP:Standard offer doesn't apply here.. Generally, a disruptive editor would also disrupt other topics as well, and even then, you have shown to repeat your behavior many times. You don't want feedback and improvement, you just want to get in to Wikipedia as soon as possible, and it is likely that I bet this request is much more convincing than the previous one is an obvious indicator of insincereness. We don't have to unban you becuse you have an eloquent argument, nor admitting people who drain our soul and will even if they make 100 featured articles. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 19:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- While my comments may still sound insincere due to my past behaviours, I have now changed my behaviour since my block due to my participation in other communities. While I may be disruptive in certain topics (Kashmir, redirects etc.), I have never been disruptive on topics about which I have significant knowledge and interest (astronomy, spaceflight). Of course, I am not irreplaceable (since there are several Wikipedians with spaceflight interest), and I am not the centre of Wikipedia either. I am here to volunteerly improve the encyclopedia. --Soumya-8974 (talk) 06:06, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- I believe this should be discussed by the community. While I'm currently unsure if I'd support unblocking/unbanning, I think there's enough here for the discussion. I plan to move the request to an admin noticeboard over the weekend. Soumya-8974, given the oppose above, you may choose to have me hold off if you wish. --Yamla (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- While my comments may still sound insincere due to my past behaviours, I have now changed my behaviour since my block due to my participation in other communities. While I may be disruptive in certain topics (Kashmir, redirects etc.), I have never been disruptive on topics about which I have significant knowledge and interest (astronomy, spaceflight). Of course, I am not irreplaceable (since there are several Wikipedians with spaceflight interest), and I am not the centre of Wikipedia either. I am here to volunteerly improve the encyclopedia. --Soumya-8974 (talk) 06:06, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose This user also has CIR issues on other WMF projects as well, such as Wikivoyage and never communicates with us, and to the point where I had to start nominating Soumya's pointless redirects for deletion (Vaticidalprophet also nominated some controversial Taiwan redirects as well). I've also had to decline numerous file move requests on Commons as well. And what about that copyright violation? SHB2000 (talk) 11:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Note: The two above opposes have been copied from Soumya-8974's talk page (Non-administrator comment) — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 12:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. I know this user from the immense amount of redirect related disruption they caused last year, and I'm seeing a huge disconnect between their actions and what they're saying they're going to do. They claim they now understand that communication is important, but looking at their talk pages on other projects shows a complete lack of communication. Their talk page on Wikivoyage [5] has an enormous list of issues, almost none of which have been responded to. They claim that they understand competence is required to edit, but they don't seem to have provided any clue how they plan to develop some, and a look at their other project contributions shows a proposed redirect topic ban on Wikivoyage [6] a commons talk page full of warnings about uploading copyrighted images and policy violations [7] and on wiktionary even today they're unilaterally retargeting ancient project space shortcuts to new places [8]. To support an unblock I would expect to see some evidence of trouble free contributions on other projects and a plan to address the fundamental issue underlying all their editing issues - brashly jumping into areas and processes that they haven't bothered to read up on and bullheadedly making poorly thought out edits that other editors have to clean up after them. As it stands I think we'll simply end up playing whack-a-mole with this editor's disruption, if we ban them from doing X they'll just start disrupting Y instead. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 13:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Persistant disruption can get the user globally banned, i.e. get blocked on all Wikimedia projects. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose as the closer of the last discussion. While it is possible for people to grow past the issues behind the ban, that's the kind of character growth that takes years, not months. signed, Rosguill talk 16:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. I remember them from the disruption they caused at RfD and the amount of effort I and others (e.g. Tavix and AngusWOOF)) had to expend to clean up after them. I am always willing to consider that people have learned from their mistakes, however all the evidence shows that Soumya has exactly the same level of competence now that they had when they were blocked, which was exactly the same level of competence they had when they had been here a couple of days, which was - and is - a very long way below the level required to productively contribute here. Thryduulf (talk) 18:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Allegations of editing like a UPE[edit]
Nothing more to be done here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Greetings to everyone here. I came here today in respect of something that happened. On 22 October 2021 I applied for the right of NPR here and just today, I got a feedback here. It so disheartening to read what the administrator(Rosguill) has to say for declining my request of which I did reply here. I'm really not able to understand the situation here and I really want other admins to look at this issue as my edits are visible even anything I've done at AFC is visible. I'm disheartened this evening even while typing this and this has reduced my morale. I know the admin was performing their duties and how they do that is up to them, but doing the job is one thing and affecting others negatively is another thing. I really do hope this is reviewed accordingly. And please if this is not the right place for this, please direct me. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- As I stated in response to the request, I am happy to explain my reasoning off-wiki to any admin who would like to review my decision to decline permissions. signed, Rosguill talk 19:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'm interested in seeing it. 331dot (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Rosguill:Please why off-wiki? Am I not allowed to see your reasoning? Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 19:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- 331dot email sent; Idoghor Melody, off-wiki per WP:BEANS. If my suspicions are correct, then we don't want to include information that could make UPE editors savvier next time around. If my suspicions are unfounded, other admins can dissent from my position and overrule my action. signed, Rosguill talk 20:06, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Rosguill:Please why off-wiki? Am I not allowed to see your reasoning? Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 19:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'm interested in seeing it. 331dot (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- I have reviewed the information I was given, and I think this denial of permissions was good and proper. 331dot (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- @331dot:You reviewed informations that I didn't see with my eyes and you called this justice? I am not in support of this decision. Even if you're not granting me the NPR rights, you should tell me why you think my edits are like that of a UPE. If this ends like this, then this is not justice!!! Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- NPR status is a privilege, rather than a right, and not something to which you are entitled. That being the case, I would respectfully suggest that "justice" doesn't really enter the equation. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Idoghor Melody: As you have been told, we can't necessarily post everything in public view, as this could help others better evade detection. It isn't a matter of justice, but protecting Wikipedia. I'm sorry. 331dot (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- NPR status is a privilege, rather than a right, and not something to which you are entitled. That being the case, I would respectfully suggest that "justice" doesn't really enter the equation. