Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Administator's noticeboard)
| Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators. |
|---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) |
Open tasks[edit]
| V | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 6 | 17 | 138 | 161 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 9 | 27 | 36 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
- 1 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 6 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 3 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 4 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 96 sockpuppet investigations
- 20 Candidates for speedy deletion
- 1 Fully protected edit requests
- 1 Candidates for history merging
- 2 requests for RD1 redaction
- 38 elapsed requested moves
- 2 Pages at move review
- 32 requested closures
- 62 requests for unblock
- 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
- 33 Copyright problems
Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection[edit]
A user has requested removal of talk page content at Talk:Oldest people[edit]
A dispute over whether to include a deceased person in Oldest people, and with what details, resulted in edit-warring (see May 14 in the edit history), blocking and, in one case, an eventual indef for one user. Some of the content on the talk page has already been struck but an editor claiming to be a relative of the deceased person has requested that all comments about the person be deleted. This would (presumably?) require striking of much of the content of Talk:Oldest_people#Corrections: and some of Talk:Oldest_people#Page_protection_request. It might be necessary to pin a notice to ensure the person is not mentioned again or included in the article, though how this could be done without the person's name beats me, unless it is possible to flag the name for bot detection. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 02:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- This just looks like reliable sources. The person claiming to be family says we have the dob wrong. Where did we get the dob? We only use published sources. Secretlondon (talk) 05:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- The dispute was over which of 2 equally reliable sources should be used as they had conflicting information. The solution, agreed by consensus, is to omit the person until such time as the sources agree. The relative wishes all reference to the individual removed. I was under the impression that could be done under a privacy policy (not that I can find an appropriate policy). If there are no grounds under policy for the material to be removed from the talk page (and in future, from preventing their relation from being included in the article), could an admin explain that to the user? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- You and I both have been going at this topic for more than a decade now, and still I sometimes find discussions that take lameness to a new level. Given that the two sources in question have vastly different details about this marginally-notable-at-best person, and that these are the only two sources for a topic that has a well-documented history of fraudulent claims, there's no reason Wikipedia should be propagating this. I also, incidentally, note a lot of threats being bandied about on the talkpage, people making them need to stop it immediately. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe it would better if we tried to be an encyclopedia based on notable topics, rather than the Guinness Book of Records. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Alas, there seems to be some disagreement among users as to what "notable" means. Donald Albury 20:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- I feel like I'm missing something here. The discussion appears to center around a disagreement between sources, and someone claiming to be the descendant of the person written about in those sources is asking us to delete the entire conversation because it is insulting to her ancestor? Is that right? Because if it is I don't see any grounds for being upset at Wikipedia about it. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Greetings, I asked to delete all inappropriate comments about my grandpa Ilie Ciocan. Later, I deleted my comments because I listed my contact email there so I was worried because it is publicly available. Namely, on the page talking about the oldest people, various comments and arguments appeared where users argued about whether to add or delete grandfather from the list. My family is appalled after reading these comments, a friend of mine sent me a link to this site. I requested the deletion of all comments where my grandfather is mentioned, because I think he did not deserve to have this type of public discussion about his age. As for publicly available sources, there is no disagreement about the date of birth, the LongeviQuest page confirms that he was born on May 28, 1913, as well as the Gerontology Research Group page. Anyway, it doesn't matter to us if he's on the list or not, it's important to us that all comments about him are deleted, it's unacceptable and we feel upset about it, it's humiliating for my sister and I who for over a decade we take care of him, it is very difficult for us, but we will not give up on him. You can see my comment in the change history. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oldest_people&diff=prev&oldid=1229004322
- Sincerely, Camelia Ciocan, Ilie Ciocan's youngest granddaughter Camelia249 (talk) 06:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- A number of revisions have already been suppressed (if you look in the edit history, the revisions which are doubly stricken are suppressed). These cannot be seen by anyone other than a very small group of trusted editors. Are there still comments present which you regard as problematic? Simply not liking a comment is not grounds for its removal. I have admittedly only taken a cursory glance through the thread but I don't notice anything libelous or otherwise problematic. If you think any content is libelous, your best option would probably be to contact the oversight team (see Wikipedia:Oversight) with the diff links of the comments you think require suppression, or contact Wikimedia (see Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects) detailing your concerns. You could post what content you want removed here, but this is a high-traffic noticeboard and the content in question is likely to be seen by yet more people (for example, I would never have come across the comments in question if it hadn't been posted about here). Adam Black talk • contribs 07:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Camelia249 I'm one of the small group of oversighters and also, as mentioned above, familiar with this topic area. If there's any other concerning material still visible and/or if anything that's been removed is reposted, you can send me an e-mail and I'll remove it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- A number of revisions have already been suppressed (if you look in the edit history, the revisions which are doubly stricken are suppressed). These cannot be seen by anyone other than a very small group of trusted editors. Are there still comments present which you regard as problematic? Simply not liking a comment is not grounds for its removal. I have admittedly only taken a cursory glance through the thread but I don't notice anything libelous or otherwise problematic. If you think any content is libelous, your best option would probably be to contact the oversight team (see Wikipedia:Oversight) with the diff links of the comments you think require suppression, or contact Wikimedia (see Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects) detailing your concerns. You could post what content you want removed here, but this is a high-traffic noticeboard and the content in question is likely to be seen by yet more people (for example, I would never have come across the comments in question if it hadn't been posted about here). Adam Black talk • contribs 07:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- I feel like I'm missing something here. The discussion appears to center around a disagreement between sources, and someone claiming to be the descendant of the person written about in those sources is asking us to delete the entire conversation because it is insulting to her ancestor? Is that right? Because if it is I don't see any grounds for being upset at Wikipedia about it. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Alas, there seems to be some disagreement among users as to what "notable" means. Donald Albury 20:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe it would better if we tried to be an encyclopedia based on notable topics, rather than the Guinness Book of Records. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- You and I both have been going at this topic for more than a decade now, and still I sometimes find discussions that take lameness to a new level. Given that the two sources in question have vastly different details about this marginally-notable-at-best person, and that these are the only two sources for a topic that has a well-documented history of fraudulent claims, there's no reason Wikipedia should be propagating this. I also, incidentally, note a lot of threats being bandied about on the talkpage, people making them need to stop it immediately. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- The dispute was over which of 2 equally reliable sources should be used as they had conflicting information. The solution, agreed by consensus, is to omit the person until such time as the sources agree. The relative wishes all reference to the individual removed. I was under the impression that could be done under a privacy policy (not that I can find an appropriate policy). If there are no grounds under policy for the material to be removed from the talk page (and in future, from preventing their relation from being included in the article), could an admin explain that to the user? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Block review User:Jamiesonandy[edit]
Jamiesonandy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Blocking admin: Orangemike (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
The blocked user is clearly an elderly person who misunderstands what Wikipedia is. It was explained to him at the help desk, and he stopped editing. Ten hours later, Mike indef blocked him. I feel like this is far from the first time I have seen Mike come late to a situation and substitute his own judgement for that of others who already adressed the situation. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Egregiously bad block What the hell? Not a single warning on the user's talk page, not a note from the admin prior to jumping to a block, and an indef block at that? For a newbie who seems confused and needs some direction? Have we forgotten WP:BITE and WP:BLOCKP? I daresay I hope Orangemike is able to defend their actions, because I'm not seeing any reason they should be blocked indefinitely for a few questions on the Teahouse and Help Desk (two places designed for people to ask for..wait for it...help!). Not to mention, Orangemike mentions the editor being "belligerent" in the block reason, which I see absolutely zero evidence of, and the rest of their block reason of WP:NOTHERE seems to be a very unsubstantiated position to take. EggRoll97 (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- The belligerency was when he demanded, I asked a question; where is your answer? The guy was just not getting it, was using both the Teahouse and Help Desk as general information sources for UK banking questions, and clearly was not going to accept that this was not the place to seek help on this question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemike (talk • contribs)
- It wasn't just one out of place question. It was several on both the Teahouse and the Help Desk, and it didn't seem like the user was ready to give up asking. RudolfRed (talk) 23:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Definitely not a good block. I've taken a look at a number of Orangemike's NOTHERE blocks (I didn't look at others), and there were a number of very bad blocks:
- Special:Contributions/Studio_Atinati, one-edit no warning block
- Special:Contributions/Caroline.j.ashleyy, another one-edit no warning block
- Special:Contributions/Mrpoopbenji, user who stopped editing after warning, blocked more than a day later
- Special:Contributions/Wilburthewigga, no warnings whatsoever; this is not a good deletion either
