Welcome to the administrators' noticeboard |
---|
This page is for posting information and issues of interest to administrators.
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose. Sections inactive for over six days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) |
|
Open tasks
V | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 24 | 0 | 24 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 6 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 6 |
- 8 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 3 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 1 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 0 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 39 sockpuppet investigations
- 6 Candidates for speedy deletion
- 4 Fully-protected edit requests
- 0 Candidates for history merging
- 4 requests for RD1 redaction
- 18 elapsed requested moves
- 12 requested closures
- 78 requests for unblock
- 2 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
- 26 Copyright problems
Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection
Unban request from CheatCodes4ever
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.
carried from utrs. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- I still see no evidence of block evasion recently, based on checkuser data. --Yamla (talk) 13:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- I thank you. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Oppose
Copying and pasting from WP:GNG doesn't bode well.I understand there's a character limit, but this unblock request fails to convince that the other disruptive behavior will not be an issue (i.e., WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR) and neither do his previous unblock requests. CC4ever has little history of following suggestions or reading instructions thoroughly, for example. I'd also like to see more specific examples of future contributions, and a willingness to start with minor edits instead of creating articles. I'd recommend giving this editor more time to mature, become acquainted with Wikipedia's policies, and become proficient at its user interface. I would, however, lend my support to reinstatement if a more experienced editor agreed to mentor CC4ever, provided that CC4ever also pledged to follow that mentor's guidance. Matuko (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2022 (UTC)- @Matuko: I didn't copypaste from WP:GNG, I wrote it myself. Also, the discussion you mentioned happened back in December 2019, which was before I even got blocked, and this entire unblock request was made to show I'm not like how I was back when I was initially blocked. Also for the record, I don't plan on immediately creating an article after getting unblocked, though I do plan on doing it eventually. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 22:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Also, I don't see how I don't cover why WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR will no longer be a problem. I clearly demonstrated that I had read Wikipedia policies and now understand more than what I used to. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Your bullet points include exact quotes from WP:GNG that are not in quotation marks. For example:
1. "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article.
- Because of this, portions of your reiteration of the policy look like copied text pasted to read like your own words. That's the sort of thing I'm alluding to by bringing up the WP:CIR issues. Sure, it proves that you read it, but you might have used quotation marks, formatted it as a block quote, or rewritten it entirely in your own words, a core Wikipedia editing skill. I will happily assume good faith, accept that it was a formatting error, and strike the accusation. Matuko (talk) 00:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Matuko: To specify, I rewrote it in the same way since I don't really know what other words I could use. If you want, next time, I'll use quotation marks, as you mentioned. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 07:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Matuko: I didn't copypaste from WP:GNG, I wrote it myself. Also, the discussion you mentioned happened back in December 2019, which was before I even got blocked, and this entire unblock request was made to show I'm not like how I was back when I was initially blocked. Also for the record, I don't plan on immediately creating an article after getting unblocked, though I do plan on doing it eventually. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 22:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Regretfully, I oppose. Matuko raises an important qualm with your appeal: while it demonstrates that you have now read our policies, it does not suggest that you actually understand how to apply them. The only problems mentioned in the appeal pertain to sourcing, but I am seeing other problematic behavior like edit warring, and it just generally seems from glancing over your talk page that you don't seem to be able to understand anything that hasn't been directly told to you; that doesn't suggest that you would be able to contribute constructively on your own. Perhaps the most glaring example of competence problems, from just a few months ago, is needing to ask whether or not you can copy and paste URLs. I believe an unblock now would result in you being blocked again sometime soon, and that doesn't help anyone. I understand that you are still a minor; perhaps when you are older, you will be able to engage with the community more effectively. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Compassionate727: I do understand how to apply the policies:
- Everything should be cited with a reliable source unless it cannot be challenged. If a source is reliable, it can be used in a Wikipedia article.
- Topics that meet WP:GNG can and should usually have an article.
- Also, about copypasting things, I am only starting to learn about that, and it's because I haven't been told about it until I started appealing my block last year. Plus, do you actually expect me to know every single Wikipedia policy? There are a lot, and I would expect most people to learn as they go. If that's not how it works then tell me, but I was not told that either.
