Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Block review archived without closing: that's it, I guess. |
Global ban proposal notification |
||
| Line 746: | Line 746: | ||
* I've placed an FAQ [[User:Valereee|—valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 11:56, 14 November 2020 (UTC) |
* I've placed an FAQ [[User:Valereee|—valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 11:56, 14 November 2020 (UTC) |
||
{{abot}} |
{{abot}} |
||
== Global ban proposal for Kubura == |
|||
Hello. This is to notify the community that there is an ongoing global ban proposal for [[User:Kubura]] who has been active on this wiki. You are invited to participate at [[m:Request for comment/Global ban for Kubura]]. Thank you. [[User:Blablubbs|Blablubbs]] <sup>([[User talk:Blablubbs|talk]] • [[Special:Contribs/Blablubbs|contribs]])</sup> 21:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 21:29, 14 November 2020
| Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators. |
|---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) |
Open tasks
| V | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 19 | 20 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 8 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 20 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
- 1 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 3 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 0 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 2 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 119 sockpuppet investigations
- 12 Candidates for speedy deletion
- 2 Fully protected edit requests
- 8 Candidates for history merging
- 2 requests for RD1 redaction
- 56 elapsed requested moves
- 6 Pages at move review
- 16 requested closures
- 64 requests for unblock
- 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
- 27 Copyright problems
Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection
Theresa Greenfield
- Draft:Theresa Greenfield
- Theresa Greenfield
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theresa Greenfield - redirected to 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa
- Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 June 4#Theresa Greenfield - endorsed
- Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 June 15#Theresa Greenfield - no consensus to overturn
- Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 July 11#Theresa Greenfield - no consensus to overturn
This article has had a rough history. It was nominated for deletion and redirected back in May this year, citing notability concerns. The deletion result was challenged at deletion review three times, as noted above. Meanwhile the article was recreated in place (in good faith) by several editors before the redirect was protected by Muboshgu in June. It was then created as a draft in July, which was submitted to AfC and has been declined three times by two reviewers (Robert McClenon and Bkissin). The draft was significantly reworked since the last decline in August and a third reviewer (UnitedStatesian) decided to accept the draft and made a request at RFPP to unprotect the redirect, which is how I came across the situation.
I declined to unprotect yesterday, suggesting that the draft should pass review first and not realizing that UnitedStatesian's request was an attempt to do so, and because they had already asked Muboshgu and they declined, so I said it should be reviewed one more time. In the midst of that one of the draft's editors pinged Robert McClenon, who again said that he would not accept. While discussing that on the draft's talk page and still not realizing that UnitedStatesian was an AfC reviewer trying to accept, I suggested someone else should review (since Robert McClenon had reviewed twice, or three times if you count the comment today, and was clearly becoming frustrated). Two things happened then more or less simultaneously: UnitedStatesian made a new unprotection request at RFPP explicitly stating they were accepting the draft, and Bkissin chimed in on the talk page that they also would not accept. It's currently marked as "under review".
So basically I've dug this hole as deep as I'd like it to go, and would like someone who hasn't already been involved in this to go get a ladder. Everyone's actions here have been in good faith, but we're clearly stuck. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- I am uninvolved, and I do not see any issue. If the article is significantly different from the deleted version (which I have not checked yet) it must be restored (unprotected and moved from the draft); if there are users who doubt notability they can nominate it for AfD. This is how consensus is supposed to work.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Ymblanter, it's in the AFC process, and has been declined a few times. It's under review again now. If it's approved, then you are indeed correct. But what if the draft is declined? Should we move it to mainspace regardless of the AFC review? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- I am the reviewer, and I have made the third WP:RPP request, at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Theresa Greenfield, precisely so I can accept the draft. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- UnitedStatesian, is this a good idea? You've been quite vocal about wanting this to be published. I would hope the AFC review was done by someone uninvolved in this process. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- My only involvement has been in the review: only edit to the draft was adding {{draft article}} to it, no participation in the AfD or DRVs. Of course, the review has required discussion on lots of different pages, as is occasionally the case, so I guess that makes me vocal. That said, as in all cases, if my review is stopped by community consensus that continued page protection is warranted, there are plenty of other drafts that need reviewing and I will of course move on to them. UnitedStatesian (talk)
- UnitedStatesian, is this a good idea? You've been quite vocal about wanting this to be published. I would hope the AFC review was done by someone uninvolved in this process. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- I am the reviewer, and I have made the third WP:RPP request, at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Theresa Greenfield, precisely so I can accept the draft. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- I know that in a situation like this, some editors will say that the answer is clear. I think I see at least two questions where policies and guidelines are not clear, and where perhaps they should be clarified.
- The first question is the role of Deletion Review. The redirect has been salted to enforce a Deletion-like decision. The question is: Should it simply be unsalted in response to a request at Requests for Page Unprotection, or should there be a (fourth) appeal to Deletion Review. The instructions for Deletion Review say that it considers situations where the circumstances have changed since the deletion; but some of the DRV regulars get annoyed at such requests and say just to go through AFC without going to DRV.
- The second question has to do with the interaction between political notability and general notability. It is usually the rule, including at AFD, that political candidates who do not meet political notability are also not considered to meet general notability solely on the basis of their campaign. This is such a case. Greenfield was not generally notable before she began running for the US Senate. So is this an exceptional case where she is generally notable based solely on her campaign? Questions of general notability are decided at AFD. Since this draft is currently in AFC, the instructions for the AFC reviewers are that a draft should be accepted if it is thought that there is a better than 50% chance of surviving AFD.
- A third question, which is not one of unclear policies and guidelines, is whether the reviewer is neutral.
- Those, in my opinion, are three questions that are applicable. I am finished reviewing, but I am not finished expressing an opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- The notability question can be decided only by community discussion, and the only applicable mechanism we currently have is AfD. The article has failed AfD and DRs, and therefore should not be reinstated - unless there are significant changes which can make it notable, or unless it has been significantly changes with new sources added so that notability can be reasonably considered on basis of these sources, which have not been presented to AfD. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, the only relevant question is whether significant enough sources have been added as compared with the AfD. If yes, the article should be accepted, and a new AfD can be opened. If not, AfD should not be accepted (with the understanding that if she makes it to the Senate in a month, the draft immediately gets moved to the main space - but this is irrelevant for the current discussion).--Ymblanter (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Since the old version was redirected, not deleted, the history is visible, and any editor, not just an administrator, can see the version at the time the AfD closed: it is here, with 5 references. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Ymblanter, I see what you're saying, but I find it kind of ridiculously bureaucratic to accept the article just to nominate it for deletion again. At the same time I imagine the best we'd get from another deletion review is relisting the original AfD, which isn't much better neither in terms of bureaucracy nor in terms of moving forward. For what it's worth, this is the article prior to the deletion discussion, versus the current draft (diff, probably not terribly useful). You can see that the draft is expanded substantially from the deleted/redirected article, but does any of the added info address the notability concern? There was a strong sense in the AfD that US Senate candidates are not inherently notable, but do the 62 sources in the draft suggest she is an exception to that general rule? If the only way we can answer that is through a second AfD then I guess that's where we go from here. Can we simply create a new deletion discussion or relist the original and refer to the draft, rather than doing all the work of moving it around? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, indeed, my point is that some community discussion should happen somewhere at some point. It should not be happening here, here at AN at best we can have consensus of random admins whether it is time for that discussion to happen, but we can not seriously be discussing whether Theresa Greenfield is notable. We can only discuss whether enough sources have been added for the article to reasonably stand a chance at AfD. It superficially looks to me that we are ready for this community discussion, though at this point I do not see consensus. But it should not depend on a decision of one person who decides to remove or not to remove protection of a redirect. Administrators do not have any particular say in the content area, and the further process should not depend on whether a user accepting AfC is administrator or not. Concerning the process itself, a new AfD seems to me much better than MfD (for the reasons explained below) and reopening the May AfD (well, if the article is essentially the same, one AfD is enough, and if it is different the old arguments are not relevant anymore), but I am open to better solutions.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- The notability question can be decided only by community discussion, and the only applicable mechanism we currently have is AfD. The article has failed AfD and DRs, and therefore should not be reinstated - unless there are significant changes which can make it notable, or unless it has been significantly changes with new sources added so that notability can be reasonably considered on basis of these sources, which have not been presented to AfD. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, the only relevant question is whether significant enough sources have been added as compared with the AfD. If yes, the article should be accepted, and a new AfD can be opened. If not, AfD should not be accepted (with the understanding that if she makes it to the Senate in a month, the draft immediately gets moved to the main space - but this is irrelevant for the current discussion).--Ymblanter (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Ymblanter, it's in the AFC process, and has been declined a few times. It's under review again now. If it's approved, then you are indeed correct. But what if the draft is declined? Should we move it to mainspace regardless of the AFC review? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
For consistency, perhaps we should treat this the same as Draft:Rishi Kumar, another "local" candidate for a Federal office whose article name redirects to a similar place as Theresa Greenfield. The deletion discussion, as well as AFC comments, determined that the article should reside in draft space until after the election. The same should be applied here. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- The current draft for Greenfield's article lists significantly more coverage in both regional and national newspapers than Kumar's draft. To support analysis (because the current draft lists a somewhat daunting number of sources, some of which are fairly minor), I pulled out a list of ten example sources that contribute to notability at Draft talk:Theresa Greenfield#Greenfield draft status, and I added a couple more here: Draft talk:Theresa Greenfield#Two additional sources. To me, this kind of discussion supports Ymblanter and Ivanvector's points that we need to figure the right way to get to an AfD -- I believe that a better venue for a robust and organized discussion about notability thresholds would be AfD. I believe that even though it'd be a bit bureaucratic to create the article just for somebody to nominate it for AfD, it'd at least be a logical process. Dreamyshade (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- There's always Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, which is where Draft:Rishi Kumar was discussed. I have doubts that this candidate was notable before becoming this candidate, and I am concerned that the existing coverage is nothing more than routine for any federal-office candidate. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see the relevance of MFD. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the draft should be deleted. Draftifying the article until after the election is a possible outcome of an AFD. I don't see the relevance of MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- There's always Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, which is where Draft:Rishi Kumar was discussed. I have doubts that this candidate was notable before becoming this candidate, and I am concerned that the existing coverage is nothing more than routine for any federal-office candidate. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
FWIW, if I saw this Draft article in mainspace I would AfD it. Lots and lots of sources, but zero coverage of her outside of her political candidacy. Obviously, should she win the election... Black Kite (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I just took a brief foray into the draft and right off the bat removed some citations that seemed to have no point other than to make the reflist look impressive. Such articles, if they appear in mainspace, tend to get moved immediately to draft space. There it should stay until the reflist is cleaned up. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- I am involved in the sense that my wife and I have donated to Greenfield's Senate campaign (and about a dozen similar campaigns) recently. But I do not support accepting this draft before the election. We have quite a few years of precedent that we do not accept biographies of otherwise non-notable unelected political candidates, but instead cover these people in neutral articles about the election campaign. In this case, the redirect to 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa is correct. I think that the description of Greenfield in that article could be expanded in the interim. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'll add, as an administrator, that I am not comfortable unprotecting the main space title so the draft can be moved there. I am not getting the sense that the other three admins in this discussion (User:Ivanvector, User:Muboshgu, and User:Cullen) are comfortable with that either. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- What about User:Ymblanter? UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'll add, as an administrator, that I am not comfortable unprotecting the main space title so the draft can be moved there. I am not getting the sense that the other three admins in this discussion (User:Ivanvector, User:Muboshgu, and User:Cullen) are comfortable with that either. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
collapse tangential thread
|
|---|
|
- This is not nearly as complicated as you are making it out to be. You come across an unprotection request, you check whether you would WP:G4 the draft if it were in mainspace. If you would, you decline to unprotect. If you would not, you unprotect. If you don't know, leave the request alone. If everyone leaves it alone, the filer will start a discussion somewhere to achieve a consensus that admins will be comfortable acting on. It is irrelevant how many admins would AFD it or !vote delete. There is no set>=n, where n is the number of admins that can dictate without a need for community consensus whether or not a topic deserves an article. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Let me emphasise: if you would not G4 the draft as soon as it got to mainspace but would require an AFD, you have no authority to stop an editor who has the ability to accept drafts from doing so. G4 is more or less an objective measure. You just have to read the AFD and compare the two articles. Everything else is irrelevant. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- This is related to a concern I've expressed earlier in this process: WP:PROTECT describes protection as being appropriate when there is "a specifically identified likelihood of damage resulting if editing is left open". I haven't seen any threat of edit warring or other damage here -- everyone involved in this discussion has been acting in good faith, being civil, and making efforts to interpret WP:GNG and WP:NPOL in constructive ways for an encyclopedia. The draft article can definitely be improved further, but we don't have a requirement for articles to be excellent before they get created. I don't see a policy basis for using full protection in this way. Dreamyshade (talk) 04:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- The redirect was repeatedly expanded into full article contra AFD consensus between the AFD and the full protection. So, that's the threat. WP:SALT, which is policy, says in its first sentence, that admins can prevent creation of pages. That is what this full protection does. It keeps the redirect (which doesn't have consensus to delete, and also doesn't need to be edited anyway) and stops the full article from being created. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- This is related to a concern I've expressed earlier in this process: WP:PROTECT describes protection as being appropriate when there is "a specifically identified likelihood of damage resulting if editing is left open". I haven't seen any threat of edit warring or other damage here -- everyone involved in this discussion has been acting in good faith, being civil, and making efforts to interpret WP:GNG and WP:NPOL in constructive ways for an encyclopedia. The draft article can definitely be improved further, but we don't have a requirement for articles to be excellent before they get created. I don't see a policy basis for using full protection in this way. Dreamyshade (talk) 04:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see how one AfC reviewer gets to overrule the numerous prior discussions on this. The consensus in the AfD was that the subject isn't independently notable as an unelected candidate for office and should be covered in the article about the election. This is a very common outcome. The issue was taken to DRV three times, each time by someone who had found more news sources which cover her in the context of the election, and each time the discussion declined to reinstate the article. The draft which we now have still doesn't attempt to address this fundamental problem. Yes, there are plenty of news articles, but that's because competitive senate elections always generate news coverage. Essentially all the sources cited still cover her in the context of the election. I suggest we wait until the election, which is just over a month away. If she wins then she will be unambiguously notable, if she loses then I suspect the fuss will die down. Hut 8.5 07:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- This is probably the best outcome we can now come up with.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see "competitive senate elections always generate news coverage" as a counter-argument by itself for WP:GNG - a campaign like this generates significant news coverage because it's "worthy of notice" to a lot of people, because it's important and of interest to a lot of people. I believe a person primarily covered in the context of an election can still meet the notability standards, especially if there's a lot of national reporting and in-depth reporting over a couple years or more. The question to me is whether the current draft Greenfield is there, and AN still doesn't seem to be the right venue for that -- there are a lot of comments here that are essentially AfD-style comments, without being at AfD (including mine). Dreamyshade (talk) 22:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- One key point I feel that I should note is that AfC reviewers don't (and aren't supposed to) act off a "guaranteed to be notable" standard. Instead, if something is likely to pass, we should accept it, and then let the Community review it. Likewise, unprotection requests should work off that basis. Now whether people think it should wait until after the election, I discourage that, but it's viable as a second choice. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- I will restate a few policy and procedure issues that I think are touched on by this case:
Here are three issues that are involved in the question about Theresa Greenfield:
- Should candidates for politically notable offices be considered to meet general notability on the basis of significant coverage of the campaign, if the candidate was not previously considered notable? It has in general been the practice of Wikipedia that candidates are not considered to satisfy general notability on the basis of election coverage, and therefore do not qualify for articles before the election if they did not have them before the campaign. This question arises frequently, and it would be a good idea either to address it on a general basis or to decide that it is always addressed on a case-by-case basis.
- When should a single AFC reviewer be allowed to accept a draft if the same title was previously deleted by AFD? When should Deletion Review be required? The instructions for DRV say that DRV can review deletions when the circumstances have changed, such as new sources or new activities. However, the DRV regulars normally tell applicants not to go to DRV but simply to submit the new draft for review.
- When should a single AFC reviewer be allowed to request that a title be unsalted if the same title was previously create-protected? This question is related to the above, but is not the same.