- Nearly half of the blocks I looked at were like this. Orangemike really needs to stop doing these no-to-little-warning blocks. —Ingenuity (t • c) 23:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- If my colleagues really feel that I'm being quick on the trigger, I will accept your collective judgement and take my trouting like a mensch; but I genuinely doubt that any one of these accounts had any intention of contributing to our project in the way that somebody like Sideways [nee Beeble] does every day. Two spamming accounts with spammy usernames, one poop joke, one racial epithet username, and our confused British gentleman who thinks we can put him in contact with a bank account dead for over half a century...... --Orange Mike | Talk 00:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- I haven't looked into any of your blocks and so have no opinion whether or not you have acted appropriately, but I would say that the fact that you
genuinely doubt that any one of these accounts had any intention of contributing to our project
does not override Wikipedia policy, specifically the policy on blocking. The intention behind Wikipedia was to create an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. Policies which temporarily (even indefinite blocks shouldn't be considered permanent) remove an individual's ability to contribute to the project exist only to limit damage and disruption to the project and should generally be considered a last resort, not the first tool you pull out. I am not and have never been an administrator on this or any other Wikimedia project, but I have been an administrator or bureaucrat on multiple MediaWiki installations through my work and can tell you from experience that biting the newcomers in such a way may temporarily put a stop to vandalism or disruption but long-term only harms the project. Adam Black talk • contribs 02:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- I haven't looked into any of your blocks and so have no opinion whether or not you have acted appropriately, but I would say that the fact that you
- If my colleagues really feel that I'm being quick on the trigger, I will accept your collective judgement and take my trouting like a mensch; but I genuinely doubt that any one of these accounts had any intention of contributing to our project in the way that somebody like Sideways [nee Beeble] does every day. Two spamming accounts with spammy usernames, one poop joke, one racial epithet username, and our confused British gentleman who thinks we can put him in contact with a bank account dead for over half a century...... --Orange Mike | Talk 00:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- None of these 4 blocks make any sense, and while I think Mike's explanations are genuine, this is a base breach of the blocking policy, and at least a couple of those user's blocks are concerning. The first, for User:Studio Atinati, based on the contributions looks like they need to be redirected to a different language content project (Google tells me it's Georgian?). The second user, User:Caroline.j.ashleyy, just needs an extra dose of the introduction to Wikipedia, not a block for heaven's sake. The third user, User:Mrpoopbenji, based on their contributions just seems like they need some help getting started, something the Growth Tools like mentorship are supposed to help with. Finally, the fourth user, User:Wilburthewigga, is the only one I'll say should probably be blocked, but not for WP:NOTHERE. If anything they should have been blocked for a UPOL violation, but not for their contributions or whether they are HERE or not. To be quite honest though, their edits are just to their user page then a question to their mentor. Of those edits to their userpage, they didn't seem to have any malicious intent either. In addition, they appear to have responded to the block notice, stating they would
learn from it
, which isn't typically a trait associated with blocks for WP:NOTHERE. On just a closing note as well, the deletion, unless something else had been added that was horridly obscene other than the page creation with "Woo!", I would say that's a violation of WP:DELTALK and the deletion policy in general. Based on the API result here, there doesn't appear to be any other edits to the page, though. Just out of curiosity, Ingenuity, would you (or of course any other administrator) be able to confirm if there's still a deleted revision on User talk:Wilburthewigga? If there is, I wonder if it would be possible to restore that revision, as it doesn't appear to be a proper use of the deletion tool. EggRoll97 (talk) 01:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)- I remember encountering Mrpoopbenji (talk · contribs) through WP:UAA, and discovered that all of their edits were created by a large language model. Ther sandbox was deleted for this reason. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Someone with a username that's slang for "white nigger" needs only a swift kick in the ass out the door. I'd have blocked on sight as well. As to the others: one is an obvious username violation, with another the text being in Georgian is the least of the problems given it was an obvious attempt to hijack an article with blatant spam about an entirely unrelated subject, and the last was as flagrant a case of noble cause syndrome as it gets. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Just wanted to point out that the blocked editor did not stop editing once it was pointed out (not only on May 14th, which they may have not seen, but also on Jun 14th at 18:34, again at 18:34, at 18:35, and at at 18:44) that wikipedia, including the Help desk and Teahouse, was not an appropriate place for their query. Rather, 20 minutes after that last response, the editor reposted the question asking for legal/financial advice on the userpage. Secondly, while the editor said that they had "contributed to Wikipedia for a number of years" at least this account seemed to be dedicated to a single purpose that was not that of building an encyclopedia. Finally, as Girth Summit eloquently explained on this page a short while back, albeit in a different context, one motivation for applying an indef block is to get assurance from the blocked editor that the problematic behavior will not be repeated.
- Hence, while I understand that the Jamiesonandy block was still a judgement call, and that it is natural to feel sympathy for a senior citizen in distress, I can also see Orangemike's thinking in applying the NOTHERE block. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 01:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I've noticed for years that Orangemike is quick to block, often without any talk page warnings but I generally have trusted their judgment. I'd ask them to ease up on the trigger finger and try communicating with an editor before laying down the ban hammer first. Liz Read! Talk! 03:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Generally speaking, in my view, a NOTHERE indef block is admissible (although not necessary) if none of the user's edits indicate an ability or intent to improve our articles. This seems to be the case here. It's then up to the user to convince us, in an unblock request, that they are indeed able and willing to edit constructively. Sandstein 08:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- A quick show of hands: y'all do realize that the "reason" you fill in at Special:Block isn't just for the entry in the block log, but is shown to the user every time they try to edit, yes? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:22, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- The thing here for me is that the Teahouse and the Help Desk are exactly where we want users to go when they are lost or confused as to the purpose of Wikipedia. I don't think anyone is defending this users actual edits, but he hadn't posted anything in many hours and the situation seemed to have settled itself when Mike just indef blocked out of nowhere. Mike, like myself, has contributed for many years at WP:UAA Personally, I don't even think most of the thousands of accounts I've blocked at UAA were here in bad faith, they, like this person, just didn't get it and tried to use Wikipedia in ways it isn't intended to be used. So, they use an WP:ORGNAME and write upa draft article on said organization, and the usual response is that we delete the draft and soft block the user, explicitly allowing them to just start a new account and try to edit within the rules. Looking at some of Mike's blocks, he treats "being lost and confused on help forums" the same way most admins treat "actively disrupting article space." I just don't think being clueless in WP space is what NOTHERE hard indef blocks are for, it is for people who come here to push the content to suit their own needs, not for people who ask deeply misguided questions. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 18:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'd add that if you look at the language at WP:NOTHERE there's a lot of wording like "long-term history...Extreme lack of interest in working constructively...Major conflicts of attitude, concerning Wikipedia-related activity..." and so on. It doesn't say anything aboout "asks clueless questions at help forums, because help forums are there, at least in part, to help clueless users get some clue. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- I get that in general, but this particular account was going well beyond that. I count 4 separate instances of being told, in various ways, that Wikipedia is not a forum for handling personal bank squabbles that date back to something from 1950s British probate court (!); to respond to said warnings with this tells me that, in a very literal sense, this user was not here to build an encyclopedia. I'm American and even I could point out that a solicitor, not an online community devoted to building an encyclopedia, would be who to ask these questions. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'd add that if you look at the language at WP:NOTHERE there's a lot of wording like "long-term history...Extreme lack of interest in working constructively...Major conflicts of attitude, concerning Wikipedia-related activity..." and so on. It doesn't say anything aboout "asks clueless questions at help forums, because help forums are there, at least in part, to help clueless users get some clue. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Page[edit]
The page Botola is always vandalized. Please lock it for a long time 160.177.133.23 (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) I see an edit war that began on May 30 with heavy involvement from this user and from زكرياء نوير (talk · contribs), where all sides are making unsourced changes to statistics. Actually, almost all of the statistics on this page are unsourced. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Currently the page is good now, someone deletes the numbers every time, it should be closed 160.177.133.23 (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- There is nothing 'good' about unsourced content on the scale of that page. I suggest you find some sources, and then settle your dispute on the talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Do not UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES edit another contributors' post like this. [1] AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- The user زكرياء_نوير posted the following under their notice for this AN:
Yes, there is sabotage every time the page has to be closed
. So both users are accusing the other of vandalism, and that's even worse than the lack of sourcing. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC) - Like accidentally editing the template they intended to copy to edit their own comment? That's what it looks like. – 2804:F1...57:945F (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- The user زكرياء_نوير posted the following under their notice for this AN:
- Currently the page is good now, someone deletes the numbers every time, it should be closed 160.177.133.23 (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Note, article is semi-protected until 21 June. I would advise all participants to discuss on the talk page and source their additions/changes/kept text. Buffs (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
troll at Talk:7 Days to Die[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This person verbally attacked me, but I was clearly discussing this in a friendly manner, and I did not attack back. I remained friendly from beginning to end. Mcx8202229 🇨🇳❤️ (talk) 04:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- First, you are required to notify the editor about this discussion. I have done that for you. Second, yes, I agree this edit is definitely a personal attack, and is worthy of a block. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RFC at RSN desperately needs to be closed[edit]
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: The Anti-Defamation League has been droning on forever and is literally causing the RSN, an already high-activity page, to slow down and malfunction. The discussion has become stagnant and bloated and needs an uninvolved closer badly just because it’s making it difficult to actually use the noticeboard. Dronebogus (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Would you say that its droning is... bogus?