- CheatCodes4ever (talk) 07:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Furthermore, adding to my point (which I now realise can intially be debunked), if you are going to argue "You had two years to learn," keep in mind that as I've said before, it wasn't until November 2019 that I truly started paying attention to what people were saying to me since I didn't start going on talk until then, and I don't think I even started fully reading my talk page until a month earlier. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 07:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Compassionate727: I do understand how to apply the policies:
Just a small FYI and reminder for my fellow administrators...
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)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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:
Page creation too
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)
- 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:
Close review requested in AP / BLP article
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)
Comments from uninvolved editors (Laptop controversy)
- 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)
|
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 toqualifying 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)- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Given the objection by FormalDude below, I've moved it back. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- Done— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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. --slakr\ talk / 10:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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 thatany 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) - Endorse BK's highly inappropriate response notwithstanding, the logic of the closer is sound. While some (politically) want to draw doubt about the laptop, the fact is that reliable sources indeed show it was. "Alleged" is not needed. Buffs (talk) 05:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Comments from involved editors (Laptop controversy)
- 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) - 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)
- 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)
- And Yes votes. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 editconsistent 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) - 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)
- Thing is, Specifico, your edit on Sep 28 at 12:46 adding "believed to have", with the edit summary
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- Merci, @Iamreallygoodatcheckers. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:25, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Indeed. If you noticed, understood and worried about things like that then I doubt you'd ever sleep. Begoon 14:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, while it's not clear to me why they participated in either the RfC or this review, that was uncalled for. It's not like they're hurting anything. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed. If you noticed, understood and worried about things like that then I doubt you'd ever sleep. Begoon 14:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Overturn Apparent supervote by an inexperienced editor unfamiliar with measuring consensus. ValarianB (talk) 14:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
Geonotice request
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)
Standard offer request of Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I was referring to their comment saying they've gone through "
- 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)
- (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) - From Special:Diff/1113160513/1113236493: Primefac (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
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)
- In reply:
Just a bit of clarity on what I mean by minor therapy. It doesn't mean I was sat one-on-one with a therapist for an hour every week, but a good friend who is a therapist gave me useful advice. Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk) 15:52, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Primefac (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- In reply:
Wikipedia failing on Ukraine
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)
- 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)
- Thanks, here are some recent examples of rather outrageous attempts to push the Kremlin's line
- The most visible is this attempt to change the main map at Russia to include not just the occupied territories but even territories Russia merely claims.
- Articles have been created for Kherson Oblast (Russia) and Zaporozhye Oblast (Russia) presenting them as any other region of Russia. Of course WP should talk about the occupation, but we already have proper articles on that Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast and Russian occupation of Zaporizhzhia Oblast. There is no information added by these sham articles pretending these territories are Russian regions, it's just using WP to push that narrative.
- The template on Subdivisions of Russia was modified to include the four Ukrainian regions as Russian subdivisions [2].
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- "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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Thanks, here are some recent examples of rather outrageous attempts to push the Kremlin's line
- I agree with the OP. Something needs to be done. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 20:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I have to agree with others being unconvinced there's anything particularly unique about the current situation, and definitely anything far from our "most serious failure". Wikipedia has always suffered from editors adding information from a PoV not supported by reliable sources and we often also have problems dealing with recent events and fluid situations where editors add stuff too fast. I remember a few months back not long after Elon Musk announced his plan to buy Twitter, someone tried to change the CEO of Twitter to Elon Musk. While it's unlikely we'll ever know, I suspect this editor was editing in good faith just confused. Meanwhile, Talk:Mirza Masroor Ahmad is still protected over something which isn't even our fault. There are plenty of editors desperate to remove the claim Love jihad is a conspiracy theory and others who want to defame some poor actress just because her partner took their own life. Indeed there are editors trying to remove well supported details about (see e.g. Talk:Stepan Bandera.) In this case, the strength of feeling and extreme interest in this matter combined with the large number of possible targets means we are bound to get some inappropriate editing which may last a few hours or days before being reverted. Very rarely something may last even longer. But such things happen all the time all over the encyclopaedia. More importantly, I'm unconvinced any of these are going to significantly influence many readers, so who really cares? There's good reason to be far more concerned about other things. E.g. even now I'm sure some articles have misinformation on climate change, and IMO it's been far worse in the past, despite the fact the science was mostly settled before Wikipedia even existed. These are the sort of things which likely have influenced readers and the world around us. If significant Russian misinformation persists in 10 years time then yes we may have a problem, but there's no reason to think that will happen. Nil Einne (talk) 10:47, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Closure review of Jerusalem infobox RFC
Hi! I'm requesting a review of my closure of Talk:Jerusalem#Should the infobox contain this flag and emblem?. It was somewhat of a tricky close and GrammarDamner was kind enough to raise some concerns in my talk page. Concerns included:
- The possibility I closed based on what I agree with rather than the content of the discussion
- My judgement of the status quo being incorrect (i.e. was the status quo to keep the flag and emblem in the infobox or was it, as I believe, to not give more weight to one side of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute over Jerusalem per WP:RFC/Jerusalem)
Thus, as both a non-admin closure and the opinion of those that refused to close it at ANRFC being that it would be a tough closure, I think it is in the interests of our coverage of the topic that my closure is reviewed here. I am more than happy to revert or amend my closure in line with consensus here. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 10:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- The close seems substantially fine. I think the crux of that RfC is that adding the flag/emblem turns the lead/infobox from its current neutral stance into something that could be seen as a less neutral stance, which contradicts the precedent in an awfully contentious topic. This concern wasn't really addressed by proponents. Most of them just argued that (in their view) doing this would reflect the reality on the ground, but failed to argue how a) it would improve the content of the article; or b) even if it would, if the content improvements offset the can of worms you'd open. Any attempt at an argument was opinionated or refuted. e.g. OSE is a perfectly valid argument, but the examples of OSE in that discussion were poor, some of which have been nominated for deletion and others (e.g. those relating the Russian annexation) are not stable or have no solid consensus behind their choice.
- I don't see the point of close review by closer though. If you feel confident in closing it then do that and stick by it unless you're convinced you made a mistake, which you don't seem to be. If others have concerns with the close, they can raise them on this board in their own words. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- ProcrastinatingReader, I just thought it would be good caution to ask for review due to me being a non-admin and the complexity of the topic. I've been confidently incorrect in the past :) — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 10:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Without comment on the rest of the close, the wording "The "de facto" situation on the ground has no bearing on our neutrality policies" doesn't feel right. It reminds me of the persistent issues surrounding BBC coverage of climate change. Neutrality does not mean a disconnect from reality. Of course, the analysis of a particular reality should be guided by reliable sources, which is what I think was the point that came through in succeeding sentences. CMD (talk) 14:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- Eh, whenever you weigh arguments while closing a controversial discussion, someone will accuse you of supervoting. I wouldn't pay that any mind, at least on its own. As for the actual finding: I think saying that the arguments against inclusion were
significantly superior
is an overstatement. Both sides made arguments deriving from NPOV. To be honest, after reading the RfC, the NPOV argument seems like a wash to me. On the one hand, there is a considerable dispute over the status of Jerusalem, and it is safe to assume that if the Palestinians ever take control of it, they will replace the icons with ones that don't use Hebrew script, among other things; on the other hand, the natural choice for iconography is the set actually employed by the city's functioning government, and refusing to include them could be construed in the opposite direction, as a denial that the government that established the icons is actually the government of Jerusalem (which it clearly is, regardless of whether it should be). So while you were correct to dismiss the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS-type arguments, I think the NPOV arguments are actually a wash, and given the numbers, I would have found no consensus. If somebody else expresses a desire to press this issue, I will probably vote to overturn, but this is clearly a small detail and I'd rather this not become a whole dramaboard thing. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 03:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC) - Just in case it wasn't clear, the main reason I brought this up was that the RfC clearly did not indicate consensus to remove images from the infobox that had been in the infobox for over ten years. It should also be noted that having the images in the infobox does not mean Wikipedia is endorsing the symbols or taking a side in the dispute. GrammarDamner how are things? 04:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- I think that it would be better, to avoid what would, in effect, be re-litigating the RFC, if only admins comment here, or, at the very least, for commenters to indicate whether they are admins or not. As far as I can tell, though I may not have read the List of Administrators closely enough, nobody who has commented above is actually one. I am not an admin either. I took part in the RFC.
