Cannabis Ruderalis

Welcome to the administrators' noticeboard

This page is for posting information and issues of interest to administrators.

  • It is rarely appropriate for inexperienced users to open new threads here – for the "Incidents" noticeboard, click here.
  • Do not report breaches of privacy, inappropriate posting of personal information, outing, etc. on this highly visible page – instead click here.
  • For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
  • Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.

The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over six days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archivessearch)

Open tasks[edit]

XFD backlog
V Jul Aug Sep Oct Total
CfD 0 0 25 0 25
TfD 0 0 2 0 2
MfD 0 0 0 0 0
FfD 0 0 3 0 3
RfD 0 2 11 0 13
AfD 0 0 5 0 5

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection[edit]

Report
Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (10 out of 3874 total) (Purge)
Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
Zoë Quinn 2022-10-01 03:00 2023-01-01 03:00 edit,move Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP MelanieN
Sweater Whether 2022-10-01 01:34 indefinite move Persistent disruptive editing Liz
Domee Shi 2022-10-01 01:24 2022-10-03 01:24 edit,move Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts ScottishFinnishRadish
First Battle of Newtonia 2022-10-01 01:04 2022-10-03 01:04 edit Persistent vandalism from (auto)confirmed accounts NinjaRobotPirate
Sir M. Visvesvaraya Terminal 2022-09-30 02:02 indefinite move Undiscussed moves by sockpuppets EdJohnston
Khawaja Shujauddin 2022-09-29 16:22 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: approved draft required Ponyo
Control of cities during the Russo-Ukrainian War 2022-09-29 12:59 2023-02-26 02:34 edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:ARBEE, Requested at RfPP Xymmax
Draft:Sajjad Hasan 2022-09-28 15:46 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated DatGuy
Mahsa Amini protests 2022-09-28 15:03 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP DatGuy
Yusuf al-Qaradawi 2022-09-27 22:30 indefinite edit,move Restoring protection level; this is not a discretionary sanction nor arbitration enforcement ToBeFree

Block evader[edit]

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



Special:Contributions/Pickle troll 188.226.73.30 (talk) 07:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Unban request from CheatCodes4ever[edit]

CheatCodes4ever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Was originally blocked as WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR per this ANI discussion, and has been blocked for socking, and lost talk page access more than once. A repeat checkuser will be useful. (Yamla found no socking in June.) Has requested unblocking at UTRS appeal #62686, and I have restored the ability to edit here for the unban request. User will be able to respond directly to concerns here. I have copied the request over from UTRS below.

Alright, I am trying my block appeal again. Note that due to a small character maximum in this text box, I am going to have to ask that administrators reviewing this and anyone else reading this read my previous unblock requests to hear other parts of the story. I would rewrite the whole thing again but I cannot, so I will do this instead.

Basically, I got blocked from Wikipedia for not being here to build an encyclopedia and abuse of multiple accounts. As I mentioned, abuse of multiple accounts is already covered in previous requests, though I will get onto the NOTHERE reasoning. I was community banned due to my issues with adding sources to pages and creating articles for non-notable subjects. Users had also given me advice before about this, however I did not take the advice very well, which led users to believe I was not here to build an encyclopedia. As for the addition of content without sources, I often forgot to add sources, which was why I often forgot to add them.

Also, for the record regarding sources that I do use but should not, I do now know that I should not use stores as sources as they are considered original research. As for creating articles on non-notable topics, I now understand the general notability guideline (WP:GNG), as the rule is that a topic is presumed to be notable if it has recieved significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject:

1. "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources, creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. This means that meeting this policy does not mean it definitely deserves its own article, but that it is assumed that it does.
2. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. This means that the topic is covered significantly and is not just mentioned trivially (ex. a long paragraph about something is signficant coverage, but solely mentioning a topic is not).
3. "Reliable" means that the sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. This means that sources must have fact-checking by editors and must not be self-published.
4. "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. This means that sources are needed to make something notable, and these sources should be secondary sources.
5. "Independent of the subject" excludes works published by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. This means that things like advertisements, announcements by the subject or someone affiliated, or anything else that is made by someone who is affiliated with the subject.
Also, I will say for the record, I no longer believe that kappaphobia is a notable topic for Wikipedia, as the source I used was anonymous and was also not reliable for medical information. As for not listening to advice, I will say two things regarding that: 1. Until late 2019, I did not read my messages on my talk page. Although I did see some of them through notifications, most of them I ignored, because I did not use talk back then. 2. When I did eventually start reading my talk page messages, although I did read the advice, I admittingly never really took it very seriously. I did read one policy when it was shown to me, though that's about it. Also, as for not using my talk page to appeal my block, I apologise for doing that, but I was asking questions that I thought I might have needed to know before I could appeal. Anyway, in conclusion, I would like to be unblocked from Wikipedia.

carried from utrs. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I still see no evidence of block evasion recently, based on checkuser data. --Yamla (talk) 13:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thank you. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I suppose I'll start this off, since it's been three days. @CheatCodes4ever: While your ban appeal, to me, seems to cover all the main points to be unbanned (and indicates to me that you have read the guidelines you admitted you previously did not), I'm curious what your plans are should it happen. What sort of topics do you want to contribute to should you be unblocked? FrederalBacon (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not really sure what topics to which I'll contribute, I'll probably contribute to all kinds, but it will probably mainly be music, film, television, and maybe even games. As I said though, I'll probably end up contributing to all kinds of topics. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Well, at this point, I'm a consensus of one. CU cleared editor that put some effort into their unblock request, and seems to have an interest in editing. Sure, why not, it's cheap. FrederalBacon (talk) 06:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AfD shrunken text fix requested[edit]

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


On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 September 24, many entries at the bottom of the page are in small text. Can this be fixed? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. DanCherek (talk) 15:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Staxringold restoration of permissions[edit]

The Wikimedia Foundation has determined that Staxringold (talk · contribs) is back in control of his account. The Arbitration Committee has corresponded with Staxringold and, based on all available information, is assured that he will follow appropriate personal security practices in the future. The Committee therefore restores his administrative access.

The Arbitration Committee is of the view that additional clarity about the Committee's return-of-adminship practices relating to account security is necessary. The Committee therefore invites interested community members to comment on relevant motion.

Support: Barkeep49, CaptainEek, Enterprisey, L235, Maxim, Primefac, Worm That Turned, Wugapodes

Oppose: Cabayi, Donald Albury, Izno

For the Arbitration Committee, Maxim(talk) 17:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Staxringold restoration of permissions

Checkuser needed[edit]

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


Would someone with access to the checkuser tool be willing to email me? I filed this a while back but while disruption is ongoing, it hasn't moved forward. An admin moved it out of the Checkuser Requests, with instructions to contact someone through email if I want it run. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Checkusers will not publicly disclose the connection between a user and an IP address per the privacy policy. We will also not disclose it to you via email, since you have not signed the relevant NDAs. Furthermore, I don't see any checkuser likely running that check since it would likely fall afoul of the checkuser policy. Cheers. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did you read the CU's comment at the SPI where I was specifically told to email a CU privately? I don't want anything disclosed to me, I wanted to provide evidence so someone can do something about ongoing disruption. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 00:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why are you bringing this here? If you haven't yet e-mailed a CheckUser, then do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know any checkusers... which is why I asked for one of them to email me. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 03:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've lost interest in trying to help resolve this situation at this point, so I'll just close the discussion. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 03:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • @EnPassant: You can find a list of checkusers at WP:CONTACTCU. Sometimes when you're at a loss of what to do when it comes to Wikipedia, searching by adding WP: to what you want to find out (e.g. WP:CHECKUSER) often leads you to a page containing such information. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Ford489 db-g7 deletions[edit]

About a year ago, User:Ford489 was indefblocked for sockpuppetry. On the way out, he tagged 37 articles he had written for speedy deletion as {{db-g7}}. Looking at the articles themselves, they seem fine to me, and I would be inclined to undelete these. Is there any reason not to? BD2412 T 00:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • On further inspection, some (but not all) of these were nominated for deletion as being non-notable; others are clearly notable (a couple of regional governors, for example). The speedy tagging circumvented deletion discussions that were occurring. BD2412 T 00:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I was the one who filed the sockpuppetry case at the time, and boy was Ford489 prolific after their first sock ban in 2015. They were dead-set on making their entire lineage represented on en-wiki, and went fairly undercover for six years. After I filed at SPI in late 2021 (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/2636z/Archive), I went through a series of G5s since their article creations were made in circumvention of their ban, and excluded from the speedy deletion process all articles that could have qualified for WP:NPOL at the time. However, worth noting that 95% of the sources in the articles are primary, passing mentions, or no mentions at all of the subject in question. So if one chooses to restore the 37 articles (or any of the G5'd articles), I'd caution to take a deep look at the sources. Pilaz (talk) 00:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Circumcision[edit]

Appealing to the community's collective memory: who was the editor who got into hot water for their editing on articles dealing with circumcision? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you thinking of Stix1776? I handed down an indefinite topic ban for edits to circumcision, partly based on oversighted material. Why do you ask? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
? Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive826#Hans Adler and Circumcision ? Bon courage might know who you're thinking of. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Circumcision? I've heard of a WikiGnome but never a WikiMohel! On a serious note are you perhaps thinking about User:HRS395 or their sock Sugarcube73? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the suggestions. I think it was this editor I was thinking of. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now that's a deep cut. See what I did there? BD2412 T 05:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Standard offer - JGabbard[edit]