- Sorry, I'll see myself out. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 21:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- *finger pistols*
- (But seriously, it's been months now. And it's not like any section of it is that complex. If you really feel it's necessary, assemble a three-person team or something, but clearly it needs to be closed.) Loki (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'll pay extra cabal dues this month if someone can get it done. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- I pity whoever has to close that cesspit of an RFC. The sheer amount alone, my gosh. EggRoll97 (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Request for review of Draft:Hassan Nisar Haripur[edit]
A request for review of the draft article for Hassan Nisar Haripur, an award-winning Pakistani entrepreneur, YouTuber, and philanthropist, is being made. Despite meeting Wikipedia's notability guidelines, the article has been rejected multiple times by Saqib.
Hassan Nisar Haripur's achievements and coverage in reputable sources demonstrate notability:
- Award-winning entrepreneur (references: [1] [2])
- Featured in top Pakistani publications, including The Dawn and The Tribune (references: [3] [4])
Wikipedia's policy on award-winning individuals states that they are eligible for a Wikipedia page (WP:NATIONALAWARD) .
High-quality sources have been provided to support the article's notability, but Saqib has consistently rejected the draft. A review of the article is requested to assess whether it meets the necessary criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia.
Please review the draft article and references to ensure a fair evaluation. Uohabacasu (talk) 08:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure why you are posting this here, Draft:Hassan Nisar Haripur has been declined three times and now rejected, the topic is simply not notable. Theroadislong (talk) 08:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- And it is not correct that
Saqib has consistently rejected the draft
. Three different editors declined the draft, and then Saqib rejected it after looking for more sources. Meters (talk) 09:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)- While the draft's notability is still disputed, the clarification provides context to the review process. However, the core concern remains: the draft's notability is evident, yet it has been rejected. A reevaluation of the article's notability, considering the reliable sources and Wikipedia's policies, is still requested. Uohabacasu (talk) 09:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Forgot ot include that Saqib was one of the three who rejected it. Meters (talk) 09:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- The post was made here to request a review of the draft article's rejection, as the decision seems inconsistent with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The repeated rejections despite the provision of high-quality sources, including award recognition and coverage in top Pakistani publications, raise concerns about the fairness of the review process.
- The statement "the topic is simply not notable" is subjective and contradicts the evidence provided. Notability is determined by the presence of credible sources, which have been abundantly provided in this case. A reevaluation of the article's notability, considering the reliable sources and Wikipedia's policies, is requested.
- A more detailed explanation of the rejection, beyond a simple statement, would be appreciated. Additionally, a review of the article by a different editor, without the assumption that the topic is not notable, is requested. Uohabacasu (talk) 09:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- And it is not correct that
- No evidence of notability has been provided. Bonadea -- a fourth editor -- went painstakingly through the sources too, found none of them to contribute to making the article subject meet GNG, and I don't see any I'd dispute. This is not a suitable article for English Wikipedia. And this is a very poor forum for this as well; administrators are editors entrusted with advanced tools by the community, not content supervotes. In any case, the explanation of the rejection was thoroughly explained, completed with the aforementioned source analysis, and the primary issue appears to be that you don't like the explanations, not that they are improper. You should drop WP:DROPTHESTICK. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
I was supposed to be informed about this discussion on my tp. --Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- OP has shown us consistent COI editing, chatbot-generated communication, resistance to attempts at instilling a clue on two different boards, and this probably isn’t their only account. Even in the unlikely event that they’re not socking, they’re clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and should be blocked accordingly before they waste more editors’ time. --Finngall talk 12:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- I have blocked both Uohabacasu (talk · contribs) and Thekhyberboypk (talk · contribs), who seemed to be acting in concert along with IPs 39.41.131.130 (talk · contribs), 39.41.180.193 (talk · contribs) and 39.41.181.140 (talk · contribs) to promote a YouTube personality on wikipedia, and ignoring feedback. Will leave the possible speedying of the drafts Draft:Hassan Nisar Haripur, Draft:Hazara Waterfalls Jab Valley, and Draft:Metrix Pakistan to other admins more familiar with the standards applied in draftspace. Abecedare (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Quite recently I noticed this [2] on the Starlink website after hearing about "dynamic IP's" from this [3] discussion. Considering these IP's do not flag as proxy's, are they a issue in regards to Sockpuppets? Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Generally speaking, Starlink is not so different to any other mobile ISP, of which there are plenty, or for that matter most non-mobile ISPs. There are lots who rotate IPs very rapidly (as some editor pointed out in that discussion, switching ISPs is not actually a dynamic IP issue). As an added bonus, Starlink provides a list of their IP ranges per geolocation, for example in Atlanta, GA. Is there a sockpuppetry or PROJSOCK issue in this case? Probably. Is Starlink the issue, probably not. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
RfC at United States[edit]
Hi, is my conduct on United States appropriate? I'm trying to purge the dysfunction from the rfc I did but I'm struggling to gauge whether it's appropriate to have another topic on redesigning it for relisting. I don't plan on engaging in a relisting Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Alexanderkowal. Can you give us a summary of what conduct you've done? Maybe include some WP:DIFFs? –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Talk:United States#RfC: foreign relations with developing countries, Talk:United States#RfC: How should the US' relations with developing countries be summarised in the body?, and Talk:United States#Workshopping a relisting of the rfc. I'm trying to rectify the dysfunction partly caused by me. When I made the initial edit per WP:BRD I received successive personal attacks which made me defensive and combative, affecting my conduct in the rfc. Multiple editors then derailed the rfc with some valid points and I'm trying to address those so it can be relisted for further input. Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
EXTRA EYEs on AIV and Recent Changes please[edit]
There is a racist troll running amok. I have blocked them twice. They create new accounts and make rapid fire edits to random pages with vile edit summaries that require individual revdeling. Any help appreciated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Contested RfC non-admin partial close[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 | Please note that this discussion falls under WP:ARBPIA restrictions, and is thus only open to logged-in editors with extended confirmed permissions. |
This RSN RfC on the Anti-Defamation League has been partly (as in, only a part of it) closed by TrangaBellam, with the summary: I see a consensus for Option 3
[generally unreliable regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict] — going by the numbers (roughly, 3:1) as well as the relative strength of arguments — and note that most of the participants were okay-ish with deprecation too.
BilledMammal went to Tranga's Talk to say that they oughtn't have closed, since their Talk Page is decorated with a quote by Nishidani (a participant in the RfC, who voted in alignment with Tranga's close), which includes: ...I sympathise with the silenced underdog in so many conflicts, be they Aboriginals or Palestinians or Tibetans. This as far as I am aware does not translate into being uncomfortable with my country of origins, or antisemitic, or hostile to Chinese. ...