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- @331dot: I am being accused of something publicly but you can't make the proofs/informations publicly and you can't tell them to me privately, and if this is not injustice, then what is it?--Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- You don't have a right to access advanced permissions, so it's not a matter of justice. As Wikipedia is a private entity, permissions can be granted or denied for any reason or even no reason. We try to explain when we can and be fair, but that's not always possible. 331dot (talk) 21:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Tbh, 331dot, I feel this is generally wordsmithing. Fairness and justice would also apply to things like the stigma of being called a UPE - that doesn't mean the information must be shown, but the negatives should be freely admitted as such Nosebagbear (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- While I would generally admit that this is not ideal, framing it as "justice" strikes me as a bridge too far, as I noted above. It is, I would submit, the worst possible solution but for all the other possible solutions. But yes, obvious that it's an unfortunate place to be. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- IMO, while there would be an issue of injustice if my word at Requests for Permissions was final, being able to contest the decision here and have a few uninvolved editors look at the rationale and ratify or reject my decision strikes me as quite a fair process. signed, Rosguill talk 23:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Rosguill: and 331dot, I guess this will be my final words here. You've successfully called me a UPE, refused to tell me why and sent emails of what I don't know to other admins who you might have convinced to share reasoning with you. Because if not so, I see no reason why you shouldn't put your reasons here so I can either accept or oppose them. Be that as it may, I believe I'll get this justice someday, and you'll get your own fair share of this experience some day. I was denied fair hearing today/yesterday and I'm really unhappy about it. If there was another way to contest this, I would have also done it. Goodluck to you all and happy editing! --Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 04:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- IMO, while there would be an issue of injustice if my word at Requests for Permissions was final, being able to contest the decision here and have a few uninvolved editors look at the rationale and ratify or reject my decision strikes me as quite a fair process. signed, Rosguill talk 23:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- While I would generally admit that this is not ideal, framing it as "justice" strikes me as a bridge too far, as I noted above. It is, I would submit, the worst possible solution but for all the other possible solutions. But yes, obvious that it's an unfortunate place to be. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Tbh, 331dot, I feel this is generally wordsmithing. Fairness and justice would also apply to things like the stigma of being called a UPE - that doesn't mean the information must be shown, but the negatives should be freely admitted as such Nosebagbear (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- You don't have a right to access advanced permissions, so it's not a matter of justice. As Wikipedia is a private entity, permissions can be granted or denied for any reason or even no reason. We try to explain when we can and be fair, but that's not always possible. 331dot (talk) 21:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
I have not seen the email proof but have seen enough for me to be uncomfortable with this editor having NPP rights. MER-C 16:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Echoing 331dot & MER-C look @Idoghor Melody, Rosguill did not accuse you of UPE in-fact you are casting aspersions of which you owe Rosgull an apology ASAP. They only stated that your edits are consistent with that of UPE editors & like said didn’t call you a UPE editor. Per beans, I wouldn't spill too much but how come you have been here for 6 years but a WP:SLEEPER and recently just became active? Furthermore why did you create the non notable promotional article on Liquorose? An area heavily edited by undisclosed paid editors? Furthermore NPR are granted to editors who are proficient with our notability guidelines and you creating that article shows you perhaps aren’t quite fit for the perm. For example why would create that article? are you oblivious of WP:1E and Wp:TOOSOON this alone disqualifies you from obtaining that perm.,Lastly you said if you were a UPE editor you wouldn’t have been granted the afc pseudo rights and honesty that doesn’t mean anything as the threshold for getting that right is relatively low. All this put together makes the decline very plausible. Lest I forget, can you explain this? Prior that we never had any interactions, at least with this account and you left me the message which sounded as though we have ever interacted before which isn’t the case. Lastly I do not see the need for this appeal, what’s the rush? Celestina007 (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Celestina007: When they say someone is behaving like a thief, what does that really mean?? And what is your problem with the article Liquorose? why do you question if we have interacted before just because I left a message on your talk page? Or is there any policy that stops me from posting on any Talk page? I am trying hard to understand why you're saying all these and I just feel this is an attack on me for just nothing. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Idoghor Melody, “When they say someone is behaving like a thief, what does that really mean??” that would mean the individual in question has exhibited traits of a thief & not that the hypothetical person is a thief. I don’t have a problem with the Liquorose article asides from the fact that it is promotional in nature & is an archetypal example of ONEEVENT, plus they have no encyclopedic value and this is an encyclopedia. However on the other hand I see you may have a little problem grasping WP:1E & WP:TOOSOON. At this juncture you have to really stop and apologize to Rosguill for WP:ASPERSION casting which can get you blocked as it constitutes a personal attack. If I may ask how does a decline for a perm you aren’t qualified for impede your ability to edit? In-fact the fact that you are a WP:SLEEPER who just started editing again, requesting perms such as AFC and now NPP coupled with your obvious dissent and vexation that you were denied NPP is in itself a red flag. You are indeed lucky Rosguill who is relatively one of the easy going admins was the sysop who handled this, Theoretically speaking, if it were sysops such as Nick who observed this and saw off wiki evidence you would probably have been looking at an indef block. Lastly you were asking to see the off wiki reason that seriously indicts you, now why on earth would we show you that? Wouldn’t that be rather counter intuitive? Like i said not having the NPR perm doesn’t impede you from building a collaborative project. Celestina007 (talk) 12:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Celestina007: Saying someone is behaving like a thief is no different from saying someone is a thief. For instance if I should say "Emeka you're behaving like a mad person!", It's an insult to Emeka. Telling me my edits are consistent with that of a UPE is no different. It's an insult to me and they are tarnishing my image to other users. And who told you I have a problem with the denial? I don't have a problem with that but with where it is being hanged. Hanging it on that is one thing that upsets me and the second is refusing to show me why he thinks that way. It's easy to convince someone against another person especially when the person is not present, because if present, the person might have things to say to clear up his name if it's a misunderstanding(but when the accused is not present, it's easy to convince people otherwise). For Liquorose, I think you don't understand WP:1E either, because if you do, you would not say such. I don't want to delve into explaining how the article meets WP:GNG but if you feel it doesn't meet GNG and it is WP:TOOSOON, please AFD is not far from your reach. And the article I created is not promotional in nature, you can also prove how it is. “Lastly you were asking to see the off wiki reason that seriously indicts you” Capital YES I was asking to see it, and if you Celestina007 put yourself