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


JGabbard (talk · contribs)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1096#JGabbard spreading white genocide conspiracy theory on South African farm attacks article

JGabbard was indefinitely blocked by Star Mississippi back in April for highly offensive remarks on a talk page, which were considered excessively disruptive and worthy of a block after review at ANI. He has recently filed a request apologising for his conduct and realising it was completely inappropriate, and a look back through his history brings back plenty of constructive and good faith edits to suggest they could be a net positive for the project. Although they didn't explicitly cite it, I think this is a reasonable application of the Standard offer; it's not quite six months since the block, but close enough to see if there is a community consensus to unblock. Furthermore, it might be appropriate to add a South Africa or politics-related topic ban of some sort as a condition of unblocking - not sure exactly what, though. Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks @Ritchie333. The name didn't ring any bells and it looks as if I blocked as a result of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1096#JGabbard spreading white genocide conspiracy theory on South African farm attacks article. A scan of their contributions such as this make me think if unblocked, there would at least need to be a topic ban from South Africa since they do not appear able to edit neutrally in the area. Courtesy headsup to @Barkeep49 as they enacted a topic ban per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1036#Anti-vax_campaign. At the moment I don't have a chance to take a deep dive so will AGF on Ritchie's assessment of a net positive and not take a position on the unblock. Happy to roll with any consensus that develops here. Star Mississippi 16:48, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ETA, oppose I still haven't had the chance to look through their edits, but the cases made here are more than compelling. While JGabbard appears able to edit productively in music areas, editing is a privilege, not a right. I'm sure there are others who can work in music without the baggage and noticeboard time sinks that come with his editing since there's no technical way to ensure they only edit in music areas. Star Mississippi 13:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Isn't a net positive racist an oxymoron? I don't think anyone who holds those beliefs and thinks it's appropriate to espouse those racist views on wiki should be allowed to edit here, full stop. I realize this is a hardline stance, but I care more about editors who are exposed this type of nonsense then the person who holds those racist tropesValeince (talk) 16:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No. I guess I could elaborate further if anyone just can't figure out why, but otherwise this unblock request is just a time sink for all the collaborative, fact-based, non-racist editors out there. I will assume Ritchie's "net positive" comment was just poor wording. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I only did a shallow dive of edits, and noticed they'd been around for a while and edited some music articles, hence they could be a net positive, but if other editors have had time to investigate further and found even more problems, obviously not. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:NONAZIS. NightHeron (talk) 17:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support, but only if it's accompanied by a strict topic ban from anything relating to race.VersaceSpace 🌃 18:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On second thought, I oppose. —VersaceSpace 🌃 18:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Question Assuming we let them back with topic bans related to the following topics: vaccination, conspiracy theorists, COVID-19, race, South Africa, and politics, all broadly construed - what areas would they want to edit in? I do see that the majority of their constructive edits are to music related areas. Is there anything else they would want to edit? Moreover, a musician's race can provide important context to their music. Would the community have a problem with them discussing such topics in relevant articles? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment I was about to post the following but ec'd with the above post. It's along the same lines: I'm not sure a S.Africa/race TBAN covers it. Looking through his editing before his indef, he seems to have a very substantial track record on music. That appears to be his main interest. As far as I can tell that doesn't appear to be problematic and seems to have been very worthwhile. He seems to have a secondary interest in radical evangelical denominations. That looked ok'ish, although having a tendency to write as though he was composing a spiritual meditation, but I did notice the odd anti-Catholic tirade as here. One might couple that with his user page citing Ian Paisley as a hero. As well as the South Africa comments there's his Covid/Anti-Vax/conpiracy theorists TBAN here. It looks to me he's an asset when he's working music but anywhere else he's prone to tendentious soap-boxing. Is a TBAN from everything except music a thing? I haven't seen something like that before but that would make him a positive. DeCausa (talk) 18:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @ONUnicorn, VersaceSpace, and DeCausa: I'm worried that music, the topic that he really loves to edit, may also address what he is topic-banned from and that he might game the topic ban, intentional or not. Any music about race and politics, like White Riot, lately? Oh wait, there have been songs about race, like rap songs about it. (Well, there are classic rap songs, but I'm unsure whether he would consider them "classics".) BTW, he and I had content disputes, but it's mostly about cover arts and other editions lacking such. George Ho (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yep, that's a problem, although if he were TBAN'd from race too he wouldn't be able to edit when those issues came up. Clearly this is moot in light of the number of opposes anyway. I'm comfortable with that if the assessment is that there's a risk that he would again express views that are abhorrent on WP or that they would drive his editing. I'm not so comfortable if it's because he has those abhorrent views whether or not expressed and whether or not they drive his editing. DeCausa (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Other editors shouldn't have to work with this editor. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose – if you need that many TBANs, then you've stopped being a "net positive", whatever that means nowadays. JCW555 (talk)♠ 18:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose This editor has been disruptive regarding American politics, alternative medicine, vaccines, COVID-19, conspiracy theorists, Roman Catholicism, race and South Africa. Did I miss any? Cullen328 (talk) 18:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Any benefit their music edits would bring would be outweighed by all the other baggage.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per Floquenbeam. The apology is extremely limited in scope and detail and sounds incredibly perfunctory. The issue was not limited to the inflammatory talk-page posts that were the proximate cause of his indefinite block. He had a long history of disruption and his editing was fundamentally at odds with our core mission to provide accurate, honest, reliably sourced information to readers. Here he expressed contempt for foundational site policy; I don't see any reason to think he'll stop trying to undermine clearly reliable sources based on his personal agenda. He was previously topic-banned for pushing anti-vaccinationism. I don't know how many red flags this community needs before deciding not to sacrifice more of its contributors' time and goodwill, but this is well over my personal threshold. MastCell Talk 19:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Nope I see a short apology that doesn't even remotely address the seriousness of their talkpage soapboxing, but instead appears to promise to better source their "inflammatory sociopolitical comments" in the future. Between that, and the fact that they were really pushing the limits of their conspiracy theorist TBAN before they were blocked, indicates further issues ahead, to me. FrederalBacon (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - If you'll promise to not push your political views anywheres on the project? I'll agree to your reinstatement. GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. The very definition of WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE. The notion that the terminally intolerant should somehow be tolerated if they behave —they won't, they never do— has seen a rise in popularity in recent years, though thankfully, not on Wikipedia so much. I find the tendency toward that kind of acceptance highly disturbing. It should be resisted firmly. Needless to say, the pseudoscience is a further compounding factor, but since in one way or another it provides the basis for that sort of mindset, it's a moot point. El_C 04:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have in the past had positive interactions with JGabbard, and I know they are capable of doing good work on our music articles, so part of me wanted to support giving them another chance, but I had not previously recognised the full range of subjects they had previously been disruptive in. I had also not realised that this was someone who lists Tommy Robinson (activist) as a hero on their user page (scroll to the bottom). He lists Robinson, a white supremacist with convictions for violence and fraud, amongst the 'courageous watchdogs' he admires. That was the final straw for me - oppose. Girth Summit (blether) 06:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Unblock with appropriate TBANs - Apparently, this editor can be productive in some areas since they have 50k edits, and there’s no harm when they edit the areas they aren’t disruptive in. I don’t see why STANDARDOFFER wouldn’t apply here, but I think an unblock here should be JGabbards final chance for a long time. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 16:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @GoodDay and Iamreallygoodatcheckers: I don't know. In the past, he declared his own sexuality and his own ancestry. Also, he declared to be "highly against Nazism". Ironically, his involvement in non-music topic was what got him blocked indefinitely. George Ho (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I just figured. If JGabbard did get reinstated, he'd be under heavy scrutiny. One mess up & re-banned. GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There's nothing ironic about that situation. If he had stuck to music, and kept away from politics, he'd still be editing. However, attempts to get him to do just that have been made before. Despite a TBan from conspiracy theories, he still felt free to let rip harmful bile about the South African government which, while I'm sure he believed what he wrote, was nevertheless racist conspiracy theory nonsense. And, as I mentioned above, he felt free to voice his support for Tommy Robinson (activist) on his user page - seriously, follow that link and see who we're talking about. I'm fine with having a plurality of views on this project, but we're literally talking about someone who expresses support for convicted a violent neo-fascist. Surely that's a hard 'no'? Girth Summit (blether) 21:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. Admittedly, I'm primarily voting because I dislike how many people have opposed solely because of his politics, so if the closer wants to consider this a "moral support" vote and basically ignore it, I suppose I can't really complain. I find the trend for things of this kind to devolve into "I don't want you here because I am uncomfortable with your political views" to be disconcerting; I'm sure a great many people here would find my political views quite disconcerting, too, I just have had the good sense never to talk about them here. I don't feel like I have a good sense for whether or not he'd be a problem, given how brief his unblock request was; given the circumstances, I am inclined to AGF, provided he is willing to accept TBans on race and maybe some other topics as a condition. Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Being racist isn't politics. Neither is being a conspiracy nut. You tell us on your user page you area christian fundamentalist, here you tell us that having abhorent views of our fellow humans is just another political position which you happen to also hold. That you believe very similar things about various groups of people you have told us as well. Way too normalised this sort of pure bigotry on Wiki. But that is how it has been for years now. Bottom line, there is no hate like christian love. 85.16.40.253 (talk) 00:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It was politics for the Dixiecrats... EvergreenFir (talk) 01:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Fair enough. Anti-semitism was politics for the NSDAP as well. There are examples where basic human rights and dignity were politicsed all over history. With predictable outcomes. I for one have no taste to return to anything even adjacent to that. Normalisation of bigotry just is a dangerous step to take. 85.16.40.253 (talk) 01:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Wait a moment here. This is only your second post (indeed second edit ever) to Wikipedia. Why have you suddenly chosen this discussion, to participate in? GoodDay (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have a variable IP adress perhaps? Nothing i can do about that (other than making an account obviously, which i chose not to do), new IP every day and with that zero contribs, usually. I am not new, never claimed to be and i just don't want to make an account even after a decade of lurking and some gnomish edits here and there. As well as sometimes commenting here, or at ITN or where ever i feel like it really. 85.16.40.253 (talk) 02:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Politics is just the government of human society: pretty much everything is political. I obviously wouldn't describe my own political views as "abhorrent," and I try to avoid having strong opinions on many of the most politically salient topics, as I feel investment in politics often distracts from (when it doesn't directly undermine) true, pious religion (as you yourself have observed, given your cynical remarks concerning "Christian love"). FWIW at this point in this discussion, I certainly don't agree with JGabbard's views of race, COVID-19 vaccines, or probably anything else (not that I have scrutinized his far-flung commentaries especially closely), but I know from experience that many people would find my views on other topics, such as contraception and scientific naturalism, similarly backwards. Yet nothing will ever become of it, because I know what the house biases are and I avoid substantially engaging with topics where I would be unable to conform. JGabbard could learn to do this, too (whether he would is another question; it seems the community is unwilling to find out). So the oft-touted position that racists/fascists/etc. are incompatible with the project because they are racists/fascists/etc., and not because they are unable or unwilling to suspend their worldviews and engage collaboratively, makes me nervous. Compassionate727 (T·C) 11:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Compassionate727, I think you're missing the point about racist beliefs, in the sense that they fundamentally concern immutable characteristics. So, following that, I could join your Christian community by adopting your set of beliefs regardless of my background; and likewise, you could do the same by joining my community by adopting socialist beliefs, regardless of your background. That we are unlikely to want to do that is really an aside to that salient principle, that it's possible (and in fact it happens in a myriad of ways).
    By contrast, I could never join a an overtly racist group. To them, I'll always be subhuman, often to the point of needing to be destroyed, and there is absolutely nothing I could ever do about that. Since, again, the tautology here is that my innate traits are, well, innate and unchangeable (i.e. it just is not possible for one to alter their ethnicity, skin colour, etc.). El_C 17:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @El C: Oh boy, we are getting so far off-topic here. I'd really just wanted to complain about how I felt like everyone was latching onto all of the detestable things he has said and entirely ignoring his promise to not do that going forward. Clearly analogizing was the wrong way to go about that. Absolutely, I recognize that racism is especially bad because it focuses on immutable traits that have nothing to do with anything, and Tamzin's essay makes a worthwhile point when contending that hateful views are uniquely, even inherently disruptive. And we both agree that viewing someone as subhuman is hateful, and that someone who is unwilling to edit Wikipedia without insinuating that some people are subhuman doesn't have a place here. But what about other things that are maybe hateful but maybe just disagreeable? For example, do blacks who work for police departments express hatred for blacks? I imagine we would both say no, but some people in the US did argue this in the 1960s. And then we could have a whole discussion about what constitutes hatred to unravel what exactly distinguishes the one from the other, but that probably wouldn't be very fruitful, so I hope we don't do that. I just hope you can appreciate that saying that some people don't belong in the community because they are hateful without specifying as a corollary that they are also disprutive makes me nervous. Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Compassionate727, I guess what I'm getting at is that I don't think I, for example, should be expected to collaborate with people who I know view me as subhuman (speaking generally, not about JGabbard, specifically), regardless if their editorial work in itself is disruptive. Speaking for myself, I've always been open to collaboration, and also friendship, with folks who I might disagree with on the fundamentals — but not that. And, in fact, if you go to the bottom of my talk page you'll see threads that primarily feature three people: a deer hunter (*wink*), a conservative, and a devout Christian. All three of whom I consider friends. El_C 18:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per Girth Summit. Andre🚐 00:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - We should not be encouraging this user's Games Done Quick Wikipedia all DS regimes% speedrun. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 01:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. There is a debate sometimes about the hypothetical "polite bigot". The essay WP:NONAZIS takes the position that such a person should be blocked. An essay I wrote, Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive, concurs in part and dissents in part, opining that such a person should be allowed to edit if they never let on what their views are, while also concluding that this disagreement is largely theoretical, as, in practice, people with such views tend to be outspoken about them. As here: The number of userboxen on JGabbard's userpage, many of them about politics, tells you everything you need to know about his willingness to be the "polite bigot" who keeps to himself and keeps his politics off-wiki. Or if that doesn't convince one, one can see where I first got to know JGabbard, an MfD in which he vigorously defended his decision to refer to himself as a "citizen" of a breakaway state built on enslaving Black people, using both ahistorical fallacies and righteous indignation to justify his position.
    I see no reason to trust that JGabbard has suddenly learned how to not be disruptive when it comes to his fringe views, after years of not getting it. And, like others, I see no reason that editors should have to collaborate with someone who has behaved in this manner.
    By the way, @Girth Summit: I also took note of an entry on JGabbard's list of heroes, namely Francis Schaeffer. When I was in high school, I had the opportunity to spend a few hours in a small seminar led by his son Frank. Frank has said and written a fair bit on the views his father espoused—most memorably, calling for the overthrow of the U.S. government for allowing abortion. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 12:25, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Anti-vax nonsense (including making articles incorrect and then trying to defend it), racism per the original block, and as a bonus espousing a violent racist criminal as one of their heroes on their userpage? Sounds like exactly the type of editor we should be welcoming back with open arms. I don't think. Black Kite (talk) 13:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'd close this as no dice, but I had a pretty extensive conflict with this user way back when, so one might argue I'm not the most neutral person. I'll just go with oppose, per Cullen, per Black Kit, per Tamzin, per common sense, etc. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, WP:SNOW clearly applies. Someone please close this. Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resumption of edit war by User:Marrew[edit]