Robert McClenon (talk) 23:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- *Gets up on soapbox* I think Wikipedia is grossly irresponsible in our election coverage for the role we play in promoting incumbents over challengers. We should have some level of information about candidates for people seeking information about an election. This doesn't need to be done through a full article but could happen through reasonable coverage in an election article. The incumbent will still get a full article as opposed to say a paragraph (or two, maybe three) but our readers deserve to know more about Greenfield than
Theresa Greenfield, businesswoman, candidate for Iowa's 3rd congressional district in 2018
which is what we're saying now.*Gets off soapbox*Why do we create protect articles (SALT)? Because repeated discussions are a drain on the community's time and attention. DRV has said three times that this isn't ready for mainspace. Robert is right that DRV also frequently says "don't bother us go to AfC or just recreate it" but that's after substantially new information or reasonable time has passed. Neither is true in this case. I am all for consensus changing but repeating the same discussion regularly is a form of disruption. This salting should hold. I am thankful that I got the chance to levy one of my biggest systemic criticism of our content in a public forum but other than that don't think repeated discussions are helpful. Waiting until after the election is not so cop-out or thwarting of our process. It is being respectful of the time, energy, thought, and collaboration that has already occurred about this topic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC) - The rule should be that challengers who receive significant national or international coverage (that is, non-local coverage, or coverage outside of the area where they are running) are notable enough for a page. Greenfield would meet that test (most general election US Senate candidates would), but not every candidate for every office would. Lev!vich 01:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- I have some thoughts about this. If we were looking at an open seat, with both candidates not previously having held elected office, we would not advantage any incumbent. Furthermore, the idea that we are giving an advantage to the incumbent because they have an article disregards to an extent the possibility that their article itself may prove less-than-flattering (as people with opposing views often try to insert as much negativity as they can, while those with supporting views try to keep that sort of thing out). We have articles for all U.S. Senators because that is a reasonable barometer of notability, given the power and influence they wield. This includes articles for senators who or elected for a single term and did not run for re-election, so incumbency over an opponent was never an issue at all. We can't treat articles on U.S. senators any differently based on their possibly being challenged by somebody who does not fall into any other bucket for notability. That said, I do think there is inherent notability in a major party nominee for a U.S. Senate seat garnering national attention due to their perceived possibility of winning that seat (or, sometimes, due to other behaviour in the course of the campaign). This, of course, raises a question that has not yet been addressed, which is whether we should then create articles generally on historical losing major-party U.S. Senate candidates who garnered such attention during their candidacy. This is a discussion perhaps best left until the current silly season passes. If we do enact such a standard in the future, than Theresa Greenfield will merit an article at that point even if she has lost her Senate bid. BD2412 T 03:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- A problem with this suggestion is the phrase "major party candidate," which inserts a bit of political favoritism into which candidates may receive articles, and does not account for the fact that the relative strength of a party (or its nominee) varies from state to State. Even if we defer to the political jurisdictions themselves of who is a major party nominee, the Legal Marijuana Now Party is a major party in the State of Minnesota and I don't think that its nominee is notable. --Enos733 (talk) 04:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Major party candidate here is basically shorthand for someone coming from a political party that is able to provide the resources to make a U.S. Senate race competitive, which is what leads to the national press coverage of the subject. BD2412 T 15:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- A problem with this suggestion is the phrase "major party candidate," which inserts a bit of political favoritism into which candidates may receive articles, and does not account for the fact that the relative strength of a party (or its nominee) varies from state to State. Even if we defer to the political jurisdictions themselves of who is a major party nominee, the Legal Marijuana Now Party is a major party in the State of Minnesota and I don't think that its nominee is notable. --Enos733 (talk) 04:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Let me throw these two things into the existing discussion. A 2019 Centralized Discussion on candidate notability was closed with No Consensus, so this is an issue that we have been contending with for years now. Additionally, a candidate not having an article is not shutting out that candidate. In the United States context, we have articles for each state's congressional and state elections. Information about the candidate can easily be added there without creating a separate article. In Parliamentary contexts (Canada more specifically), we have created list articles with basic information about a party's candidates. How many of these losing candidates pass the ten year test in terms of their long-term relevance? Bkissin (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- This is trivial. Does the topic meet the GNG? Yes? Have article. We don't expect coverage of baseball players outside of baseball, why does anyone expect coverage of a politician outside of politics? Hobit (talk) 01:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- What he said. The existing policy to routinely reject articles on as-yet unelected politicians seems absurd to me. If a person gets coverage, I don't care who they friggin' are, or what the context is, if they get stuff like national coverage, then my God shouldn't we have an article on them? Why do politicians get assigned a different standard than other people? You pass GNG, you get an article. End of discussion. You don't pass GNG but you do pass a subject-specific guideline, boom, you get an article. That's how it works for everything else on Wikipedia. That is exactly how it should work for politicians. Anything else is following a rule because it's a rule. WP:IAR is a POLICY! A loose necktie (talk) 02:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Just to respond to the above comment from an WP:AFC perspective (and not as a response to this particular draft), we tend to view such things like "running for a political office" as akin to WP:BLP1E; i.e. if the only coverage of a person is because they ran/are running for office, then they could have dozens of references but it's all about the same event (and is somewhat reflected in WP:NPOL). A notable example I can think of is from earlier this year, where there was a trans politician who (if they won) would have been the first trans politician from somewhere like Maine (or the USA, can't honestly remember); they didn't even make it past the primaries, so despite the relatively large body of coverage the article was deleted ("they ran for office that one time" isn't something that makes notability). You might think we hold this ridiculous standard for aspiring politicians, but we have tons of special exemptions (going in both directions) to either raise up "hidden" groups like educators or keep the veritable flood of bit-playing actors or potential-politicians who never get elected from having one-paragraph permastubs. Primefac (talk) 09:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- I would agree in the case of a candidate who runs once, but after the first time there is a point when they become a perennial candidate, maybe hoping to eventually reach Lyndon LaRouche-level. 2020 is this candidate's second campaign (as is referenced in the draft via significant coverage in reliable sources). Separately, the reference above to the WP:10Y test above is interesting, since there was a Senate election in this same state exactly 10 years ago, and guess what, we have an article on the losing candidate. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- UnitedStatesian, the two cases are not comparable. Roxanne Conlin was a U.S. Attorney confirmed by the Senate, and was also the first woman president of the American Trial Lawyers Association. She is notable for those reasons. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Of those two reasons, neither has an inline cite to an independent source. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- UnitedStatesian, the two cases are not comparable. Roxanne Conlin was a U.S. Attorney confirmed by the Senate, and was also the first woman president of the American Trial Lawyers Association. She is notable for those reasons. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- And how many articles do we have on football players, who all qualify for standalone permastub articles based on subject specific guidelines and whose articles will never, ever be expanded in 10 or even 100 years but also never, ever be deleted, while wringing our hands over allowing people to create articles on as-yet unelected political candidates with ample national coverage and lots of published information, whom we disqualify from having articles because "we just don't do that"? If we cared about permastubs, we'd address it in other contexts. We don't. And we could all stop caring about the politicians if we just followed our own policies regarding what makes a subject notable, and stop applying different rulers to different topics as a means to delete or remove articles on those subjects— I'm all for using them to include, since that is how they were meant to be used. Think of the headaches that wouldn't have to happen! Of the discussions we wouldn't have to waste time on! Like this one! Yay! A loose necktie (talk) 17:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
And how many articles do we have on football players
Usually best not to compare the sphere of interest here to one of the known problem children of the notability guidelines. --Izno (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- "We don't expect coverage of baseball players outside of baseball, why does anyone expect coverage of a politician outside of politics?" Unless and until she is elected she hasn't done anything in politics. She's basically stood up and said "please, please, please let me do something in politics, I would really appreciate it, I have such great ideas", but she's done zip. Giving her an article is not the same as giving a baseball player an article for playing baseball, it's the equivalent of giving anybody who ever wanted to be a baseball player an article. --Khajidha (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- What he said. The existing policy to routinely reject articles on as-yet unelected politicians seems absurd to me. If a person gets coverage, I don't care who they friggin' are, or what the context is, if they get stuff like national coverage, then my God shouldn't we have an article on them? Why do politicians get assigned a different standard than other people? You pass GNG, you get an article. End of discussion. You don't pass GNG but you do pass a subject-specific guideline, boom, you get an article. That's how it works for everything else on Wikipedia. That is exactly how it should work for politicians. Anything else is following a rule because it's a rule. WP:IAR is a POLICY! A loose necktie (talk) 02:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Notified: Draft talk:Theresa Greenfield. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 18:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- This is a good discussion, and I have to get up on my own soapbox here and echo Barkeep49's grand concern above that we're generally irresponsible in our election coverage, but for me it's in the opposite direction of Barkeep's argument. We cover elections in far too much detail. We're supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a newspaper: we're supposed to write basically academic summaries of things that already exist or have already happened, after all the discussion is had (so we're not the ones having it; WP:OR, WP:NOTESSAY) and when things aren't constantly changing, based on reliable sources that review those subjects in retrospect, not as they happen. We're incredibly poor at providing balanced coverage of anything that is ongoing because we're not set up to be objective to current events. We should not write about elections at all until the ballots are counted, in my ideal world, and certainly not while the propaganda machines are in full swing. Maybe this gripe is neither here nor there with respect to this discussion, but since it was brought up now you all get to enjoy my opinion. (/soapbox) There are a lot of quality arguments here on what our guidelines should be, and those are good discussions to have, but there's pretty clearly not a consensus here to restore the article or to do anything with the protection. I think Cullen328's advice to expand her content in the Senate election article is the way forward. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- I agree we cover many ongoing events in more coverage than an encyclopedia strictly would. In an abstract sense the idea of saying "we're not going to cover something until X months/years after it happens" makes sense to me given NOTNEWS/the first pillar. However, that's only in the abstract sense; I can't imagine if we had only begun covering COVID or if we couldn't reference someone's death because not enough time had elapsed. If we're going to start drawing lines about where we need to be careful about covering ongoing events the idea that we're covering elections too much seems like a strange place to start drawing that line. Our articles on elections are poor and serve our readers poorly - they become lists of endorsements and other things that fit nicely in tables rather than prose. But the fact that we do a poor job of it now isn't to say we're over covering it; it's to say we should do a better job of covering them with-in our encyclopedic mission. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- For most topics, a deletion review is final. On this particular matter, we've had several successive deletion reviews and now we've got an appeal to the administrator's noticeboard. As this is purely a content decision, it's simply not open to administrators to overrule DRV here. I suggest that this is closed without result and referred back to DRV.—S Marshall T/C 01:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'll just say it again: there can be no dispute as to if this meets the GNG. And the SNG says: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." We have a huge number of high-quality sources that cover her in massive detail. So from a guideline viewpoint, this is open-and-shut. The problem is that people are trying to create a new SNG and even though they have failed to do so, somehow we still pretend like that SNG exists and has consensus. It's a bit maddening frankly. Hobit (talk) 13:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- You missed a bit: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article --Khajidha (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Certainly. And we'd done things like not have articles on things like "Donald Trump's hands" on that basis. But a person with this much coverage? I can't think of any such case. The GNG is a bit more clear "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." This is clearly way over the bar of the GNG. And yes, we can merge articles still for organizational reasons. But AfD doesn't normally address *that*. The simple fact is, this person easily meets every relevant guideline we have for inclusion. Her case is not unusual. If we don't want articles like hers, there should be consensus that can be found for the general case. But no such consensus exists. Hobit (talk) 16:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Reading that draft, I don't see anything that I would call "significant". She exists. She has a family. She has run for office. But she hasn't really DONE anything, so there's nothing to say about her. --Khajidha (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Erb? First of all, that's not part of our inclusion guidelines. We have articles on people who are only famous for being famous. Secondly, she's done a ton. In the last hour there is reporting on an FEC filing against her [1]. In the last 12 hours there is a story on her leading in the polls against the incumbent [2]. She's been campaigning and the news folks think that is important enough to report on [3]. She was in a debate covered and broadcast by national news [4]. I doubt that 5% of our subjects have done as much. Probably not even done as much as she has in the last 7 days. Hobit (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Still nothing there besides "hey, this lady's running for election". --Khajidha (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- A) Most soccer players are just "hey, this guy plays soccer". Most academics are "Hey this guy is an academic". And she has tons more coverage, include deep bios etc., than the vast majority of either of those. B) who cares? That isn't even vaguely part of our inclusion guidelines. She meets WP:N with more coverage than 90%+ of our bios. You are far into WP:IAR territory. Hobit (talk) 12:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- The difference is the soccer player actually plays and the academic has earned a degree or published a work. Giving her an article is the equivalent of giving an article to anyone who walks into team tryouts or applies to a university for admission.--Khajidha (talk) 03:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm guessing you don't understand US senate elections? It takes a lot of work to become a senate candidate in a competitive race. To maintain the sports analogy, it means you've made it to the playoffs, but might not win the championship. We cover even athletes that have never won a championship. Now it *is* tricky because in some non-competitive races for lesser offices it is pretty much someone just applying. But that certainly isn't the case here. Hobit (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, I understand them and I'm not saying that running an election campaign is easy. But the entire campaign is still just the equivalent of trying out for a team or applying for admission to a university. It's still just "I wanna do something" and not "I'm doing something". --Khajidha (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- And that's not an inclusion criteria in any policy or guideline. Perfectly reasonable WP:IAR viewpoint, but not based in any of our rules. Hobit (talk) 12:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- It's the perfectly obvious reading of the policy. 1) No source establishes notability outside of the election and 2) the coverage of her campaign is simply routine coverage of an election, not enough to establish her notability. --Khajidha (talk) 14:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- And that's not an inclusion criteria in any policy or guideline. Perfectly reasonable WP:IAR viewpoint, but not based in any of our rules. Hobit (talk) 12:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, I understand them and I'm not saying that running an election campaign is easy. But the entire campaign is still just the equivalent of trying out for a team or applying for admission to a university. It's still just "I wanna do something" and not "I'm doing something". --Khajidha (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm guessing you don't understand US senate elections? It takes a lot of work to become a senate candidate in a competitive race. To maintain the sports analogy, it means you've made it to the playoffs, but might not win the championship. We cover even athletes that have never won a championship. Now it *is* tricky because in some non-competitive races for lesser offices it is pretty much someone just applying. But that certainly isn't the case here. Hobit (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- The difference is the soccer player actually plays and the academic has earned a degree or published a work. Giving her an article is the equivalent of giving an article to anyone who walks into team tryouts or applies to a university for admission.--Khajidha (talk) 03:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- A) Most soccer players are just "hey, this guy plays soccer". Most academics are "Hey this guy is an academic". And she has tons more coverage, include deep bios etc., than the vast majority of either of those. B) who cares? That isn't even vaguely part of our inclusion guidelines. She meets WP:N with more coverage than 90%+ of our bios. You are far into WP:IAR territory. Hobit (talk) 12:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Still nothing there besides "hey, this lady's running for election". --Khajidha (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Erb? First of all, that's not part of our inclusion guidelines. We have articles on people who are only famous for being famous. Secondly, she's done a ton. In the last hour there is reporting on an FEC filing against her [1]. In the last 12 hours there is a story on her leading in the polls against the incumbent [2]. She's been campaigning and the news folks think that is important enough to report on [3]. She was in a debate covered and broadcast by national news [4]. I doubt that 5% of our subjects have done as much. Probably not even done as much as she has in the last 7 days. Hobit (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Reading that draft, I don't see anything that I would call "significant". She exists. She has a family. She has run for office. But she hasn't really DONE anything, so there's nothing to say about her. --Khajidha (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Certainly. And we'd done things like not have articles on things like "Donald Trump's hands" on that basis. But a person with this much coverage? I can't think of any such case. The GNG is a bit more clear "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." This is clearly way over the bar of the GNG. And yes, we can merge articles still for organizational reasons. But AfD doesn't normally address *that*. The simple fact is, this person easily meets every relevant guideline we have for inclusion. Her case is not unusual. If we don't want articles like hers, there should be consensus that can be found for the general case. But no such consensus exists. Hobit (talk) 16:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- You missed a bit: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article --Khajidha (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- My apologies for what I am sure are going to be some formatting errors, but I have not extensively used my Wikipedia editing permissions over the years. I was recently shocked to discover that Theresa Greenfield does not have a Wikipedia page; and not only that, but "Theresa Greenfield (American Politician)" is an article that's been created and deleted several times, and "Theresa Greenfield" redirects to a section of the article about the Iowan Senate Race (and that section isn't particularly about Greenfield), while her opponent has a very robust article. This back-and-forth appears to have been going on since this spring, and the election is just over two weeks away. I'm honestly surprised that this discussion largely seems to be circling around notability. Nearly all of the highest level legislative change or stability in the United States comes from the governing power of the US Senate. Having been controlled by one major political party for many years; but with numerous Congressional seats up for election, and many polls showing potential political shifts, there is a chance for another political party to take control of the Senate, with the implications of immense changes in US policy, both domestic and abroad. Only a very few number of US States have the chance to alter their representative political party in the Senate, and Greenfield is the incumbent's opponent in the "swing state" of Iowa. As a Greenfield victory could alter the political makeup of the US Senate, the leading legislative body of one of the most internationally-influential countries in the world, her political career is very notable. There are very, very many news sources - on the local, state, and national levels - citing her campaign; which, as an example, just raised a record amount of money for a Iowan running for US Congress. I've always thought of Wikipedia as a place for unbiased information - the Encyclopedia of the internet - and as authors, editors, & admins - it would seem that we have the opportunity to "balance out the objectivity" with her State's incumbent's article. I realize this is adding some real-world context to a platform that should be neutral of current events, but voters in Iowa started receiving their ballots last week, and the election closes in just over two weeks. They are trying to make their most critical political decision right now, and an objective, unbiased article on this candidate is an immensely important resource. If they currently search Wikipedia, and see the incumbent's robust article and no article for Theresa Greenfield, that is a potential strong influence on their decision-making. Please reconsider unlocking ("un-salting?") this article ASAP so that we can populate it with objective, practical, widely-covered information. Charlie918 (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- "As a Greenfield victory could alter the political makeup of the US Senate, the leading legislative body of one of the most internationally-influential countries in the world, her political career is very notable. " Nope. Her career will only be notable if she wins. "If they currently search Wikipedia, and see the incumbent's robust article and no article for Theresa Greenfield, that is a potential strong influence on their decision-making. " Why would you go to an encyclopedia for this? This is something that newspapers and voter's organizations and such are much better designed for. --Khajidha (talk) 17:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Well I'm afraid there are Wikipedia precedents that are counter to your argument of not being noteworthy until being elected to office. Tommy Tuberville is the nominated Senate seat challenger in Alabama, and has never held public office. He has in fact been the head of several organizations, as has Greenfield. John E. James is the nominated Senate seat challenger in Michigan. He has never held public office, and therefore his only notable accomplishments on his Wikipedia page are that he served in the military and worked for a company. With the nearly daily news articles between city, state, and national news outlets about Theresa Greenfield for the past month, I can't see why these two yet-to-win political candidates are cleanly permitted to have Wikipedia articles, but one of the nominees in one of the most critical "swing states" - a multi-business owner and setting a political fundraising record for the state - would not be notable. This sincerely might just be my misunderstanding of what constitutes 'notability' on Wikipedia. Charlie918 (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Charlie918, Tommy Tuberville is notable for his college football career. James' article may not survive an AfD. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument to make. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Muboshgu, then this is most likely simply a teachable moment for me, and there's probably a well-written explanation somewhere that I just can't seem to locate. For a Wikipedia article about a person, what constitutes "notability?" If I do a Google search for "Theresa Greenfield," there are virtually limitless articles from various print, digital, and televised news outlets about her going back months, nearly daily since her televised debate, with her name in the headline. There are even more articles significantly about her where her name isn't necessarily in the headline (e.g. "SCOTUS battle crashes into decisive Senate race in Iowa," Politico, James Arkin, September 30, 2020). Is the sheer volume of content created specifically about an individual by news outlets not a consideration in determining someone's notability? If not, what is? Honestly thank you for any insights, this is the first time I've been involved in a blocked article discussion. Charlie918 (talk) 03:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Charlie918, apologies if I assumed that you are better versed with Wiki policy than you are. The main notability guideline is WP:GNG, and the specific notability guideline for politicians is at WP:NPOL. The presence of citations alone is not enough as the context needs to be considered. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Muboshgu, many thanks for these links, this is precisely what I had been looking for. My next inquiry may require further source citation. Under the politician-specific guidelines you shared WP:NPOL, it reads, "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline" WP:GNG. In that first page, it is my interpretation that as the final one of two candidates to represent the entire state of Iowa in the American senate, Greenfield passes the "Major local political figures," and while I've previously noted she has significant press coverage, "who have received significant press coverage." In looking at the General Guidelines you linked, there appear to be five qualifiers: (1) Significant Coverage - there are virtually countless articles, hours of taped interview footage, social media, and more that cover Greenfield's political campaign, personal life, and career. (2/3) Reliable Sources - there are many, many articles and news TV segments from city, state, and national outlets covering Theresa Greenfield, so my assumption is that these qualify as reliable sources. (4) Independent of the Subject - these news articles were not produced by Theresa Greenfield. (5) Presumed - this of course seems to imply that even if a subject meets all the criteria, a more in depth discussion may need to occur for the subject to receive an article. Reviewing most of the comments in here over the last five months, it would appear that the majority of these comments seem to support having the article. If the question remains about notability, I wonder if this context is appropriate to apply: The United States government is is one of the most internationally-influential governing bodies in modern times. Within that government, the United States Senate - made up of two representatives from each of the 50 States - is arguably the most powerful, able to enact laws, impeach a president, make treaties, and more. In America's two-party system, simple majority of the Senate means that party will be able to enact their agenda for 2-4 years, and block the agenda of the other party, and thus significantly determine the country's global and domestic policies. In America's current election, there is a chance for the Senate to change party power, with many Senate seats up for election. Based on the political affiliation of the various states' populations, most of these elections are insignificant - people will vote for their party, and their Senate representatives will remain of the same political party. However, there are just five state elections that are qualified as a "toss up," which means due to the near-balanced political affiliations of their residents, determined through a combination of the national census and polling, it cannot be confidently forecasted which political party will win the state. Theresa Greenfield is the Democratic candidate in one of those five states. If the American Democratic party does in fact take control of the Senate in this election, the international and domestic policy changes - including enacting impeachment proceedings for the current president if he remains in power - would be significant, affecting - in various ways and degrees - billions of people around the world. Given this context, and the objective criteria thresholds of Wikipedia, it is my belief that Theresa Greenfield is notable, and should be permitted to have her own Wikipedia page now, not after her potential electoral victory. Thank you for your discussion and patience. Charlie918 (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- How much of that coverage is about her per se and how much is about the election? Consensus on Wikipedia has always been that people who are otherwise not notable do not gain notability just by running for office. That's why this article has been redirected to the election article and that outcome has been endorsed multiple times. Unless and until that consensus changes (and this is not the place to argue that, per User:Spartaz's post below), there is no point in continuing this argument here. --Khajidha (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Khajidha In preparing a draft article on my desktop before learning about the controversial history of this Wikipedia article, I have 21 articles saved in Word with Theresa Greenfield's name in the headline just from the last two weeks. The subject matter is a mixture of reviewing her professional career (as it relates to her qualifications for the role), her efforts and notable events of her campaign, and her personal background (education, family, organizational memberships, etc.). Several lines up, Muboshgu, who made the original redirect and lock - to my understanding - made the case that because Wikipedia articles currently exist about campaigning politicians who are otherwise non-notable is not a considerable precedent in determining if a page about Theresa Greenfield should be permitted; then your reverse argument, that "Wikipedia's consensus is that articles about political candidates who are otherwise not notable should not be published," would seem irrelevant. If a precedent is not to be considered, and only the objective notoriety rules of Wikipedia are to be weighed, then Theresa Greenfield would appear to qualify by those rules. Charlie918 (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- How much of that coverage is about her per se and how much is about the election? Consensus on Wikipedia has always been that people who are otherwise not notable do not gain notability just by running for office. That's why this article has been redirected to the election article and that outcome has been endorsed multiple times. Unless and until that consensus changes (and this is not the place to argue that, per User:Spartaz's post below), there is no point in continuing this argument here. --Khajidha (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Muboshgu, many thanks for these links, this is precisely what I had been looking for. My next inquiry may require further source citation. Under the politician-specific guidelines you shared WP:NPOL, it reads, "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline" WP:GNG. In that first page, it is my interpretation that as the final one of two candidates to represent the entire state of Iowa in the American senate, Greenfield passes the "Major local political figures," and while I've previously noted she has significant press coverage, "who have received significant press coverage." In looking at the General Guidelines you linked, there appear to be five qualifiers: (1) Significant Coverage - there are virtually countless articles, hours of taped interview footage, social media, and more that cover Greenfield's political campaign, personal life, and career. (2/3) Reliable Sources - there are many, many articles and news TV segments from city, state, and national outlets covering Theresa Greenfield, so my assumption is that these qualify as reliable sources. (4) Independent of the Subject - these news articles were not produced by Theresa Greenfield. (5) Presumed - this of course seems to imply that even if a subject meets all the criteria, a more in depth discussion may need to occur for the subject to receive an article. Reviewing most of the comments in here over the last five months, it would appear that the majority of these comments seem to support having the article. If the question remains about notability, I wonder if this context is appropriate to apply: The United States government is is one of the most internationally-influential governing bodies in modern times. Within that government, the United States Senate - made up of two representatives from each of the 50 States - is arguably the most powerful, able to enact laws, impeach a president, make treaties, and more. In America's two-party system, simple majority of the Senate means that party will be able to enact their agenda for 2-4 years, and block the agenda of the other party, and thus significantly determine the country's global and domestic policies. In America's current election, there is a chance for the Senate to change party power, with many Senate seats up for election. Based on the political affiliation of the various states' populations, most of these elections are insignificant - people will vote for their party, and their Senate representatives will remain of the same political party. However, there are just five state elections that are qualified as a "toss up," which means due to the near-balanced political affiliations of their residents, determined through a combination of the national census and polling, it cannot be confidently forecasted which political party will win the state. Theresa Greenfield is the Democratic candidate in one of those five states. If the American Democratic party does in fact take control of the Senate in this election, the international and domestic policy changes - including enacting impeachment proceedings for the current president if he remains in power - would be significant, affecting - in various ways and degrees - billions of people around the world. Given this context, and the objective criteria thresholds of Wikipedia, it is my belief that Theresa Greenfield is notable, and should be permitted to have her own Wikipedia page now, not after her potential electoral victory. Thank you for your discussion and patience. Charlie918 (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Charlie918, apologies if I assumed that you are better versed with Wiki policy than you are. The main notability guideline is WP:GNG, and the specific notability guideline for politicians is at WP:NPOL. The presence of citations alone is not enough as the context needs to be considered. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Muboshgu, then this is most likely simply a teachable moment for me, and there's probably a well-written explanation somewhere that I just can't seem to locate. For a Wikipedia article about a person, what constitutes "notability?" If I do a Google search for "Theresa Greenfield," there are virtually limitless articles from various print, digital, and televised news outlets about her going back months, nearly daily since her televised debate, with her name in the headline. There are even more articles significantly about her where her name isn't necessarily in the headline (e.g. "SCOTUS battle crashes into decisive Senate race in Iowa," Politico, James Arkin, September 30, 2020). Is the sheer volume of content created specifically about an individual by news outlets not a consideration in determining someone's notability? If not, what is? Honestly thank you for any insights, this is the first time I've been involved in a blocked article discussion. Charlie918 (talk) 03:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Charlie918, Tommy Tuberville is notable for his college football career. James' article may not survive an AfD. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument to make. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Well I'm afraid there are Wikipedia precedents that are counter to your argument of not being noteworthy until being elected to office. Tommy Tuberville is the nominated Senate seat challenger in Alabama, and has never held public office. He has in fact been the head of several organizations, as has Greenfield. John E. James is the nominated Senate seat challenger in Michigan. He has never held public office, and therefore his only notable accomplishments on his Wikipedia page are that he served in the military and worked for a company. With the nearly daily news articles between city, state, and national news outlets about Theresa Greenfield for the past month, I can't see why these two yet-to-win political candidates are cleanly permitted to have Wikipedia articles, but one of the nominees in one of the most critical "swing states" - a multi-business owner and setting a political fundraising record for the state - would not be notable. This sincerely might just be my misunderstanding of what constitutes 'notability' on Wikipedia. Charlie918 (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- "As a Greenfield victory could alter the political makeup of the US Senate, the leading legislative body of one of the most internationally-influential countries in the world, her political career is very notable. " Nope. Her career will only be notable if she wins. "If they currently search Wikipedia, and see the incumbent's robust article and no article for Theresa Greenfield, that is a potential strong influence on their decision-making. " Why would you go to an encyclopedia for this? This is something that newspapers and voter's organizations and such are much better designed for. --Khajidha (talk) 17:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
First of all, I have to cop to not having read all the links, so if this has been stated already, my apologies. While on the one hand it rankles that she doesn't have a page, on the other, I get the Notability issue, and I'm a believer in the policy. Still, I remember the AOC situation, and in retrospect, that was a blunder on our part. But if we obey N, where is the blunder? Well, either in the fact that "being a candidate doess not ipso facto make you notable" (for which this is not the right venue, WT:N is, so let's set that one aside right now) or else, we're not taking the right approach.