in my shoes, you will know that it's important to know of something you're accused of publicly. Dear Celestina, let's be honest with ourselves, and if you think I'm not saying the right thing here then that's your own opinion. --Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 14:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Idoghor Melody, I don’t have much to say, 1E is predominantly being notable for one event, which means supermajority of the RS used in the article literally almost all discuss her within the confines of her participation in a Nigerian reality TV show she failed to emerge successful. I’m not AFD'ing anything, good luck. Infact considering you once attempted to create an autobiography i may initiate a proposal at ANI suggesting/mandating you to use the AFC to submit all your articles moving forward. It is Safe to say nothing is coming out of this premature repot so please tone down the subtle invectives, You are yet to apologize to Rosguill rather you are doubling down by being rude, this is my last post here, please do not ping me anymore. Feel free to Visit the WP:TEAHOUSE but please don’t ping me ever again. Celestina007 (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Celestina007: Don't be quik to run away. You want to initiate a proposal at ANI suggesting/mandating me to use the AFC to submit all my articles moving forward, what year did I attempt that autobiography?? I think you know the answer to that. But is this not a threat?? Anyways good luck in your endeavors.--Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 14:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Idoghor Melody, I don’t have much to say, 1E is predominantly being notable for one event, which means supermajority of the RS used in the article literally almost all discuss her within the confines of her participation in a Nigerian reality TV show she failed to emerge successful. I’m not AFD'ing anything, good luck. Infact considering you once attempted to create an autobiography i may initiate a proposal at ANI suggesting/mandating you to use the AFC to submit all your articles moving forward. It is Safe to say nothing is coming out of this premature repot so please tone down the subtle invectives, You are yet to apologize to Rosguill rather you are doubling down by being rude, this is my last post here, please do not ping me anymore. Feel free to Visit the WP:TEAHOUSE but please don’t ping me ever again. Celestina007 (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Celestina007: Saying someone is behaving like a thief is no different from saying someone is a thief. For instance if I should say "Emeka you're behaving like a mad person!", It's an insult to Emeka. Telling me my edits are consistent with that of a UPE is no different. It's an insult to me and they are tarnishing my image to other users. And who told you I have a problem with the denial? I don't have a problem with that but with where it is being hanged. Hanging it on that is one thing that upsets me and the second is refusing to show me why he thinks that way. It's easy to convince someone against another person especially when the person is not present, because if present, the person might have things to say to clear up his name if it's a misunderstanding(but when the accused is not present, it's easy to convince people otherwise). For Liquorose, I think you don't understand WP:1E either, because if you do, you would not say such. I don't want to delve into explaining how the article meets WP:GNG but if you feel it doesn't meet GNG and it is WP:TOOSOON, please AFD is not far from your reach. And the article I created is not promotional in nature, you can also prove how it is. “Lastly you were asking to see the off wiki reason that seriously indicts you” Capital YES I was asking to see it, and if you Celestina007 put yourself in my shoes, you will know that it's important to know of something you're accused of publicly. Dear Celestina, let's be honest with ourselves, and if you think I'm not saying the right thing here then that's your own opinion. --Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 14:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Idoghor Melody, “When they say someone is behaving like a thief, what does that really mean??” that would mean the individual in question has exhibited traits of a thief & not that the hypothetical person is a thief. I don’t have a problem with the Liquorose article asides from the fact that it is promotional in nature & is an archetypal example of ONEEVENT, plus they have no encyclopedic value and this is an encyclopedia. However on the other hand I see you may have a little problem grasping WP:1E & WP:TOOSOON. At this juncture you have to really stop and apologize to Rosguill for WP:ASPERSION casting which can get you blocked as it constitutes a personal attack. If I may ask how does a decline for a perm you aren’t qualified for impede your ability to edit? In-fact the fact that you are a WP:SLEEPER who just started editing again, requesting perms such as AFC and now NPP coupled with your obvious dissent and vexation that you were denied NPP is in itself a red flag. You are indeed lucky Rosguill who is relatively one of the easy going admins was the sysop who handled this, Theoretically speaking, if it were sysops such as Nick who observed this and saw off wiki evidence you would probably have been looking at an indef block. Lastly you were asking to see the off wiki reason that seriously indicts you, now why on earth would we show you that? Wouldn’t that be rather counter intuitive? Like i said not having the NPR perm doesn’t impede you from building a collaborative project. Celestina007 (talk) 12:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- Didn't I just tell you expressly not to ever ping me again? Do you have a problem with respecting the polite requests of your co editors here? I literally just told you not to ping me again and that is literally what you just did immediately, correct me if I’m wrong but this shows you creating what’s seems to be an autobiography, correct me if I’m wrong. You just accused me of threatening you, once more you are still casting aspersions. Furthermore what in the name of Jesus do you mean by this comment what year did I attempt that autobiography?? I think you know the answer to that? I’m moving ahead to close this rather vapid entry. Celestina007 (talk) 15:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Celestina007: I pinged you to reply your last message. Why is that not a threat? Telling me in this discussion that You may want to initiate a proposal at ANI suggesting/mandating me to use the AFC to submit all my articles moving forward. Is that not a threat over something that happened in January 2020 when an editor has no good knowledge of policies, is that not a threat? How does it relate to this discussion? Infact a whole lot of things you said here does not relate to this discussion. And yes, I will never ping you again going forward. --Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 15:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- Idoghor Melody You've been asked to stop pinging Celestina, please do so. You can reply to them without a ping and they can choose to read or not read it, or reply or not reply to it, entirely of their own accord. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Grapple X: Noted. I have stated above not to do such again. --Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- Idoghor Melody You've been asked to stop pinging Celestina, please do so. You can reply to them without a ping and they can choose to read or not read it, or reply or not reply to it, entirely of their own accord. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Celestina007: I pinged you to reply your last message. Why is that not a threat? Telling me in this discussion that You may want to initiate a proposal at ANI suggesting/mandating me to use the AFC to submit all my articles moving forward. Is that not a threat over something that happened in January 2020 when an editor has no good knowledge of policies, is that not a threat? How does it relate to this discussion? Infact a whole lot of things you said here does not relate to this discussion. And yes, I will never ping you again going forward. --Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 15:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
This should probably just be closed, as nothing else productive can come from it. Idoghor Melody is angry, with some justification, so having a thread of telling someone who's mad that they were told they're acting like a UPE to apologize to someone, then escalating in a feedback loop of them getting angrier and angrier doesn't seem like the right call.