- Some observations:
- Above, a comment states: "The "de facto" situation on the ground has no bearing on our neutrality policies" doesn't feel right. The Neutrality policy says: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." So, the "de facto situation" is only significant as far as the neutrality policy is concerned according to what reliable sources have said about it (the same is true of the de jure situation, which as far as international law goes is: neither West or East Jerusalem is Israeli; East Jerusalem is under occupation; any Israeli move to change the status of Jerusalem - including, perhaps, extending the Jerusalem Municipality to include East Jerusalem - is null and void). What happened in the RFC is that, rather than discussing what sources say and how that affects neutrality, editors were using their own, subjective, opinion about what the de facto situation is to argue for retaining the symbols. If anything, that's a bypassing of the neutrality policy.
- It was stated above: Both sides made arguments deriving from NPOV. I doubt that's true.
- GrammarDamner, who commented above, took part in the RFC. After it was closed, he or she questioned the result at the closer, Ixtal's, talkpage, which led to the current request on this noticeboard being opened. In my opinion, GrammarDamner has poor judgement, making a lot of dubious claims without offering any justification. That includes the claims made in the comment above. That includes the claims made at Ixtal's, talkpage after the RFC closure. At the RFC on the Jerusalem article talkpage, GrammarDamner buttressed his opinion with a claim that the situation in Taiwan is "almost identical" to the situation in Jerusalem: "one country claims a certain area, while another country controls it." That is a pretty inaccurate summary of the situation in both China and Palestine (in China, two regimes claim to be the proper government for the whole {Taiwan isn't an independent country}; in Palestine, the Arab state envisaged by the Partition Plan was never created) and ignores the significant differences between them historically, legally and ethnically/nationally. No situation really bears a close similarity with the one in Jerusalem. Perhaps pre-1967 the situation in Nicosia could have been seen as similar, but we're not dealing with the pre-1967 situation. Perhaps the situation during the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait might be similar. But the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait only lasted for months. After I'd attempted a rebuttal of GrammarDamner's argument, he or she responded with "WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:IDNHT" accusations. Those are more dubious claims for which no justification was offered, showing, in that case, a poor understanding of what those behaviours are supposed to consist of. I wrote a comment on GrammarDamner's talkpage asking him on her not to make any more unjustifiable comments about my behaviour. In my opinion, GrammarDamner's response is irrational and shows a poor understanding of the WP:NPA rule. Overall, in my opinion: not much judgement, not much understanding, not much in the way of reason.
- ← ZScarpia 00:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – October 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2022).
|
Interface administrator changes
|
- Following an RfC, consensus was found that if the rationale for a block depends on information that is not available to all administrators, that information should be sent to the Arbitration Committee, a checkuser or an oversighter for action (as applicable, per ArbCom's recent updated guidance) instead of the administrator making the block.
- Following an RfC, consensus has been found that, in the context of politics and science, the reliability of FoxNews.com is unclear and that additional considerations apply to its use.
- Community comment on the revised Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines is requested until 8 October.
- The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.
- Remedy 8.1 of the Muhammad images case will be rescinded 1 November following a motion.
- A modification to the deletion RfC remedy in the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been made to reaffirm the independence of the RfC and allow the moderators to split the RfC in two.
- The second phase of the 2021-22 Discretionary Sanctions Review closes 3 October.
- An administrator's account was recently compromised. Administrators are encouraged to check that their passwords are secure, and reminded that ArbCom reserves the right to not restore adminship in cases of poor account security. You can also use two-factor authentication (2FA) to provide an extra level of security.
- Self-nominations for the electoral commission for the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections open 2 October and close 8 October.
- You are invited to comment on candidates in the 2022 CUOS appointments process.
- An RfC is open to discuss whether to make Vector 2022 the default skin on desktop.
- Tech tip: You can do a fuzzy search of all deleted page titles at Special:Undelete.