What about this? We have here, in my opinion, a WP:BIO1E event; Greenfield *is* notable (or rather, the one event is), but not before she was a candidate. Therefore, what? Same thing as for Sandra Bland [noredirect] ⟶ Death of Sandra Bland; so we create Senate candidacy of Theresa Greenfield. Anyone here want to declare that this is definitely not notable? I bet I could drown you in sources for that. Then, Theresa Greenfield gets pointed to that. If she loses, and never does another thing in her life, that will be her obituary. Am I missing something? Mathglot (talk) 02:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa is the article for the "one event" in question. --Khajidha (talk) 03:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- That's a related topic for sure, but not quite the identical topic, and not a BIO1E, but rather a recurring event whose article title could be generated by computer. If that article were entitled, 2020 Ernst-Greenfield Senate election you might have a point, but it still wouldn't be the same topic. Mathglot (talk) 04:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- This is an entirely pointless discussion because this is essentially a content dispute where the policy, precedent and weight of several discussions is not to have an article. This whole thread is simply extended special pleading and asking the other parent. If you think the page should exist then your quest starts at WT POLITICIAN and I wish you good luck with that. Spartaz Humbug! 05:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- I believe this is a quite productive discussion, because it points out that there is no clear and accepted community consensus or clear written guideline for the notability of prominent candidates for high-level office who receive substantial, reliable, independent coverage over time (including significant national coverage). There are a lot of experienced editors here with one interpretation of the guidelines, and a lot of experienced editors with a different interpretation. And this discussion is very diffuse, over several talk pages -- there's also more at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Changing NPOL to include at least some more nominees. Dreamyshade (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- The US election is in a couple weeks? She was deleted because she's only notable for being a candidate, right? Why can't we just keep this deleted, wait to see if she wins, and then have a new discussion after the election? This happens all the time, specifically with US elections, and then once the candidate has officially lost most or all resistance to keeping the article goes away, especially if you give it a couple years. SportingFlyer T·C 12:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- If the person passes GNG and there is no WP:BIO1E issue as pointed out above (the article was deleted at AfD before she received in-depth coverage), there is no proper reason to ban this article no matter how close or far an election is. Oakshade (talk) 06:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Two points:
- Is there an article for every other currently running candidate in every election for US Senate/House seat that is up for grabs this election? (I am assuming we have articles on the incumbents office holders)? If we have them on nearly all of them and hers is an an exception, that's a problem that we should fix. If hers is but many that we do not have, then I fail to see where the problem is. The arguments that show her lack of notability (just running for election is not showing depth of coverage about her directly) have been well presented.
- If we move her article to mainspace, it cannot look like a political ad. The draft presently looks like this with the section on her platform. Her platform can be discussed but it needs to be presented far less as a political position and more neutrality along with any criticism of it. Ideally, the platform should be part of the election article, and only her key policies that she has stood being and discussed at length should be on her bio page. --Masem (t) 14:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Redirect
While this article is in limbo can we at least get the redirect pointed to 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa#Democratic primary so users can easily find the three paragraphs on the candidate there? There's no named section for her so at present it represents a navigational challenge. Artw (talk) 02:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Right now due to the confusion around this article there’s a half dozen venues I could make this request, if this isn’t the right one feel free to point me at the right one, but it seems like an easy move to make Wikipedia slightly less broken in this case rather than fully broken. Artw (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Artw, I've just made the change. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Cheers. Artw (talk) 04:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Artw, I've just made the change. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
IAR
Allow me to quote from black-letter written Wikipedia policy: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." WP:IAR.
In this case, we have this long tortured discussion about particular paths around purely procedural matters, which is preventing the movement of a perfectly valid draft (I'm not saying a perfect article by any means - a valid draft) about someone who is clearly notable as evidenced by literally thousands of high quality third party reliable sources. If a particular set of rules which work in ordinary circumstances have brought us to this absurd state of affairs, that's ok: one of the oldest and most important rules of Wikipedia exists to save us.
If Wikipedia, due to some procedural rules, doesn't have an article on the clear frontrunner in a US Senate race, then it is the rules that are preventing people from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. IAR tells us what to do: ignore those rules. This is policy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Note that User:Francis Schonken made a NAC closure of this discussion[5] and moved the draft to Theresa Greenfield (politician), while Theresa Greenfield is a fully protected redirect. Apart from other considerations (e.g. that IAR doesn't trump consensus, and a close should judge the consensus here instead of misusing IAR as a supervote), this technical issue, forcing Francis Schonken to create a disambiguated page to circumvent the full protection shows wby this shouldn't have been closed and enacted by a non-admin. Fram (talk) 08:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- The "A" in IAR stands for "All" – so I wasn't too selective in which rules I was ignoring and which ones I wasn't (...but there certainly was more than one I was ignoring, although I certainly must have been still very far from ignoring each and every rule this namespace holds). For the record, I was in the midst of filing a WP:RM#Uncontroversial technical requests to get the content to the right place (didn't want to leave the article in a place with an unnecessary disambiguator in its title), but stopped typing that request now. I'd like to invite Fram, or whoever reads this, to do a better proposal for triggering prompt reaction to get this sorted in the shortest delay of time possible. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- An "uncontroversial technical request" to get a fully protected page unprotected so you can get a declined AfC submission, the topic of a lengthy discussion at WP:AN, at your preferred result? That would me a rather severe misuse of the term "uncontroversial"... The better way would be to propose a closure here, get a consensus for it, and then let people implement the close. If there is no consensus to be found, then we are stuck with the status quo. Fram (talk) 08:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- The "A" in the abbreviation of the name of the IAR policy still seems to trip you over. Yes, IAR would usually mean ignoring multiple rules. Anyhow, closure request logged at WP:ANRFC#Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Theresa Greenfield. Thanks for that suggestion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm not claiming that you wouldn't be ignoring all rules when you would post a highly controversial move at the "uncontroversial moves" requests. I'm just pointing out that it would be a doomed effort which would only boomerang against you, as it would be very swiftly rejected and would reflect badly on you in discussions about your actions. WP:IAR doesn't, contrary to what you seem to imply, mean "edits used with this rationale can't be criticized or lead to admin actions against me". Fram (talk) 10:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I understand that. Thanks for reminding. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm not claiming that you wouldn't be ignoring all rules when you would post a highly controversial move at the "uncontroversial moves" requests. I'm just pointing out that it would be a doomed effort which would only boomerang against you, as it would be very swiftly rejected and would reflect badly on you in discussions about your actions. WP:IAR doesn't, contrary to what you seem to imply, mean "edits used with this rationale can't be criticized or lead to admin actions against me". Fram (talk) 10:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- The "A" in the abbreviation of the name of the IAR policy still seems to trip you over. Yes, IAR would usually mean ignoring multiple rules. Anyhow, closure request logged at WP:ANRFC#Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Theresa Greenfield. Thanks for that suggestion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- An "uncontroversial technical request" to get a fully protected page unprotected so you can get a declined AfC submission, the topic of a lengthy discussion at WP:AN, at your preferred result? That would me a rather severe misuse of the term "uncontroversial"... The better way would be to propose a closure here, get a consensus for it, and then let people implement the close. If there is no consensus to be found, then we are stuck with the status quo. Fram (talk) 08:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
While I appreciate Jimbo's concerns, I feel I have to point out the last time an admin "took initiative" and IARed like this, they got desysopped. Specifically, I agree with his talk page comment "I would personally WP:IAR and move the draft into article space, but I believe doing so would simply generate unhelpful press coverage of an unfortunately disappointing failure of the slow grinding wheels of our policies." - or indeed, reams of pages on here and possibly Arbcom from everyone who disagrees. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm with Jimbo on this one. Let's not make the Donna Strickland and Clarice Phelps mistakes yet again. Lev!vich 14:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm with Ritchie on this one. It's all well and good for Jimbo to say "IAR!" from his high perch, but regular editors who use that as a reason to bypass a consensus discussion are going to face harsh criticism for their actions, if not winding up blocked. If Jimbo thinks this is good enough reason, let him do it & deal with the fallout. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- There was an overwhelming community consensus at wp:AN, and an obvious conclusion. She slam-dunk met WP:GNG many times over and per wp:notability that means we need look no further regarding wp:notability. Egalitarianism aside, something that comes from Jimbo has extra weight, and even that was just to expedite (and read the community consensus from a different place wp:AN) what was inevitable, and which had strong community consensus. North8000 (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Towards closure
For reference, the previous discussions: AfD from May, DRVs June 4 (endorse), June 15 ("There is substantial and well-argued support for the idea that we should have an article rather than a redirect here; but it falls short of a consensus to overturn"), and July 11 ("I don't see a consensus to overturn here"). Draft AfC rationales here.
Both sides have been thoroughly argued here and elsewhere. I note this to make clear that even though this particular section of the discussion has been open for less than a day, closing it at this time is justified. There is clearly a time sensitivity here, due to the widespread attention that this matter is receiving.
The key argument in support is that the subject is now notable, due to the press coverage received in the last several months. The key arguments in opposition are that the subject is not notable, either directly citing WP:NPOL or stating that she is "only running for office", and that WP:AN is not the correct venue to decide this matter.
The current draft lists 67 sources, the vast majority of which relate to the present election. Reading through this discussion and the discussion on the draft, the majority view is that they are sufficient to pass WP:GNG. I don't see a need to quote specific arguments here, they have been repeated many times below.
On WP:NPOL, it is undisputed that Greenfield fails to meet either of the
presumed to be notablecriteria. However, many users note that the same section continues:Just being...an unelected candidate for political office does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline.As to forum, it isn't clear what the correct venue would be. WP:DRV could be appropriate, but so is WP:AFC. A recent AfC reviewer noted that
no AfC reviewer can accept this or any future version of this draft unless [an administrator unprotects Theresa Greenfield]. Since non-admin AfC reviewers are unable to accept this draft (even if they believe it should be accepted, as at least one previous reviewer has stated in this discussion), this requires administrative attention.Consensus is that the subject does meet the GNG. NPOL defers to the GNG in the case of unelected candidates. Consensus can change, and clearly it has changed since the AfD nearly five months ago. The move protection should be lifted, and the draft version of Theresa Greenfield should be accepted. The administrator responsible for the original protection has offered to implement this, so I'll allow them to do so.
If users believe that the current version of the article is still unsuitable, then the normal process would be to nominate it at WP:AFD.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Current state of play:
- The current article is at Draft:Theresa Greenfield (in the last few hours it was moved to Theresa Greenfield (politician) and then moved back).
- The AfD was closed as redirect to 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa#Democratic primary on 31 May 2020 (with three deletion reviews).
- Theresa Greenfield is the redirect per above, and was fully protected on 15 June 2020.
It seems Draft:Theresa Greenfield should be moved to Theresa Greenfield after unprotecting the latter. Let's come to a quick decision—I don't see any reason the unprotection and move should not happen now. Johnuniq (talk) 08:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support Johnuniq's suggestion as to how to end this without further delay. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support Given the current state of the election race, the notability concerns from earlier this year are clearly obsolete. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support per the above and per this comment. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support per the above.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 10:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support and also encourage us to think this over afterwards to figure out how this slipped through the cracks to end in such an odd place.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- It's not slipped through the cracks. We have a number of editors who really really think that nominees for elected office, no matter how well covered, shouldn't have an article if that's the only reason they are covered. This has been a long (long) running debate. Hobit (talk) 19:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support per Jimbo. I always wanted to be able to write that. And per my previous contributions to this discussion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose The subject is non notable aside from running for office and even less notable than Kara Eastman.--MONGO (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support per the lengthy comments above. Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per User:MONGO. IAR would only apply if this actually improved Wikipedia. It does not. --Khajidha (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Oppose There is a process for determining the suitablility of articles. That process is not AN. That process has, multiple times, determined that Theresa Greenfield isn't notable, and should not have an article. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- "Theresa Greenfield isn't notable, and should not have an article\" - not exactly the most convincing argument in an AfD I've ever seen, is it? That's why I specifically quoted DGG, who is one of the more sensible admins at AfD, even if I don't always agree with him. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- That's because I'm not making an AfD argument, but instead stating the consensus of the previous AfDs and DRVs. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Noting that AN is one of the places that folks have proposed for DRV outcomes to be appealed ([6]). So this would appear to be as in-process as we get when appealing a DRV result. Hobit (talk) 20:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- That's because I'm not making an AfD argument, but instead stating the consensus of the previous AfDs and DRVs. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- "Theresa Greenfield isn't notable, and should not have an article\" - not exactly the most convincing argument in an AfD I've ever seen, is it? That's why I specifically quoted DGG, who is one of the more sensible admins at AfD, even if I don't always agree with him. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support per above. This has gone on long enough. --Brad Patrick (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. It seems that JW himself is not really sure of the chances of the challenger to be elected at the beginning of the next month. Moreover, it seems that some contributors think that being the focus of some buzz, here at en:wp, will help her winning the race. But, four years later, the pages buzz (part 1) and buzz (part 2) are rather appearing as a pitiful (and failed) attempt to twist the fate. And that, despite their resp. 778 and 2297 references. But, yes, if she is elected, I would probably try to locate Iowa on a map, at least more precisely than "somewhere between Canada and Mexico". Pldx1 (talk) 13:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Consensus has been built previously in the year using long-standing guidelines around notability. Compromises have been attempted (redirect to the election page, incubate the page in draftspace, etc.) but have been largely ignored by a group of editors who have brought this topic up in a number of fora hoping to get the answer they want. I don't see why people can't wait two weeks before moving forward. Throwing out well-established guidelines because you don't like the outcome is sad. Bkissin (talk) 13:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Look at the dates on most of the refs, dude. This is a moving target. "I don't see why people can't wait two weeks before moving forward" - because it will expose WP to complaints about political bias, perhaps? Possibly these will be justified. Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- It's a moving target that will settle down on 4 Nov. Cabayi (talk) 14:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- LOL, Wikipedia is always facing allegations of political bias by people who don't like what they read or don't get their way. Look at the current issues surrounding the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict! To be fair (and insulate ourselves from further claims of bias, we have ruled the same thing in AfD regardless of the candidate or party. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Parnell (Pennsylvania politician), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel T. Lewis, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quinn Nystrom, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Ronchetti and several others from this campaign season alone! But hey, until we determine a new policy on the topic (which given the last attempt, doesn't seem to be able to reach consensus) then I look forward to discussing this with you all in 2024. Bkissin (talk) 15:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- People also scream political bias at the DM/Fox/NYP reliability RfC results. Didn't stop anyone then (not that I disagree with the results, but point remains). "Complaints of political bias" should never be an argument. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Look at the dates on most of the refs, dude. This is a moving target. "I don't see why people can't wait two weeks before moving forward" - because it will expose WP to complaints about political bias, perhaps? Possibly these will be justified. Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support I think back in May and June this article was debatable in terms of notability, but in the last month has received far and above sufficient media attention, not just to the race but to the individual to warrant the article. If that somehow changes, opponents can always bring it back to AfD.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 14:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support Yes, there were previous versions of this article that were reasonable to delete a few months ago, but Greenfield's coverage has massively increased and is sufficient to pass WP:GNG, and this draft is sufficient for mainspace. Dreamyshade (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - I agree with Pppery that this isn't the forum for this decision. It's a decision for the community, not for admins.
- That said, on the basis of WP:NPOL and WP:NOHURRY, Theresa Greenfield (& all other unelected candidates whose notability was first noted after nomination) should remain redirected to 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa (& their respective election articles) until after the election. Doing otherwise dips into WP:ADVOCACY & WP:PROMO and there's nothing in WP:POLOUTCOMES to suggest any other action. Let's see if Greenfield is still notable on 4 Nov.
- As Jimbo said, we need to consider how we ended in such an odd place - a rethink of WP:NPOL in respect of candidates would resolve that, but it's probably best to wait til the Supreme Court has decided the election before getting into that. (Note:I fell down this rabbit hole with Kevin Stitt in 2018 with this AFD. It would be good to see some clear resolution to the questions this time round.) Cabayi (talk) 14:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think you are touching on the right thing. In the U.S., a major party candidate for the U.S. Senate is not the same as a non-partisan local dog catcher. Sufficient reliable sources and media coverage of a party candidate (post-primary, at that) is significant. The candidacy within the context of the article on the election itself is one thing; now that WP is considered a relevant source for information about the election by millions, it should not get wrapped up in this on a repeated basis. It is a clear statement of notability, in this context, that a person is a major party candidate running for one of 100 of the most powerful elected positions in the United States. This should, by definition, satisfy notability requirements. The additional sauce in this instance is that she's _very_ competitive. [7] --Brad Patrick (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)\
- now that WP is considered a relevant source for information about the election by millions Just because people think they can get election information here does not make it our purpose to do that. It is absolutely the wrong place for WP to be serving as an election hub for any country. We'll happily report the results of an election as encyclopedic topic information, but we're not in any type of position to be able to talk about fair coverage of all political candidates and issues on a global basis to make it appropriate to work coverage of political candidates from that angle. It is extremely appropriate to judge any political candidate's article through the eyes of an advocacy concern and make sure that the article is more than just a soapbox for the candidate, which appears to be part of the problem with how Greenfield's article has been presented through its iterations. --Masem (t) 16:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think you are touching on the right thing. In the U.S., a major party candidate for the U.S. Senate is not the same as a non-partisan local dog catcher. Sufficient reliable sources and media coverage of a party candidate (post-primary, at that) is significant. The candidacy within the context of the article on the election itself is one thing; now that WP is considered a relevant source for information about the election by millions, it should not get wrapped up in this on a repeated basis. It is a clear statement of notability, in this context, that a person is a major party candidate running for one of 100 of the most powerful elected positions in the United States. This should, by definition, satisfy notability requirements. The additional sauce in this instance is that she's _very_ competitive. [7] --Brad Patrick (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)\
- Support - it's not throwing out any rules. The topic meets all the policies and the guideline WP:N. In my view the argument that such a candidate should not have her own page is farcical, particularly when compared to the other things we give a page to. This website, this community, has a rule that all schools are notable, all train stations are notable, we have articles about bagel shops and pro wrestlers and porn stars and pizzerias, but not a major US senate candidate? Come on. Don't forget our mission is to share knowledge. Let's not pretend this isn't a topic many people are interested in or that we can't write a policy-compliant article about it. Lev!vich 14:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- But we don't generally have articles about PROPOSED schools or train stations. Or PLANNED bagel shops and pizzerias. Or pro-wrestling TRAINEES. Or people who AUDITION for porn movies. Those are the counterparts to election candidates.--Khajidha (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- TG, a "proposed" Senator, is still more important/notable/worthy of a standalone page/whatever formulation we want to use, than like any high school ever built, or even the most famous porn star. More humans are interested in, and need, knowledge about TG than about any high school or porn star or Pokémon, and all but the most famous train stations. If we're not writing about topics like TG, then what the hell are we doing here? We have an article about every damn road in England. Lev!vich 14:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- "We have an article about every damn road in England" - No we don't, I keep finding new ones to write all the time. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, sure, and when you run out, you're going to clear new roads and write articles about them!
I look forward to reading about Ritchie Boulevard and Ritchie Lane... I hope you name at least one of them Levivich Way. Lev!vich 15:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, sure, and when you run out, you're going to clear new roads and write articles about them!