Idoghor Melody, sorry you didn't get permissions. Due to the wide amount of different types of abuse that gets heaped onto Wikipedia sometimes admins have to exercise an abundance of caution, and can't discuss what they're basing judgements on as to not give away their methods of preventing that abuse. Sometimes that means that innocent editors have to deal with the fallout. It's happened to a lot of us. I'm sorry it happened to you, but unfortunately, it is what it is. I hope you continue editing despite this. Would you object to the thread being closed, or is there more you'd like to accomplish with it? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- @ScottishFinnishRadish: Nothing more to say again. I was just hurt that I was tagged with something I've never done or ever planned to do(even if they did not call me a UPE directly). Please it should be noted that I will not take it likely with anyone who accuse me falsely or accuse me of being like something again. I know there's nothing I can do if it happens again but please it shouldn't happen. I will continue to do my best in this collaborative project. Thank you @ScottishFinnishRadish. Please you can close. --Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Block appeal : Copper1993[edit]
I was recently pinged into a discussion by Copper1993 (talk · contribs), who has been blocked as a sockpuppet of HordeFTL. I've checked through the history of the SPI and I'm a little confused to what the actual disruption is beyond the original AfD votestacking in 2018. There seems to be some sort of kerfuffle involving Broomhead Reservoir, which I've rewritten this evening using a couple of news and book sources, which should hopefully put a lid on that.
Anyway, Copper1993 is asking for an amnesty and an unblock, which I am considering, and has been supported by Crouch, Swale. I think my basic problem is a number of the articles they've created have been quite stubby, often only including a few sources, which means somebody else has to do the work of beefing them up to an acceptable standard. Still, it's never been policy to just delete stubs for being stubs unless they're permastubs, and I think in a couple of cases mentioned in the SPI, somebody should have taken the articles to AfD just to see where consensus lies. Ultimately I come back to the tired old phrase we are here to write an encyclopedia. Anyway, your thoughts please. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support but with 1 account restriction which should resolve the AFD issues in 2018. Possibly there should be a restriction on page creation to ensure that the articles are less stubby. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Meh. I endorsed a block in my capacity as a SPI clerk, but I wasn't all that enthused about it. They're evading an indefinite block, but they're obviously not the usual spammer, vandal or POV pusher who shows up at SPI. I'd gladly support an unblock if they were able to stick to the terms of the standard offer. My main problem is that their track record doesn't give me a lot of confidence that they're being honest or that any sort of restriction will actually be followed. For example, on their previous account, they said they'd be willing to take the standard offer [9], but just a month later, they were back to evading their block with the Copper1993 account. Or see this unblock request, where they made statements similar to what they're saying now about how they made a terrible mistake that they regret deeply and won't repeat [10]... but then proceeded to create 6 more sockpuppets in the following week [11]. If they are serious about having changed this time, it shouldn't be difficult for them to take a few months off of editing (during which they could edit other projects such as simplewiki) to regain the community's trust. Spicy (talk) 22:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- "They're evading an indefinite block, but they're obviously not the usual spammer, vandal or POV pusher who shows up at SPI." Yeah, that's kind of my thoughts really. But given the conversations on some of the sock's talk pages, you could be forgiven for walking away with the impression that the admin corps think he's the son of IceWhiz. Haven't people over-reacted a bit? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose largely for the reasons Spicy has misgivings. They're an admitted sock of HordeFTL, they claim they started socking because they just didn't know the rules (and then kept going for years because ...?), and they have a long history of breaking their word when promising to follow those rules. See for example the heartfelt pleas at User talk:StaniforthHistorian, which were followed by yet more socking. Sure they're a slight cut above a "lol your mom" vandal but their track record (including sock blocks from this very week) suggests a total lack of interest in one of the basic en-WP policies. It'd be better if they actually stop socking for a few months and then reapply, rather than seeking an unblock just days after their latest secret sock is exposed.
- In passing, Blablubbs seems to have a point re WP:3X, an unblock here probably cannot be a unilateral action and would require community input (which of course it is getting). Some CU advice would also be valuable as this is effectively an unblock request by the CU-blocked sockmaster themselves. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. I don't see how we can unblock a sockmaster who has a slew of puppets over years without waiting at least six months without socking. Instead right after the latest sock is blocked, they request an unblock. Additionally, as I read the SPI, there was some IP block evasion as well.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose At this time I have no confidence that they will stick to one account. Let's see if they can go six months without socking. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose until and unless their behavior is exemplary for at least six months. Someone who repeatedly deceives the community needs to show the best possible behavior before requesting an unblock. Being slightly less disruptive than the usual trolling sockmaster is not really a ringing endorsement. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose as they haven't even waited 6 months (per WP:SO) to make an appeal. They should also consider contributing to other Wikimedia projects while blocked to demonstrate that they are still capable of making constructive edits. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 09:57, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- We're here to build an encyclopedia, but without those who persistently disregard its central policies and community decisions. The last block evasion occurred on 25 October 2021; it's 28 October 2021. There are two paths: Sockpuppetry and hoping not to get caught, or accepting Wikipedia's procedures and filing an appeal. Sockpuppetry and filing an appeal are incompatible. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
GeneralNotability promoted to full clerk[edit]
The Arbitration Committee is pleased to announce that GeneralNotability (talk · contribs) has been appointed a full clerk, effective immediately, concluding his successful traineeship.
The arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by e-mail to clerks-l
lists.wikimedia.org.