Strong evidence of an edit war is easily found at User talk:Marrew, including a 24 hour block and a 1 month block. The edits go against the consensus expressed at Talk:International System of Units#RfC on entries in tables. This edit resumes the edit war. I recommend a community ban. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am also concerned by this resumption of this edit war, despite two blocks so far. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Now blocked indefinitely by Bbb23. That outcome was basically guaranteed, I'm afraid. --Yamla (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can someone revert this serial vandal on a mission?[edit]

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



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/123.215.23.150 In hospital slowly recovering from painful liver cancer surgery successfully Doug Weller talk 16:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's hoping for a successful and complete recovery, and I will double check. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done. Feel better soon. DatGuyTalkContribs 16:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I hope you mean the surgery was successful, not just the recovery. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Just a small FYI and reminder for my fellow administrators...[edit]

Remember that if you must hide a user creation log using revision deletion (or suppression for users with Oversight and in situations that warrant it), you must redact both the "action and target" and the "performer's username/IP address" in order for that particular log and its information to be fully hidden from the public (or hidden from non-oversighters in the case of suppression). Otherwise, if you only redact the "performer's username/IP address" and leave the "action and target" visible to the public, the user creation log entry will still be fully visible and viewable to the public via the API. If anyone has any questions, please let me know (please ping me if you respond to me in this discussion) and I'll be happy to answer them. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Oshwah:I think you should place a note at the top of the user creation log. Animal lover |666| 13:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Animal lover 666! I appreciate your response and suggestion, but I don't think that it's necessary. The content on the user creation log page text is currently worded towards an audience who may need information as to what this log is, what inappropriate usernames are, and how to address any inappropriate usernames that are found. I don't want it to be worded toward administrators, who make up a very small percentage of the total audience who would read that log page text.
However, I'm completely open to hearing from anyone who disagrees and thinks that this may be a good idea. If the directions were at the bottom of the text and very brief, ...Sure? Maybe. :-) Something like:
"Administrators: If you must hide a user creation log using revision deletion, you must redact both the "action and target" and the "performer's username/IP address" in order for that particular log and its information to be fully hidden from the public."
This I'd potentially be open to if other users provide input, since it's brief, to-the-point, and doesn't go unnecessarily into depth. Again, I don't think that it's something that we need to add there, but I always keep an open mind. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I personally think this is not good advice. If you only redact the user creation log, the username still persists at Special:ListUsers, as well as in CentralAuth, all the dropdowns, and probably elsewhere. I mainly use deletion on the newuser log to stop people reporting the usernames, and to stop the immediate source of offence. If you're doing anything to the extent that you have to worry about the API, you should probably do a proper job and get the username suppressed instead. Advising people to half a job but properly is less than ideal. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Zzuuzz - I agree to an extent. I never like doing "half-jobs", but in cases where suppression isn't the solution (and going off your reasoning, it will never be, since suppressing the username along with an indefinite block doesn't also hide it from Special:ListUsers, etc - only global suppression does this, IIRC), I think that the ability and (sometimes) the need to redact usernames from the user creation log is necessary, and doing this properly means that it's not visible publicly using any means. I know that redaction of anything in this log won't hide the username from every single location, but to say that this is a reason why we shouldn't act in our best judgment when the situation calls for it is like saying that we shouldn't try and limit any disruption or damage at all simply because it can be found elsewhere if one were to really look. The ideal ideal solution? We should be able to fully redact or suppress a username locally and in all locations. That's the real fix, but we don't have that right now. We can only control what we can control. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, that's great but I stand by my comments. BTW local suppression on its own does hide the user from Special:ListUsers and the dropdowns (locally). These days I have no idea why any oversighters would locally suppress an account. There should be a big well-oiled pipeline to the stewards. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Zzuuzz - No worries; I think that it's safe to say that you know me well, and hence you know that I'm always happy to hear from you and that I welcome your input, feedback, and comments - except if they disagree with me! I'm kidding ;-), but moving on... Okay, that's interesting to hear that bit about username suppression from you... I'll have to test that again. From what I remember from testing awhile back, I thought that username suppression (when the option is ticked when indefinitely blocking an account) only executed a script that suppressed the username from all logs and edit revision histories, etc and put it in the block log as a suppression action. It was akin to having to manually find and suppress each and every log and revision, and was more like a convenience thing than something that did more than I described. You very well could be right; thanks for the information. Anyways, I'm digressing... lol. All I wanted to state when I started this discussion was that, in the event that redacting (or suppressing) a user creation log is necessary and needs to be done manually to that log, that hiding both the "action and target" and the "performer's username/IP address" is needed so that the log was fully hidden from view and from all methods and instances - nothing more. :-) Thanks again for the input, and please don't be a stranger if you wish to discuss your thoughts any further. My door is always open. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page creation too[edit]

Similar to the above, if you delete a page because of offensive content (say, User:RoySmith/sandbox/Naughty), you should also check the page creation log; it'll often have a copy of the content in the log message like this and you'll want to redact that as well. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RoySmith - Good call. To extend on this a little bit: If the page creation log summary contains something that is libelous or would need to be suppressed, let an oversighter know. This is so that:
  1. they can suppress the content that you redacted (obviously), and...
  2. they can suppress any edit filter log that was triggered as a result of the page creation (something that many users don't remember to keep in mind). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Close review requested in AP / BLP article[edit]

I am requesting a close review of a recent RfC at Hunter Biden laptop controversy. The RfC is here.

The closer refers to having counted !votes and does not indicate that they fully considered the participants’ supporting arguments and concerns or whether there is a valid consensus in the poll. The close does not appear to have fully addressed the significant BLP and sourcing issues, the level of consensus required to change the status quo text, and the discussion of the content of the sources cited in the discussion. Several such issues were raised by the participants who posted more than brief “yes” or “no” responses to support their !votes with reasoning that went beyond merely counting the number of source citations.

The closing text is brief in light of the complexity and controversy raised by the RfC question. After the close, some editors interpreted the result as having decided only the RfC question as stated -- whether to use the word “alleged”. Others cited the close of the RfC as a basis to oppose broader wording that was consistent with the close and not synonymous with “alleged”. Such an interpretation was beyond the scope of the RfC statement discussion, and the !vote arguments and policy issues that might support such an alternative interpretation were not addressed in the closing statement. SPECIFICO talk 13:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from uninvolved editors (Laptop controversy)[edit]