. Tranga disagreed; Dcpoliticaljunkie and FortunateSons agreed and asked Tranga to revert; Tranga declined.
Back at RSN, My very best wishes challenged the close, writing that an RfC should not be partially closed, that this RfC is so long and big that it should be closed by an admin, and that the provided justification (just a head count) was doubtful.
. A brief discussion took place before being hatted by ScottishFinnishRadish, who directed towards AN.
I hope this post is not malformed—I've never posted here before. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, and a little discussion on FortunateSons' Talk. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Participants[edit]
- Overturn, per WP:INVOLVED. If you are partisan about the conflict to the extent that you feel you need to have quotes expressing that partisanship on your user talk page then you are too partisan to be closing RFC’s about the conflict. BilledMammal (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn, in line with the arguments made in the discussions. This is a controversial and significant RfC in a contentious area, and the non-admin closer has a quote by one of the participants about the topic area on top of his talk page. Even if one were to excluding the issues with a partial close (acknowledging that the RfC is quite long), the style of closure (including the heavy reliance on !vote count) is not even close to appropriate in this area, and the closer being an experienced editor should have known that. Close should be reverted and closer trouted. FortunateSons (talk) 22:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- In line with BADNAC Nr. 2, it is my belief that exclusively an admin closure would be appropriate here. FortunateSons (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse. The spirit of WP:NOTBURO would discourage us from overturning an overdue and badly needed closure on mere technicality (and a technicality that is a stretch since TrangaBellam did not participate in the RFC) and with limited sense that the outcome could be different. As TrangaBellam observed in the user talk page discussion (permanent link),
There is no way that the discussion could have been closed differently by someone else, short of supervoting
. Additionally, OP calls TrangaBellam's closure reasonjust a headcount
but this is a misrepresentation. The full closure reads,I see a consensus for Option 3 — going by the numbers (roughly, 3:1) as well as the relative strength of arguments — and note that most of the participants were okay-ish with deprecation too
(italics added). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC) - Endorse - why would anyone waste time asking for this to be re-closed? It's 3:1 for pete's sake. Make an argument for why this was anything other than an "option 3" close, and then maybe you have reason to challenge. Otherwise, you're literally wasting other volunteers' time by asking someone else to make the same edit that Tranga made (an Option 3 close). Levivich (talk) 22:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
|
- Endorse - A user page should have little to no bearing on the outcome of the RfC, and the closure was non-controversial (in the sense that the margin of support for the decision was very clear). An admin closure would almost certainly come to the same decision, as Levivich said, and this contestation doesn't provide any argument that the outcome should have been different. The consensus was overwhelmingly in favor of option 3. As an aside, I have noticed a pattern of users in this topic area relying on userpages to get others into trouble. I don't want to cast aspersions, and I am trying to avoid any generalizing or unfair statements. I know that @BilledMammal, who makes a userpage based argument here, was involved in a similar effort to contest the content on @JDiala's userpage, which was ultimately put forth as an argument in a later procedure which saw them topic banned. I know that this was not the first time an editor has been dragged to one noticeboard or another over pro-Palestinian sentiment on their userpage. As someone who likes having a userpage, and likes reading the userpages of others, I worry about the chilling effect these efforts have on Wikipedians' self-expression, which is a fascinating and valuable part of the editing and community experience of the website in my opinion. Unbandito (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse and overturn. I agree with the closure, and I agree that the closure represents consensus, but for a discussion as gigantic and heavily controversial as this one, in the interest of propriety it should be closed by somebody who is beyond question uninvolved; as much as the tripartite panel closes can be groan-inducing, this seems like a good case for one. jp×g🗯️ 23:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- concur Buffs (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- To be clear: for the sake of avoiding silly bureaucratic pissantery, it should not be overturned until such a time as the aforementioned knight(s) in shining armor are willing to make a formal close with proper bells/whistles/hoohas -- since people seem to overwhelmingly agree with the fact of the close itself. jp×g🗯️ 21:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Close the entire RfC, rather than a section by uninvolved administrator(s). I think this should be an admin closure per guidelines [4] #2, i.e. "The outcome is a close call ... or likely to be controversial." Saying that Anti-Defamation League was a "generally unreliable source" is controversial. Commenting on the closure itself, the 3:1 description was fair, but the "strength of the argument" was not. To say that the source was generally unreliable, one should show it was not just biased, but publish incorrect information on a regular basis. I believe this is not at all the case for this source after looking at the entire discussion. That's why I think this RfC should not be closed "by parts". My very best wishes (talk) 02:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Please do not misrepresent the close; it held the source to be "generally unreliable" for a narrow topic area than for everything under the Sun. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- I know that some discussions end up with the conclusion that source X frequently publish misinformation in one subject area, but not in others. I think in all such cases the source as a whole should be regarded as unreliable. If they are liars, they can not be trusted. If this is not a reputable organization, then it just is not. However, in this case I did not see examples proving that they are liars. Of course I may be wrong. Hence we are having the community discussion that needs to be properly closed. My very best wishes (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Plenty of sources are reliable for some things but not others. Consider Noam Chomsky, highly respected as a linguist, but with rather controversial political views. GRuban (talk) 15:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think we need to prohibit closing RfCs "by parts", as a matter of policy. My very best wishes (talk) 14:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- It's not "by parts", it's 3 RFC's and was set up that way from the start "editors expressed concerns regarding the ADL's current status as a generally reliable source in several topic areas. I'm breaking these topic areas into different RFCs, as I believe there's a reasonable chance they might have different outcomes." Selfstudier (talk) 15:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- So you believe that issues of Israel-Palestine conflict, antisemitism and hate symbols can be separated? No, of course not. My very best wishes (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- It's not a question of what I believe, I am referring to the way the RFCs were set up, months ago, which no-one objected to at all until now, when the result turned up something people didn't like. Let's face it, looking at this filing, it is a group of option "1" voters, disputing a pretty clear cut result, with any grounds that might work. Personally, I don't mind if it is reclosed, the result will be the same, even if there are more words. Selfstudier (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- @My very best wishes multiple commenters have expressed different opinions in the different RFCs, so very clearly people do believe the three can be separated. Thryduulf (talk) 15:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Well, this is just a matter of simple logic and fact. The are numerous subjects and publications that simultaneously belong to all three or two of the mentioned categories (the conflict, and antisemitism and hate). And of course they are closely connected. Here is a random example [5]. Yes, someone set up the RfC in such way. But it was wrong set up and a reason to say this is an incorrectly framed RfC. This has noting to do with anyone liking or disliking the outcome. I voted "2" in all parts of the RfC, but I am very much comfortable with any outcome. My very best wishes (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- So you believe that issues of Israel-Palestine conflict, antisemitism and hate symbols can be separated? No, of course not. My very best wishes (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- It's not "by parts", it's 3 RFC's and was set up that way from the start "editors expressed concerns regarding the ADL's current status as a generally reliable source in several topic areas. I'm breaking these topic areas into different RFCs, as I believe there's a reasonable chance they might have different outcomes." Selfstudier (talk) 15:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- I know that some discussions end up with the conclusion that source X frequently publish misinformation in one subject area, but not in others. I think in all such cases the source as a whole should be regarded as unreliable. If they are liars, they can not be trusted. If this is not a reputable organization, then it just is not. However, in this case I did not see examples proving that they are liars. Of course I may be wrong. Hence we are having the community discussion that needs to be properly closed. My very best wishes (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Please do not misrepresent the close; it held the source to be "generally unreliable" for a narrow topic area than for everything under the Sun. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse: This RFC needed closing, and if a piecemeal approach is the way it occurs, so be it. The close was sound and perfectly adequately reasoned. As has been noted elsewhere in the subsequent discussion, closing it any other way would have required a supervote. The closer was meanwhile not an involved participant by any standard reading of the guidelines. Never before have I seen the notion applied whereby "having an editorial compadre in the discussion" qualifies as being involved. Given how many Wikipedia editors are well familiar with each other, that would be a ridiculous bar to apply across the project (and this is probably why it doesn't exist). Iskandar323 (talk) 05:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse This was a difficult decision on a contentious RfC but clearly closed in GF and within the bounds of reason. Chetsford (talk) 05:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse The coverage of the ADL is obviously vary varied (anti-Zionism vs. other content vs. hate speech database) and it is unsound to group them altogether and put coverage advocating against genuine (albeit from, in my opinion, a flawed organization) and horrifying manifestations of antisemitism in the same category as ideological drivel used to racism-jacket those who oppose what is credibly accused as a settler colonial state formed on ethnic cleansing that is currently committing genocide. Furthermore, the RfC has obviously gone on far too long and should be closed at this point, even if it is broken apart. GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 05:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse (as closer) - To repeat what I wrote at my t/p,
3 of 4 participants [almost none of whom were flyby SPAs or the like] were convinced that Option 3, at the very least, was necessary. There is no way that the discussion could have been closed differently by someone else, short of supervoting.