- Things that "are" are more encyclopedic than anything that "may be". In the only sense in which TG could be encyclopedic, she is just a "may be". --Khajidha (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thats where I disagree. Open a newspaper. She's not a maybe. She's already notable, win or lose. We have more secondary source material to summarize about TG than I dare say 90% of the pages we have on Wikipedia. It's only through contortions (here, the contortion of WP:NPOL) that one can claim she is not worth including in the encyclopedia unless she wins. There is no logic or data that leads to that conclusion. Lev!vich 15:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- She's a "may be" in the sense that she may be elected. --Khajidha (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm saying she is notable even if she may be elected. Her notability does not depend on her getting elected. The secondary source material won't disappear if she loses. If our job is to summarize the world's knowledge, we're not doing our job if we don't summarize the knowledge about TG. It's a hole in our coverage, regardless of the outcome of the election. Lev!vich 15:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I guess we have different ideas about what secondary sources about her means. Because 57 different ways of saying "this lady is running for election" don't impress me as notability. --Khajidha (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- If all the secondary sources said was that she was running, I'd agree with you. But of course they say much more than that. Lev!vich 16:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I've read the draft. Still looks like 57 ways of saying "she's running" to me. --Khajidha (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Well that's a mistake, judging the notability of a topic by the sources that are in the draft. WP:BEFORE and all that. Lev!vich 16:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Well then, what sources should I be looking at? What can you show me that is more than just either "she exists, she's been married twice, and she's a mom" and "she's running for office"? --Khajidha (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Well that's a mistake, judging the notability of a topic by the sources that are in the draft. WP:BEFORE and all that. Lev!vich 16:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I've read the draft. Still looks like 57 ways of saying "she's running" to me. --Khajidha (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- If all the secondary sources said was that she was running, I'd agree with you. But of course they say much more than that. Lev!vich 16:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I guess we have different ideas about what secondary sources about her means. Because 57 different ways of saying "this lady is running for election" don't impress me as notability. --Khajidha (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm saying she is notable even if she may be elected. Her notability does not depend on her getting elected. The secondary source material won't disappear if she loses. If our job is to summarize the world's knowledge, we're not doing our job if we don't summarize the knowledge about TG. It's a hole in our coverage, regardless of the outcome of the election. Lev!vich 15:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- She's a "may be" in the sense that she may be elected. --Khajidha (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thats where I disagree. Open a newspaper. She's not a maybe. She's already notable, win or lose. We have more secondary source material to summarize about TG than I dare say 90% of the pages we have on Wikipedia. It's only through contortions (here, the contortion of WP:NPOL) that one can claim she is not worth including in the encyclopedia unless she wins. There is no logic or data that leads to that conclusion. Lev!vich 15:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- "We have an article about every damn road in England" - No we don't, I keep finding new ones to write all the time. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- TG, a "proposed" Senator, is still more important/notable/worthy of a standalone page/whatever formulation we want to use, than like any high school ever built, or even the most famous porn star. More humans are interested in, and need, knowledge about TG than about any high school or porn star or Pokémon, and all but the most famous train stations. If we're not writing about topics like TG, then what the hell are we doing here? We have an article about every damn road in England. Lev!vich 14:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- But we don't generally have articles about PROPOSED schools or train stations. Or PLANNED bagel shops and pizzerias. Or pro-wrestling TRAINEES. Or people who AUDITION for porn movies. Those are the counterparts to election candidates.--Khajidha (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Wait, now you're moving the goalposts. Before you said 57 different ways of saying "this lady is running for election"
, now you're saying that and she's been married twice, and she's a mom
, and that second part is more than just "this lady is running for election"; in fact, "married twice" and "mom" sound to me like the kind of biographical details that one would find in WP:SIGCOV of a WP:BLP. So I'll tell you what: you set forth the definitive criteria for a source that "counts", and I'll tell you if I have any examples that meet that criteria. Lev!vich 17:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Biographical details fill out articles, they do not establish notability. You can give me all the sources you want that she has been married twice and has kids, but that tells me nothing about her notability. And I don't see anything in that second section beyond "this lady is running for election". Unless there's something super outstanding about her campaign, like collusion with foreign powers, all campaign coverage is just "she's running for office". --Khajidha (talk) 18:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- If your definition of "notable" is "elected", then she is not notable. But my definition is the one in WP:N (at least two GNG-satisfying sources), and that criteria is met. Lev!vich 18:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- No, my definition of "notable" is not "elected". But my definition of notable says that people who simply want to have a job, as opposed to those who have that job, are not notable just because they want it. An applicant to a university is not notable. An academic is. A person who does a walk-on tryout for a sports team is not notable. An active member of that team is. A candidate for senate is not notable just because they are running for senate. A senator is. --Khajidha (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Now that's a red herring. Nobody is arguing that she is notable just because she is running for senate. She is notable because she meets the criteria set forth at WP:N. Lev!vich 18:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- How, then? How is she notable? There is no coverage of her separate from this election. She was not notable before the election and just running for office does not make her notable now, no matter how many sources say that she is running for office. --Khajidha (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- What part of, "She is notable because she meets the criteria set forth at WP:N" is unclear? Again, if you define "notable" as "subject to coverage separate from the election" or "notable before the election" (or "notable if elected"), then she is not notable. But if you define "notable" as "two GNG-satisfying sources" (which WP:N does), then she is notable. Lev!vich 18:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I define notability as "subject to coverage separate from the election". --Khajidha (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Which is a different definition than the one that has consensus (WP:N), and one that we don't apply anywhere else. We wouldn't, for example, say that a senator/athlete/scientist is only notable if they are subject to coverage outside of their being a senator/athlete/scientist. Lev!vich 19:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Did you not see my point above? Being a candidate is not parallel to being a scientist or an athlete. It is parallel to applying to a college or trying out for a team. --Khajidha (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Which is a different definition than the one that has consensus (WP:N), and one that we don't apply anywhere else. We wouldn't, for example, say that a senator/athlete/scientist is only notable if they are subject to coverage outside of their being a senator/athlete/scientist. Lev!vich 19:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I define notability as "subject to coverage separate from the election". --Khajidha (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- What part of, "She is notable because she meets the criteria set forth at WP:N" is unclear? Again, if you define "notable" as "subject to coverage separate from the election" or "notable before the election" (or "notable if elected"), then she is not notable. But if you define "notable" as "two GNG-satisfying sources" (which WP:N does), then she is notable. Lev!vich 18:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- How, then? How is she notable? There is no coverage of her separate from this election. She was not notable before the election and just running for office does not make her notable now, no matter how many sources say that she is running for office. --Khajidha (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Now that's a red herring. Nobody is arguing that she is notable just because she is running for senate. She is notable because she meets the criteria set forth at WP:N. Lev!vich 18:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- No, my definition of "notable" is not "elected". But my definition of notable says that people who simply want to have a job, as opposed to those who have that job, are not notable just because they want it. An applicant to a university is not notable. An academic is. A person who does a walk-on tryout for a sports team is not notable. An active member of that team is. A candidate for senate is not notable just because they are running for senate. A senator is. --Khajidha (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- If your definition of "notable" is "elected", then she is not notable. But my definition is the one in WP:N (at least two GNG-satisfying sources), and that criteria is met. Lev!vich 18:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose as too soon. As with Draft:Rishi Kumar, another candidate who isn't notable outside the context of WP:1EVENT (this election), Theresa Greenfeeld has nothing more than routine coverage for a person running for national office. Wait until after the election; if she doesn't win, she wouldn't qualify for an article here, although her campaign might. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- WP:1EVENT supports having this page. It says,
If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.
Editors commonly cite 1EVENT to argue that people aren't notable for one event, but that's not what 1EVENT actually says; for significant persons in significant events, it says the very opposite. It's like making an argument based on the shortcut instead of the actual policy being linked to. We could call it argumentum ad shortcutae, perhaps? Lev!vich 17:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- WP:1EVENT supports having this page. It says,
- Support I wanted to close this. Maybe I'm not brave enough, maybe I just thought it would help to strengthen consensus instead. This is mostly "per Jimbo". The idea that someone could be elected to the United States Senate and not have a Wikipedia article is deeply embarrassing to me, and would constitute a high-profile failure on our part. I'm certainly sympathetic to those calling for clearer guidance on notability standards in these cases—we probably don't need articles on otherwise non-notable people if they're, say, the Republican candidate in Rhode Island, or the Democrat in Idaho. Sure, there are major party candidates who everyone knows will just lose by huge margins and that's all we'll hear from them, but it's abundantly clear that that is not the case with Greenfield. The earlier AfD was fine, if a bit on the zealous side, but circumstances have very much changed since. --BDD (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- "The idea that someone could be elected to the United States Senate and not have a Wikipedia article is deeply embarrassing to me, and would constitute a high-profile failure on our part." Why? To me, that is far from a failure on our part, it is a SUCCESS on the part of democracy. --Khajidha (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- It looks reactive, like our measures of notability are off, which I suppose is the case. It's one thing if there's a freak electoral result—Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was a list entry and only became a stub upon winning her primary—but a Greenfield win would not at all be a surprise. I'm not sure what you mean by such a case being a success for democracy. --BDD (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- The idea that someone who was not notable (and thus didn't have an article here) won, means that "nobodies" can win. And that's a good thing.--Khajidha (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- It looks reactive, like our measures of notability are off, which I suppose is the case. It's one thing if there's a freak electoral result—Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was a list entry and only became a stub upon winning her primary—but a Greenfield win would not at all be a surprise. I'm not sure what you mean by such a case being a success for democracy. --BDD (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- "The idea that someone could be elected to the United States Senate and not have a Wikipedia article is deeply embarrassing to me, and would constitute a high-profile failure on our part." Why? To me, that is far from a failure on our part, it is a SUCCESS on the part of democracy. --Khajidha (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Strong support per Levivich, Ritchie333, Future Perfect at Sunrise, BDD, Jimbo Wales, and others in previous discussions. We don't have a criteria that says someone must be notable outside of running for a political office, as Mongo and Khajidha are attempting to argue above. We do have WP:GNG, which supersedes WP:NPOL, and by that standard Greenfield overwhelmingly passes the bar for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." (There's also been a persistent misapplication of WP:1EVENT, which Levivich insightfully demonstrates above). Greenfield and/or her campaign may not have been notable months ago; I don't have a time machine. But all of us as Wikipedia editors need to be willing to revisit our assessments and preconceived notions as new sources emerge, and unfortunately several of us have not been able to do that. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Strong support. The candidate meets the GNG handily. NPOL itself acknowledges that unelected candidates for political office can be notable per the GNG. While I do personally believe NPOL should be changed so that candidates running in major elections are considered inherently notable, such a change would not be needed for Greenfield's article to be created as the GNG criteria are already met. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Strong support. Clearly way way way over the GNG. And WP:NPOL defers to the GNG. That said, the *venue* could be considered to be a problem. I'll leave notes at the DRV talk page. But yes, WP:AN has been one of the options when asking to overturn a DRV outcome (the other is DRV), so this isn't out of process per se. Hobit (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know. I guess Alvin Greene is some precedent but now that I actually read that article it feels like tabloid material and the thought occurs that we would be better off without it. Haukur (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support. It is absolutely absurd situation that byzantine procedural obfuscation prevent an article on a major party candidate in one of the most closely watched Senate contests. older ≠ wiser 19:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support per above. The draft certainly demonstrates significant coverage in reliable sources, exceeding WP:GNG by a mile. There has been so much poor judgment involving this article. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support per Jimbo, who I'm glad to see has talked some sense into the discussion. Greenfield is clearly notable, and it's embarrassing that it has come this far for the error to be rectified. -- Tavix (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support. BIO1E:
The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified.
None of the invocations of PROMO make sense to me; it is clearly in the public interest to know about these candidates. We may need to revisit the relationship between the GNG and the SNGs after the dust has settled. Enterprisey (talk!) 20:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC) - Question: What if she loses? The argument seems to be that people aren't notable for losing elections. So say we allow the article now, and she ends up losing the election. Is it then deleted all over again, orrr is it just edited to "Theresa Greenfield (born October 20, 1963) is a person who was the Democratic nominee for the 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa."? "Politician" would no longer really apply, and I don't know why the current lead says she's a businessperson at all, nevermind puts it first, she's not notable for it, and neither are the companies she serves as on the boards of, apparently. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see why it would matter. She meets the GNG by a mile. I think people ignore the fact that the GNG doesn't require you to be notable for anything in particular, just covered by reliable, independent, secondary sources. Hobit (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- If you are a political candidate, you are a politician whether you win or lose because you are "one engaged in politics"—you just aren't a "politician" by wikt:politician definition 2 (or what some would call a "career politician"). -- Tavix (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support and do it FAST IAR is not needed for the end result but use it if necessary just to speed up the procedures on this embarrassing situation. And it's no reflection on past actions on this article; everyone was just trying to handle it properly. North8000 (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Please do not make content decisions on the administrator's noticeboard: that's really inappropriate.—S Marshall T/C 21:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Oppose Wanted to sneak this in before closure. She can be adequately covered on the election page - if she loses, she won't have lasting notability, and content shouldn't be discussed here. SportingFlyer T·C 21:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Even if she loses the election, the notability will be lasting with GNG-passing coverage in abundance.Oakshade (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Related AfDs and articles
I think it would be helpful to list other AfDs (current or past) that may be impacted by whatever outcome the above discussion comes to.
- [[8]] Ran for office three times in Ireland (European Parliament, Parliament, and Senate) and failed to be elected all three times. However, in the news since elections for vocal criticism of the Green Party and for advocating that the Green Party not form a government. Article was AfD because she was not elected. Could this deletion be revisited in light of the discussion here? AugusteBlanqui (talk) 11:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John E. James -- active AfD of a US senate candidate who has a meaningful chance of winning. Hobit (talk) 19:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. Mr. James is running for the US Senate in the state that ranks 10th in population, representing more than 10 million people. He will forever be either a US Senator or the guy who lost that Senate race. It's not reasonable to maintain a fiction that rules are more important than ground truth - these candidates are more than a line item on another page.--Brad Patrick (talk) 20:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Draft:Kara_Eastman -- US house candidate in 2018 and 2020. Much smaller race than most US Senate races, but still closely related though the coverage isn't quite as overwhelming. Hobit (talk) 20:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Draft:Al Gross (politician) -- Also a US Senate candidate in a competitive race with significant coverage available (not all of which is reflected in the current sourcing). Dreamyshade (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Gade, the 2020 Republican US Senate candidate in Virginia. -- Tavix (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I would argue that all of the articles that were mentioned are notable. In particular, now that Theresa Greenfield is on the mainspace, Dr. Al Gross is one of the only major party U.S. Senate candidates this cycle without an article, and there is a draft written available about him. This article should be moved to the mainspace, as should the draft about Kara Eastman. The articles about John James and Daniel Gade should stay up at least through November 3. I say this because the voters need to have information about the candidates on their ballots. Narayansg (talk) 22:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I say this because the voters need to have information about the candidates on their ballots.
This isn't an effective argument for inclusion on Wikipedia. If they pass the general notability guideline or any other notability guideline, then they are eligible to have an article (and notability isn't temporary). If they are not notable, simply being a candidate does not make them so. But it's important not to assume the inverse: Simply being a candidate doesn't make them not notable, either. WP:NPOL defers to WP:GNG in the case of candidates. ST47 (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)- It also defers to several elements of WP:NOT: WP:NOTNEWS, WP:PROMO, WP:CRYSTAL, along with WP:BIO1E. It may seem oddly political to oppose these, but I would strongly prefer to not turn Wikipedia into a partisan US-orientated website, and instead allow for articles on people only if they are notable. (We can always cover the candidates on the election page, which will likely be watched by interested parties on both sides of the aisle.) SportingFlyer T·C 22:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- For these draft articles, there's a problem related to the cycle that the draft Greenfield article got stuck in (resolved only with a vote here): there's no avenue for robust community discussion of notability for an AfC draft, because a single AfC reviewer can decline a submission and keep declining it. As a relevant example, I saw that for Gross, User:Narayansg moved the draft article to mainspace a few weeks ago, and another editor moved it back to draftspace as "Doesn't meet wp:npol yet" instead of following a documented community process for mainspace articles where you want to contest notability (like PROD or AfD). So, where to go to discuss whether a candidate like Gross or Eastman reaches the threshold of WP:GNG? I expect that few candidates do, but the exceptions (like Greenfield) are important. Dreamyshade (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Anyone can accept an AfC submission too. If you believe it's ready, you can move it to mainspace. See WP:DRAFTIFY,
It is not intended as a backdoor route to deletion.
andOther editors (including the author of the page) have a right to object to moving the page. If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace and if it is not notable list at AfD.
If there is a dispute over whether something should be in draftspace or mainspace, the page should be moved back to mainspace and the dispute should be brought to WP:AFD. If you can't move it to mainspace due to protection, ask an admin. ST47 (talk) 23:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)- @ST47:, I actually tried to move the Kara Eastman draft and couldn't for the simple reason it already has a history. Is this a common problem? And could you treat this as an "ask an admin" request for the move (even though I don't believe it is a protection problem)? Hobit (talk) 13:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- It's probably not particularly common, but yes, ask an admin, or ask at WP:RM/TR. That one hasn't had an AfD since 2018 and the current version is better-sourced. However, the principal author of Draft:Kara Eastman has requested (through a comment on that page) that it not be nominated again until after the election, I would respect that request unless there's broader support for her immediate notability. ST47 (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- @ST47:, I actually tried to move the Kara Eastman draft and couldn't for the simple reason it already has a history. Is this a common problem? And could you treat this as an "ask an admin" request for the move (even though I don't believe it is a protection problem)? Hobit (talk) 13:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Anyone can accept an AfC submission too. If you believe it's ready, you can move it to mainspace. See WP:DRAFTIFY,
- One guideline that doesn't appear to have been explicitly mentioned above is WP:NOPAGE (aka WP:PAGEDECIDE). If a political candidate is only noteworthy/covered within the context of political candidacy, it is not (erm...) incumbent upon us to have a separate page for that candidacy, given that the individual for-all-time notability of that candidate is marginal, even if coverage of the election itself including coverage of candidates is significant. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 03:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare's Research
- After reading/participating in the discussion around Greenfield, I found myself very curious about which other non-incumbent candidates in the various Senate races have articles. I put together User:GorillaWarfare/Senate races with my results, and figured I'd share it here in case anyone was interested as I was. Many of the candidates have previously held office and met NPOL as a result of their past positions, but I found eighteen biographies of non-incumbent candidates who were not previously elected for office (including Greenfield). Out of that eighteen, four were independently notable for reasons unrelated to their runs for office. Out of the remaining fourteen, there were 9 Democrats, 3 Republicans, and 1 Independent, plus Mr. Willie Wilson in the Willie Wilson Party. They are evenly split gender-wise, with 7 articles about women and seven about men. Edits welcome if I've made any errors. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- Here are the 14 articles listed on GW's page of non-incumbent 2020 US Senate candidates who are not notable outside politics, and how many page views each article received in the last 30 days. Why in the world would we not provide our readers with the verified, neutral summaries of these topics that they clearly are interested in reading?
- Al Gross, I-Alaska ♂, 13,661 pageviews
- Jon Ossoff, D-Georgia ♂, 135,335 pageviews
- Raphael Warnock, D-Georgia ♂, 76,410 pageviews
- Richard Dien Winfield, D-Georgia ♂, 3,000 pageviews
- Willie Wilson, Willie Wilson Party-Illinois ♂, 31,311 pageviews
- Theresa Greenfield, D-Iowa ♀, 17,114 pageviews
- Amy McGrath, D-Kentucky ♀, 155,241 pageviews
- John James, R-Michigan ♂, 88,815 pageviews
- Jo Rae Perkins, R-Oregon ♀, 15,166 pageviews
- Marquita Bradshaw, D-Tennessee ♀, 24,992 pageviews
- MJ Hegar, D-Texas ♀, 197,488 pageviews
- Daniel Gade, R-Virginia ♂, 36,133 pageviews
- Paula Jean Swearengin, D-West Virginia ♀, 24,214 pageviews
- Merav Ben-David, D-Wyoming ♀, 11,236 pageviews Lev!vich 16:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Because providing encyclopedic information is only one traditional function of encyclopedia. Another function is to select notable subjects (for which the information is provided). This is exactly why we reject, for example, purely local coverage or ONEEVENT (which both can generate a lot of interest as well). No opinion on specific individuals listed above.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Personally I believe NPOL should be changed to deem major candidates in Senate races such as Greenfield's inherently notable. I strongly agree with Barkeep49 who said above,
I think Wikipedia is grossly irresponsible in our election coverage for the role we play in promoting incumbents over challengers. We should have some level of information about candidates for people seeking information about an election. This doesn't need to be done through a full article but could happen through reasonable coverage in an election article. The incumbent will still get a full article as opposed to say a paragraph (or two, maybe three) but our readers deserve to know more about Greenfield than "Theresa Greenfield, businesswoman, candidate for Iowa's 3rd congressional district in 2018" which is what we're saying now.
GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)- GorillaWarfare, How is that an argument to change NPOL? Writing more about a candidate in the election article requires no change to NPOL. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, not super clear, those were supposed to be two separate statements. I think NPOL should be changed, and separately I agree with Barkeep's point. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- @GorillaWarfare: US Senate only or all upper house elections in all countries? If the latter, does that mean all unicameral legislature elections as well? "Senior national legislator candidates" in all countries? Lev!vich 18:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- I was referring to US Senate. I admit I'm not very well-versed in other countries' political systems, but I would think any major candidates in elections that are somewhat equivalent in other countries ought to be considered notable as well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Any Republican/Democrat nominee for a Senate race will seemingly always meet GNG. So de facto "inherently notable" ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- I feel like the discussions upon discussions about Greenfield have proven that's not agreed upon, not to mention the handful of AfDs, declined AfCs, and merged/redirected pages on R/D candidates recorded in my user subpage. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Let's put it this way: we can argue "presumed notable" in the lead up to the election, but if the candidate loses and their only notability to that point was being the candidate, deletion or merging back to the election article would be reasonable after the election. There are some races where the incumbent has nearly no chance of losing, so the random challenger from the other party is just because they need to test the waters, and that may be a case that that person would readily meet BLP1E. --Masem (t) 19:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's why I specified "major candidates" in my original point about NPOL. I don't think candidates like the ones you mention, or the long list of candidates pulling in single-digit percentage points of support or less in some of the Senate elections should be deemed inherently notable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Let's put it this way: we can argue "presumed notable" in the lead up to the election, but if the candidate loses and their only notability to that point was being the candidate, deletion or merging back to the election article would be reasonable after the election. There are some races where the incumbent has nearly no chance of losing, so the random challenger from the other party is just because they need to test the waters, and that may be a case that that person would readily meet BLP1E. --Masem (t) 19:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- I feel like the discussions upon discussions about Greenfield have proven that's not agreed upon, not to mention the handful of AfDs, declined AfCs, and merged/redirected pages on R/D candidates recorded in my user subpage. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- @GorillaWarfare: US Senate only or all upper house elections in all countries? If the latter, does that mean all unicameral legislature elections as well? "Senior national legislator candidates" in all countries? Lev!vich 18:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, not super clear, those were supposed to be two separate statements. I think NPOL should be changed, and separately I agree with Barkeep's point. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- What we need to be careful though is that if we make these articles routinely, these cannot come off as supporting their platform, though obviously we do want to document major platform points that a candidate is notable for running for. (A full platform position would be more appropriate on the election page to compare candidates, or if the campaign election itself was notable) Greenfield's section on political positions is a bit too close to promotional but not at a point it needs to be flagged. I just feel that this will be the primary content people will add to these types of candidate articles rather than bio details. --Masem (t) 18:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- This is why I support including all of the information on the election page, such as 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa. I think one of the biggest misconceptions people have about those of us who don't want to have articles-for-all-time on mere candidates is that we don't want the information to appear at all for non-incumbent candidates. For instance, we have no biographical information whatsoever on the minor party candidates for Iowa. The "after the election" really goes against WP:CRYSTAL and our "once you're notable, you're always notable" policies - why not just cover the candidates properly in the context of the election, and have that be the worldwide standard? SportingFlyer T·C 19:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- This. Exactly this. One million times, this. --Khajidha (talk) 22:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Nobody has ever claimed automatic notability simply because they are a candidate, but that doesn't at all mean someone is automatically non-notable due to them being a candidate. Some people do in fact become notable due to their candidacy, like of Greenfield and Ossoff (the first special election). That was the problem with the Greenfield controversy back in June and July - In this case the person was clearly notable but some editors clung to the idea that nobody could become notable only due to a candidacy, not to mention feeling it was "too soon" since a previous discussion (I had warned back in July the Greenfield issue would come back again and again if we don't allow an article and it turned out I was correct). Oakshade (talk) 02:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- That assumes Greenfield IS notable, which is still a question the community disagrees on. If she loses the election there's a very good chance the article could be deleted or merged. There's really two issues here: 1) not providing enough information on candidates on the election page, which there seems to be a hunger for along with general agreement to do so; and 2) at what point someone who is running for office but not otherwise notable becomes notable enough for a standalone article given the numerous issues with having these sorts of articles. SportingFlyer T·C 10:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- If just being a candidate doesn't make you notable, then continuing routine coverage of your candidacy does not make you notable either. You can say "she's running for election" 1 time or 500 billion times, it doesn't change anything. --Khajidha (talk) 11:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Community consensus above shows that Greenfield does meet GNG. If she loses the election, an editor might bring up yet another AfD in some kind of WP:POINT exercise, but the GNG-passing train has long left the station and the community's patience will be beyond thin at that time. Oakshade (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- So, let's look at hypotheticals. If this were an article being proposed about a candidate from the previous senate election in that state, with basically the same sources saying the same things, plus a source for their having lost the election, you would support its existence? Really? I saw lots of people above saying basically saying that we "need to serve the voters". That seems totally wrong to me. We aren't here to serve the voters of this year, we are here to cover this year's election for the people of next year. Or 5 years from now. Or 10. Or 100. If this last round had not resulted in the posting of this article, I doubt anyone would raise the issue 10 days from now if she loses the election. --Khajidha (talk) 17:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- That's a straw man argument as I've never said anything like "to serve the voters" since coming across this issue back in June. Others might have. And to answer your question, yes of course we should have an article about a person who is notable and easily passes GNG as consensus has confirmed even if they lost an election they became notable for just we had the article of Jon Ossoff after he lost the 2017 Georgia's 6th congressional district special election. Oakshade (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Jon Ossoff was AfD'd in 2017, incorrectly closed as a keep (8:4 delete/redirect:keep ratio), and then a mess of a DRV which potentially identified 3 of the keep !voters as SPI but wasn't really close-able as anything other than no consensus. Ossoff is probably the worst possible example you could have given. SportingFlyer T·C 20:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- If it really is a bad example then show us - If you truly feel Ossoff is not notable due to becoming notable only because of his 2017 candidacy that he lost and his current candidacy and, should he lose the upcoming Senatorial election like Greenfield might or might not, continues to be non-notable in your view, then you are always free to AfD the Ossoff article. But honestly that would also come across as a WP:POINT AfD. Oakshade (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- The messy AfD and messier DRV were three years ago. I don't think an AfD would be WP:POINTy, but certainly at this point in the discussion it wouldn't help much, either. We need good guidelines for when candidates are considered all-time-notable. SportingFlyer T·C 20:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- If it really is a bad example then show us - If you truly feel Ossoff is not notable due to becoming notable only because of his 2017 candidacy that he lost and his current candidacy and, should he lose the upcoming Senatorial election like Greenfield might or might not, continues to be non-notable in your view, then you are always free to AfD the Ossoff article. But honestly that would also come across as a WP:POINT AfD. Oakshade (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Jon Ossoff was AfD'd in 2017, incorrectly closed as a keep (8:4 delete/redirect:keep ratio), and then a mess of a DRV which potentially identified 3 of the keep !voters as SPI but wasn't really close-able as anything other than no consensus. Ossoff is probably the worst possible example you could have given. SportingFlyer T·C 20:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- That's a straw man argument as I've never said anything like "to serve the voters" since coming across this issue back in June. Others might have. And to answer your question, yes of course we should have an article about a person who is notable and easily passes GNG as consensus has confirmed even if they lost an election they became notable for just we had the article of Jon Ossoff after he lost the 2017 Georgia's 6th congressional district special election. Oakshade (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- So, let's look at hypotheticals. If this were an article being proposed about a candidate from the previous senate election in that state, with basically the same sources saying the same things, plus a source for their having lost the election, you would support its existence? Really? I saw lots of people above saying basically saying that we "need to serve the voters". That seems totally wrong to me. We aren't here to serve the voters of this year, we are here to cover this year's election for the people of next year. Or 5 years from now. Or 10. Or 100. If this last round had not resulted in the posting of this article, I doubt anyone would raise the issue 10 days from now if she loses the election. --Khajidha (talk) 17:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- That assumes Greenfield IS notable, which is still a question the community disagrees on. If she loses the election there's a very good chance the article could be deleted or merged. There's really two issues here: 1) not providing enough information on candidates on the election page, which there seems to be a hunger for along with general agreement to do so; and 2) at what point someone who is running for office but not otherwise notable becomes notable enough for a standalone article given the numerous issues with having these sorts of articles. SportingFlyer T·C 10:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- This is why I support including all of the information on the election page, such as 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa. I think one of the biggest misconceptions people have about those of us who don't want to have articles-for-all-time on mere candidates is that we don't want the information to appear at all for non-incumbent candidates. For instance, we have no biographical information whatsoever on the minor party candidates for Iowa. The "after the election" really goes against WP:CRYSTAL and our "once you're notable, you're always notable" policies - why not just cover the candidates properly in the context of the election, and have that be the worldwide standard? SportingFlyer T·C 19:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- GorillaWarfare, How is that an argument to change NPOL? Writing more about a candidate in the election article requires no change to NPOL. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- The MJ Hegar article can be summarized as: she is in the middle of a notable life, and additionally, she is a candidate. The Theresa Greenfield article can be summarized as: she is candidate and she is candidate. The only notable thing in her bio, seems to be Jimbo Wales campaigning for her article... but this is not yet covered by Reliable Sources: simply too soon. Pldx1 (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- The bigger issue here is that arguing over Greenfield's notability (and the fact the community is split on the issue) doesn't get us any closer to actually solving this problem, which pops up every two years in the midst of US election season. We need to have this election resolve and then workshop what the actual rule is to avoid having this be a point of contention, the question being: when is a recent candidate notable? SportingFlyer T·C 17:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think that's a great idea. Avoiding doing it just before the election is probably wise, and I don't think there's harm in waiting for election dust to settle to discuss it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- I completely agree with waiting as it avoids any WP:CRYSTAL issues of "well they might be notable..." Considering the fact we typically lack consensus on what to do with these US candidates, maybe it would be better to frame the question as, how do we improve election coverage on Wikipedia? SportingFlyer T·C 21:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, working on this after the election sounds good. I believe both of these questions are worth asking, because they both come up with deeply split answers (especially when working article-by-article): How do we decide when a candidate may have their own article under their name? And related, but broader: how do we set up our policies and guidelines so that elections can be covered in ways that fulfill the purpose of Wikipedia to the best of our capacity and ability as editors? Dreamyshade (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- I completely agree with waiting as it avoids any WP:CRYSTAL issues of "well they might be notable..." Considering the fact we typically lack consensus on what to do with these US candidates, maybe it would be better to frame the question as, how do we improve election coverage on Wikipedia? SportingFlyer T·C 21:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think that's a great idea. Avoiding doing it just before the election is probably wise, and I don't think there's harm in waiting for election dust to settle to discuss it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Now she lost
Now she lost, and her article still does not contain anything significant which could not be in the article on the Iowa senate elections. Shoud it go to AfD again, or can we just move it back to draft?--Ymblanter (talk) 07:43, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Neither, as it is quite hard to judge a candidate's post-election notability on election night. Lev!vich 07:55, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- As per Levivich. Waiting at least 48 hours (if not a week) to consider another merge/delete proposal is certainly called for. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:57, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- We can wait for a couple of days, no problem, but if there is no consensus here to revert the move from the draft she will go to AfD again.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- I agree there will be another discussion; it just won't be a useful one until the presidential election is called. power~enwiki (π, ν) 08:01, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Her article might go to AFD, but she probably won't. :-) Lev!vich 08:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- We can wait for a couple of days, no problem, but if there is no consensus here to revert the move from the draft she will go to AfD again.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Like any mainspace article that has had a decent amount of effort put into it, if an editor believes that the subject may not be notable and can't find sources indicating sufficient notability, that editor would need to nominate it for deletion. WP:DRAFTIFY isn't appropriate for mature articles that have had a bunch of editors and edits over time. I agree with waiting at least a couple days or a week to consider an AfD nomination, especially because coverage of the race isn't over - this article came out a couple hours ago, for example. We'll be able to have a better picture of longer-term notability after journalists have a chance to write up analysis, etc. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:47, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Honestly, take the advice as WP:BATTLEGROUND and wait at least a year to reassess notability. There's no chance it can be meaningfully re-assessed in the near term, and there'd be no reason to re-nominate now, in a day, or a week, except to try to win a battle. WilyD 06:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- It should have not moved out of the draft after three failed DRVs to start with. The argument was mainly that if she wins election (which she was expected to) than everybody knows that Wikipedia failed to create an article on a notable person (who is accidentally also a woman etc). This argument is obsolete for the time being. I also do not see how my behavior is WP:BATTLEGROUND. I do not think I was in any way previously involved with this article except for a pair of procedural comments on the top of this thread. I am just absolutely sure that if she were not an American democrat Senate candidate but a candidate to the parliament of Peru with similar credentials, nothing like this would ever happen--Ymblanter (talk) 07:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- The argument was mainly that she met WP:GNG. The closing statement a couple sub threads up was "Consensus is that the subject does meet the GNG." Lev!vich 07:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- WP:ONEEVENT perfectly describes the sittation, but I do not think we shoule be discussing this here. I said very early in this topic that AN is not a good instrument to look for consensus in these issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- I agree ONEEVENT perfectly describes the situation:
However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.
I'm not sure why you expect an AFD would end up with a different result than the we had here at AN. Do you expect editors will have changed their mind? Or do you expect a different group of editors will arrive at a different result? I expect the same editors will come to the same result. Lev!vich 15:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)- Yes, I think it will be a different group of people. After all, it has already been to AfD and three times to DRV with the decision delete / not undelete.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- She was at AFD in May where there was no consensus that she met GNG at that time, and the three DRVs were in June and July, and found no reason to overturn the May AFD as of that time. Then, in late October, consensus was reached that she met GNG as of that time. Now it's early November. If she met GNG in late October, she still meets GNG in early November. A merge proposal might have some support, but an AFD would be a disruptive waste of time (as would draftification). No matter what happens, we will have a page on Wikipedia called "Theresa Greenfield". The only question is whether that page will be an article or a redirect. AFD is not the place to answer that question. It's still called Articles for deletion, not Articles for discussion. Lev!vich 16:34, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- This also serves to remind us that GNG reiterates BLP1E - we are looking for enduring coverage of a topic, not a blip of news coverage, and that even a prolonged election period run should not be considered "enduring" for our purposes (that is, what is enduring depends on the nature of the topic). Clearly this was being misread if editors took her to be notable by the GNG while as a candidate (there are other routes to presume notability) --Masem (t) 16:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- WP:BLP1E doesn't apply here either, because she does not meet the third requirement:
If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented.
Neither BLP1E nor ONEEVENT apply to US Senate candidates. Each US Senate race is a significant event, and every general election candidate has a significant role in that event. It was not a mistake that editors (like me) !voted based on her meeting GNG. She meets GNG. There are no "but she's only a political candidate!" exceptions to GNG. There is no "enduring" requirement to GNG. (WP:LASTING is part of WP:NEVENT, not WP:NBIO or GNG.) Maybe there should be, maybe GNG should be changed, but any person can read WP:GNG, as written now, and there really is no argument that she does not meet the requirements as written now. Lev!vich 17:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)- Notability requires WP:SUSTAINED coverage (part of WP:N) which ties right back to BLP1E and NEVENT. That's the enduring requirement of notability. It's why a burst of news coverage is not sufficient for notability. --Masem (t) 17:11, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- True, but that brings us back to the main point here: it's really nonsensical to assess notability on October 21 and then re-assess it to judge SUSTAINED on November 6. If she met N (including SUSTAINED, as could be ascertained at that time) on October 21, 2020 based on coverage in 2020, then we are not going to have sufficient information to make a determination about SUSTAINED until, at least October 21, 2021. If she's been covered non-stop for a year, then we have to wait at least one year, and only then can we determine if it was a "brief blip" or "sustained" coverage. This is why I agree that the notion that we should do anything with this article this week is just BATTLEGROUND behavior. There is no logic to making any sort of decision this soon after the election; the only reason anyone could possibly want to change the status quo right now is to prove a point. And that point is: candidates who don't win shouldn't have a page. Everyone needs to let go, in the drop-the-stick sense, of the notion that a person's notability is linked to whether they win or lose an election, and also let go of the notion that the mere presence of an article about a candidate is somehow promotional.
- By the way, Theresa Greenfield is still the subject of more coverage than Donna Strickland or Clarice Phelps. The problem in all three of these womens' biographies is that each woman was judged by editors according to their accomplishments in the eyes of those editors. So, editors say, "she's not notable until she wins the Nobel Prize", or "she's not notable unless she is a named author on the paper", or "she's not notable unless she wins the election". This approach is wrong, wrong, wrong, and it's not our way, and it's not how the guideline N works, nor how our core policies work. We follow sources. A person is notable if the sources say they are notable: whether we think their accomplishments are important doesn't matter at all. Yet some editors continuously try to add these extra requirements: whether it's "won an election" or "played in a professional league" or "published a paper", it's always just some editor's opinion about what makes someone important. But editors' opinions don't count; it's sources that count. This is misapplied in both directions: sometimes editors apply their idea of "importance" to !vote keep when the sources don't exist (football players, famously); other times editors apply their idea of "importance" to !vote delete even when the sources are plentiful (women, famously). Every time we stray from the path of "follow the sources", we should remind ourselves of what we're here for: to summarize secondary sources. Not to decide what's important. In this case, there is no lack of secondary sources about Greenfield for us to summarize. Lev!vich 17:29, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- First, I fully agree we don't need to decide today or next week even on its fate. Let's wait for the election results to finalize and see any fallout from that.
- There is a huge difference with the Strickland case in that we didn't have ANY article for her - no attempt at draft or deletion. Take away the Nobel, she would still have met the NPROF allowances for an article, but no one wrote it, a discovery made when she got named for the Nobel. That's a problem with our volunteer system is that we write articles that really only interest us and not probably what we should write. It is a very different situation from Greenfield where people were making a draft and trying to include it but there were hard questions on notability.
- And there are hard questions on notability when it comes to a candidate in an ongoing an election. WP is now seen as a Search Engine Optimization (SEO) tool blatently used to build up a profile in search engines, and people and corps pay money to try to get editors to make pages to improve their hits. NCORP was recently reworked to try to stall as much of this from the corporate side by making it harder for random corps to get pages. We have to consider the same problems for a candidate in an election that has no other history of note. I mean, we initially have to assume good faith that editors that wanted an article on Greenfield were trying to do in with the intent for an encyclopedic topic, but in the middle of an election in a heated race, some questions have to be raised. (The same issue was at play at the early stages of Phelps article based on the early AFD discussions - lack of third-party sourcing points to more self-promotional concerns). But in the case of Phelps, when this was recognized by the media, they came to the "rescue" to provide addition third-party coverage and establish her as clearly notable for her whole career. Which is a perfectly acceptable route to assuring notability. (This also happened with Strickland too). WP is stuck that we have to be very careful of simply allowing every person that may be named-dropped in sources from having an article since this may be feeding into some system for promotion and marketing and thus must play cautiously.