  • This needs to be re-closed by an uninvolved admin/editor experienced in closure, I think. The fact that it was closed by someone who on their talk page describes themselves as a fundamentalist evangelist Christian is one thing, but the fact that poor rationales do not appear to have been discounted (GoodDay's is meaningless and Madame Necker's is simply an opinion about the whole affair; we'll ignore the fact that MN is a new account who has already racked up five different DS notices on their talk page). Black Kite (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Your comment about the closer's stated religious beliefs does not seem appropriate or relevant. I think it is possible to evaluate the close without making it personal. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yeah that's pretty messed up BK. The quote on the userpage is "I am a very fundamentalist (in the historic sense of the term) Christian evangelical." What does that have to do with Hunter Biden's laptop? I assume you're suggesting that because many (most?) Christian evangelical voters vote Republican, therefore a Christian evangelical has some kind of bias or COI that should prevent them from closing an RfC about some AP2 political issue? Does your logic apply to closers who have the atheist userbox on their userpage? Because atheists tend to vote Democrat, does that also disqualify them? By this logic, nobody would be able to close anything in AP2. I'm quite shocked to see the suggestion that a closer's religious beliefs are a reason to revert their close, especially when it's a non-religious topic. I think you should strike that. Levivich (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If somebody described themselves as a fundamentalist Muslim I dont think they would be wise to close RFCs in the ARBPIA topic area. nableezy - 18:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    fundamentalist (in the historic sense of the term) is not the same as fundamentalist in the modern sense of the term (our article Fundamentalism explains the difference), and we welcome Muslim and Jewish editors in ARBPIA without question, as we should. It doesn't matter if they're Orthodox Jews or reform Jews, just as it doesn't matter what branch of Islam. Same with Hindus and Muslims in IPA, etc. etc. Levivich (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I dont really see what your complaint is with what I wrote, I didnt say somebody who identifies as a fundamentalist Muslim shouldnt edit in the topic area, they should of course be welcomed like any other editor, but rather they wouldnt be wise to close RFCs in the topic area, given that people may question their objectivity. And that would be totally reasonably to do imo. nableezy - 19:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    At my RfA, some editors expressed concerns that if we legitimized a categorical criticism of editors' fitness to do a particular thing based on their political affiliations, we would effectively be saying the same about religious affiliations. I disagreed with that concern because, well, political and religious affiliations are different things. For one thing, the former is much more a choice than the latter (although ultimately both are choices to a degree). For another, perhaps more importatly, the former is much more directly tied to events "of this world". One cannot infer how someone votes from their religion. One cannot infer what they think of gay people, or abortion, or drinking alcohol, or whether Hunter Biden owned that laptop. Maybe one could reasonably infer some of these from a more detailed exposition of someone's religious views or their membership in a very niche religious group, but not just from I am a very fundamentalist (in the historic sense of the term) Christian evangelical and some references to core Christian doctrine. I know that in my case, there are many ways my lifestyle and politics differ from what might expect if one knew only my religious views (some of which are quite traditional). One can no more infer my political views from my religious affiliation than from my gender or sexual orientation (and talk about a slippery slope there).
    Point being, if Compassionate indicated a political affiliation on his userpage, this criticism would be fair game (not necessarily correct, but fair game); but saying that religious views disqualify someone from closing a political RfC is a bridge too far, in my opinion.
    To be clear, none of this is a comment on whether the close was correct, just a rebuttal of this particular objection. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I dont think it is disqualifying, I just dont think it is wise. Im not saying perception is reality, but I dont find it that off base to raise an eyebrow at that declaration. Especially given the close actually does align with the views that one might infer, and that the RFC is already tight on the numbers. And btw, BK didnt actually disqualify the user, faulting the close itself for not weighting certain positions less than they feel appropriate, that being the more important thing in the "is one thing" comparison. nableezy - 21:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think the implication was clear. The raising of the eyebrow apparently required it being referenced in a statement regarding the judgement of the closer. As someone incredibly skeptical of any religion, it was a shit take. Arkon (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No, sorry, I don't apologise for that at all. This is clearly a very hot-button topic and it should be closed by someone who very obviously doesn't have any baggage over the situation. The closer may be a Biden supporter for all I know but it's the optics that matter, not the actuality. And then there's the closer's comment in the section above, which may lead you in one direction or another. Black Kite (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So Wikipedia should have religious tests for certain actions? And are you implying that leftists can't be religious? Besides being "not appropriate or relevant" as Mr Ernie said, I think it's more a violation of WP:NPA. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    People can keep pretending its a religious test, as though it isnt the fundamentalist part and not the Christian part of it that raises eyebrows, but Sir Joseph would you feel comfortable with a self-identified fundamentalist Muslim closing RFCs in the ARBPIA topic area? Be honest. nableezy - 22:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    SJ can speak for himself, but if the closes are policy compliant, the religion of the closer is irrelevant. If some bias affects the close, it can then be handled in review and if a pattern emerges, a ban. But to put the ban before any problems simply based on religious views is obscene and certainly not the Wiki way. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Someone who edits in a biased manner, should not be closing things in that area. Religion is really irrelevant. If you have an issue with the close, then cite policy reason, as Black Kite did in the second half, but merely being religious, or fundamental isn't really a valid reason.
    I have an American flag in my profile, does that mean I shouldn't close US related discussions? Sir Joseph (talk) 01:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ill restate the question as you appear to have avoided answering it. Would you feel comfortable with a self-identified fundamentalist Muslim closing RFCs in the ARBPIA topic area? Be honest. nableezy - 02:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes I have no issues with Muslims editing Wikipedia and closing discussions. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Im not sure why you are either answering for Sir Joseph or why you are answering a different question. nableezy - 02:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I want to put to bed this viewpoint that religious beliefs preclude participation in a volunteer encyclopedia project. I wholeheartedly reject that notion. Previously I was certain you were on the same tack. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Maybe put to bed the ignoring of fundamentalist in that sentence too tho? nableezy - 02:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I already answered the question. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That has no bearing on the RFC close, which is point I’ve been trying to make. If they didn’t have that tag on their user page you wouldn’t have known. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yeah, thats why you, and SJ for that matter, wont actually answer the question asked. At least El C did, though I very much disagree with him. nableezy - 03:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What question? Maybe it got lost with the threaded replies, but I have no issue with fundamentalist editors doing anything if compliant with policy. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • RE: Would you feel comfortable with a self-identified fundamentalist Muslim closing RFCs in the ARBPIA topic area? — I at least would, though I don't think I've ever encountered one. And I don't really expect to. It seems unlikely that a hardcore religious fundamentalist (which I don't think the closer truly is) would even get to the point of being able to make sound, policy-based closes, though I suppose it's possible, even if not probable. In that sense, it's a bit of a red herring. But in principle, it'd be okay so long as said close conformed to policy and would be well-articulated. Just like it would be okay for a secular Israeli or Palestinian who is an atheist, or an agnostic, a moderate religious Jew or Muslim, and so on. This approach, which is not expressly grounded in policy (quite the contrary) risks users becoming fearful from disclosing their biases or otherwise expressing themselves (appropriately). Which, why should they? El_C 02:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yeah... I voted for Biden; does that mean I should move my !vote to the involved section? :-P Levivich (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I didn’t expect you to dig in on this, but since you did, could you give a list of the topics where Christians can’t close discussions? Also, what does being a Christian have to do with Hunter Biden’s laptop? Could a Jew close that discussion? You are now casting aspersions at the closer. Please substantiate your aspersions that they have “baggage” in this topic area. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As Nableezy said above, you're concentrating on the religion part, rather than the "fundamentalist" part. If I identified as part of a group that overwhelmingly votes for a particular party in the US, I wouldn't be closing contentious USPOL debates. As also mentioned above, I wouldn't be closing ARBPIA debates if I was Jewish or Muslim either, but that's irrelevant here. Black Kite (talk) 22:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Jews overwhelmingly vote for a particular party in the U.S. As do Black people. As do LGBTQ people. This would be a terrifying precedent to set, barring most minorities from closing AMPOL discussions. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's comparing apples and oranges, though, as fundamentalism and politics in the US are inextricably linked. Having said that, I am not saying that declaring a political affiliation, or even just a POV, disbars you from anything, I am simply saying (and this doesn't seem to be getting through, despite the fact I've said it three times now) that when you have a very contentious issue which needs a decision and there may be the possibility that you may be seen as having an interest, it's almost always better to leave it to someone else. Also, to be honest, that discussion really needed an admin, or there was always going to be an issue ... as you can see. Black Kite (talk) 07:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    fundamentalism and politics in the US are inextricably linked, and they're not in other countries? Race and politics are inextricably linked in the US, too. Black people in the US overwhelmingly vote Democrat; could a Black person close this RFC or would they also have too much, in your words, "baggage"? when you have a very contentious issue this is not a very contentious issue, it's a run of the mill political squabble. you may be seen as having an interest no, that's so weasel-y. What interest does a Christian evangelical, even a fundamentalist (in the historic sense), have in Hunter Biden's laptop? You're the only person who is claiming a connection between Hunter Biden's laptop and Christian fundamentalism. I have yet to understand the connection between the two. Unless the connection is "they vote Republican" -- if that's what you're talking about, please come out and say it plainly, and then explain why the same logic wouldn't apply to Black people, LGBTQ, and other groups like Tamzin pointed out above. By the way, I'm not even sure if the closer is an American at all. If they're a non-American Christian fundamentalist, do they still have "baggage"? that discussion really needed an admin, or there was always going to be an issue ... as you can see An admin of what religion? and this doesn't seem to be getting through Indeed, because you're arguing that religious affiliation creates a political bias or the appearance of one -- that's offensive, and inaccurate. You're advocating for discriminating against closers based on their religious beliefs -- offensive, morally wrong, and a dangerous precedent. It's really, really bad to suggest that the closer's religion (or race, gender, etc.) be taken into account in a close review. Like really bad. I genuinely hope you take the time to really think about what others have written here, and what you've written here, and the implications of it, and that you come to the conclusion that you were wrong to bring up the closer's religion. Levivich (talk) 13:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I am wondering if there was any point writing my previous comment, or the one before that, since it appears that no-one is actually reading them. I'll give up there, I think. Black Kite (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This really isn’t that contentious anymore. It was 2 years ago, but now, per one of the RS quoted in the RFC, “almost no one” disputes the laptop’s authenticity. Apparently those who do are the editors in that RFC. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I was actually about to start a closing draft when I saw on my watchlist that it had been closed. My initial reading was that it was too close a call to find any sort of consensus for either option, specially due to the raised NPOV and BLP issues. Isabelle 🏴‍☠️ 15:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    While I lean on overturning to no consensus due to my own reading of the discussion, I think it's important to note some of the comments on the closer's personal bias here are way out of line. Overturning a close because the editor is from a certain group or minority, without any proof that it affected their close, would set a terrible precedent in precluding editors from closing RfCs in certain areas, as Tamzin mentions above. Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 01:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse. Though numerically the vote was close, with the "No's" being in the majority by only a few votes, I agree the closer properly weighted the votes based on the quality of arguments and application of policy, in particular WP:NPOV. Some editors thought we should use "alleged", other thought not, but then everyone started compiling sources, and as the "no" voters pointed out, the sources were almost unanimous in not using "alleged". WP:NPOV means we summarize those sources--i.e., we don't say alleged because they don't say alleged. The "Yes" voters did not rebut this in any way (e.g., by showing sources predominantly using "alleged"; not just one or two sources; and not from 2 years ago, but current). So, if most editors agree that most sources do not use alleged, then that's consensus to not use alleged. I don't see any error here, it's the proper application of WP:NOTAVOTE. Levivich (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It doesn't seem like a great close. I'm particularly looking at Some editors asserted that the ownership is still unclear but largely failed to support this with reliable sources, while editors opposing the adjective produced a plethora of recent RS that did not doubt the connection, which simply doesn't line up with the quotes from sources produced in the RfC. There were a few more "no"s than "yes"s, but there were also more inexperienced/new editors saying "no" and more poor arguments on the "no" side (although not by much). The later comment by the closer extending the RfC about "alleged" to apply to qualifying the belonging in any way is an overreach. I'm not saying there was consensus for the "yes" side, either, though. We have sources that appear pretty split on this, in terms of the language they use, and both sides have arguments backed by policy. I suppose I'd be inclined to err on the side of BLP, but that's my own $0.02. Although I don't think anyone would love the idea of a repeat RfC, it might be more effective to provide a set of options for wording and/or do a more thorough analysis of the sourcing apart from the RfC, along with weighting by how recent the sources are. i.e. what is the consensus of sources published since June (arbitrarily)? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Are we looking at the same sources? That sounds sarcastic, but I am genuinely seeking clarification, as among the sources cited in the RfC, I count three sources that consistently use language like "alleged" and "purportedly" (all from April or earlier), eleven that pointedly omit such language, and a couple that use "alleged" when describing what earlier sources said about the laptop but omit that language when speaking about it themselves (as well as a couple whose constructions are too ambiguous to confidently parse). Where is the disconnect in what we are perceiving? Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There is a section, "sources" which lists several bulletpoints. In order of whether they use/describe some qualification of ownership: no, yes [here and elsewhere, there is ownership/verification attributed to the emails, but not the laptop], yes, yes, yes, no, yes, sorta [for the first part, but again regarding emails], no, no, [quote from someone who funded the effort, not the publication], yes [again separating laptop from emails], no, yes [sorta], no [but the sentence isn't about this], yes, yes, [someone "yelling about Hunter Biden's laptop" isn't a statement about authenticity], yes, [doesn't address it], mostly no [attempts to rely on inference from the title]. While it's entirely possible to come to different conclusions about the consensus among those sources, it's hardly one side failing to support their argument and the other producing a plethora of sources. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Adding: my evaluation of the close has nothing to do with the closer's userboxes/religion. Yikes, that doesn't seem like good practice. Those arguing that we should overturn on that basis are providing an easy target so people can endorse without addressing the substance of the close (as two of the last three endorsements have). i.e. this "the closer is a fundamentalist Christian and fundamentalist Christians vote a certain way that probably gives them an opinion about this topic ... so optics" line of argumentation isn't just lousy in its own right, but people seem to be focusing on that rather than the problems with the substance of the close (see above). It's weird to me that I'm the only one to flag that the closer declared their closing statement to extend far beyond the actual RfC, for example. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Vacate for a more experienced closer to re-close. With US politics, it's not enough that the close is right; it has to be seen to be right, so we leave closes that touch on US politics to the wizened and elderly who enjoy the fullest confidence of the community.—S Marshall T/C 17:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Probably a WP:BADNAC, but the close is correct anyway. Nearly every comment saying yes is a WP:TRUTH vote, that we dont really know if it is or it isnt. Those votes should be given less weight when there are users providing numerous reliable sources that state as a fact what those users dispute to be a fact without any sources that likewise dispute it. The numbers may say no consensus, but as ever this isnt a vote and the strength of the arguments for "no" were much stronger than those for "yes". Id have closed it as a consensus for no as well. nableezy - 17:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If the only issue is WP:BADNAC, what do you think we should do in light of WP:NACRFC? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Its a BADNAC because it was a close call, and we leave that to people we've said we trust to make those close calls. nableezy - 03:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse close Well thought out and justified through and through. These objections regarding experience or the users religion (really?) are incredibly superficial. Arkon (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse close. It's a reasonable decision, and it reflects the median point of mainstream news coverage at this time. And if you read the lede of this article as a whole, it contains plenty of indications of how murky this whole saga is and how not every claim about it is credible, so readers will not be misled. And the religion of the closer is irrelevant. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn close, and re-close by uninvolved admin or experienced non-admin closer - per Black Kite and S Marshall. It's the optics that matter here, and a good close by a partisan closer is not acceptable in controversial subjects. Also, the rigamarole over "give me a list of what Christians can't close" is hyperbolic and absurd, a very good indication of why a pristine close is necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Are you saying the closer was partisan or was that a hypothetical unrelated to this case? If the former, I would ask you to substantiate the claim. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:25, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That is not an appropriate line of argument, BMK. What proof do you have of topic area partisanship in the editing history of this closer? If you have no such evidence, then I submit that the close should be judged on its merits. Which is to say, there would need to be some record of problems involving the topic area by the closer — ones that go beyond a declaration of adjacent (?) bias on their user page. And while I agree that optics matter, without evidence of such problems, they only matter with respect to the appearance of the close as being of substance.
    To that: though I haven't read the discussion and I don't know if I'll get a chance to, it does seem a bit insubstantial, though it may well be a correct assessment (or not, I have no idea). Personally, for a subject of this import, I probably would have written twice to four times more if I were to close that RfC myself. So, again, even if correct — optics. That said, I have been criticized on this board in the recent past that my standards for closures of weight are too high. Still, to me, at a glance, the close seems too brief. El_C 00:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn - Many of the sources in the "source" section seem to support "alleged" being included, and many don't. There is sourcing that was presented in the article that supported both sides. So I'm not really seeing the "no" side having such stronger arguments that the discussion should have been closed in the "no" favor despite a near even split among participants. This close was not flat out terrible and I wouldn't say it even arises to the level of unreasonable, but nonetheless, it's best for the close to be done right, and I think the right close would have been no consensus. I don't believe the closer was trying to make a WP:SUPERVOTE, but it can sometimes be hard to balance the line between super vote and strength of arguments. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 00:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse close per Levivich and Wasted Time R. As I see it, the close was correct based on the sources. Those seeking an overturn, as Levivich and others have noted, are using reasoning I will collegially term dubious. Jusdafax (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Vacate Having read the RfC, I agree with those above who point out that this closure does not appear to have accurately weighed the !votes which do not have significantly different strengths of argument. C727's response to inquiries about the close also point to that being the case. Should be reclosed by an administrator. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @FormalDude This is the section for uninvolved editors. Since you were active in talk page discussion and made 1 of the 4 controversial post-RFC edits, please move your response to the "involved editors" section. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've moved this comment to the involved section from the uninvolved per our guidance on fixing format errors. Formal appears to be away from Wikipedia at the moment. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks Red-tailed hawk. I didn't think to do that myself, in case Formal wanted to challenge their "involved" status; it didn't seem like a 100% cut-and-dry formatting error. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Given the objection by FormalDude below, I've moved it back. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Red-tailed hawk: I'm uninvolved with respect to this RfC as I did not participate in it in any form. Please move my comment back. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
     DoneRed-tailed hawk (nest) 03:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse Regardless of the closer and possible COI, at the end of the day, it seems that sourcing wins out here, but as a broader comment and reading through what's there, I think that that was a poor RFC and/or the issue wasn't fully explored first. In context of the laptop story, it is important to recognize the media's treatment of the story and how that changed, and there may be points where "alleged" ownership should be used to describe the broader media's stance on the matter when discussing the history of when the story first broke. It's now at the time that the media seemingly all agrees about the ownership, so we would no longer need alledged. I would recommend editors on that page to revisit this idea, knowing when "alleged" is actually appropriate in terms of the historical facets, and when it can be dropped. --Masem (t) 02:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Dunno — stumbled on this from following up on WP:AN3. It's a harder one because the closer needs to be confident in weighing policy against (and potentially overriding) arguments given. Given BLP, specifically, unless there are RSes with clear assertions stating it was definitely his (i.e., the sources themselves are putting their asses on the line from a legal standpoint), the inference should be reworded to disclaim/avoid it so as to avoid using Wikipedia's voice to assert factual-ness (at least, that's my interpretation of policy and my superficial skimming of the discussion). If I were closing it (I've done many of these via ANRFC), I would not say there's clear consensus based on policy; it's not a good argument to say "but there aren't (m)any sources saying it wasn't his" as it's still SYNTHy/OR to imply fact in Wikipedia's voice unless the positive sources, themselves, are 100% confident in stating ownership as a fact. I would, however, also suggest options combining the arguments involved to discuss for a subsequent RFC. For example, even though nobody mentioned it, "involves a laptop computer , its contents, and whether it was owned by Hunter Biden" is possibly a more neutral, factual representation of the topic at hand, because it unquestionably gets to the meat of what the article is about (and ironically the RFC) without making any risky statements of fact. This could help steer a subsequent RFC into a more productive direction focusing on examining sources and reporting facts as cut and dried as possible to avoid Wikipedia making determinations. Long story short, BLP sets a significantly higher standard for factually assertive statements to begin with, and that's the more important question; a new RFC to discuss these issues and/or rewording options would be warranted. --slakrtalk / 10:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment and Questions - How are we to tell new editors that they MUST follow and include reliable sources but then turn around and tell them not to follow reliable sources in this case? I have no political affiliations. I don't care anything about a laptop and who owns it. I just want to make sure I understand how to tell new editors when to use and when not to use reliable independent sources. How do we determine that a reliable source is being lazy? Don't they have an editing process? We very curtly inform editors all the time that Wikipedia isn't trying to present the truth, we only share what reliable sources say about notable subjects. If the sources are wrong then Wikipedia will be wrong. That is mantra used across the encyclopedia all the time. Is that just lip service or do we apply our policies and guidelines equally across the board? --ARoseWolf 14:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse. With respect to The fact that it was closed by someone who on their talk page describes themselves as a fundamentalist evangelist Christian is one thing, merely being religious does not make one WP:INVOLVED with respect to Hunter Biden's laptop. The fact of the matter is that we should not be deprecating people's ability to participate on Wikipedia simply because they express religious belief. I really can't get behind the notion that, in an analogous situation, all religious Jewish people be prohibited from closing articles within the scope of WP:ARBPIA if the sole basis for trying to exclude them is that they are religious Jews; doing so would be almost textbook antisemitism. The closer also appears to have properly weighed the arguments in that discussion, so I don't see any reason to re-close. WP:BADNAC, if you actually scroll down the veru same page to the WP:NACRFC section, notes that any non-admin close of an RfC should not be overturned if the only reason is that the closer was not an admin, so the claim of BADNAC here is self-defeating if that's the only remaining issue. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from involved editors (Laptop controversy)[edit]