Now, I can append a paragraph on why, notwithstanding the numbers, the argument offered by the numerically superior side carried the day but I doubt it would have convinced anyone to not relitigate it. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC) - Overturn - The extensive engagement and presence of an admin in the RFC (who was doing far more nuanced analysis of both the arguments and the players than a mere headcount) should have been sign enough that *any* non-admin editor (most especially one with clear and public WP:BIASED concerns) should not have thought it appropriate to step in and take charge on closure matters after an admin (with clear and established track record in the topic space), had studied the arguments extensively, and did not feel there were clear grounds to close in this way. If there were grounds to close on headcount alone (which usually there aren't) it would have been closed by the admin on those grounds - and it wasn't. In fact, the admin did not consider any consensus to have been found in the RFC, called the overall discussion a "dumpster fire" and provided a link reminding editors (who were pushing for a close and bombarding the board) to "allow administrators to enforce structured discussions." The closing non-admin, non-involved editor's sudden arrival and action in the discussion, lack of adherence and deference to existing and active admin assessment and recommended guidelines, and general unwillingness to engage in conversation as to their reasoning on closing (or be challenged on it) reeks of a bad faith hijacking of a process that clearly (and was clearly communicated) should only have been overseen to its conclusion by an uninvolved admin. Mistamystery (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Mistamystery: Perhaps I am misreading, but it appears you are openly accusing TB of bad faith, in rather obvious violation of WP:AGF. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- My statement has been revised for further clarity, and in line with evidentiary concern that there may have been violation WP:AGF in the closure process and subsequent appeal process/discussion. Mistamystery (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Just like determining the direction of a close, overturning one requires valid, policy arguments. The many editors here who are opining that an Admin should have closed this discussion are enunciating value preferences, not policy. Admins have no special closing rights and our WP:CLOSE clearly states "any uninvolved editor may close most of them – not just admins", reserving closing for Admins only in cases where it's been requested by some party ("if you want to request closure by an uninvolved administrator"), something that did not happen here. Whether TrangaBellam is uninvolved or not (I believe they are) is probably a valid source of debate here. However, the idea that they may or may not be an Admin is irrelevant to an analysis of whether the close was handled properly and is an expression of a value preference that would have been properly addressed pre-close, not post-close. Chetsford (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Mistamystery: Perhaps I am misreading, but it appears you are openly accusing TB of bad faith, in rather obvious violation of WP:AGF. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse This RfC has been sat in closure requests for over a month, and no admin had stepped forward to close it. So while I agree with the arguments that an admin should have closed it, or a group of partipants, not one person stepped forward to do so (despite suggestions for the latter); hence Part 1 was eventually closed by a non-admin. Despite the initially short and inadequate summary for the close, I still believe it represented the consensus of the discussion. Notably the summary has been expanded and further explains how the consensus was reached, in order to justify the closure. The fact the user in question has quoted a participant in the RfC is far from evidence of WP:INVOLVED, and there has been no evidence provided (that I'm aware of) that the user was involved in the dispute. If evidence were provided, I'd likely change my opinion. I'm otherwise certain that this closure would have ended up at ANI, if the result was GUNREL, simply for different reasons. CNC (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- If no one wants to close this RfC, this is fine an understandable. Then let's just archive it and let this matter remain undecided. This is frequently happens with other RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Utter waste of time - they were/are not WP:INVOLVED, but more importantly I see almost nobody is claiming that this would not be (re-)closed as a 3. Unless you think that an overturn would come with a different result, and I personally think it beyond obvious that it will not, this is a complete waste of time and space. But if yall want to waste the time then I suppose I cant come up with words wise enough to convince you not to. But there is a very obvious consensus for 3, and overturning it will only result in spending more time to end up with the same result. nableezy - 19:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Reluctant endorse, or endorse and overturn - For INVOLVED reasons I'm not a fan of the user in question closing it themselves, but the editor consensus is fairly obvious and I feel as though overturning it only to re-close would be a waste of time and effort. Suggest leaving it up to admin discretion, however - I concur with Jxpg above. The Kip (contribs) 20:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse both because I'm not convinced the "INVOLVED" argument holds water (I broadly agree with what Iskandar323 above and Newimpartial below have said), and because NOTBURO, if most people here seem to acknowledge there's no other way it could've been closed without the closer impermissibly supervoting. -sche (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse. Firstly, admins are not special and have no magical ability to be better closers than non-admins - indeed many non-admins are better closers of discussions than many admins. Secondly I remain completely unconvinced by the arguments that TB was INVOLVED. The closer read the discussion (which more than the OP here has done), summarised the close (not ideally at first, but adequately and subsequently improved) and arrived at the consensus that pretty much every neutral party agrees was the right one. Thryduulf (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse-ish, basically per Black Kite below: in a vacuum, I'm not a huge fan of this closure. Ideally I would have preferred a totally uninvolved admin or a panel of such admins close all three sections. However, the consensus in section 1 is extremely clear, and this RFC has stayed open for months without closure. If we vacate the close, whoever closes it is going to close it the same way (because there's no other reasonable way to close Section 1, it's an overwhelmingly clear consensus), and it's likely going to take months to do, which temporarily restores a status quo that there's an overwhelming consensus against. So I don't see a dedication to procedure to be worth it here. (But if whoever closes the other two sections wants to take over the section 1 close, I wouldn't be opposed to that.) Loki (talk) 01:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Non-participants[edit]
| Please note that this discussion falls under WP:ARBPIA restrictions, and is thus only open to logged-in editors with extended confirmed permissions. |
- Overturn. I agree that this is such a long and potentially impactful RfC that it'd better be closed by an admin—and I echo BilledMammal's assessment here that an editor who has partisan quotes about an RfC's topic area (especially a quote from one of the RfC's participants) is just not the right person to close the RfC in question. I don't know if partial closes ever happen, but I've never seen one before, and I'm not a fan—it'll certainly have an impact on the unclosed discussions and their outcomes. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Seriously? The very point of creating three RfCs was to allow the possibility of different resolutions to be reached on different aspects and, that you have never seen one before, please consult Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah man, seriously. I'd never seen one and I think it was a bad idea. I'm not saying that's your fault, and if it's moot then it's moot—my stance on the close still stands, considering the scale of the RfC, your apparent passionate POV on the topic, your one-sentence summary, and my reading of how that discussion went. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps then, you can present me with a multiple-part-RfC whose components were closed by the same admin/non-admin/panel simultaneously? And, no, I do not have a "passionate POV" on the topic. As to "your reading of the discussion", you claimed to Levivich about "ofcourse" not having read the entire discussion; so, yeah. In any case, feel free to have the last word. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Don't talk to me like that. I brought points raised by several editors to the appropriate venue, where a number of editors are taking the stance that your close ought to be overturned. We're not all bad-faith actors who deserve to have such limp jabs thrown our way as
feel free to have the last word
. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Don't talk to me like that. I brought points raised by several editors to the appropriate venue, where a number of editors are taking the stance that your close ought to be overturned. We're not all bad-faith actors who deserve to have such limp jabs thrown our way as
- Perhaps then, you can present me with a multiple-part-RfC whose components were closed by the same admin/non-admin/panel simultaneously? And, no, I do not have a "passionate POV" on the topic. As to "your reading of the discussion", you claimed to Levivich about "ofcourse" not having read the entire discussion; so, yeah. In any case, feel free to have the last word. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah man, seriously. I'd never seen one and I think it was a bad idea. I'm not saying that's your fault, and if it's moot then it's moot—my stance on the close still stands, considering the scale of the RfC, your apparent passionate POV on the topic, your one-sentence summary, and my reading of how that discussion went. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Seriously? The very point of creating three RfCs was to allow the possibility of different resolutions to be reached on different aspects and, that you have never seen one before, please consult Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn. I didn't participate in the RFC (and aren't an admin myself) but anything that long and controversial should be closed by an admin (barring a WP:SNOW case which is clearly not relevant here). Full stop. This is especially the case for radioactively controversial topics that editors have strong views on to avoid them becoming polls of "Which side of this conflict rallies the most supporters". SnowFire (talk) 22:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse This is pointless. No one would've closed it differently, and it has been open for two months, for gods sake. The idea that expressing SYMPATHY for Palestinians somehow makes you unfit to close such a landslide RFC is frankly ludicrous. This is bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy and the only way someone should overturn this is if they commit to closing it themselves. If not, we're just admitting why no one is stepping up to make this obvious close. Parabolist (talk) 23:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