For the Arbitration Committee, Maxim(talk) 13:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § GeneralNotability promoted to full clerk
Backlog at RFPP[edit]
There's a backlog of about 36 hours at RFPP, would an admin be able to take a look? Joseph2302 (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Looks mostly
Done thanks to a number of administrators who lent a hand — Wug·a·po·des 21:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Done67.53.214.86 and WP:BLP[edit]
67.53.214.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is an IP editor who since 2018 appears to have been adding information to WP:BLPs that is sourced to hard to assess sources (typically in Russian/Ukrainian), and often with concerning BLP implications. I first noticed their edits when they added a section to an article stating that the subject "was a close friend of the alcoholic Valery... the son of... who was a close friend of". Aside from the trivial nature of the information and apparent attempt at ?guilt by association?, the references were either in Russian, or did not mention the article subject. Going to the user's Talk: page, I noticed that the page is littered with warnings about WP:BLP violations, WP:COPYVIO violations, WP:RS and WP:V violations, failed WP:AFC requests, and automated bot reversion notices. I tried to review a number of their recent article additions; some were obviously problematic, but others were difficult for me to assess. I think that this editor's contributions to Wikipedia should be reviewed, and further contributions discouraged. Jayjg (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- I also see that some of the references they add are not reliable sources, such as compromat.ru for example, and many I have never heard about but at the first glance do not look reliable.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Well, it's been going on for years, and I don't see any responses on the Talk: page yet. This is a serious matter, as it has WP:BLP implications, and the damage is too complex to easily assess. They've already been blocked once for a month; unless there are any objections, I plan to block the user until they start communicating. Jayjg (talk) 20:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Restoration of Battle of Dien Bien Phu on Sea[edit]
Please restore the latest revision of this article at User:NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh/Battle of Dien Bien Phu on Sea. I am not requesting a DRV, nor I am planning to rewrite it, it's just that I need to have a look and will tag it for speedy deletion in a few hours. Thanks in advance. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 19:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
I think an Admin forgot to salt a page which I requested to be salted when I nominated the page for CSD.[edit]
The page Draft: Dhoom 4 has been repeatedly recreated by multiple IP addresses talking about a non-existent and non-upcoming movie hoax, as according to the page log [12]. Using Twinkle I nominated the page for CSD under G3: Blatant Hoax, and also check marked the box "Request page salting". The reason why I think the draft page needs to be salted is because the IP crystal ball hoaxer usually copies and pastes the content on the page to either Dhoom (franchise)[13] or sometimes Talk:Dhoom (franchise)[14][15][16]. As you can see, the users who are actually taking time to take care of the article are annoyed at this point. The edits to these pages always occur after the protection for any of the two pages ends. The protection for the Dhoom article page is showing on it's log [17] has been seen going on and off repeatedly, and its current protection is slated to end at sometime in November. There is no way to get a message across to the IP user, as they use a public IP address that keeps changing once in a while. Pining users who are obviously annoyed by the Dhoom 4 hoax vandal. @Bollyjeff: Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 00:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold: I know nothing about this. – Athaenara ✉ 01:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Athaenara: I replied to you on your talk page. Accidently copied your username on the page history, when I was trying to copy another. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold: I’ve gone ahead and salted it. For future reference, you can request page creation protection at WP:RFPP, too. clpo13(talk) 01:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Clpo13: Thank you. :) Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Moving an article under AfD?[edit]
I didn't think you could move an article while it's under AfD, as AEDM got moved to African Electronic Dance Music. Regards. Govvy (talk) 11:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- You shouldn't and it can mess up the scripts we usually use when closing AfDs, but there's nothing technically preventing people from doing so. The best thing to do is to move it back for the duration of the AfD, unless it's obviously heading towards keep. – Joe (talk) 11:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- I thought it was something like that, I am not very good at moves and have sometimes messed them up, maybe an admin can fix it. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 11:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- The template on an article that has been nominated for deletion says not to blank the article or remove the template. The template on a something-else that has been nominated for MFD says not to blank or move the page or remove the template. I have been thinking for some time that the wording of the AFD template should be revised. Attempting to move an article to draft space after it has been nominated for deletion is sometimes done in order to try to defeat the AFD or game the system. It doesn't work, because admins correctly move the article back to article space, but some disruptive editors do not know that it doesn't work. So I think that the template notice should be reworded. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- I thought it was something like that, I am not very good at moves and have sometimes messed them up, maybe an admin can fix it. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 11:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Has this BLP article been vandalised?[edit]
The opening sentence states that she was born in red link philly Maryland and the second sentence claims that she was born a "crack baby" [sic], which I don't think is the correct medical term. Other parts seem borderline suspect and there is a lack of sourcing in parts of the article. Darkknight2149 20:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- The redink town name has been corrected by firefly. The source on Crack Baby is no longer valid, so I deleted the term. — Maile (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- I suppose it takes an arsonist to stop a vandal. Anyways, thanks for looking into it. Darkknight2149 07:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Jrs50[edit]
This user is vandalising several articles in eswiki, enwiki and wikidata [18]. Often makes arbitrary changes for no reason and keeps doing it despite all the warnings in his discussions [19], [20], [21]. He's been blocked in eswiki for one month for those reasons but he's been doing awful edits on wikidata, changing descriptions in Spanish [22]. I think more severe measures should be taken against this disruptive user that has wasted a lot of time from other editors.--MexTDT (talk) 04:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- I blocked the account for a week. Next time, please notify the user at the talk page as required.(It probably would not have changed much in this case, but still).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:13, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleting ".js" subpages[edit]
Would you please delete these subpages?