  • Overturn to no consensus. To put this in WP:CLOSECHALLENGE language: "the closure was not a reasonable summation of the discussion". C727's closure depends heavily on his assessment that "Some editors asserted that the ownership is still unclear but largely failed to support this with reliable sources, while editors opposing the adjective produced a plethora of recent RS that did not doubt the connection." This is untrue, as participants on both sides were equally likely to make no explicit reference to sources, and it's safe to assume everyone was responding either to the sources already in the article or in the list posted in the RfC.
    I inquired about this issue at C727's user talk page (here), and C727 said "I found that many of the earliest sources provided in that list used some kind of qualification, but that by the end of April, most sources were consistently describing the laptop as Biden's, without qualification" and then "Given how pronounced the trend was and how recent sources exert a controlling influence, I considered that sufficient."
    I see this as clear evidence of a WP:SUPERVOTE. The trend analysis C727 is using as the basis of his closure was not presented by the RfC participants, nor did anyone reference WP:AGEMATTERS, the policy C727 linked in that last quote. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I would welcome a review from an experienced closer in order to solidify the consensus. There have already been attempts to circumvent the close by messing with the descriptor. What sticks out to me in the RFC is that the sourcing presented came overwhelmingly from the "No" !voters, which the closer noted. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy#Sources Here is a link to the section in the RFC listing the sourcing that many of the No votes seem to base their vote on. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    And Yes votes. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • To be more honest than I feel comfortable being, it feels to me like SPECIFICO is forum-shopping because he didn't like the result. Shortly after I closed the RfC saying there was a consensus against stating that the laptop is "alleged to have belonged" to Biden, SPECIFICO added that it is "believed to have belonged" to him, which Mr Ernie reverted; at that point, SPECIFICO reached out to me via email thanking me for my closure and asking me to weigh in on the issue (there was no indication that SPECIFICO felt anything about my closure was incorrect); I did, explaining why I felt the arguments against using "alleged" also covered "believed" or any similar weasle-ish words, at which point he attempted to downplay it as "an after-the-fact personal opinion" rather than the clarification of the closure that he had requested. Now that several other editors have agreed that SPECIFICO's new wording contradicts the consensus I found, he's here seeking to overturn it.
Between my various comments, I believe I have adequately explained why I found the consensus I did and don't intend to engage extensively with this unless people have questions. But to summarize one last time, for the benefit of uninvolved persons: pretty much every source cited in the discussion was provided in a list mid-discussion; many of them, including pretty much all of the most recent sources, described the laptop as Biden's without qualification. A majority of editors agreed that there is no longer any dispute in the RS that the laptop is Biden's; whether they explicitly mentioned Adoring nanny and his list or not is immaterial, I think it is clear from reading the comments that they are aware of it, and it would be foolish to say that they need to say exactly the right things for their intent to be relevant in shaping the consensus. Likewise, WP:AGEMATTERS was clearly on at least some participants' minds (see e.g. Thriley's reference to "current" sources), even if nobody explicitly linked to it (and it is relevant regardless). I likewise took into account the way the discussion unfolded; while in total, 11 people supported using "alleged" and 14 opposed, the ratio of support to oppose votes swung heavily in favor of the opposers as more and more sources were added to the list. For example, after Guest2625's large addition on September 1, three people voted for using alleged and six against; nobody would question that a two-thirds majority is a solid consensus without a compelling policy reason. And given the large number of RS produced in favor of directly stating the laptop is Biden's, I don't think BLP is a highly salient issue (BLP is not a license to ignore sources), especially when it only indirectly implicates Biden, given the ongoing controversy over the authenticity of the documents.
I'm willing to admit when I screw closes up (I have done that here before), but I don't see any compelling reason to believe this is one of them. Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This misrepresents my email to the closer, in which I followed what I believe to be best practices to first approach the closer with a concern before formally requesting a close review. Compassionate, as I think is now clear, thanking you for your effort was not an endorsement of your conclusion. SPECIFICO talk 16:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thing is, Specifico, your edit on Sep 28 at 12:46 adding "believed to have", with the edit summary more direct representation of status, consistent with RfC, shows that at that time, you were fine with the close of the RfC, and were even making an edit consistent with that close. No close challenge from you at that time. It was only after the discussions at the article talk page and ANEW (last post: 2:40 Sep 29) (both of which you participated in) resulted in the reversion of "believed to have" on the basis that it was against the RfC closure, that you then filed this close review (at 13:47 on Sep 29). It looks to me like you didn't have a problem with the close if you could change "alleged" to "believed to have" (i.e., if you could ignore the result with crafty wordsmithing)... only after that was shut down did you seem to raise issues with the close itself. In my view, this seriously undermines your argument. Levivich (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Evidently, and even if it were, it would be reasonable for you to change your mind about my closure after discovering that it was broader than you had thought. I mention the email because 1) it seems to fit within what a pattern of back-peddling here and, more importantly, 2) I had wondered even when I first saw the email why you had reached out to me privately concerning such a public matter as on-wiki consensus, instead of using my talk page. Given everything that has happened since, I wonder if it was so that it wouldn't be obvious to everyone else that you had asked for my input (and implicitly assented that I held a bit of authority on that issue) in case that turned against you, which seems like an oddly underhanded way of seeking clarification of consensus, but a rather natural one if you had been planning to challenge an unfavorable finding the entire time. I find myself struggling to articulate that there was anything truly improper about it, yet the level of cynicism I see there discomforts me. Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • One admin already reviewed this RFC case and determined that the closer was correct in their assessment of consensus on the WP:ANE case, and also opined on the article's talk page that the subsequent edits were out of line based on the RFC. I guess you're looking for a second admin's opinion, then? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @EvergreenFir: just letting you know that two comments you've made have been referenced in this discussion. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 23:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Merci, @Iamreallygoodatcheckers. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:25, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'd like to see a challenge or a review of this close and whether it was a WP:SUPERVOTE. Andre🚐 16:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse closure- I promised to accept the RFC result (no matter what it was) & I'm keeping that promise. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As your entry was cited specifically one of the reasons to challenge this close, re: "meaningless", your endorsement carries virtually no weight. ValarianB (talk) 14:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's a matter for the closer or the re-closer of that RFC, to decide. I'm not gonna lose any sleep over it. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse close. I commented already welcoming any review because I think it should be clear, but here are my thoughts. Of the 10 "yes" !votes, only 3 refer to sources, and none refer to any policy. Consequently, of the "no" !votes, 10 explicitly refer to the sources provided, with the remainder hinting at them and referring to evidence. On this basis, the close is firmly on solid ground. The OP here challenging the close uses their !vote to attack the RFC as premature and suggest the opener of the RFC made a mistake. One RFC participant suggested NPOV wording which avoided this issue altogether (also suggested by Slakr above), which I believe should be pursued as a much better way to handle this. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn Apparent supervote by an inexperienced editor unfamiliar with measuring consensus. ValarianB (talk) 14:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse As the closer correctly pointed out, editors who thought the ownership was unclear failed to provide sources. Nor did they present any policy based reasons why facts reported in mainstream news media should be reported as allegations in this article. I note also that SPECIFICO did not inform RfC participants of this discussion. TFD (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Conrad Bennette Tillard[edit]