we're just admitting why no one is stepping up to make this obvious close
I am missing the implication here. Why is that? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)- Because so many of the closes in this topic area are subject to tedious bureaucratic objections. Parabolist (talk) 23:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Gotcha, thanks. I have a feeling that an uninvolved admin providing a detailed summary in their close wouldn't have their close brought to any noticeboard, but I don't know for sure. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe we could get a panel of admins, then? They could set up a discussion, take a week or two because of their different time zones, and then we could get the same close, but we would've wasted hours and hours of editor time in the process. Parabolist (talk) 23:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Or we can just get one uninvolved admin to do the herculean task of sensitively reviewing this gigantic RfC and providing a detailed summary to explain the consensus to the community and how it was reached—something that nobody, including this non-admin closer, has done yet. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- So are you claiming they didn't read the discussion, didn't read the discussion "sensitively" (What does this mean?), or didn't provide enough detail? Because if it's just the latter, why aren't you simply asking them to just flesh out the close? You started this discussion claiming that the problem was that they were less qualified to close this discussion than an admin (Why?), but all of your replies since then have made it clear that your issue with the close is actually that you think they chose the wrong option. You need to pick a lane, here. Parabolist (talk) 00:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- I ask you, with love in the air, to please be a little more chill with me.I brought this here because it had been raised in three separate places, and directed twice to AN. My opening comment is just a summary of events and quotes from other editors with none of my own input. My personal view is that the RfC was not apparently well-read enough by the closer, who wrote a one-sentence, totally non-specific summary citing a rough vote ratio and made no acknowledgement of the most prominent counterarguments to the apparent consensus vote, which is that a lot of them had nothing to do with reliability in the Israel/Palestine topic area, but were instead related to the topic of antisemitism. This may be due to the closer's bias on the topic, as the original complainants have raised. I don't care so much about that; I care about votes being satisfactorily read for policy-based substance and treated with apparent care, which in this case (I think) they were not. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Parabolist: If Zanahary is claiming that TB didn't read the discussion, then that's no more than they already admitted to Levivich, that Zanahary had also not re/read the discussion before opening it up for further discussion here *facepalm* ...in other news, I guess WP:BLUDGEON might also make them profitable reading. ——Serial Number 54129 13:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- For the record, I read the entire I/P discussion after Levivich encouraged me to do so. You can scroll up to the hatted discussion between us to see a more in-depth discussion of votes I found problematic. I am now, though, unsubscribing from this discussion, in which I've made myself heard and there's clearly no shortage of opinions to take it to its end. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- So are you claiming they didn't read the discussion, didn't read the discussion "sensitively" (What does this mean?), or didn't provide enough detail? Because if it's just the latter, why aren't you simply asking them to just flesh out the close? You started this discussion claiming that the problem was that they were less qualified to close this discussion than an admin (Why?), but all of your replies since then have made it clear that your issue with the close is actually that you think they chose the wrong option. You need to pick a lane, here. Parabolist (talk) 00:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Or we can just get one uninvolved admin to do the herculean task of sensitively reviewing this gigantic RfC and providing a detailed summary to explain the consensus to the community and how it was reached—something that nobody, including this non-admin closer, has done yet. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe we could get a panel of admins, then? They could set up a discussion, take a week or two because of their different time zones, and then we could get the same close, but we would've wasted hours and hours of editor time in the process. Parabolist (talk) 23:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Gotcha, thanks. I have a feeling that an uninvolved admin providing a detailed summary in their close wouldn't have their close brought to any noticeboard, but I don't know for sure. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Because so many of the closes in this topic area are subject to tedious bureaucratic objections. Parabolist (talk) 23:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn The responsibility of closing an RFC in such a sensitive, controversial area should be done by an admin, ideally one with a great deal of experience closing RFCs. It's not pointless bureaucracy; the more people respect a process, the more people will respect the result, which is something necessary on this topic. If only the end results of the process, not the justice of the process, mattered, then there would be no reason to care about insults, harassment, etc. beyond their impact to the content. I'm not in favor of a trout for the closer, not even a minnow; they made the closure in good faith, I just think it was unwise. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn, per others here (especially CoffeeCrumbs). But also because there were many !votes for option 1 (or rarely 2) that expressed the fact that no evidence of unreliability has actually been presented, which I broadly agree with - the evidence that was presented was evidence of bias - but we're yet again dealing with the question "does bias = reliability" on RS/N right now for the Telegraph. And it seems that the consensus on WP still is, as evidenced by that discussion, that bias does not equate to unreliable. A closure by an uninvolved, experienced administrator which adequately takes into account the fact that at least a significant minority (if not majority) of option 3 !votes were based on the users' opinions rather than verified proof of deliberate inaccuracies in their reporting would be merited for such a controversial topic. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- The close has been updated since my comment. It still is insufficient, and in fact it continues the “vote counting” that plagued the original close. It then interjects the closer’s personal opinion over whether the rebuttals are sufficient to show bias rather than unreliability. This makes the close even more of a supervote than it was before. And this is exactly why contentious closes should be done by an editor who reads the whole discussion and can concisely summarize the points in the discussion, rather than someone looking for an “easy” close based on the numbers. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse largely per Parabolist and Levivich. I'd first like to emphasize the point that there is nothing magical in and of itself about an admin close. No disrespect to any admins, but I have no doubt that there is some subset of experienced non-admins who are 'better' closers than some subset of admins. Still, I understand that there's a certain value to the optics. Beyond that, while Wikipedia is not a court of law, I find an analogy here irresistible: in common law systems, procedural problems generally do not constitute reversible error unless some prejudice can be shown to a litigant. That's what I see here. It's difficult to see how a reasonable closer (admin or not) would come to a substantially different conclusion. Was it wrong for TrangaBellam to close? No, I don't think so. Was it suboptimal? Yes, I would say it was. But Wikipedia does not demand perfection--the crooked timber of humanity, and so on. I do not doubt Zanahary's good faith, and I honestly don't mean this as a criticism, but this feels a bit like a relitigation rather than a challenge to the close. As ever, reasonable minds can certainly differ. Cheers to one and all. Dumuzid (talk) 00:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Rerunning a legal process due to some marginal procedural error can be prohibitively costly and overall terrible and inhumane, while reclosing this RfC in specific is either a trivial expenditure of community resorces if the close was materially fine or it is simply needed regardless of cost if the error is not procedural and is in fact material. So it should just be done, since people are complaining now, and they're doing an acceptable job complaining frankly. There's a perception. Path of least resistance is quickly vacating. —Alalch E. 01:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Vacate. This RfC should be closed by an administrator who is at the same time an editor who seems less involved, and if the close challenged here was a correct finding of a relatively obvious consensus, as claimed by some, it will be especially easy for a less-involved-seeming administrator to close it, meaning that the expediture of volunteer resources will be especially low and worth it, because avoiding this sensitive RfC remaining closed for perpetuity by a closer who is not such a great editor to close due to a perception of being involved is worth said very low cost of reclosing, and if the close was not a correct finding of consensus, then the outcome needs to be different, and an average admin is a bit more likely to find consensus correctly than an average non-admin and to deliver an appropriate closing statement, as needed. I recognize that per WP:NACRFC, a
non-admin close of an RfC should not be overturned if the only reason is that the closer was not an admin
, but the closer not being an admin is not the "only reason" as said reason is compounded by there existing a perception of them being involved so my recommendation is consistent with the spirit of Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Closure procedure:Generally, if you want to request closure by an uninvolved administrator, it's expected that the discussion will have already been open at least a week, and that the subject is particularly contentious or the outcome is unclear.