WP:ACE Election Commission - Call for candidates
Hello all, qualified editors are invited to self-nominate for the 2022 Arbitration Committee Elections Electoral Commission. Those interested should list themselves on this page. Commissioners are empowered to make binding decisions on unexpected or exception issues related to the election, and some other duties specified in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections/ACERFC decisions to date. This is a single-term position lasting until the end of the December election. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 15:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Just a bump here, a couple of days left on this - volunteers wanted! — xaosflux Talk 20:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
User with multiple accounts and "ownership" issues.
User:Kioumarsi and User:H.kioumarsi are the same individual. also, they seem to have an ownership issue with Taleshi_sheep as seem here and here. @Elmidae: you may want to chime in. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed they do - and based on that I suspect this is not much more than a basic misunderstanding of attribution, authorship, and COI on WP. Is there a suitable collection of newbie material one could drop on their talk page? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- They are hardly a newbie... they've been here since 2007. But I can hit them with something from Twinkle, and follow up with some pointers to WP:COI, etc. However, they do have multiple accounts, even though they've not used one in several years. This needs some formal addressing. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- There was no attempt to deceive anyone about the fact that they operate both accounts, so there's no WP:SOCK violation. If this were ongoing, it would be worth asking them why they're using two accounts and encouraging them to disclose this on their userpage, but given that H.kioumarsi hasn't edited in 7 yaers, I don't think even that is necessary. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 16:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- They are hardly a newbie... they've been here since 2007. But I can hit them with something from Twinkle, and follow up with some pointers to WP:COI, etc. However, they do have multiple accounts, even though they've not used one in several years. This needs some formal addressing. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- @UtherSRGI have two accounts, but I have not edited with the "H.Kioumarsi" in 7 years. For technical reasons, I can't deactivate an account or combine two user accounts into one user account. I have mentioned in my profile that I have two accounts. I appreciate it if you kindly remove the big temple from my account. Kioumarsi (talk) 07:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- I've removed it. Since you no longer use the H.kioumarsi account, you might consider redirecting User:H.kioumarsi&User talk:H.kioumarsi to User:Kioumarsi&User talk:Kioumarsi to eliminate any further potential for confusion. – Joe (talk) 09:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Deletion of main title and infobox of article
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User talk:Volunteer Marek deleted the entry for Kherson Oblast (Russia) and Zaporozhye Oblast (Russia) for it being "unsourced" and being "hoax" which I do not think is really the point. Yes, it is not recognised, but that does not mean you delete the whole entry and infobox for not "recognising" it. Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- In the discussion of these articles, this user behaves extremely aggressively, and threatens with permanent bans to those who oppose his position. Please restrict this user from discussions and editing articles for a while. PLATEL (talk) 13:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
VM is a bit ott here, 4 of the same revert in a couple hours at Kherson Oblast (Russia) Also see AFD in progress here. If there are issues, raise them on talk. Revert 1 Revert 2 Revert 3 Revert 4 Selfstudier (talk) 14:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- My edits removed unsourced text which presented false information. So yes, WP:HOAX. And yeah there have been some IPs and brand new accounts jumping in to try and restore the fake information. I did revert them since having HOAXes on Wikipedia embarrasses the entire project. Volunteer Marek 14:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Starting New Page
Hello,
I am requesting to start a new page. Ryan Wilson (politican)
thank you KlutheMN
KlutheMN (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- KlutheMN You don't need to request permission to start a new article(not a "page"). You may draft one at Articles for creation, but it will be very challenging. First, they will need to meet the definition of a notable politican. Mere candidates are insufficient unless they meet the broader notable person definition. 331dot (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Draft:Ryan Wilson (candidate for Minnesota State Auditor) was created by a different new user on September 27.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
User making malicious edits.