I am being harassed by someone named Glane23 that keeps taking accurate well documented factual biographical information material off of my page. 24.46.216.128 (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"my page". Which page would that be? The one you're blocked from? -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no substance to your complaint. I see you edit warring with multiple editors at Conrad Tillard where Glane23 has made ONE revert. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Geonotice request[edit]

Information icon There is a geonotice request at Wikipedia:Geonotice#Wikiconference:2022/Submissions. Would one of you administrators please attend to it as you are able? Peaceray (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete my Userpage[edit]

Hello please delete my Userpage here, I want to use my user page on meta so I can easily update it there when I want to make changes I'm not more active here this is why I would like this change, thank you. RebelAgent talk to me 21:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rebel Agent: Just place {{db-u1}} on your userpage and it will be speedily deleted. CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 21:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks like Cullen328 already deleted it, just when I was writing this reply. CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 21:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay Thanks. RebelAgent talk to me 21:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rebel Agent,  Done. Cullen328 (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Standard offer request of Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel[edit]

The following message copied here on behalf of Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk · contribs) per this discussion. -- posted by — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 21:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To whichever admin(s) see this, I am respectfully requesting a standard offer by the suggestion of another admin by the name of Ponyo. I simply put it as a request to be able to edit on Wikipedia again after eight months away. I was genuinely unaware that my actions two months later of suck puppetry was illegal on the site after seeing other users get away with it; but as six months have passed since then, therefore I put forth the request of a standard offer now. I fully recognise my short temper and hatred I felt for others if they made mistakes or fell short of what I believed were the standards of an article, and I did not find my block unjust. Since then, as I stated in my second block review, I have gone through rehabilitation via minor therapy and simply alone time, been relieved of stresses also applied at the time, and now I feel I am ready to start editing Wikipedia again without verbally attacking anyone for reason why; and I shall harass no more. This is the second standard offer I have made after the first a few weeks ago. The first standard offer was not rejected but was timed out. If whatever in that can be used as evidence for a decision made about this request, it can be found here.

Thanks, Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel 23:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support - It appears this user has made an effort to correct their past wrong-doings and understand that their behavior was inappropriate. With 8 months gone by, I think it's time for them to be given another chance. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 00:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I'm curious about how you know that they have "made an effort to correct their past wrong-doings"? Do you mean that they have said so? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I was referring to their comment saying they've gone through "minor therapy". Sure, they said they did; I don't know for sure. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 02:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Non-administrator comment) I'm sympathetic to this request. I was involved in trying to steward Mikey's first unblock request (now in Archive 1108, here; parallel UTP discussions here). On the plus side, is my gut feeling from numerous interactions that there is a sincere feeling of contritition, fairly biding his time during the block, and an awareness of what was inadmissible before and a conviction not to go there again. On the flip side, I would have hoped to see more activity at a sister project to provide some evidence of change, which we now lack (other than a sprinkling).
    Mikey, I'm not an admin, as you know, but imho if your request is successful this time, and at some point later you run into some stressor and blow up and get blocked again, that's liable to be the end of the story; coming back from another block will likely be extremely difficult to impossible. Given that, do you feel confident you can keep things under control, do whatever you need to do (like take a WP:Wikibreak if needed) to avoid any problems going forward? Mathglot (talk) 03:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • From Special:Diff/1113160513/1113236493: Primefac (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    As I already said in my first standard offer, I know fully well how to correctly deal with errors of other users or resolve a disagreement over an edit. With minor errors, using the summary box explaining their error would be plausible to use. For a major error, approaching them via their talk page to explain their error would be more plausible; while for an edit conflict, a debate should be carried out on the article's talk page. I have also made consideration that I shall only edit on Wikipedia when I am not in a bad mood as to not provoke myself even more. Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk) 13:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Having only read what's here and not what initially led to the block, I am given to support. Many people mellow with age or learn to control themselves better, and when Mikey says that he has reflected and done some kind of "minor therapy" (whatever that means) and can now control himself, I am inclined to accept that. I'm not convinced from what I have read that he will be a paragon of calmness, but we have many temperamental editors here, and I think the fact that he has been blocked and had to learn from that how better to behave will make him better adapted to the project than many who skirt the edge of unacceptable conducts; as long as he is careful to avoid editing when angry, I think he will be fine. Besides, we are all called to be gracious to the penitents seeking forgiveness. Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia failing on Ukraine[edit]