(The subject is inherently particularly contentious; some editors are subsequently requesting a close by an uninvolved administrator as they have concerns about the close by the not-fully-uninvolved-seeming non-administrator). Worth the extra bother. Vacating and reclosing shouldn't be seen as a big deal.—Alalch E. 01:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC) - Vacate I like Alalch E.'s term here. Looking at the numbers suggests 3 is the correct answer but the analysis of the arguments was extremely superficial. It's not just about the answer, it's about the process as well. It should be followed. Springee (talk) 01:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn Having a good process is important (regardless of whether or not the decision was correct) and this wasn't such. North8000 (talk) 03:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse Per User:Unbandito statement above. The vote and arguments in favor were strong. A profile quote in no manner outweighs the clear consensus reached through the discussion. Detsom (talk) 04:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Closing statement too short. The RfC, according to my device, is approximately 600 million scrolls long. It was closed with a statement of thirty-three words. What did people say? What were the arguments made? I don't have an opinion on the propriety or practicality of the close, but the quality of the close is very poor. Folly Mox (talk) 06:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Just fwiw, this was a three-part-RfC, only the first of which was closed. As to the content of the RfC: multiple editors presented multiple evidences of ADL's unreliability on the topic; most of the participants were convinced by this evidence but a minority claimed that atleast some of the evidence — if not all — can be, at worst, re-classed under "bias" (which I didn't find convincing, even ignoring the numerical strength) and hence cannot be perceived as grounds for unreliability. Nothing more, nothing less. Now, appended to the RfC close. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 06:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn This is basically equivalent to the Fox News RfC, due to its political contentiousness. It cannot merely be judged based on numbers alone. It needs to be closed by (preferably a panel) of non-partisan administrators. As the person who originally opened the first ADL RfC, I don't have a strong enough opinion about whether the result was correct, but the justification is way too short. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse, but only because I can't see that anyone else would have closed it any differently. Such a contentious RfC should have been closed by an admin, and it should have been closed by someone who couldn't be accused of bias in the CTOP area. It was a poor idea for TB to close it; but the actual result is correct. Black Kite (talk) 11:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse per NOTBURO, there's no point in wasting time reopening the discussion in orde for it to be reclosed the same way (which is all that would happen); policy does not allow for closers to be dictated by parties external to the project; and while the topic may be controversial, the discussion was not. ——Serial Number 54129 11:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse The claim that quoting someone previously that has since participated in an RFC makes someone involved is like claiming someone is best friends with Kevin Bacon. It's such a long reach as to be patently nonsensical. Also, admins have no special powers with regards to closing RFCs. It's expected that we have a good understanding of policy and are trusted by the community, but a decent RFC closure is a decent RFC closure whether and admin makes it or not.--v/r - TP 13:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn such an important, high-visibility action, which has already received widespread media attention, should be carried out by an uninvolved administrator, not an involved non-administrator. Coretheapple (talk) 14:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- What makes TrangaBellam involved? Thryduulf (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- The talk page quote is more than sufficient to disqualify this particular non-admin. If it was okay for him to close the discussion, then it would have been ok for me to close it. I didn't participate in the RSN discussion, and until today I never edited the ADL article and I don't have statements on my user page evincing a point of view on the subject area. Something quite this contentious requires a nonpartisan administrator if we're going to kick sand in the face of a reputable civil rights organization. Coretheapple (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
if we're going to kick sand in the face of a reputable civil rights organization
and of course this quote doesn't make you involved at all, right? Selfstudier (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)- Exactly. That quote would be sufficient. Thank you for proving my point. Coretheapple (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- What part of WP:INVOLVED are you referencing here? I'd happily change my endorse if any evidence was provided of the closure being involved in the dispute, past or current conflicts with involved editors, or disputes on related topics. Per policy, simply having a perceived bias is not enough to accuse someone of being involved. CNC (talk) 16:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
disputes ... about which they have strong feelings.
- Personally, I believe that you have strong feelings about a dispute if you feel the need to say you support one side of the dispute at the top of your user talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- And not just because one has !voted option 1, lol. Selfstudier (talk) 17:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- I suspected this would come up, as it's easily misinterpretable, the full context is:
"In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may be, or appear to be, incapable of making objective decisions in disputes to which they have been a party or about which they have strong feelings."
(emphasis added). Quite clearly the "strong feelings" is in reference to editors involved in disputes, not in reference to closures generally. You still need to provide evidence that the closure is involved in a related dispute, and I'm still patiently waiting for that. Your personal opinion that having strong feelings is involvement is not WP policy. CNC (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)- I disagree; I interpret it as saying that having strong feelings on a topic makes an editor involved.
- Personally, it doesn't make sense to me otherwise. Consider an editor who has a user box saying "This user believes marriage is only between a man and a woman", but has never edited articles related to WP:GENSEX. Should they be closing RfC's related to homosexuality?
- Of course not, because the community would have no faith that they would make
objective decisions
- even though they haven't been involved in the specific disputes. BilledMammal (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)- That's not what the text says. It says that if you are involved, objectively, it can create perceptions of XYZ. It's not a generic filter for bias, because all editors have ubiquitous personal biases, whether conscious or subconscious. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Saying one has sympathy for the Tibetans and the Palestinians does not demonstrate strong feelings related to the ADL or the Israeli Palestinian conflict. That’s just silly. nableezy - 02:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- What part of WP:INVOLVED are you referencing here? I'd happily change my endorse if any evidence was provided of the closure being involved in the dispute, past or current conflicts with involved editors, or disputes on related topics. Per policy, simply having a perceived bias is not enough to accuse someone of being involved. CNC (talk) 16:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Exactly. That quote would be sufficient. Thank you for proving my point. Coretheapple (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, it technically would have been ok for you to close it. Based on your statement, you might have wanted to recuse yourself from it if you felt too close to it, but based on feels more than policy – just as some have suggested that TB might have wanted to stay away from it (but not that they should have done, per policy). As it stands, TB did nothing wrong and by most estimations closed in the only way possible. So there's nothing obviously wrong with the close, and even if there were, there's a strong clamour that the close is correct (so WP:NOTBURO comes heavily into play). Iskandar323 (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- It's never BURO to vacate+reclose by an uninvolved admin when a perception that the non-admin is insufficiently uninvolved exists, because reclosing (not rerunning the process) is cheap: if the consensus is obvious the effort is a trivial one, and if the consensus is not obvious it's highly justified and worth it that someone less involved-seeming and more trusted as a closer closes instead. When there are real gains, it isn't BURO territory. —Alalch E. 16:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Except the closer here simply wasn't involved (by the standard definition) – the "perception" is one of perceived bias, or in other words the presumption that the closer was sufficiently compromised by bias that they couldn't close correctly – an assertion that is solely bad faith and otherwise unsupported. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- It's never BURO to vacate+reclose by an uninvolved admin when a perception that the non-admin is insufficiently uninvolved exists, because reclosing (not rerunning the process) is cheap: if the consensus is obvious the effort is a trivial one, and if the consensus is not obvious it's highly justified and worth it that someone less involved-seeming and more trusted as a closer closes instead. When there are real gains, it isn't BURO territory. —Alalch E. 16:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- The talk page quote is more than sufficient to disqualify this particular non-admin. If it was okay for him to close the discussion, then it would have been ok for me to close it. I didn't participate in the RSN discussion, and until today I never edited the ADL article and I don't have statements on my user page evincing a point of view on the subject area. Something quite this contentious requires a nonpartisan administrator if we're going to kick sand in the face of a reputable civil rights organization. Coretheapple (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- What makes TrangaBellam involved? Thryduulf (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Vacate + have someone else close it Zanahary's concerns and Coretheapple's remarks sum things up nicely and no need to repeat. Someone else needs to close it, not a partisan. I recognize it may not change the outcome and while I acknowledge the ratio of those who want to mark them as generally unreliable, I highly question their logic and evidence. Someone uninvolved needs to take the time to read this stuff and assess how valid the claims are. Such a downgrade will have major political and social implications and will likely be featured prominently in national news. I urge people to slow down and make an unquestionable decision. Personally I think the ADL oversteps its bounds, but I think the criticism that they changed their methodology and came up with new numbers isn't nefarious as some people are claiming ("They changed their numbers from 310% to 176%!!!"). That's what reliable sources do when they change methodology. They update their numbers. Much of the other evidence is practically leftist propaganda and/or "Trump is bad!" logic. Buffs (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Describing someone having a quote saying you have sympathy for the oppressed people of the world as a "partisan" is baffling to me. Parabolist (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Describing "I sympathise with the silenced underdog in so many conflicts, be they Aboriginals or Palestinians..." as just "sympathy for the oppressed people" is not an accurate characterization. It presupposes
- The Palestinians are actually oppressed. The Palestinians in Gaza have been given billions in international aid and still struggle to form an effective government/local control that doesn't squander the money on creating a state bent on the destruction of their neighbor rather than helping their people.