Anonymous user editing wikipedia page to add frivolous information
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=.30-06_Springfield&action=history
Anonymous user is adding " .306APOCWON " WarRaven (talk) 00:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Content dispute, no administrator action needed. Just guide them to the talk page, start a discussion and ask for references. Canterbury Tail talk 01:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
RfC which may be of interest
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale Valereee (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
XDPOGCHAMPEPEGA
Recommend administrators' review @XDPOGCHAMPEPEGA:'s contrib history, at List of presidents of the United States page & talkpage. As well as editor's own talkpage. Seems to be a case of either WP:CIR or WP:NOTHERE. -- GoodDay (talk) 03:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think they're here to build an encyclopedia. Their mainspace contributions range from obvious bad-faith vandalism to unsourced POV-pushing, and then there's all the fuckery on their user talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: they have been notified. (fyi) - wolf 03:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- I believe firefangledfeathers has summed up this issue quite neatly. Both long-term edit warring and battleground attitude at List of United States presidents and it's talk page, as well as the must-see-to-believe edits on their own talk page and user page, including a post so obnoxious and hateful it had to be rev/del'd, shows they have no interest in engagement, just telling editors "fuck u" (repeatedly), posting a full copy of lyrics to a Kanye West song, posting their ugly opinions of politics and society, and of course, their off-wiki contact info (as if they're blowing up their account on purpose and so wanna get that out there). None of this behaviour has been about building or maintaining this project or working collaboratively with others to do same. - wolf 03:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
They quit and I blocked them. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 04:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Request to overturn or at least limit my topic ban
I currently have a topic ban on editing anything related to religion or religious figures "broadly construed". It has now been in place over a year. I understand that some of my actions that preceded this were disruptive, overly combative and otherwise unwise. However that was in August of last year. I think it would be reasonable at this time to overturn the topic ban. If people are not willing to do this, I think it should be at least limited to edits directly related to religion, and no longer cover "religious figures" "broadly construed". That wording has lead to people trying to apply it against me in what seems to be ever increasing ways. There was notice on my talk page given about me editing related to the Wood Between the Worlds article when this was its content [3]. I have been called up because I edited in minor ways an article on a political leader, not in elation to anything that related to religion, but because he happened to have been involved in creating documents defining government policy related to religion. The interpretation of some seems to be "broadly defined" means anyone who was an artist who ever created any work that was ever religion, no matter how little of their body of work was religious. I floated an example of someone who did some study at a place training people to be religious leaders, but left there without completion and has spent the rest of their career as a lawyer, government administrator and judge, and someone argued that little bit was enough to exclude. At this point the rule is not functioning to protect against disruption, it is functioning to cause me to have to worry about every broadening interpretations of what broadly defined is. I really think that after a whole year we could just overturn the topic ban, but at a minimum we should limit it to edits that in their substance actually cover religious topics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'm currently neutral with respect to repealing part or all of the ban, but I agree that a topic ban that could conceivably be construed to include any person who is verifiably religious (although I'm not aware anybody has yet attempted to do so) is too broad. Especially when, at a glance, the edits for which he was topic banned pertained to Mormonism specifically. On the other hand, I see a history of not getting the point that concerns me. I'll wait until others have commented before assuming a more definite position, but I think at minimum some clarification is warranted, and I'll probably push to narrow it so that marginally notable places in allegorical novels are not included. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- One time someone did attack me for making what I think was a comment on my talk page that somehow related to Mia Love. Love is a politician and political commentator..John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Johnpacklambert, you are well aware that Mia Love is a very high profile Black convert to the LDS church, that she was featured in a national TV advertising campaign called I'm a Mormon before that church repudiated the "M" word, and that she and a photo of her were highlighted in a New York Times article about that ad blitz. Cullen328 (talk) 00:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- [4] includes the exchange related to Love.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Johnpacklambert: By "attack", do you mean this question by Cullen328 on your talk page? If so, I fail to see how that could be construed as an attack; an explanation would be appreciated.
- On the subject of Mia Love, she is indeed a politician; however, her religious views feature prominently in the article (and appear to form the basis for her political views). –FlyingAce✈hello 01:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- One time someone did attack me for making what I think was a comment on my talk page that somehow related to Mia Love. Love is a politician and political commentator..John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- This quote was posted on my talk page recently "Completely forget about trying to define where the boundaries are - simply keep so far away from the boundaries that you can't even see them. The vast majority of people on this planet, and the vast majority of BLP subjects in Wikipedia, have never had any specific religious education, have never had any interest in religion professionally, and have never uttered a word in public about religion. You should be fine with any of those. I would strongly suggest that if a BLP article contains any mention of any religious activity, any religious upbringing, or says anything about religious thoughts or comments from the subject... you would be safer to consider it closed to you. " That seems to be saying I should not edit any article on anyone who was verifiably religious.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Short version: I oppose overturning the ban, and apologize in advance for the length of what follows. As someone who politely called this editor's attention to their editing of William Sayle (I assume this is the "political leader" referred to above) rather than just reporting them for a topic ban violation, I think that interaction is an interesting example to cite. That article has the word "religion" in the second sentence of the lead for good reasons, one of which is that the political events occurred in the context of the subject's religious leadership of the Puritan breakaway group that formed a European colony in the Bahamas for religious reasons. I understand why, having been notified of a possible topic ban violation, the editor would want to re-characterize the subject's article as something else, but it's not plausible to think that a ban on editing religious topics wouldn't include one of the pioneers of religious freedom in European colonies. So as far as I'm concerned, this appeal is already based on a mischaracterization of the situation.