Because it seems Template:Db-u1 does not work on them. Mann Mann (talk) 11:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- Looks like they've been deleted now. Primefac (talk) 11:59, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. Mann Mann (talk) 13:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- FYI, deletion tags don't display properly on these pages, but they do categorize them. 2A03:C5C0:107E:6033:B561:44BD:193:AE8 (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. Mann Mann (talk) 13:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Request closure review of RfC discussion on deprecating The Daily Wire as a source[edit]
The global consensus at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE is rather clear. If someone wants to challenge this close, they should start a new thread and say what the problem with the close was. The OP and subsequent posts don't do this. Simply referring to other editors raising a concern isn't a valid close challenge. "Closer was not an admin" is also not a valid reason. Finally, there is no such thing as an "administrator review" of RFCs. A close review happens at AN but is decided by admins and non-admins alike. No prejudice to starting a new thread, following the global consensus of WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, but whomever starts it needs to articulate a challenge rationale in accordance with that documented global consensus, or else you're wasting other editor's time. Levivich 14:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am not involved in this RfC, but editors have expressed a desire for administrative review of S_Marshall's closure of the RfC and in the interest of speedy process, I am writing this post on the behalf of those editors. MarshallKe (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- I took a quick look; my first thought it I'd like 2 other admins to work with me on a joint close. Any takers? -- RoySmith (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- Bit premature perhaps, Roy? Should really come to a consensus to overturn my close before you appoint a panel of replacements.—S Marshall T/C 00:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe "close" was the wrong word. What I meant was a panel of three people to do a review. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Well, you're eminently qualified to do that, and I'd welcome it. We really ought to have an orderly RFC review forum.—S Marshall T/C 00:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Hmmm, this has taken an odd turn that I didn't expect. My original thought was that it's always good to have multiple people doing a review (like what happens at WP:DRV). I'm going to step back on this one and let somebody else handle it. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- You literally told people to come here if they disputed it, and now you're trying to affect the review process - David Gerard (talk) 11:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Well, you're eminently qualified to do that, and I'd welcome it. We really ought to have an orderly RFC review forum.—S Marshall T/C 00:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe "close" was the wrong word. What I meant was a panel of three people to do a review. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- You did a non-admin close on a contentious RFC when an admin usually does the job, and it turned out to be disputed. Yes, the RFC needs a proper admin close - David Gerard (talk) 11:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Bit premature perhaps, Roy? Should really come to a consensus to overturn my close before you appoint a panel of replacements.—S Marshall T/C 00:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
WP:RSN had a long-running and quite contentious RFC on deprecating the Daily Wire. As it came up to a month, S Marshall came in and did a non-admin close. However, a number of editors, including the editor who filed the RFC, think that the close is distinctly at odds with how deprecation RFCs have been handled in the past, and reflects neither consensus, nor the argued guidelines and policy. (Disputes like this of deprecation RFC closes basically never happen.) S Marshall suggested we ask WP:AN for an independent admin close. I suspect we might need more than one - it was quite contentious, and multiple opinions would be stronger. Are there two or three uninvolved admins who've done deprecation closes who could give their assessment of the close in RSN? - David Gerard (talk) 11:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- @David Gerard isn't this a duplicate of the above section? -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 11:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- My error, sorry, it is! Don't know how I failed to notice that ... - David Gerard (talk) 11:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- David, that isn't the only error you've made about this. You've also suggested that contentious RfCs should be closed by admins, and that's not the case at all. In fact I have a long history of closing this stuff, and although I've been overturned from time to time, it's usually the case that the community endorses my closes. And you've accused me of trying to affect the close review process, when all I did was agree to RoySmith's proposal. That's not just wrong, it's rather hurtful. I'm here in good faith to do my best for the community in line with the policies and procedures that we've agreed.—S Marshall T/C 11:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- You're literally doing precisely that above in this very section, trying to affect an admin review of your actions. You dived into the RFC thinking you were being sincerely helpful, and ended up with a strongly contested close of a contentious RFC. I suggest you consider that your move may have been badly in error, and that proper review without you trying to interfere in the process may be appropriate - David Gerard (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- I guess I'll say the same thing SM did so it's not just him... IMO it is a slight bit rude to plan a 3-admin panel close before there's even a determination that this close was wrong. There's nothing unusual or improper about non-admins closing discussions that don't require admin tools to implement the outcomes. Whether the closer was an admin or not is hardly pertinent to the issue at hand. Reading and reviewing a discussion takes time. It's not a good idea to start overturning closes without proper consideration; the effect will just be that non-admin editors don't wish to spend time reviewing discussions for closure, which itself is a good thing given how large WP:RFCL / WP:RM / etc backlogs can get. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- You're literally doing precisely that above in this very section, trying to affect an admin review of your actions. You dived into the RFC thinking you were being sincerely helpful, and ended up with a strongly contested close of a contentious RFC. I suggest you consider that your move may have been badly in error, and that proper review without you trying to interfere in the process may be appropriate - David Gerard (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- David, that isn't the only error you've made about this. You've also suggested that contentious RfCs should be closed by admins, and that's not the case at all. In fact I have a long history of closing this stuff, and although I've been overturned from time to time, it's usually the case that the community endorses my closes. And you've accused me of trying to affect the close review process, when all I did was agree to RoySmith's proposal. That's not just wrong, it's rather hurtful. I'm here in good faith to do my best for the community in line with the policies and procedures that we've agreed.—S Marshall T/C 11:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- I do not believe for a moment that I'm badly in error. My position is that it's entirely in order for me to participate in this review of my actions, and it's entirely out of order for David Gerard to frame that participation as "interfering".—S Marshall T/C 13:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- I, too, am 100% correct all of the time. It is so frustrating when others don't understand that, isn't it? But seriously, as someone with no dog in this fight, it does look a bit like you're trying to put your thumb on the scale. Let the other side be wrong on their own for a little bit. MrOllie (talk) 13:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Really?!—S Marshall T/C 13:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- I, too, am 100% correct all of the time. It is so frustrating when others don't understand that, isn't it? But seriously, as someone with no dog in this fight, it does look a bit like you're trying to put your thumb on the scale. Let the other side be wrong on their own for a little bit. MrOllie (talk) 13:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
What is the case for overturning here? I think S Marshall did a careful and considerate job closing the discussion. By numbers alone this was not a clear consensus. Like many editors, I consider 2/3rd to be the general clear consensus when numbers are the only question. By the arguments both sides made policy based arguments and provided references for the position. It's also important to note that the discussion wasn't "Is DW reliable vs not". It was only should a source that is seen as non-reliable be further downgraded into deprecate. The close of "consensus it isn't reliable, no consensus to deprecate" was fair. Disclaimer: in the RfC I supported status quo. Springee (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- User:Levivich’s close of this close review is unimpressive. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Challenge of RSN closure of RFC on Daily Wire[edit]
To satisfy the request that a close review actually challenge the close, I challenge the close of the RFC at WP:RSN on The Daily Wire. The reasoning provided in the close offers nothing resembling my reading of WP:CON, in which the rationale applies arbitrary numerical multipliers to arguments and comes up with a percentage that is then, again arbitrarily, weighed against a scale that is determined by this one user. The slightly greater weight to those who introduced new thoughts is particularly concerning, as weight of an argument depends on its fidelity to our policies, and not on how novel it is. Also, I find the above closure to be a fairly blatant failure of WP:NOTBURO, the close was clearly challenged and the challenge should have been heard without the pedantry. nableezy - 15:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Closer: I think there are good reasons why a discussion closer should assign weight to !votes, and I think that in cases like this the closer does have to assess what the numerical threshold of consensus might be. I could be wrong in my weighting or in my decision about where the threshold lies, but I don't see anything wrong with my process. I should clarify that I did not find that any !votes had greater fidelity to our policies because we don't have a policy on deprecation. What we have is WP:DEPS, and it isn't even a guideline.—S Marshall T/C 17:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Do not overturn I will repeat part of what I said in the post close discussion at RSN "I did not participate in this one. Having read it through, it looks like a reasonable close." A decision had to made between status quo and deprecate after a lengthy RFC of opposing views. If the only argument against the close is the math assigned to "voting", that imo is insufficient reason to overturn.Selfstudier (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- (comment from involved editor) I agree that S Marshall's algorithm for weighing arguments is of questionable soundness (for example, the upweighting of "new thoughts"), but I think he reached the same conclusion that any other reasonable closer would have. (Also, worth mentioning that this calculus of weighing arguments was not part of his actual formal closing statement, but rather came up in a later follow-up discussion.) David Gerard repeatedly characterizes supporters of deprecation as constituting a "supermajority" or "strong majority". The actual headcount appears to be 29 to 19 (i.e. 60% in favour), which I would characterize as a fairly narrow majority. Per WP:DEFINECONSENSUS,
An option that is narrowly preferred is almost never consensus.