Having contributed actively for more than 10 years, I feel WP is currently going through its most serious failure, as WP is widely abused by Russian propaganda to spread disinformation. In the last few days alone, I've seen accounts pushing the Kremlin line that large parts of Ukraine are now Russian, treating the Russian sham referendums as real, and creating articles and modifying real articles as if this was the legal position. This situation is unique to Wikipedia (and the fringes of social media). It clashes with virtually all reliable sources unequivocally describing these annexations as illegal and null and void. That is the position of the UN and virtually the entire world, yet here at WP we push out articles completely in line with the Kremlin propaganda. As a reminder, WP:NPOV does not endorse any false equality between facts and a fringe position. Quite the opposite, WP:FRINGE explicitly decries such false equality. During Covid-19, we also saw efforts by conspiracy theorists to push their version, but WP was very good and fast to shut down such attempts. Now, however, as attention fatigue regarding Ukraine sets in for many users, while accounts pushing the Kremlin line contribute to be active, WP is quite simply failing. While most media (meaning most RS) continues to report factually about the war in Ukraine, WP has become one of the most visible media for the Kremlin version. Jeppiz (talk) 17:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jeppiz, it would be helpful if you gave some specific examples, but in general yes, there is very likely some fatigue from the "front lines" of editing to make sure everything is accurate, neutral, and as unbiased as possible. Since anyone can create a page at any name, I wouldn't be surprised if the new pages are popping up faster than NPP can patrol them. Primefac (talk) 18:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, here are some recent examples of rather outrageous attempts to push the Kremlin's line
These are just a few examples. What is more, if users try to challenge this blatant use of WP for Russian propaganda purposes, we are reverted; on the talk pages related to these issues, the Russian narrative dominates. Again, I can understand that most users not directly impacted by the war have moved on from the topic due to war fatigue, which the Kremlin supporters mainly use WP for this purpose. As already stated, this reflects badly on Wikipedia as more and more articles related to the war either takes an outright pro-Russian view or pretends that we should strive for neutrality between aggressor and the victim, as well as between international law and war crimes. Jeppiz (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you have to make a clear distinction between propaganda and reality. Claims exist whether they are legitimate or not, having a page about it doesn't legitimize those claims in a legal or moral sense... See Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China for an example on the other side of the world. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course, and articles about those claims are one thing - but pretending they are accurate is another. We have articles about claims that vaccines cause autism, or about holocaust denial; those articles talk about the claims, but also make the factual situation clear. We have (several) articles about the Russian claims, as we should have. What we should not have is a pretence that they are legitimate when they are not. Jeppiz (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But you have to understand that if Russia annexes these regions and thats what WP:RS say then it will be accurate to say that they are part of Russia. I know thats hard but thats just how it works. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Obviously all these articles must state that the referenda are not considered legitimate by the international community, and the territories are internationally recognized part of Ukraine. The articles are now in turmoil for obvious reasons, but last time I checked they did. I am pretty sure of they survive the AfD, this is going to be stated clearly in the lede. Ymblanter (talk) 19:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree though that the topic area sees a lot of bad editing, both pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian, but I am not sure whether we are already at the PIA level, when all articles in the topic area must be extended-confirmed protected. Ymblanter (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Horse Eye's Back, with all due respect, you are wrong on all accounts. Making an illegal claim of annexation does not change anything. If tomorrow Kim Jong-Un declared that North Korea has annexed Brazil, it would not be accurate to say Brazil is part of North Korea. Quite obviously, Putin making a declaration of annexation of Ukrainian territories does not make them Russian. (This should not have to be explained at AN). Again, we should of course write about it (though several editors seem to forget/ignore WP:NOTNEWS) but not make pretences of false balance. Jeppiz (talk) 19:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"If tomorrow Kim Jong-Un declared that North Korea has annexed Brazil, it would not be accurate to say Brazil is part of North Korea." Correct. It would, however, be accurate to list Brazil among the areas claimed by North Korea and, if North Korea created a subdivision named "Brazil Province", we would want an article on said province, even if it existed only on paper. --Golbez (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Presumably in that scenario WP:RS would say that North Korea had not actually annexed Brazil and we would go from there. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
AN is not the place for a content discussion so I stop that discussion here. The issue for AN is that WP is used by some users to push that exact line, that Kremlin's position is the one we should report. This is in direct conflict with international law, in conflict with the position of all other countries, and in conflict with how all RS report on the issue. As the Kremlin is having a hard time getting its propaganda into media, social media and Wikipedia become soft targets. Unfortunately it seems to work very well on Wikipedia. Again, we are currently in stark contrast to WP:RS, and I'm not aware of policies in support of that. Jeppiz (talk) 20:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have outstanding editors that are trying to revert vandalism and out right propaganda where we can based on our analysis of the sources and the content or nature of the edits. Obviously, at this point, RS is in favor of this being a sham and it should be recorded as such. What will make this change for Wikipedia is not a declaration from Putin or anyone else but that a majority of RS refer to those regions as a part of Russia. If that occurs then there may always be a caveat so long as there are those RS that protest such a move but to not include that in our articles would do more to destroy the tenets of this encyclopedia than what you have suggested would occur otherwise. WP:RGW is a thing. We have no problem telling new editors that Wikipedia is not about telling the truth because everyone's truth may differ, but that we repeat what reliable independent sources say about a subject. The personal side of me sees and understands your passion about this. I may even agree it is a sham. But our policies and guidelines are not a sham. Currently I agree that is sides with your description above but it might not always be that way and if we ignore reliable sources or create a narrative that isn't portrayed accurately by sources because it is the right thing to do then we have failed already. Wikipedia doesn't dictate or drive social or political changes in the world, we only document them when they are given significant coverage. --ARoseWolf 20:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with this view, and also note that the annexation declaration was literally today; if we're still having POV problems related to the Russian-occupied territories several months from now we can call it a failure. The specific cases brought up by Jeppiz here seem like cause for editors to step in and respond the way we always do when there are POV fights over articles, and I think it's valid to ask for more admin and experienced editor eyes on articles related to the annexations, but calling this a failure is premature polemic. signed, Rosguill talk 20:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. We've been through this all before. Take cognizance of the fact that what you see and hear and read may differ greatly from what people elsewhere in the world are getting. No matter where you are, I can guarantee that what you are getting is not what "virtually the entire world" is getting, because there is no such thing. There is little independent or objective reporting available. It may be a very long time indeed before a coherent narrative emerges. I don't think several months is realistic; we may be looking at several years. The current situation is not unique to Wikipedia and is not unique to Ukraine either. Keep calm and carry on. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Jeppiz. I'm the one who "attempted to change" the map of Russia on its article (though I did not create the map). I'd enjoy it if you didn't call my edits abusive Russian propaganda spreading disinformation. In any case, I'm not familiar with the other edits you mention here, so I won't speak on them, but the one I made is to showcase a change in Russia's territorial claims, which would be in line with what is done in every other country's infobox, regardless of whether they control the territory or not. WP should reflect what RS say, and if RS say Russia claims those territories, then so it goes. NPOV says: "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts". Changing a map to reflect current territorial claims is not legitimising contested assertions; The infobox clearly labels the disputed territory in light green (or at least did before the current version). ArcticSeeress (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am of course not saying that every edit is done with bad intentions, clearly not. I do not think your edit was helpful, and it certainly violates WP:NOTNEWS. As several users have pointed out, this happened today, and there is no rush. Russia has internationally recognized borders. Again, this is content matter; the wider issue is there is currently so much activity, including a lots of edits pushing the Kremlin narrative (whether intentionally or not) that I see WP having problems keeping track. That's the issue for AN, we're discussing content on the relevant talk pages. Jeppiz (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Russo-Ukrainian war articles appear to have been in shambles for quite some time now. Before I even created an account, I saw subtle POV-pushing going on at War in Donbas (2014-2022) and Donetsk People's Republic back in September 2021. Recent events have probably just put more eyes on it. ‡ Night Watch ω (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Really not enjoying the lack of good faith portrayed towards us geography nerds, both here and in the AFDs. My main concern is sourcing - I see no source that says Russia has established new oblasts over those borders by those names. Sure, they've claimed an annexation, but that doesn't mean they've already rejiggered their internal political structure to match it. Til we have those, the articles are premature. But that doesn't mean that I have a dog in the fight, and if you find yourself constantly having to backtrack saying "I am of course not saying that every edit" etc., then maybe it's because you are saying that. --Golbez (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It actually did not yet establish the new oblasts, the parliament has to vote next week, and then Putin will sign the law. Ymblanter (talk) 22:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then it's easy, these articles are premature/crystal ball. No need to accuse anyone of anything. --Golbez (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Leave a Reply