- That said, there is nothing requiring us to not cover candidates in election article with appropriate redirects to make them searchable topics, which should be the default situation for all major US congress races in the first place. Too many editors focus on wanting a separate standalone article for each topic but this is not a requirement; a topic of weak notability can be fairly covered in a larger topic with more affirmed notability and using redirects to get readers there, serving the same purpose without raising any questions of notability. --Masem (t) 18:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Notability requires WP:SUSTAINED coverage (part of WP:N) which ties right back to BLP1E and NEVENT. That's the enduring requirement of notability. It's why a burst of news coverage is not sufficient for notability. --Masem (t) 17:11, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- WP:BLP1E doesn't apply here either, because she does not meet the third requirement:
- This also serves to remind us that GNG reiterates BLP1E - we are looking for enduring coverage of a topic, not a blip of news coverage, and that even a prolonged election period run should not be considered "enduring" for our purposes (that is, what is enduring depends on the nature of the topic). Clearly this was being misread if editors took her to be notable by the GNG while as a candidate (there are other routes to presume notability) --Masem (t) 16:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- She was at AFD in May where there was no consensus that she met GNG at that time, and the three DRVs were in June and July, and found no reason to overturn the May AFD as of that time. Then, in late October, consensus was reached that she met GNG as of that time. Now it's early November. If she met GNG in late October, she still meets GNG in early November. A merge proposal might have some support, but an AFD would be a disruptive waste of time (as would draftification). No matter what happens, we will have a page on Wikipedia called "Theresa Greenfield". The only question is whether that page will be an article or a redirect. AFD is not the place to answer that question. It's still called Articles for deletion, not Articles for discussion. Lev!vich 16:34, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I think it will be a different group of people. After all, it has already been to AfD and three times to DRV with the decision delete / not undelete.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- I agree ONEEVENT perfectly describes the situation:
- WP:ONEEVENT perfectly describes the sittation, but I do not think we shoule be discussing this here. I said very early in this topic that AN is not a good instrument to look for consensus in these issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- The argument was mainly that she met WP:GNG. The closing statement a couple sub threads up was "Consensus is that the subject does meet the GNG." Lev!vich 07:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- It should have not moved out of the draft after three failed DRVs to start with. The argument was mainly that if she wins election (which she was expected to) than everybody knows that Wikipedia failed to create an article on a notable person (who is accidentally also a woman etc). This argument is obsolete for the time being. I also do not see how my behavior is WP:BATTLEGROUND. I do not think I was in any way previously involved with this article except for a pair of procedural comments on the top of this thread. I am just absolutely sure that if she were not an American democrat Senate candidate but a candidate to the parliament of Peru with similar credentials, nothing like this would ever happen--Ymblanter (talk) 07:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- We need to have a serious discussion about this before doing anything. It should go to AfD, but I think a better result is a merge to the election article - there's no reason to get rid of good information. The real question: is she notable enough as a candidate or for any other reason for her own stand-alone article at this point? I don't think the answer to that is yes, but considering this is going to be a problem over and over again every two years, I don't see the rush to remove it. SportingFlyer T·C 13:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that there is no rush and we should try to work on general principles. To some extent it may be easier to discuss old instances. For a ten year old candidacy where I think there is a reasonable case for merging a biography into an election article see Talk:Alvin_Greene#Merge_with_2010_United_States_Senate_election_in_South_Carolina? Haukur (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- The merge to the election article is probably the smarter move, but I definitely would wait a few days to make sure the results are certified and no other options come up. This does not require a AFD (as no admin action is required for a merge, though to maintain it may require that). --Masem (t) 14:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- If it is merged without reaching consensus first I am sure merge is going to be undone quickly. AfD is one of the instruments to achieve consensus, admittedly not the best one. RfC can be another one.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Except that AFD has been repeated denied as a venue to bring up non-deletion requests because the net result doesn't involve admin action. A merge discussion on the article's talk page is reasonable though. --Masem (t) 16:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- If it is merged without reaching consensus first I am sure merge is going to be undone quickly. AfD is one of the instruments to achieve consensus, admittedly not the best one. RfC can be another one.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Being blatantly endorsed by Wikipedia is not so helpful
This Encyclopedia is supposed to be neutral, or at least is supposed to appear as neutral. Seeing Jimbo Wales campaigning for this article was amusing. And what has been won, except a disgracious scar on our neutral face ? The article was only asserting, in Wikipedia's voice, that the candidate was notable for being candidate, and for being candidate, and maybe for nothing else that can be found. This doesn't appear as having helped her. But let us wait and see if reliable sources attribute any influence to any Wikipedia issued endorsement. Pldx1 (talk) 10:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- If having an article = endorsement, then we endorsed her opponent long ago. Lev!vich 15:28, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- An issue I pointed out is that we should be very careful of these bios looking like political ads. It is important that for a notable politician to identify key issues that they have been known to focus on, but we should not make their bios list out their entire political platform, otherwise you start approaching the endorsement or political ad issue. On the other hand, on election articles, outlining the key issues at play and where the candidate sit is fair game without making us endorse or promote any single one. --Masem (t) 15:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Pldx1, you sound like those folk I see on social media who claim that this or that news outlet is spreading propaganda because they're reporting the news. And after seeing this I'm wondering if you shouldn't be advised of discretionary sanctions in the AP2 subject matter. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Dear User:Drmies. As it can be seen from my contributions, my focus is more about Korean Literature than about American Policy Too. But obvious is only obvious: there are well written stories, and there are poorly written ones. To remain credible, the selection criteria have to be applied evenly. As a side remark, the WIRED article I was referring to is amusingly praising over the hills the Professor in Wikipedia Studies they have recruited. Is smiling so diabolic ? Pldx1 (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- What you are saying here is neither relevant nor clear. I don't know what stories or criteria you are talking about, or what the Wired piece has to do with anything. I don't think you have retracted that odd comment on Jimbo's talk page, and I left you a template with some helpful links, on your talk page. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Dear User:Drmies. As it can be seen from my contributions, my focus is more about Korean Literature than about American Policy Too. But obvious is only obvious: there are well written stories, and there are poorly written ones. To remain credible, the selection criteria have to be applied evenly. As a side remark, the WIRED article I was referring to is amusingly praising over the hills the Professor in Wikipedia Studies they have recruited. Is smiling so diabolic ? Pldx1 (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Pldx1, you sound like those folk I see on social media who claim that this or that news outlet is spreading propaganda because they're reporting the news. And after seeing this I'm wondering if you shouldn't be advised of discretionary sanctions in the AP2 subject matter. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- An issue I pointed out is that we should be very careful of these bios looking like political ads. It is important that for a notable politician to identify key issues that they have been known to focus on, but we should not make their bios list out their entire political platform, otherwise you start approaching the endorsement or political ad issue. On the other hand, on election articles, outlining the key issues at play and where the candidate sit is fair game without making us endorse or promote any single one. --Masem (t) 15:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- I have no opinion about whether we should have an article on this person, but I think the one takeaway that everyone can get from this is that having a Wikipedia article about a candidate makes only a minuscule, if any, difference either way to the vote that they get. I hope that supporters of particular candidates will learn that they should expend their campaigning energy on other things than getting a Wikipedia article, as if it is some sort of prize. A Wikipedia article is neither an endorsement of its subject nor of any opponents, and whether we have one or not should be decided by our policies and guidelines, not any other consideration. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Or, to put it more bluntly, WP:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 18:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's interesting. AOC didn't have an article at the time of her election and won. Nobody reading Donald Trump would vote for the guy, yet look at the election results. I think Wikipedia's affect on elections is overrated. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think this has been Wikipedia's finest hour. First off, a rather hasty discussion on the administrator's noticeboard has overruled deletion review, so now we haven't just got sysops making binding content decisions, we've got them making the decisions in a rush. Second off, we're now deciding that she isn't notable enough for an article because she lost --- even though notability isn't temporary. If we do now decide that she shouldn't have an article, then I think many outside observers would feel that her getting an article in the runup to an election was a political intervention by Wikipedian sysops, instigated by Jimbo. I think it's going to be hard for the community to pretend that it wasn't.I think the learning points from this mess are: (a) if it's urgently necessary for the community to overrule DRV because DRV is wrong, then that discussion should happen at the village pump rather than here, because sysops don't make binding content decisions; (b) post-1932 US politics is unbelievably toxic and it's important to follow the processes scrupulously when we're dealing with it, instead of making up new rules as we go along; and (c) we need a big, centralized RfC about whether candidates in a national election should get articles that reaches binding conclusions.—S Marshall T/C 23:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Is AN not the right place to appeal a page protection decision, a DRV decision, or a close? Lev!vich 00:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think it's the right place to appeal a use of the tools, but I don't think sysops have any special authority to make binding content decisions.—S Marshall T/C 00:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- But if a page is protected from recreation, the use of the tools is required to recreate it. (Indeed, if I'm reading right, a non-admin approved it on AfC but was unable to implement this because of the protection.) So ultimately administrator intervention was necessary. And more generally, deleted page protection is only intended to prevent G4-speedy recreations (or similar unambiguous issues like vandalism.) So technically what should have happened was that an administrator should have immediately unprotected it with no further discussion once the AfC was closed. No administrator was willing to do so (probably wisely given the controversial nature, even if it was technically the correct action to take provided the draft was not a G4 speedy), but the fact is that at that point it was already being decided by administrators. If you want to avoid that then there needs to be hard-and-fast rules when any editor can request that protection be removed from a page that has been protected from recreation - if I read WP:SALT correctly, any administrator can, on their own initiative, unsalt a page on request with no further discussion (DRV is also an option but I believe it's only for if you want to recreate the deleted page specifically.) --Aquillion (talk) 00:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, the fact that the page was protected was the pretext that the closer gave for making a binding content decision.—S Marshall T/C 00:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- The consensus in the AfDs and DRVs was pretty much against having an article until after the election was decided. So in your hypotheticals: if there's an explicit consensus against having an article until such time, nobody should be unprotecting it on their own initiative. It wasn't deleted for notability reasons in the sense that she didn't have enough media coverage, so the general condition for recreation (ie recreating with any number of extra sources, relating to her political run) wouldn't address that concern. The technical matter of unprotection may be an administrative issue, but whether to have an article is really a content one. One that's decided, the technical matter of unprotection is pretty uncontroversial; may as well be at WP:RFPP. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- S Marshall, if someone is unhappy with a DRV close, the place to appeal that close is AN, is it not? Lev!vich 03:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think it should be. Content decisions are a matter for community consensus, and administrators don't have any special authority over content, so the optics of making content decisions here are terrible.—S Marshall T/C 03:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Last time we discussed it, we more-or-less concluded (it was a sparse discussion) that DRV or AN were the two places to appeal a DRV close. Sorry, I'd have to hunt down the link again. I think I included it above somewhere. Hobit (talk) 05:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- I guess what I'm not understanding is: you said this wasn't WP's finest hour. What is it you think went wrong here, and how would having this discussion on a different page (DRV again? VP:PROP?) have resulted in a better outcome? Lev!vich 06:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think it should be. Content decisions are a matter for community consensus, and administrators don't have any special authority over content, so the optics of making content decisions here are terrible.—S Marshall T/C 03:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- But if a page is protected from recreation, the use of the tools is required to recreate it. (Indeed, if I'm reading right, a non-admin approved it on AfC but was unable to implement this because of the protection.) So ultimately administrator intervention was necessary. And more generally, deleted page protection is only intended to prevent G4-speedy recreations (or similar unambiguous issues like vandalism.) So technically what should have happened was that an administrator should have immediately unprotected it with no further discussion once the AfC was closed. No administrator was willing to do so (probably wisely given the controversial nature, even if it was technically the correct action to take provided the draft was not a G4 speedy), but the fact is that at that point it was already being decided by administrators. If you want to avoid that then there needs to be hard-and-fast rules when any editor can request that protection be removed from a page that has been protected from recreation - if I read WP:SALT correctly, any administrator can, on their own initiative, unsalt a page on request with no further discussion (DRV is also an option but I believe it's only for if you want to recreate the deleted page specifically.) --Aquillion (talk) 00:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think it's the right place to appeal a use of the tools, but I don't think sysops have any special authority to make binding content decisions.—S Marshall T/C 00:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Is AN not the right place to appeal a page protection decision, a DRV decision, or a close? Lev!vich 00:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry, we're talking at cross-purposes and I think it's my fault. I agree that AN is where we currently review DRVs. In the light of this episode, I now think it shouldn't be.
I think the discussion since Greenfield's defeat demonstrates that she is not, in fact, notable enough for an article. DRV was right and the AN was wrong. DRV is where we have all the experience and practice at coming to the right choices in these things, whereas AN came to a rushed and expedient decision that, in the cold light of day, looks poor. Even worse, the AN doesn't have a fixed duration for discussions, so the closer could be accused of picking a strategic moment to close (note that I'm not saying that happened: I'm talking about the optics).
I do not think DRV is infallible. There must be a place to review DRVs. But I think that place should be ideally RFC, and if it's too urgent for that, a fixed-duration discussion on the Village Pump. Rushed, ad hoc decisions on the AN are suboptimal.—S Marshall T/C 12:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Philosophically I agree with S Marshall that AN making content decisions, and that is absolutely what happened here, makes me uneasy. Conduct forums, and that's definitely what ANI, while content forums do what they do best. The conventions are different at these types of places and for good reasons as the kind of processes that go into successfully handling one type are not the same as handling another. If someone thinks DRV got something wrong they can convince... DRV. DRV is already an appeal forum. Arguably if someone thinks an admin got a close wrong that could be appropriate for AN (since it is definitely the place to appeal closes) but that wasn't the claim that was made. AN falls into this muddle but this conversation, in my opinion, did not. And I say that as someone who thinks, before there was an article, we had been irresponsible in our coverage of her (and many other non-incumbents). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Re1ny.Dev
- Re1ny.Dev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I have blocked Re1ny.Dev from mainspace for six months, due to persistent addition of badly sourced content relating to sexuality, especially to WP:BLPs. Please review / unblock / reblock / adopt as you see fit, this is one of those cases where there's probably no one single good outcome. I have no objection to any change to this block. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- I'd like a damn good explanation for this edit, putting what is basically whacking material on one of the most important figures in remembrance of the Holocaust should be done only by established editors and then with extreme caution, and this edit is a complete and utter BLP violation. So, on the surface, it seems to be a good block. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think six months is quite long for a first block (and for an infrequent editor) but it is a serious offense. I think the block could be lifted once they acknowledge they won't repeat this behavior. Liz Read! Talk! 00:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- I just noticed that this was a block just from Article space but not Article Talk space. In that case, I think this is a fair block that will allow the editor to show they can contribute positively. Liz Read! Talk! 00:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Liz: That's the thing about the infrequent but disruptive editor. They might not even notice a shorter block. And of course, any block is appealable if the blockee can show they have remedied the problem behavior. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- I just noticed that this was a block just from Article space but not Article Talk space. In that case, I think this is a fair block that will allow the editor to show they can contribute positively. Liz Read! Talk! 00:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think six months is quite long for a first block (and for an infrequent editor) but it is a serious offense. I think the block could be lifted once they acknowledge they won't repeat this behavior. Liz Read! Talk! 00:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Another editor has started an RfC to restore some of the material: Talk:Cavetown (musician)#RfC on aromantic and transgender identity. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- {sigh}, That is patently false. From their edits it looks like the only thing they tried to add was “transphobic” which is not in the proposal at all, and never was. Gleeanon 04:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- TLDR correction/expansion for pedants: Another editor (Gleeanon409 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has started an RfC[9] to restore material that was removed as a direct result of Re1ny.Dev attempting to insert "transphobic" using an unreliable secondary source and a primary source where Cavetown specifically denied being transphobic. As often happens in these cases, once attention was drawn to the page in question it became clear that there were other claims, not made by Re1ny.Dev, that are had clear WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT problems. So far the consensus is to exclude the material that Gleeanon409 wants to include. There is some disruptive behavior by Gleeanon409 (bludgeoning[10][11][12][13][14], making major changes to the RfC question after multiple people had commented[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23], a general battlefield mentality[24][25][26]), but IMO nothing so far that requires administrator intervention.--Guy Macon (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Likely violating CANVASS, this is third posting thread to try to elevate claims Cavetown’s self-identifying as aromantic and transgender, as noted in reliable sources, is unworthy of inclusion. It’s blindingly obvious the information will be included, and only a matter of when. Gleeanon 19:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- WP:IDHT. It has been explained to Gleeanon409 multiple times by multiple editors that the question is WP:WEIGHT, not reliability of sources. Yet Gleeanon409 keeps repeating their "as noted in reliable sources" mantra without addressing the undue weight issue. The ongoing fight with User:Masem at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Moving forward is also troubling. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Gleeanon409 has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned editor: please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Benjiboi. gnu57 19:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Help
HI there I hope you are well.
Can you be king enough to help me with this article im working on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Janith_Wickramage
Thanking You Best of health
Wtlipnikki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtlipnikki (talk • contribs) 11:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Wtlipnikki You don't ask what specifically you want help with, but you should ask at the help desk. 331dot (talk) 11:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- t risk of being mistaken for EEng --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Good one, DFO. Speaking of risk...did you notice Ringo's attempt to preempt obscurity - could he be EEng?
Atsme 💬 📧 13:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Finally someone's figured it out: I'm actually Ringo Starr. But seriously, here's a true story... when I was about 6 I was absolutely the spitting image of Paul McCartney. Really. People would point on the street. EEng 09:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Good one, DFO. Speaking of risk...did you notice Ringo's attempt to preempt obscurity - could he be EEng?
- t risk of being mistaken for EEng --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Wow. Speaking of "quiet desperation" with one's song unsung. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
See also Draft:Janith wickramage.--Auric talk 09:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
WP:PERM backlog
It is requested to Admins to please have a look at the long pending WP:PERM backlog. Thanks NewWikiLover (talk) 06:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- The main backlogs seem to be AWB, PCR, and Rollback, though there are misc. requests in other sections as well. I'm going to work through PCR and Rollback, but if anyone has more experience with AWB I'd appreciate the help. — Wug·a·po·des 02:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, I've had my fill. There's still a lot of AWB requests, and a handful of Autopatrolled, Page Mover, and NPR requests outstanding. — Wug·a·po·des 04:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Courtesy @Primefac: as they have handled AWB requests earlier. 42.110.211.81 (talk) 04:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- @JJMC89, Anarchyte, and Rosguill: Thanks 42.110.211.81 (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, been busy, will likely hit later. Primefac (talk) 12:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- I've also been quite busy. If the backlog still exists in a few days time, I'll be able to have a look. Anarchyte (talk • work) 08:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks to admins Wugapodes, Primefac, Rosguill, Lee Vilenski, JJMC89, Anarchyte and others (sorry if I missed anyone) for addressing the concern. Now, only PCR and rollback has backlog with a handful at File & Page mover request.42.110.198.18 (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- I've also been quite busy. If the backlog still exists in a few days time, I'll be able to have a look. Anarchyte (talk • work) 08:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, been busy, will likely hit later. Primefac (talk) 12:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- @JJMC89, Anarchyte, and Rosguill: Thanks 42.110.211.81 (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Courtesy @Primefac: as they have handled AWB requests earlier. 42.110.211.81 (talk) 04:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, I've had my fill. There's still a lot of AWB requests, and a handful of Autopatrolled, Page Mover, and NPR requests outstanding. — Wug·a·po·des 04:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Admin eyes needed at Talk:Joe Biden
The article Joe Biden had to be full-protected due to vandalism. There are currently half a dozen "full protection edit requests" on the talk page. I am involved so I can't respond to them. If some admin could come by and take a look it would be appreciated. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Something big going on with him? Will have a look. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- There is a hell of a lot of trolls turning up, should the talk page not be semi-protected or something? Govvy (talk) 23:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- My inclination would be to let the whining continue for 48 hours without responding to it (ignore it, except for blatant attacks). Perhaps remove junk every 12 hours per WP:NOTFORUM or whatever. However, if it gets worse, semi-protection would be desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- I've removed some of the more blatant threads that were clearly NOTFORUM. Sadly 48 hours isn't going to be long enough, this is going to continue for weeks. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- That's optimistic. But no more than 8 years or so, I'd say. ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- I got curious: Lists_of_state_leaders_by_age#10_oldest_serving_state_leaders. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Whats that, 100 edits over eight hours, with half probably forum'ish? Not the end of the world, bombshell stuff I thought was going to happen, but ye, I wouldn't be surprised for a high profile article like this one to be targeted for quite a few years! Govvy (talk) 10:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- I've removed some of the more blatant threads that were clearly NOTFORUM. Sadly 48 hours isn't going to be long enough, this is going to continue for weeks. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- My inclination would be to let the whining continue for 48 hours without responding to it (ignore it, except for blatant attacks). Perhaps remove junk every 12 hours per WP:NOTFORUM or whatever. However, if it gets worse, semi-protection would be desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- There is a hell of a lot of trolls turning up, should the talk page not be semi-protected or something? Govvy (talk) 23:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
The talk page isn't being vandalized right now, just flooded with opinions saying that we can't call him "president-elect" until the electoral college meets and votes. Those are good faith opinions and we can deal with them; there is good consensus on that issue. The same changes would probably be made to the main article if it was unlocked, and that might be a reason to keep it locked for at least another day or two. While it is, we will continue to need uninvolved admins to respond to valid edit requests. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Negative contribution
I noticed that this User:GorgeCustersSabre has issues with IP-users, as he always reverted their edits at once without even check them. For instance, in this article Razane Jammal, he reverted edits to keep imdb sources and others related to fixing the references. However, I would like to ask someone to take a look at the edits, and to write that user that his contribution here is only negative as he only reverts edits and does not write anything. 118.217.90.121 (talk) 09:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- I edit in good faith. Please assume the same. You make a generalisation on the basis of very few edits. Check my tens of thousands of edits. I edit pages by IP addresses and regular editors. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 12:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- This is a LTA sock puppeteer. Let me know if more IP editors show up, and I'll block them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Nothing further on the /20 --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:48, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Full protection and certain politicians (you know the ones)
I hate to bring this to AN and start a dramafest, but how long are we gonna keep Joe Biden and Donald Trump full protected? Clearly there is a lot of disruption happening right now, but we can't keep them full protected forever. We have to drop them back to ECP at some point, but is that tomorrow? Next week? Next month? January? Unless extended, Trump's full is set to expire tomorrow, but Biden's is indefinite at the moment. This had been being talked out at User talk:Oshwah, but numerous admins and regular editors have expressed a combination of support and dismay and I think this has surpassed what can be discussed on a single user's talk page. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Other creative solutions about how to allow editing but prevent disruption are welcome, such as Awilley's suggestion to temporarily remove the 1RR restriction to allow regular editors to undo bad edits more effectively. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Questions: (1) Why not ECP now? Just how many compromised/gamed accounts have there been? Too many to block? (2) Why not PCR now? Lev!vich 23:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- No comment on ECP, but PCR is counterproductive on articles with high edit rates because every time an IP or non-AC account edits, we get a massive backlog of unreviewed changes as it also holds up subsequent edits by any non-PC reviewer. — Wug·a·po·des 23:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
such as Awilley's suggestion to temporarily remove the 1RR restriction to allow regular editors to undo bad edits more effectively
-- well, aren't they already exempt per:WP:1RR restriction: [...] Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism. Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)- That's a good point, but there are a lot of unhelpful drive-by edits that fall short of being vandalism or violating a clearly established consensus. Take this one for example. It's not quite vandalism (sources exist to support it) and I don't know that there's a clearly established consensus not to call Trump a "conspiracy theorist" in the Lead, but it's obviously Undue weight and it forces another editor to burn their 1 revert of the day to undo it. ~Awilley (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Questions: (1) Why not ECP now? Just how many compromised/gamed accounts have there been? Too many to block? (2) Why not PCR now? Lev!vich 23:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Donald Trump is now back to EC protection. Thank you, User:GorillaWarfare. About Joe Biden, I realize that full protection was necessary because of horrible image vandalism, and I congratulate User:Oshwah for swift action. But there is another way to deal with image vandalism: when this happened several times to the Trump article a few years ago, it was fixed by adding an abuse filter against uploading images. Maybe that could be installed on the Biden article, and the article reopened to normal EC editing? I really don't think full protection for that article is acceptable for more than a few days. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- MelanieN, [27] GW had dropped it but then put it back to full because folks immediately started edit warring. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- An edit filter to prevent adding file links or changing the infobox images on an article seems feasible and not too performance impacting. GeneralNotability thoughts on EF idea? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- This is currently in place. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Zzuuzz what filter is this? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Was it in place on Saturday? Because if so, from what I understand it didn't work. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- It's been actioned since. The filter is actually this one - findable to those who have access. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Is there really a reason to have this as a private filter? I mean, unless you're doing something hacky to detect what is an 'image', it shouldn't really be possible to bypass it just knowing the regex? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- In my humble opinion, yes it should remain private. You can guess roughly what it does, and I don't think you'll be improving on what's already there. Most filters tackling advanced vandalism are 'hacky'. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- I've found it and on review agree that it should remain private. Don't want to say much more per WP:BEANS. — Wug·a·po·des 23:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think ProcrastinatingReader is trustworthy, so I'll explain the situation a little more to them privately (but yeah, not here, BEANS), agree it should be private. I see it's been reactivated since the last time we had to fire it up, so I've got MusikBot set up to ping me on IRC when someone trips it. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Is there really a reason to have this as a private filter? I mean, unless you're doing something hacky to detect what is an 'image', it shouldn't really be possible to bypass it just knowing the regex? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- It's been actioned since. The filter is actually this one - findable to those who have access. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Was it in place on Saturday? Because if so, from what I understand it didn't work. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Zzuuzz what filter is this? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- This is currently in place. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Just weighing in since I was the one who placed full protection on Donald Trump. I was hoping reverting back to ECP would suffice after the 24 hour sysop protection expired, but an edit war started up. That said, it was way less of the nightmare flurry of editing we were seeing yesterday, and it was mostly about one specific issue which is being sussed out on the talk page as we speak, so I'm cautiously optimistic that ECP will be sufficient tomorrow after the protection expires again. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Just stating up front in case I am not around later that if there is some agreement to drop the protection on the Donald Trump article back down to ECP, I have no objections to my protection being changed. I'd just ask that whoever does it makes sure they're available to have eyes on the page for a little while after in case the disruption reoccurs, as it did earlier today. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- @GorillaWarfare:, I'm willing to give it another shot. I can keep an eye on the article for the next few hours. In terms of the edit war that caused you to immediately re-protect the article, I agree it wasn't ideal especially coming right out the gate like that, but I think we can tolerate some reverts like that. In the grand scheme of things it's really not that important whether we have "|successor = Joe Biden" in the infobox at any given moment. ~Awilley (talk) 02:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Just stating up front in case I am not around later that if there is some agreement to drop the protection on the Donald Trump article back down to ECP, I have no objections to my protection being changed. I'd just ask that whoever does it makes sure they're available to have eyes on the page for a little while after in case the disruption reoccurs, as it did earlier today. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think this is a productive discussion, especially since I really have no clue what's been going on besides needing to answer edit requests. Having indef fully protected that article myself a few months ago, I completely understand the situation Oshwah's in and don't envy it. IMO the status quo seems to be going okay---I've noticed about 3 to 5 admins including me trying to regularly answer edit requests---but obviously I'd prefer if people could improve the article without our intervention.