Also, for example, the essay WP:ACD gives the following rule of thumb:As a very rough guideline, no consensus results are usually in the range of 30–70 per cent, and the closer you are to the boundaries, the more the strength of the arguments becomes relevant.
The only way there could be a finding of consensus in a case like this would be if one side's arguments had a significantly stronger policy basis, which I don't see here. Colin M (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)- At least in the other place where filibustering rules the day, 60% is routinely called a supermajority. nableezy - 19:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- It can apparently commonly range anywhere from 55% to 75% (see Supermajority § Common supermajorities). Given that it has no fixed definition, and different readers might identify it with a wide range of different thresholds (or simply interpret it as "really big majority"), its use is liable to cause confusion. Colin M (talk) 19:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- At least in the other place where filibustering rules the day, 60% is routinely called a supermajority. nableezy - 19:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Challenging the close. S Marshall seems to want to be helpful, and that's great; but this was not helpful. He then tried to determine how his actions would be reviewed, which compounded his evident non-optimal judgement in this case. The close should be run again with a panel of admins. If he's that confident it was the correct decision, then it'll come out the same way - David Gerard (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Surely that argument can be applied to any close. "Why don't you revert your close? If it was truly the right close, a panel will come along and close it exactly the same way." Obviously there needs to be a certain finality to closes, unless they are clearly an incorrect reading due to a substantive reason, otherwise any unsatisfied editor could request discussions be reclosed for no real reason, and then closers would be unwilling to spend their time closing discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- I don't understand why this discussion needs either a panel, there was a large number of participants but not so many that it couldn't be fairly assessed by a single close, or an admin close, RfCs of this type are regularly closed by experienced editors who may or may not be sysops. While much larger RfCs of this type can be closed by panels - i.e. Fox News - this doesn't seem to be of that type and S Marshall is one of the most frequent closers of RfCs so he seems qualified to enact a close of this type. That isn't to say he got this perfect, my assessment follows that of Wugapodes below, but I think we need to be cautious about where we require panels and/or admin closers. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Endorse close. I'm not thrilled with the summary of how the !votes were weighed. I just don't think it makes a ton of sense to weigh new ideas more heavily then old ones for example. But yes, the argument to depreciate just wasn't strong. Most of the arguments were focused on if the DW was reilable. And what it seemed to mostly conclude is that it is hugely biased in its selection of what to cover, but wasn't wrong on the facts too often. Not reliable, but not something we need to say no to across the board. Hobit (talk) 21:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Given a brief read of the close and discussion, it looks like a no consensus result which would default to the source keeping its "generally unreliable" classification. The minority opposed to deprecation is substantial and well reasoned, relying on how reliable sources characterize the Daily Wire and their practice of publishing corrections and retractions. That's legitimate cause to not deprecate, and the supporters aren't so numerous that it shows the opposition can be ignored and overruled. While I don't agree with SMarshall's method of bean counting, I don't see any way that I could read that discussion and find consensus to deprecate. The number stuff isn't in the actual close so I don't see any reason to overturn it in favor of someone else's. — Wug·a·po·des 22:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Endorse close - disclaimer, I participated and argued again deprecation. This looked like a good close in my view. Both sides pointed to RSs to support their claims and both sides made valid claims with regards to the general reliability of the source. As mentioned above there isn't a clear standard as to when to deprecate (this is perhaps a big part of the issue here). Regardless, based only on arguments there isn't a consensus since both sides have made a reasonable case as to how reliable/not reliable the DW is. By the numbers we are right around 60% in favor of deprecation with 19 oppose and either 27 or 29 depending on how we count two of the editors who were not explicit. Additionally, since closing we have I think 2 editors who have said they would have opposed deprecation. I don't read that as a sufficient difference in numbers to call it consensus based on numbers alone. Thus we have neither a clear consensus based on numbers nor reasoning. Any specific extra weighting S Marshall applies doesn't appear to have changed the outcome and such weighting isn't without precedent. How many of us would give equal weight to a brand new IP editor saying, "Support!" vs a seasoned editor with a good reputation who offers some level of explanation? If anything this discussion should perhaps point to the need to better define how and when deprecation should be used so when this sort of thing comes up in the future we can argue for/against based on a specific list of criteria. Springee (talk) 13:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: TFD !voted twice (#1 on 29 September, #2 on 5 October) in the RfC. It would help to know if S Marshall factored this in. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks: You're right and I didn't spot it. I ought to have done, and if users here want to overturn my close on that basis then I could not reasonably object. Revising my assessment to take that into account makes the discussion a very close call indeed -- I think that if I subtract TFD's second !vote, then "consensus to deprecate" or "no consensus" would both have been within closer's discretion. I would not criticise a closer who went for either one. I personally would still have gone for "no consensus" on the basis that where there's discretion, I tend to prefer the outcome that's least restrictive. In the circumstances it's right for me to ping endorsing users Selfstudier, Wugapodes, Barkeep49, Springee and Colin M in case they want to re-consider their endorsements.—S Marshall T/C 17:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding S Marshall. Courtesy ping for Springee, as I'm fairly sure a new line addition is a requirement for pings to work. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thank for the ping. I wouldn't change my endorsement. Depending on how we count, by numbers alone it's 29:18 (62%) but that is assuming two of the less than clear !votes are for deprecate. If we remove those then we have 27:18 (60%). If we add the two editors who didn't respond to the initial RfC but voiced their objections after the fact we have either 29:20 (59%) or 27:20 (57%). Taking away one "no" !vote shifts a few percentage in the direction of deprecation but it doesn't change the quality of the arguments presented by either side. By pure numbers alone I still don't see this as anything but a no-consensus or a case where we need to use strength of argument would be needed to tip the balance. I think most people here feel the strength of argument is no-consensus as well. Springee (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks: You're right and I didn't spot it. I ought to have done, and if users here want to overturn my close on that basis then I could not reasonably object. Revising my assessment to take that into account makes the discussion a very close call indeed -- I think that if I subtract TFD's second !vote, then "consensus to deprecate" or "no consensus" would both have been within closer's discretion. I would not criticise a closer who went for either one. I personally would still have gone for "no consensus" on the basis that where there's discretion, I tend to prefer the outcome that's least restrictive. In the circumstances it's right for me to ping endorsing users Selfstudier, Wugapodes, Barkeep49, Springee and Colin M in case they want to re-consider their endorsements.—S Marshall T/C 17:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Overturn I believe the closer had a good faith reason to think that the community had not come to a rough consensus regarding deprecation, but I think it's pretty clear from the arguments in the RfC that a consensus had been achieved to deprecate the source. We don't need unanimity, and I think a proper closure following a thorough evaluation of the arguments being made would end with the same conclusion. Specifically, I
believe the closure was not a reasonable summation of the discussion
. To be clear, I did !vote in this discussion, so I am not uninvolved. AlexEng(TALK) 19:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC) - I concur that this feels like a close call to me. There is a variety of arguments with some unsettled disagreement on many, the deprecate side has a slight numerical advantage but I'd be hesitant in seeing a consensus to deprecate here. I think that spelling out that this RfC does not imply that this source is fine to use is reasonable. Nobody is complaining about obvious supervotes or involved closes or anything and I don't see any obvious indication, either. So endorse. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Endorse the close that I paraphrase as “No consensus to relabel from Generally unreliable to Deprecated”.
- Generally unreliable could mean unreliable for anything interest and needing citation. The meaning of “deprecated” was question. Does it mean “always unreliable” and worthy of blacklisting? The way forward is to write a follow up RFC with a better question. Use at least three people to agree on the question to be out. Wait at least two months before launch. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
RfA 2021 Phase 2[edit]
Following a discussion with over 100 editors, 8 issues were identified with Requests for Adminship (RfA). Phase 2 has begun and will use the following timeline:
- 10/24: Editors may submit proposals for changing/modifying RfA
- 10/31: The 30 day discussion period has begun (where we are)
- 11/7: Deadline for submitting proposals to give the community adequate time to discuss any proposals
- 11/30: 30 day discussion period ends
All interested editors are invited to participate in Phase 2. Thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
WP:PERM#Rollback backlog[edit]
Please any admin would sort out the request pendings. It would be better because some are continuously requesting other admin's talk page about consideration of request, regardless of their patience. --Jyoti Roy (talk) 12:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – November 2021[edit]
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2021).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.
Technical news
- Toolhub is a catalogue of tools which can be used on Wikimedia wikis. It is at https://toolhub.wikimedia.org/.
Arbitration
- GeneralNotability, Mz7 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections. Ivanvector and John M Wolfson are reserve commissioners.
- Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves to stand in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections from 07 November 2021 until 16 November 2021.
Miscellaneous
- The 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of five new CheckUsers and two new Oversighters.
Being able to create an article on a subject that was locked by an admin 9 years ago?[edit]
Hello, and I hope I am in the right place with this question. I recently saw some news coverage about the news resource Benzinga [23] and I thought that I could make an article out of it. However, I noticed that some silly people ran amok 9 years ago and wound up getting the subject locked indefinitely by an admin [24]. I would ask the admin who locked the subject for help, but he has been absent from Wikipedia from more than a year, and I wondered if I could get this unlocked so I can add a new article that meets Wikipedia's standards. Thank you. And Adoil Descended (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- I suggest you create in draft using the WP:AFC process. GiantSnowman 17:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, thank you very much. I will do that right now. And Adoil Descended (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Deletion request[edit]
Hello. Could somebody please delete User:Tol/Template/TolBot tasks/tasks.json under speedy deletion criterion U1? I'm coming here because I've used Twinkle to tag it twice, but (because it's a JSON page) the tag was placed on the talk page (with a note to delete the content page), and both times, only the talk page was deleted, despite my note to please delete the JSON page (the second time, I even made it large, red, and bold). Thanks. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Please create a 𒁹𒀭𒌍𒋾𒀀𒅆 redirect to Sîn-lēqi-unninni[edit]
𒁹𒀭𒌍𒋾𒀀𒅆 deserves a redirect to Sîn-lēqi-unninni just like Ὅμηρος. LoveToLondon (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Finally, someone will solve my problem of accidentally searching things in cuneiform...--Ermenrich (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Mm, I know redirects are cheap and all, but the characters in this proposed redirect are so obscure that they are disallowed by the title blacklist. I don't really see a compelling need to give a special exemption for this relatively obscure topic. Mz7 (talk) 00:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- "Relatively obscure topic"? Let's not be so anti-Sumeric. Levivich 01:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- The real value in +sysop: making all those Linear A redirects I've been wanting to add. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- "Relatively obscure topic"? Let's not be so anti-Sumeric. Levivich 01:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Mm, I know redirects are cheap and all, but the characters in this proposed redirect are so obscure that they are disallowed by the title blacklist. I don't really see a compelling need to give a special exemption for this relatively obscure topic. Mz7 (talk) 00:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Due process — Request to close this discussion properly (archived without formal closure)[edit]
I'd like to ask the administrators to close out my "TBAN Request for the lifting of sanctions" request, it was archived the other day without the due process. At this point, I believe it can be formally closed as there was sufficient input over the past 3 weeks. The original discussion, which was not closed but simply archived is linked here: [25] --E-960 (talk) 06:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)