But the baseline problem here, as it has been before (see previous ANI/Arbcom discussions about this editor) is that this editor has fundamental and persistent challenges in applying the concept of "broadly construed" to his own editing, and a history of trying to figure it out by pushing boundaries and seeing what gets restricted. Whatever other purpose it serves, this topic ban on religion is a sort of ongoing test to see whether that problem is still a problem. Obviously it is, as the editor's own comments above indicate. Of course there are two simplistic solutions: one, remove all "broadly construed" restrictions on the editor, on the basis that it is too difficult for him to apply "broadly construed" language to his own editing; two, indefinitely block the editor, on the basis that it is too difficult for him to apply "broadly construed" language to his own editing. The first adds more of a burden on the community to monitor an editor with a long history of consuming the community's time with a recurrent cycle of apologies and topic bans and pleas and blocks and unblocks and second and third and fourth and fifth chances. The second frees the community of that burden, at the cost of losing future edits and making the editor feel bad. I don't think the editor wants the second solution, and I don't know whether the community wants either of these solutions. But in the meantime I oppose lifting this particular topic ban, since it is at least partly serving its purpose of keeping this editor out of editing areas where more attentive and collaborative participation than what they have previously shown is required. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- I am very firmly opposed to the concept of loosening the topic ban until we actually see that they can abide by the various restrictions they are under. He just returned from a 1 month ban for violating another topic ban they are under. That pretty much shows that they are still having issues with figuring out the boundaries of topic bans so I don't see why loosening one would be a good idea. Ealdgyth (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed with the above that we need to see evidence JPL can edit productively with restrictions before loosening any. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 01:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Johnpacklambert needs to demonstrate over a lengthy period of time that he truly understands his topic bans and have fully complied with them without any testing of the boundaries. A highly experienced editor should not be constantly claiming to not understand clearly written topic bans and continuing to probe around the edges. Fully comply without any boundary testing for at least six months, JPL. We do not need to waste volunteer time evaluating biographies where JPL tries to claim that the article is not covered by the topic ban and several other editors reply, "Oh yes, it is, per A, B and C". JPL should use a ten foot barge pole to stay FAR away from any such articles. His failure to do so is evidence that the topic bans should stand. Cullen328 (talk) 03:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per Cullen328 and Ealdgyth, and IF's concern about JPL's lack of understanding of "broadly contrued". Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:29, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Resignation of Donald Albury
I am resigning from the Arbitration Committee with an effective date of December 31, 2022. I am announcing my resignation now in order to allow the election of someone to complete the second year of my term through the annual election process that will start shortly.
I have not been contributing to the behind-the-scenes work of the committee, which is not fair to the other members of the committee (although they have been kind enough to not mention that to me). While I have not been contributing to that behind-the-scenes committee work, I have found that the time I spend reading e-mails and the project pages that are relevant to the committee's work is more than I enjoy spending. I have decided that I just want to go back to being an editor who occasionally performs an admin action.
I wish to thank everybody who voted for me last year, and hope you are not too disappointed that I am not completing my term. I also wish to thank my fellow ArbCom members for their support of, and patience with, me. My exposure to the inner workings of this part of the governance of the English Wikipedia has been reassuring to me about the durability and fairness of such governance. Donald Albury 18:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Global ban for Александр Мотин
Per the Global bans policy, I’m informing the project of this request for comment: RfC/Global ban for Александр Мотин. - Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 03:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)