That said, it's a highly visible BLP and any disruption right now would be very bad; I would rather we be too cautious all things considered. I think we should let full protection stay for a day or two more, and then try ECP. If disruption occurs again, immediately full protect. Lather-rinse-repeat until we can have ECP without problems.(edit conflict) — Wug·a·po·des 23:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)- EEng along with Iridescent's quote below convince me otherwise, especially now that we have a filter set up to prevent the worst of the vandalism. I think we should unprotect sooner rather than later, and devote our admin resources to reverting and blocking rather than filling edit requests per WP:5P3. — Wug·a·po·des 00:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- To quote Iridescent [28]:
This is just the kind of article where we need people to be able to edit all the time, since for the next four years it will need to be constantly updated. Full-protection is an absolute last resort for articles (at the time of writing this is one of only two articles in Category:Wikipedia pages protected against vandalism); what full-protection does is hand over control of one of Wikipedia's most important articles to the tiny handful of people who have both admin status and enough interest in the topic to want to edit it. If I didn't think it would provoke a wheel-war, I'd remove the existing protection without a second thought; I think it's totally inappropriate.
- Our proudest moment should be that we maintained at least a semblance of "anyone can edit" (anyone who's extended-confirmed, anyway) on the new president-elect in the midst of all this confusion. EEng 00:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- I've lowered the protection on Biden with the proviso that anyone who thinks I'm wrong can restore full protection without consulting me. No need to worry about wheel wars on this one. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Just let me know what protection and length is decided upon here, and I'll be happy to set it. No need for another admin to get dragged through this. I'll keep my name on the protection to keep others out of the drama. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Based on the comments here and no objections from GorillaWarfare I will tentatively remove the full protection from the Donald Trump article. As with Tony's unprotection of the Biden article, any admin can reinstate the protection at any time without consulting me. That seems a reasonable way to roll with this for the next several days, since we can't expect any one admin to be on call 24/7, and we don't know if or when ECP vandals might decide to strike again. ~Awilley (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Isn't it wonderful. Right now, we've got Joe Biden omitted from Donald Trump's infobox. Meanwhile, Kamala Harris is admitted at Mike Pence's infobox. Wonderful inconsistency, indeed. An Editor-in-Chief's dream... not. GoodDay (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- So some infoboxes are in flux. Big fucking deal. EEng 03:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- It's also not exactly accurate. The article is full-protected (...) and there's no consensus to have that content in the infobox atm it seems Talk:Mike_Pence#Remove_"Succeeded_by"_information_based_on_VP-elect_Kamala_Harris. Very likely it'll end up being excluded anyway. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- We'd been better off, if that infobox topic had been brought up months ago. Oh well, as somebody told me earlier, it will all be meaningless after Biden & Harris assume office. GoodDay (talk) 12:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- It's also not exactly accurate. The article is full-protected (...) and there's no consensus to have that content in the infobox atm it seems Talk:Mike_Pence#Remove_"Succeeded_by"_information_based_on_VP-elect_Kamala_Harris. Very likely it'll end up being excluded anyway. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- So some infoboxes are in flux. Big fucking deal. EEng 03:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
2020 Arbitration Committee elections: self-nominations now open
Eligible editors are invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections. Self-nominations will close on 17 November 2020 at 23:59 (UTC). Mz7 (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Nobody's jumping to post their self-nominations. Perhaps they're all waiting for the last day. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, it seems pretty typical for candidacies to trickle in before a flurry in the last few days, last year being an exception to the recent trend (see User:SQL/AceStatsByDay) — Wug·a·po·des 05:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- As soon as I said something, someone dove in. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Still only one candidate, with only
2.5 daysa week to go. It certainly makes the choice easier: thumbs up or thumbs down. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)- To encourage more editors to self-nominate, I offer to the next one to do so a slightly worn copy of Wrestlemania: The Art of Surviving Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, it seems pretty typical for candidacies to trickle in before a flurry in the last few days, last year being an exception to the recent trend (see User:SQL/AceStatsByDay) — Wug·a·po·des 05:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
GargAvinash unblock appeal
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GargAvinash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) GargAvinash has submitted an unblock appeal as follows:
I started editing Wikipedia 6 years ago (I guess) when I was in school (class 8). I created two pages (Pt. Ramprakash Mishra and Roshni Mukherjee). I didn't know anything about Wikipedia's Notability policy. I created those pages because I was associated with them. Both were teachers. I didn't give attention to the warnings that time because I knew nothing about Wikipedia. After blocking of the account User:Kumargargavinash I created another account User:ADPS but this account was again blocked due to sockpuppetry. Again in October 2019 I created this account and started editing. I was learning the policies of Wikipedia. I was creating articles and learning more about editing process. Then I also got Autopatrolled right. I enrolled at NPP school. User:Rosguill was teaching me. During that learning period, I read carefully about sockpuppetry and concluded that blocked users should not create new accounts to edit. Then I declared at my NPP school's talk page that I have two previous account blocked. Then User:Rosguill opened a thread at Administrator's Noticeboard and community decided to block me again. Now requesting unblock after 6 months. Now Community can see my edit behaviour of my all accounts and can decide whether to unblock me or not. — GargAvinash talk 19:44, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
As a CU, I see no evidence of socking within the CU period, and would be willing to unblock, but as this block was the result of community discussion, I don't think policy allows this without getting community consensus at AN. I'm thus bringing this here. Any admin can close this and unblock if there is a consensus without needing to wait for me. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support unblock. (Link to blocking discussion) As there's no indication that they have done any socking since the block, I think it's worth giving them another chance. Schazjmd (talk) 01:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Strong support I wasn't even fully on board with the original block. It looks like they've complied with the standard offer and I think we should give them another chance. — Wug·a·po·des 01:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support glad to see that they've returned. signed, Rosguill talk 02:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support unblock The editor has demonstrated that they know what they've done wrong, and appears to demonstrate a willingness to edit constructively according to policy. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support and this is the cultural problem:
Then I declared at my NPP school's talk page that I have two previous account blocked. Then User:Rosguill opened a thread at Administrator's Noticeboard and community decided to block me again. Now requesting unblock after 6 months.
. WP:NOTPUNITIVE. This stuff encourages socking and non-disclosure. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)- I couldn't agree more. Imagine confiding in an admin who's mentoring you only to have them inform on you to AN. It's a miracle GargAvinash is still interested in contributing to Wikipedia after the treatment s/he's received. Needless to say, I support unblocking the user. Iaritmioawp (talk) 05:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support unblock per edits prior to block as well as per Rosguill --DannyS712 (talk) 06:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support unblock don't get why the user was blocked by community discussion in the first place given the improved maturity, in any case block is not serving any constructive purpose as it is stopping a productive editor from contributing. JavaHurricane 08:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support unblock Everyone deserves a second chance and the editor here clearly has matured. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support unblock I supported and continue to support the block when the socking emerged. Not only was the editor socking, they claimed they didn't realise socking was wrong [29] when they'd already been blocked for socking and then told stories about how it was their friend [30]. By their own admission, they'd also tried to get their other account unblocked while hiding that they were already socking because they didn't want to get blocked for socking. If editor's can't be bothered obeying our socking policy whether because they don't care or unable to understand even after receiving ample warning, then fuck them. If they able to evade, whatever, they can edit while being an editor in bad standing if for some reason they want to and there's likely to always be that fear they will be uncovered leading to a situation where their chance of return may be low even if they wait 6 months. While it was good that the editor finally came clean unprompted, at the time, there was still zero evidence this editor was willing or able to obey our socking policy so a block was fully justified, and was entirely on GargAvinash's poor behaviour, not on the community or anyone else. They've since demonstrated they seem to be willing to obey our socking policy, so there's no longer any need for a block. Them coming clean voluntarily is one reason I'm satisfied even if their unblock request isn't perfect. Nil Einne (talk) 14:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- I'm assuming that User:Gopalagarwal11 is a misidentification by User:SpacemanSpiff because if not, that leads to significant concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 14:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- (Not a comment on the unblock request). I don't think it is a misidentification. The overlap on non-notable topics is too telling. BTW, if not a misidentification, that would place this user's editing start in 3rd of 4th grade. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- I'm assuming that User:Gopalagarwal11 is a misidentification by User:SpacemanSpiff because if not, that leads to significant concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 14:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support unblock per many above, developed maturity and the site's longstanding proclivity to encourage second chances (which is a good thing). 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Topic ban appeal II (restored from archive)
Back in December I requested a standard offer to be unblocked after not sock puppeting for a long time, which I was given, though my topic ban remained. After six months, I made a topic ban appeal which ended with no official consensus, but the reviewing admins agreed that I would need to edit more disputable areas and that I could appeal again in at least another three months. I had been focusing on volume of edits before, so this time I focused on editing in contentious subjects. It has now been over three months and I request that my topic ban be reviewed once again. --Steverci (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Pinging @Nosebagbear: who is the only user that partook in both of the discussions linked above --Steverci (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support largely per this conversation on their talk page. They made a mistake, asked for clarification, and learned from it which is the exact kind of interaction I'd hope to see more of. Their edits since the block was lifted have largely been to talk pages which is good, because it shows productive discussion on controversial topics like Trump and racial tensions in the United States. Id' like to have seen more article edits, but everything I've seen so far makes me believe there's little risk in removing the topic ban even given the current Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. — Wug·a·po·des 23:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- I suppose the ongoing issue is that since the last TBAN appeal, where more edits were specifically given as a need, there have only been 50 edits, most of them on Trump's talk page. The editor isn't behaving problematically, and they've clearly demonstrated some form of patience. It's already DS, but we could specifically authorise for the next 6 months the ability for any admin to reimplement the TBAN. Hmm. I'll have a think Nosebagbear (talk) 11:38, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- I recalled the main need being to edit constructively outside the TBAN area. I had also asked you for some sort of quota of edits to ensure this wouldn't be a concern in the future, and received no reply. --Steverci (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Steverci: Could you please comment in more detail on your plans if the TBAN is lifted? Do you have specific plans to resume active editing in on the topics of Armenia/Azerbaijan more or less right away? Or are you just asking for the TBAN to be lifted in order to be able to edit on those topics if at some point later you do want to do that? Nsk92 (talk) 12:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- I don't have any immediate plans for certain articles, but I would like to be able to edit Armenia-related articles again. I can assure you I don't intend to rekindle old edit wars within the hour of the ban being lifted. I'll be extremely cautious and use the talk page if I think my edit will cause a dispute, but I wouldn't be doing anything like that right away. I would probably start with making edits where I see they are needed, such as vandalism like this which no one else noticed for a month. --Steverci (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- OK, I see, thanks. Nsk92 (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- I don't have any immediate plans for certain articles, but I would like to be able to edit Armenia-related articles again. I can assure you I don't intend to rekindle old edit wars within the hour of the ban being lifted. I'll be extremely cautious and use the talk page if I think my edit will cause a dispute, but I wouldn't be doing anything like that right away. I would probably start with making edits where I see they are needed, such as vandalism like this which no one else noticed for a month. --Steverci (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Per a query by applicant, I've restored from the archive - I think that even if we don't grant it, they would appreciate some more specific guidance Nosebagbear (talk) 16:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Steverci: - this is purely my own perception, but one reason why we can be reticent to just ask you for x number of worthwhile edits is that such things have a habit of being gamed. For example, let's say we told you to give us 150 beneficial edits elsewhere. 150 typo fixed are beneficial but don't tell us much about your ability to avoid, or, potentially even more useful, handle, conflict. Likewise, 150 edits in a one week burst might just indicate that you can keep calm for that long (though given your resilience through a fairly irksome appeal process, that might be the least of my concerns at this point). I think at this point, per WP:ROPE, I could be considered a weak support for a removal of the TBAN. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
There is a proposal to edit the page MediaWiki:Pagetitle, which seems to have some support at the village pump. How wide of a discussion do edits to the page MediaWiki:Pagetitle require? An RFC? Maybe a link at WP:CENT? —andrybak (talk) 12:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- FWIW any sysop can make the edit, not just interface-admins. Wider discussion for more than six days would be warranted. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Amorymeltzer, thanks, I've moved the discussion to WP:AN. —andrybak (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Dear admins, could you please advise: what is the best course of action for gathering wider feedback for the proposal to edit the page MediaWiki:Pagetitle? Should it be an RFC or a link at WP:CENT? Or maybe something else? Follow up question: if it is an RFC, which RFC topic should be used: tech or style? —andrybak (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Not admin, but I don't think a proposal to replace a dash with an endash (even if it is in the title) needs to be advertised at WP:CENT. A discussion at VPR seems sufficient. However, MOS:ENDASH only applies to articles & I'm yet to understand enwiki's love for it. I don't think I've ever used an endash outside this place. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, I meant that longer would be good, VPR itself seems fine. If you're looking for wider discussion... well, here were are, though I didn't mean to suggest it needed a sysop to make the decision. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- @ProcrastinatingReader and Amorymeltzer: ok. Then I'll just wait for a couple of days, maybe even a week or two, before seeking closure for the discussion at WP:VPR. Thanks, both of you. —andrybak (talk) 17:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
About my article
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dear administrators, This is on behalf of Iman Farzin, it is necessary to mention you be some information about my self and the article about me:
An article about me has been created couple of months ago, it’s been reviewed and everything was normal, until I had some revelations about the corruptions of football in Iran. After that, I’ve been attacked by hundreds of people in all social medias (Instagram, Twitter), at the same time, two editors from farsi-wikipedia came trough here and nominated my article for deletion. The article about me was “Speedy deleted” in fa-wiki, they even didn’t let the article to to trough a “Discussion for deletion”, they blocked almost anyone who has been contributed in. If you look at the AFD (article discussion for deletion) page now, the first comments by Iranian nominators are interesting to see: “ you can find anything about anyone in Iranian news agencies”!!!! Or “ we deleted this article many times in fa-wiki trough a discussion, this is not notable in fa-wiki, so shouldn’t be notable in en-wiki” or “the sources are all in farsi and there is no english sources” . These are some examples that you can go and read. After this, I realized that something like a movement by some Iranian people is happening against me. I asked some of my friends to contribute and improve my article by more sources. (I canvassed them) but I didn’t know that they will be blocking after they voted. They were canvassed by me, and it was my fault, not them! I also posted on a forum of wikipedians on LinkedIn, and first thing I mentioned there was: I don’t like to canvass! Unfortunately, I didn’t know that I should come trough this way (Administrators notice board) before user: Tim (I forget his full username) told me about this.
Now I have two issues for you to know: 1- fa-wiki is another project. Many editors of fawiki know that there is a kind of mafia there to get everything under controlled, and it’s a hard thing to fight with them. 2- An article with more than 30 references of reliable sources, in worst case should go for deletion trough a discussion, not speedy deletion. They speedy deleted the article in fawiki and I already explained that this is the first AFD for my article. I didn’t lied. 3- even with all canvassed issues happened, the notability of subject is something different and is regarding the WP:GNG. For me (as an amateur in wikipedia) it should be better ways to be learned, and to get noticed about my mistakes, blocking is not a good way. I also didn’t canvassed anyone to vote “keep” for me, I asked them to read the article and kindly write they real opinion about it. They also blocked some users as Sockets, but at least 2 of them I know (user:Sajjadimanian) and (user:Thedunker66) who lives in USA, for sure can’t be sockets. They were just canvassed by me and I accept the responsibility of my mistake.
Sorry for my long statement, but It was necessary. Best Regards, IMAN FARZIN 86.55.112.237 (talk)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Some task support
ResolvedHi - hoping an administrator can help with a few seemingly uncontroversial tasks:
- File:Platting Map.jpg has been found to be a free file, so I would like the ability to export this to Wikimedia Commons.
- File:Columbus State Community College Logo 2014.jpg has also been found to be a free file, so I would like the ability to export this to Wikimedia Commons.
- Moving any deleted content from Stonewall Columbus to User:Ɱ/sandbox33, as I would like to consider rewriting and publishing it.
--ɱ (talk) 01:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- I've done the third. Primefac (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- I exported the other two. @Ɱ: please double check the files on commons to make sure that everything is in order. — Wug·a·po·des 02:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yup, will do. Thanks all. ɱ (talk) 02:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- I exported the other two. @Ɱ: please double check the files on commons to make sure that everything is in order. — Wug·a·po·des 02:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Block review archived without closing
Block review : Linas was archived without closing and should be addressed. To review: indeff-blocked user Linas is evading that block and contributing as IP 67.198.37.16. Ritchie333 asked if the block should be considered lifted. There was some support on the basis that Linas edits in a technically complex area (mathematics) and makes good contributions but opposition due to it being a third-party block review and that the collaboration issues which triggered the original block have never been addressed. It appears that consensus on removing the block is less than clear so the discussion deserves a definitive close. There is also a question of whether to block the IP address if the block review is considered unsuccessful, so the close should be done by an administrator. Thanks in advance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
There is also a question of whether to block the IP address if the block review is considered unsuccessful
looking at the IP's contribs, that would be a completely braindead idea. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- You could copy and paste it back here, but it seems obvious that there is no consensus to unblock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- There's no consensus to keep the eight-year-old block in place either. Any admin should feel free to unblock the account if s/he feels that the block has outlived its usefulness. Iaritmioawp (talk) 00:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- That too, and personally I don't think there is no consensus to unblock. The opposition admits themselves that they are quite weak, much of it based on procedure, or preferring an explicit commitment from the editor @ AN. Yet, the support is strongly in favour of the unblock. Actions always speak louder than words, and the IP's actions and productive engagement is clear. And I think it's admirable, if anything, that the IP chooses to stay out of this namespace. The only question is whether editing on an IP is better for them than an account. And since they haven't explicitly pushed for an account unblock, perhaps they prefer the IP way of life. So w/e on the block/unblock, but blocking the IP would be total lunacy. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Repeated block evasion is a community ban that needs consensus to overturn. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- There has been some mischaracterization of the prior discussion. Nobody admitted their position was "quite weak". There has never been and currently is not an under the radar loophole in WP:BLOCK and indefinite blocks do not expire. Claiming that there needs to be a new consensus to retain an existing block is not supported by any policy or procedure. Neither is this "just" a procedural issue. The issue with Linas is the issue that was part of a large and complex Arbcom RfC - that of unblockables. The classic unblockable is an editor who provides positive contributions of knowledge but negative interpersonal interactions and for other editors rush in to defend when that lack of civility is questioned. This is exactly the case with Linas but it is even more egregious because they are currently evading a block. The question becomes: Is Linas unblockable because they abandoned their account? Do their copious mathematical contributions excuse their block evasion? Are comments like this, this, this, this, etc. forgivable as long as they are contributing to math articles? Does anyone believe that multiple 'crats encouraged block evasion? This is bigger than just Linas. This is the first test I know of the RfC conclusion on unblockables. It deserves an explicit close and not to slink off into the archives without resolution. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:21, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- There are smarter minds than me here, so I'll shut up for a while after this, but I just feel the need to stress that this isn't primarily an academic exercise - that's for WT:Blocking policy. This is about a single editor's case. I think too often (I am guilty of this myself) an error is made where people get so wound up in the philosophy they forget about what we're trying to do here. The editor in question has 6 years of history of articlespace contributions and talkspace discussions as an IP, yet the only problem diffs anyone seems to be able to find are the ones from their user talk, in response to the block, after the editor was blocked, aggravated and near-baited. Linas is far from an unblockable, imo - if they were, this convo wouldn't even be happening. They don't seem to fit any of the criteria in that RfC's discussion, eg
premature AN/I closes, non-policy based calls for a boomerang and counter-pile-ons by friends who pop up every time the user is being discussed
. Crucifying one editor for the sake of a principle that doesn't seem to even apply to them is silly imo. Admins aren't robots that need to mindlessly apply policy. Nobody needs to lift a finger here unless they think it's in the best interests of the wiki. And I seriously question that any admin can reach that conclusion with the evidence presented. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2020 (UTC)- I think we can agree that, regardless of whether Linas is unjustly persecuted or a serial offender, leaving the issue twisting in the wind is unfair to them and to other editors. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- @TonyBallioni: I just skimmed the link you sent, and the RfC leading up to it. It says:
- I think we can agree that, regardless of whether Linas is unjustly persecuted or a serial offender, leaving the issue twisting in the wind is unfair to them and to other editors. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- There are smarter minds than me here, so I'll shut up for a while after this, but I just feel the need to stress that this isn't primarily an academic exercise - that's for WT:Blocking policy. This is about a single editor's case. I think too often (I am guilty of this myself) an error is made where people get so wound up in the philosophy they forget about what we're trying to do here. The editor in question has 6 years of history of articlespace contributions and talkspace discussions as an IP, yet the only problem diffs anyone seems to be able to find are the ones from their user talk, in response to the block, after the editor was blocked, aggravated and near-baited. Linas is far from an unblockable, imo - if they were, this convo wouldn't even be happening. They don't seem to fit any of the criteria in that RfC's discussion, eg
- There has been some mischaracterization of the prior discussion. Nobody admitted their position was "quite weak". There has never been and currently is not an under the radar loophole in WP:BLOCK and indefinite blocks do not expire. Claiming that there needs to be a new consensus to retain an existing block is not supported by any policy or procedure. Neither is this "just" a procedural issue. The issue with Linas is the issue that was part of a large and complex Arbcom RfC - that of unblockables. The classic unblockable is an editor who provides positive contributions of knowledge but negative interpersonal interactions and for other editors rush in to defend when that lack of civility is questioned. This is exactly the case with Linas but it is even more egregious because they are currently evading a block. The question becomes: Is Linas unblockable because they abandoned their account? Do their copious mathematical contributions excuse their block evasion? Are comments like this, this, this, this, etc. forgivable as long as they are contributing to math articles? Does anyone believe that multiple 'crats encouraged block evasion? This is bigger than just Linas. This is the first test I know of the RfC conclusion on unblockables. It deserves an explicit close and not to slink off into the archives without resolution. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:21, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Repeated block evasion is a community ban that needs consensus to overturn. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- That too, and personally I don't think there is no consensus to unblock. The opposition admits themselves that they are quite weak, much of it based on procedure, or preferring an explicit commitment from the editor @ AN. Yet, the support is strongly in favour of the unblock. Actions always speak louder than words, and the IP's actions and productive engagement is clear. And I think it's admirable, if anything, that the IP chooses to stay out of this namespace. The only question is whether editing on an IP is better for them than an account. And since they haven't explicitly pushed for an account unblock, perhaps they prefer the IP way of life. So w/e on the block/unblock, but blocking the IP would be total lunacy. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- There's no consensus to keep the eight-year-old block in place either. Any admin should feel free to unblock the account if s/he feels that the block has outlived its usefulness. Iaritmioawp (talk) 00:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
To re-iterate two salient themes of the discussion:--
- The CU evidence must be publicly documented.
- Socks tagged solely on basis of behavioural evidence will not be considered under the purview of this upgradation.
- This does not apply here, right? The SPI was on behavioural evidence, and not a CU action, seemingly? Indeed, I think it's a violation of the local CU policy to link an IP to a user? Plus, seems like the "master" is not tagged & no notice was left at AN per the second paragraph, dunno if that's still required. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- I mean, yes, when I wrote the policy proposal it was phrased that way to prevent people who obsess over SPIs and see socks everywhere from declaring people banned based on a hunch. Logged out socking is a bit different since CUs can’t confirm or deny either way. All of our policies are first and foremost based on practice and document what we do. The principle there is that repeated block evasion requires affirmative consensus to unblock. No one is really denying that this is the same person and there’s next to no doubt. If we’re taking a principles based approach rather than a lawyerly approach you’d expect affirmative consensus to unblock. I don’t think when drafting the policy we ever really considered the eventuality of an individual who evades his block long-term on a static IP where no one denies it is him. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- This does not apply here, right? The SPI was on behavioural evidence, and not a CU action, seemingly? Indeed, I think it's a violation of the local CU policy to link an IP to a user? Plus, seems like the "master" is not tagged & no notice was left at AN per the second paragraph, dunno if that's still required. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Is it time served if they have been editing as an IP to evade the block? PackMecEng (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Sort of, sort of not. Just trying to show some grace and simplify a complicated problem. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- On the one hand, I think it's worth a shot. On the other, it may wind up causing more drama given the lack of a clear consensus. I was content to just ignore the whole thing like we'd been doing for the past few years, but here we are again. — Wug·a·po·des 23:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping, I was not aware of this. Being so long ago I only vaguely remember this username, so it may take me a moment to get back up to speed and review the current situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Now that I've looked into this I will say from the start that I stand behind the original block. I stepped in as an uninvolved admin and warned them to stop making personal attacks, It's arguable that a warning was not necessary at all as they'd already been blocked for that same reason three times previously. Their reaction to that warning (which, to the best of my knowledge was the first time I had ever interacted with them in any capacity) was "Why don't you just fucking stop attacking me, you asshole? " which was enough for me to issue a block, and since previous timed blocks had clearly failed to get the point across, an indef block was the correct choice as far as I'm concerned. All Linas had to do to get unblocked right away was calm down and make a reasonable pledge to stop attacking others. Instead he swung hard in the opposite direction, trying to make it about me, saying I was violent, out of control, drunk on power, and clearly conspiring with some other admin (although he declined to say who, so I actually never did know what that was about.)
- So, that brings us to now. I don't care for the block evasion, but I am willing to make exceptions when the evasion has been more or less entirely positive and the user seems to have managed to fly under the radar by not repeating the mistakes of the past. That shows the ability to learn and to be willing to collaborate with others, and that goes a long way as far as I am concerned.
- What I'd hoped to see, given the number of people who seem to want to help him find a path back to being in good standing, was some indication that they had realized the error of their ways. As far as I can tell, the issue has never been their actual edits, which, even if sometimes in dispute, were made in good faith. The issue has always been their attitude when faced with the slightest criticism. I think the attitude could be summed up as "It's not me, it's you and Wikipedia's toxic culture, and since it is so corrupt and broken there is no need for me to even try to learn the actual rules." And... I'm sorry to say that doesn't look like it's changed.
- Given all of the above I'm afraid I do not support unblocking at this time, the standard offer is about as far as I'd be willing to go, and even in that case I'd expect to see a compelling unblock request from Linas, that showed some insight into their own culpability in getting blocked to begin with. From what I've seen in the last hour or so of reviewing all this that doesn't seem very likely. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for taking time to review. As a drive-by admin with little time to spend these days, I'm not going to argue, or do anything unilaterally against the desire of the blocking admin. Personally, I think the account should be unblocked, in case someone wants to try to review all these discussions and see if there is consensus for that. If not, I think the fact that they're editing via IP should be ignored. I'm not sure there are any good solutions. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
So, the general consensus seems to be that Linas remains indefinitely blocked but the IP address they are editing through is unblocked as long as no admin feels they are disruptive? Sort of double secret indefinite semi-probation? It would be an IAR middle ground, I guess. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Help needed with User:Mr Hall of England
For some time now I have been trying to explain to User:Mr Hall of England that introducing unnecessary pipes is unhelpful. Countless times I have directed him to WP:NOPIPE and MOS:NOPIPE. For that he has called me a troll so I doubt I am achieving anything. Now he seems to be on a mission to remove redirects not only from the main space but also from archived talk pages, user pages, 10-year-old deletion discussions, etc. The user claims to have a learning disability so I hope someone can do a better job explaining why all of this is wrong. Surtsicna (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
User blocked indefinitely from article namespace per WP:MEATBOT and WP:communication is required; you can see an extended rationale on their talk page but I'll also explain here. The short version is that this behavior is long term and needs to stop immediately. Looking at their block log, this user has been blocked multiple times for making changes after being asked to stop. Their talk page takes forever to load, so I don't have a comprehensive list of warnings, but they were warned by the reporting user at least a month ago, warned about this thread 5 hours ago, and warned by an IP 3 hours ago. Despite all this, they keep going and I haven't found any explanation for why they are ignoring these warnings. They were notified of this thread almost 5 hours ago, but still continued to make edits that they should have known were controversial. The rate they were making these edits is incredibly quick---about a hundred per hour!---and the edits are pretty obviously against the consensus at WP:NOTBROKEN which they have been warned about. Honestly, given the history and current problem, I think we're reaching the end of our rope. I considered a complete CIR block, but I want to give them a chance to explain themselves and hopefully improve. But quite obviously their behavior is disruptive and has not substantially improved over the last few years. — Wug·a·po·des 01:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)- I have been tangentially aware of Mr Hall on-and-off for some time, with some genealogy articles and occasional spats at AfD and his talk page. There is clearly an enthusiastic editor buried deep inside, albeit one with an inability to communicate, compromise, and take instruction. I think my watchlist will be far less cluttered now they have a chance to consider the consequences of their actions. Good, swift action here to block. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- A bit worried here - Mr Hall mentions in his reply that he has learning difficulties, and from some contact over the years I think him to be an enthusiastic editor rather than a disruptive one. He has approached me to see if I could mentor him but I don't have the time - have suggested he tries the Rugby Union project page to see if anyone can help. Could the block be lifted in the meantime? --Bcp67 (talk) 15:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Spoondivy and failure to be collaborative
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Spoondivy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has told me that "please do not tell me what I can and can't do on this site. I don't take kindly to that type of language.", including the basic rules of the site. He ingratiated himself into a conversation with a different editor to make a personal attack. When I warned him that we don't do that, this was his response. His behavior is rapidly degenerating and I would like an admin to step in. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, and there's this chestnut here where he lies about me and makes more personal attacks. I just saw this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Materialscientist&diff=prev&oldid=988195994 ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Koavf, Looking at their contribution history, I'm tempted to say this is somebody whose account was hacked. Their behavior starting a few days ago is so different from the several years preceding. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- RoySmith Sounds like his account should be locked, then. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯
- Withdrawn per Nil Einne below. — Wug·a·po·des 22:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
{{checkuser needed}}Would a checkuser investigate whether the current edits seem related to previous edits from this account? The July edits are probably too far back to check, but there's an October edit that might be informative. I agree that recent activity is strange--a flurry of user talk activity when the editor hasn't edited user talk ever before now. I'm not sure that's enough to request a lock at this point though. — Wug·a·po·des 23:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)- I don't see any reason to think this is a different editor. Their first article talk page comment relating to the dispute seems to be [31] where they specifically said:
A quick search confirms edits from July [32]. I mean it's possible whoever compromised this account looked through the history, or found an account, for contributions to use as an example. But this seems incredibly unlikely. The lack of previous comments to any talk page isn't that surprising when we consider we're only talking about 195 or so contributions (219 now) before this dispute arose. The most likely explanation is that the editor has until now made edits without getting into a significant dispute, or at least one they cared about or noticed. Now they've got into their first major dispute and unfortunately their handling of it has been very poor. Nil Einne (talk) 11:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)Back in the spring of 2020, the home office released the 50th Anniversary for the album "Workingman's Dead". I went in and added the additional live material issued with that release and changed the format from the "classic" style to the Track listing format when I did this and not one individual complained. I go and do this to the "American Beauty" page and someone gets offended.
- I would add it's not simply their comments. The interest in American Beauty seems to tally with the historic interest of which a big chunk seems to have been Grateful Dead. I mean I guess it's possible someone compromised an account and then looked for an articles they could be a dick in where they would reduce suspicion, or wanted to target Justin so looked for articles or accounts where they could overlap. But again, I find this incredibly unlikely. IMO this isn't a compromised account, just a fairly new editor (no matter they've been here since August 2018, 219 edits can still be considered new, I mean they've not even extended-confirmed yet) who is terrible at handling disputes. Nil Einne (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see any reason to think this is a different editor. Their first article talk page comment relating to the dispute seems to be [31] where they specifically said:
- Withdrawn per Nil Einne below. — Wug·a·po·des 22:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- RoySmith Sounds like his account should be locked, then. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯
- Koavf, Looking at their contribution history, I'm tempted to say this is somebody whose account was hacked. Their behavior starting a few days ago is so different from the several years preceding. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
He ingratiated himself into a conversation with a different editor...
this sounds like a job for EEng. --JBL (talk) 22:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)- Koavf, you forgot to notify Spoondivy. I have done so. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Cullen328, What are you talking about? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:59, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Aha, they deleted it. My apologies. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Cullen328, What are you talking about? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:59, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Koavf, you forgot to notify Spoondivy. I have done so. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Y'all are a bunch of morons. I am who I am, this account is not compromised and you can all bite me.--Spoondivy (talk) 12:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Seems to me that this Justin dude needs his safe space and a pacifier. Typical millennial. Can't handle a strong argument. And let me tell ALL of you something else. There's DNA in me that arrived on the Mayflower back in 1620. Yes I can prove that. If I want to discuss something I will discuss it, if I want to argue something, I will argue it. BUT NOBODY AND I MEAN NOBODY will address me like I'm a child. Capisce!
Right, so I make a change and nobody says a WORD, I come back later and make another change and somebody gets their panties in a wad. I love the DOUBLE STANDARD. As I have stated before, my argument was about consistency, NOT MY PERSONAL PREFERENCES, as I have said many times before. My only PERSONAL PREFERENCE regarding the GRATEFUL DEAD discography page is that every tune that bleeds into another be followed with greater than sign (>) to signify this change and that after every instance of a song name that ends with an apostrophe, Truckin' being the prime example, a space is left behind the song so that when it is viewed on the page you don't see this -> Truckin'" which to me looks stupid. This is how it should look -> Truckin' "
So take all of your a..-wipe yak about this whole episode and shove it where the sun don't shine.
And remember something else you pitiful humans, one day your going to die, we all do, and then somebody just might come along and make that change and you won't be able to DO A DAMN THING ABOUT IT because yer dead and pushing daisies. HA!!! Have a good day. --Spoondivy (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Well, that was interesting. Blocked per WP:NOTHERE. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Eric Scerri: unblock request
Eric Scerri is trying to edit Eric Scerri. Apparently his IP address 154.16.93.119 is in a range that has been blocked on all WM Foundation wikis.
The block started at 12:37, 9 Aug 2020. The block range is 154.16.92.0/23
The block was apparently made by @Martin Urbanec:. I posted an unblock request on 8 Nov to Martin's talk page but have not heard from him.
Is anybody here able to help please?
thank you, Sandbh (talk) 11:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Two thoughts: first, this is a rangeblock, and thus Scerri is just caught up in it. Second, if he really does want to edit his own article, he should create an account and post on the article's talk page (and/or not use blocked proxies). I will also note that there is a local block on this range as well, so appealing to Martin Urbanec (who I will note was not informed of this discussion) is rather a moot point. Primefac (talk) 12:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Note this is indeed an open proxy. Please switch off your VPN, it will work after that. Best, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 12:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Request for protecting my talk page
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Would you please protect my talk page or prevent this user from editing it? Look what he has done to my talk page.[33] --Wario-Man (talk) 14:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- They seem to have learned it is OK to remove warnings from one's own talk page, so I have no doubt @Nasheen: will not re-add any more warnings to yours. If they do, they will be blocked from editing your talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Also, remember to notify them if you complain about them at a noticeboard. I've now done that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Persistent/Inappropriate use of protection templates by a non-admin user - Temp or perm block of editing privileges
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- User:WikiBoyLove - Persistent misuse of protection template(s) for an unprotected page, including disruptive and unsourced edit(s) of living person.
- Incidents - [34], [35], [36], [37] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pseud 14 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done, this has not been discussed with the editor, they only added it to one article the three times; they very well could be trying to ask for protection and/or not understand how the protection templates work. They have not been approached about this issue (just a generic "don't disrupt" message) so we're nowhere near the amount necessary for any sanctions. Primefac (talk) 15:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The editor was a sockpuppet and is now blocked. Doug Weller talk 11:34, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
discussion archived unclosed
An admin experienced, well-intentioned editor comes in with a valid issue about a chronic behavior problem that she can't deal with herself, showing plenty of diffs PLUS evidence she has tried over the past few months three times to deal with the problem without bringing it to ANI, and because she doesn't keep bumping the discussion, it's now archived. I don't understand why no one helped with this. —valereee (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- User:Valereee, Consider bringing back your request from the archive. If you do so, you might suggest an admin action to take. If the case is about tendentious editing and assumptions of bad faith a one-month block seems possible. The editor does not seem to accept any feedback so others would have to decide what to do. There is unlikely to be any negotiated solution. EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with Ed that you consider unarchiving the discussion and create subsection where you propose a sanction. If there is support then it can be implemented. I have not dived into all the diffs there but I will admit that if both El C and Cullen have declined to block I would be hesitant to do so absent some kind of community consensus (I think no action is as worthy of respect as action). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- EdJohnston, Barkeep49, thank you, I've reopened and added a section. —valereee (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Barkeep49, EI_C has blocked. Cullen has warned and suggested increasing blocks. Girth Summit has warned and suggested increasing gblocks. UTBC has tried their best to explain, as have all three admins. I've tried to explain on multiple occasions. EI_C and GS have gotten busy IRL, and I think Cullen after the wall of text on his page and responding at Girth Summit's has given up. Honestly, look into the diffs. I've not brought anything to ANI in five years as far as I can recall. —valereee (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Since you've pinged me, a couple more thoughts. El C blocked once and then seem to have accidentally blocked a second time. But none of this was in your ANI report. With respect, your lack of ANI filing experience is showing; what you wrote makes for better ArbCom than ANI reading. Like I did at my first ANI report, you've included too much detail, making it a little imposing for someone to dive in, and didn't include important facts (like the block). That is, on a meta level, an answer you originally not understanding why no one has helped you. Even "Admin action requested" is not going to be effective as "Block proposed", then proposing a 1 month block, and supporting it as the proposer. I wouldn't encourage anyone to get more ANI experience per se but Wikipedia:ANI advice is useful for any first time or periodic ANI filers. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Barkeep49, I'm sure you're right. I don't know how to fix that, but advice is much appreciated. What should I do? Should I change the subsection head? Should I add a diff for the block? The discussions at Girth Summit's and Cullen's and EI_C's talk, in addition to the one at UTBC's? I'm open to any help. I'm at the point I'm ready to walk away from this and let someone else discover it later. —valereee (talk) 22:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- No one has replied to so I don't see an issue with you changing the section name. And, as I know you know from past experience, sometimes waiting (and sometimes walking away) is all you can do. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in. :D —valereee (talk) 11:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- No one has replied to so I don't see an issue with you changing the section name. And, as I know you know from past experience, sometimes waiting (and sometimes walking away) is all you can do. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Barkeep49, I'm sure you're right. I don't know how to fix that, but advice is much appreciated. What should I do? Should I change the subsection head? Should I add a diff for the block? The discussions at Girth Summit's and Cullen's and EI_C's talk, in addition to the one at UTBC's? I'm open to any help. I'm at the point I'm ready to walk away from this and let someone else discover it later. —valereee (talk) 22:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Since you've pinged me, a couple more thoughts. El C blocked once and then seem to have accidentally blocked a second time. But none of this was in your ANI report. With respect, your lack of ANI filing experience is showing; what you wrote makes for better ArbCom than ANI reading. Like I did at my first ANI report, you've included too much detail, making it a little imposing for someone to dive in, and didn't include important facts (like the block). That is, on a meta level, an answer you originally not understanding why no one has helped you. Even "Admin action requested" is not going to be effective as "Block proposed", then proposing a 1 month block, and supporting it as the proposer. I wouldn't encourage anyone to get more ANI experience per se but Wikipedia:ANI advice is useful for any first time or periodic ANI filers. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Others have already given good advice but I'll add another point. Admins should not expect special treatment at the boards. Plenty of editors open threads which don't result in any action, not even editors saying there's no need for action. There are even threads where there's some minor support for action but not many comments and the thread is archived without action. It's fine for editors to unarchive those threads if they think they were archived prematurely and are hoping something will happen, but all editors including admin need to accept that for a variety of reasons, opening a thread which you feel has enough evidence for action doesn't mean action will result. Nil Einne (talk) 14:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Nil Einne, wow, I'm sorry. It didn't occur to me that I was sounding like I was requesting special treatment, but now that you've pointed it out, that's exactly what it sounded like. My apologies; that wasn't actually my intention, but you're right. Thank you for the advice. —valereee (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Valereee, I apologize for not commenting sooner, but I have now supported a block and an editing restriction at ANI. Barkeep49, it is not that I "declined" to block or support a block, but rather that I am sometimes slow to decide and I have had a lot on my plate in recent weeks. I encourage participation by others in the ANI discussion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Cullen328, seriously no apology necessary. I appreciate someone who is slow to decide. I think we all should be slow to decide. I think as this was basically my first 'real' ANI, I just didn't really understand how best to approach it. I've become (slightly) more educated. :) —valereee (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Valereee, I apologize for not commenting sooner, but I have now supported a block and an editing restriction at ANI. Barkeep49, it is not that I "declined" to block or support a block, but rather that I am sometimes slow to decide and I have had a lot on my plate in recent weeks. I encourage participation by others in the ANI discussion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Nil Einne, wow, I'm sorry. It didn't occur to me that I was sounding like I was requesting special treatment, but now that you've pointed it out, that's exactly what it sounded like. My apologies; that wasn't actually my intention, but you're right. Thank you for the advice. —valereee (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Multiple edit requests are being made to change this article, claiming that Joe Biden has not been formally elected at this time. The article is semi-protected, and the edit-requests are (correctly) going to Talk:President-elect of the United States. The requests are then (correctly) being denied because Wikipedia follows reliable sources, and the news media are referring to Biden as President-elect. What is interesting is that the edit-requests are coming from a combination of IP addresses and almost unused accounts that made one or two edits several years ago. The IP addresses might be sockpuppetry, but that would not explain the accounts that are waking up after hibernating. One possible explanation is that the edit-requests are being brigaded from some external bulletin board. Does anyone have an alternate explanation? At this point what is in order is probably only administrative attention, in case the brigading increases, or in case there is some sort of mischief.
Robert McClenon (talk) 01:56, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Some of the dormant accounts may be sleeper socks, and others are just people who remembered that they have a Wikipedia account and want to get in on the action. Off-site canvassing is also a good probability as well. Just deny their requests and archive 'em. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- This is very similar to the crap we get at Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput, and our standard operating procedure for persistent demands we change the article to accommodate right-wing conspiracy theories on that page is to revert them off on discovery and point them at the FAQ. If these are drive-by demands, they're not interested in any sort of measured debate that isn't blind obedience, and therefore they're just a waste of space on the page. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 05:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Extended confirmed protection applied, until after the College of Electors meets. Risker (talk) 05:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Risker, Perhaps also place an FAQ like banner/editnotice on the talk page to explain why we are calling Biden president-elect? Would also allows us to just summarily deny request with a link to said FAQ Asartea Talk | Contribs 09:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- I've placed an FAQ —valereee (talk) 11:56, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Global ban proposal for Kubura
Hello. This is to notify the community that there is an ongoing global ban proposal for User:Kubura who has been active on this wiki. You are invited to participate at m:Request for comment/Global ban for Kubura. Thank you. Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 21:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)