- They are silenced at all. They seem to be rather well-voiced at every level.
- That such sympathy is warranted.
- That this is the crux of the discussion and/or is germane to the discussion (ARBPIA applies), the person closing this shouldn't be someone so prominently advocating against Israeli/Jewish interests. There is an inherent conflict of interest there. Buffs (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- While I don't consider the statement quoted by the closer to indicate INVOLVED status (see my !vote below), I think the following definitely does:
The Palestinians in Gaza have been given billions in international aid and still struggle to form an effective government/local control that doesn't squander the money on creating a state bent on the destruction of their neighbor rather than helping their people.
- Whatever the line is between "not really INVOLVED" and "too INVOLVED", I think it runs somewhere between an expression of sympathy for a national, ethnic or religious category, and blaming that whole category of people for the actions (presented without context) of their quasi-governments. Buff's statement (the latter kind) is the equivalent of holding "Jews" or "Zonists" responsible for the foreign policy of rhe state of Israel, but enwiki has pretty reliably demonstrated that the latter is well over the line. Newimpartial (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Describing "I sympathise with the silenced underdog in so many conflicts, be they Aboriginals or Palestinians..." as just "sympathy for the oppressed people" is not an accurate characterization. It presupposes
- Describing someone having a quote saying you have sympathy for the oppressed people of the world as a "partisan" is baffling to me. Parabolist (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- The discussion just really sucked. Both sides were talking past each other, !votes were functioning more as flag-planting than actual attempts to substantively engage with the question, lots of "gotcha" links were thrown around with little sign of anyone attempting to perform a neutral survey of the evidence. Under these circumstances I don't think it makes much sense to be talking about whether to endorse or overturn any sort of close: the most honest conclusion a closer could draw is "the community has collectively proven it lacks the capacity to properly answer the question at this time". – Teratix ₵ 16:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Then call for a reclose and if it happens, see if the new closer agrees with you. Fwiw, I wouldn't agree. Selfstudier (talk) 16:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Vacate and have a panel of 3 admins re-assess and re-close it. This is more about the procedure than the outcome in my view. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think that's the ideal solution. This needs to be a bulletproof decision, unless of course we don't want it to be. That's the choice here. We can do the right thing or we can tell critics of this decision that all our fantastic procedures were followed and that's all we really care about. Coretheapple (talk) 17:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Another thing to take into consideration is the impact of having three respected, truly uninvolved admins making the same decision. People who are hopping with joy over this outcome should think about that. Coretheapple (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for volunteering. Charcoal feather (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- I assume that wasn't directed at me! I am not an admin. But your general point is not incorrect. Admins have tended to avoid this subject area. Coretheapple (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Vacate Agree this is more about procedure than outcome. Just because a RFC is sitting at WP:CR for a long time doesn't mean we throw procedure out the window. It probably just means it's going to need an experienced closer to review it. Nemov (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn. The closer participated in an Israel–Hamas war RFC. RAN1 (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- And, what's the insinuation, here? To the best of my knowledge, I have put in a couple of RfC votes (maybe a comment or two, even?) but that's my involvement with IPA at best. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse, primarily per WP:NOTBURO - the correct option was found to have consensus, and the arguments for a "procedural" overturn are against the spirit of the project; the most likely impact of an overturn would be a "chilling effect" on NACs, and an emboldening of editors to seek "procedural" overturning of closes because they just don't like the outcome. Wikipedia needs more NACs of obvious consensus results, not fewer.
- I would also point out that editors who think
..I sympathise with the silenced underdog in so many conflicts, be they Aboriginals or Palestinians or Tibetans
is evidence of bias do not seem to be to be reflecting what the INVOLVED principle actually means. I can't imagine that we would be having this discussion if the passage quoted were along the lines of "..I sympathise with the silenced underdog in so many conflicts, such as victims of antisemitism" - but yet, here we are. As I have seen in other discussions within ARBPIA, this seems to be a deployment of FUD about bias to contest an outcome that some editors find distasteful. - Also, in passing, I find the argument that a discussion with a clear outcome requires a nuanced closure because of
BLUDGEONINGcomplex argumentation from the discussion's participants to be, once again, against the spirit of a project. To vacate the close citing this ground would only encourage additionalBLUDGEONINGunproductive pseudo-dialogue in future RfCs. Newimpartial (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)- The "chilling effect" on NACs is a feature, not a bug, for discussions like this. They absolutely shouldn't be closed by non-admins and we shouldn't be encouraging that, lest we just invite more giant discussions overflowing to AN/ANI from the "losing" side. The whole point of these RFCs is to generate a strong consensus that is respected and has legitimacy, even in the eyes of those who disagree, so that they respect the decision and don't challenge it (like happened here!). If you think the outcome was that clear, prove it by letting an uninvolved admin close it. I also find it boggling to claim the result was "obvious" here in such a trainwreck. One side is claiming that some of the votes should be discounted as essentially cheerleading their "side" in a dispute without engaging with the topic at hand. Maybe that's true, maybe that isn't, but assessing that claim in a manner that is respected requires an admin, maybe even a panel of admins. This is a YESBURO situation even if you agree with the result of the current close, because a future close will be stronger and more respected if it comes from an unimpeachable source. SnowFire (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn - a sensitive RfC like this should only be closed by an uninvolved admin. Rlendog (talk) 20:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Vacate while I sympathize with concerns about excessive bureaucracy, I think the community needs to take a hardline against controversial non-admin closes. While I'm not fully convinced that we can concretely say that TrangaBellam was INVOLVED, it would have been better for the discussion to be closed by someone else. So let's have someone else do it. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse. So it appears that the closer did highlight some comments from known ARBPIA participants that could reasonably be seen as biased. Closure like that will absolutely benefit from longer rationale, because anyone looking at it should more or less understand the "why" of the decision and main arguments. I tend to be verbose in RfC closures so that if I'm an ass, at least everyone sees it, but it's me. I guess at least two hallmarks of WP:BADNAC are here: probable involvement and controversy. However, BADNAC is part of an essay. We are not a court of law. It isn't like recusal must be automatic, though it is desired.
- Now the thing is that this closure would have been appealed no matter what, even if a panel were to summarise it. In discussions of this size and degree of controversy, it's inevitable. Because closing RFCs is largely an admin thing, one would expect the closer, whether admin or not, to face accountability, so here we are, grilling TB at RfC closure review. I guess that's more than enough scrutiny, so that's one reason against using technicalities to overturn.
- Now WP:CLOSECHALLENGE asks people to point out what's wrong with the closure. It seems the JTA agrees, and a lot of voices to overturn do not say they would have closed it otherwise, or say how the summation did not reflect consensus, or which argument should have carried more weight. Sure, if the problem with likely INVOLVED closes in edgy cases persists then TrangaBellam should have some talking to, including RfC closure bans or ArbCom intervention, as INVOLVED is policy. However, the overall result is correct as far as the discussion is concerned, so it's a pass for me. INVOLVED is meant to prevent biased closures, and maybe the closer was biased but the closure wasn't, which I think is all that matters for CLOSECHALLENGE purposes.
- They attempted an enormously difficult task, their explanation should have been more detailed. But they did OK. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse Seriously? This isn't a bureaucracy (despite us having "bureaucrats"). Just because a close was performed by a non-admin does not mean it is any less respectable or any less legitimate. Anyone arguing that a non-admin close is less of a close because the closer doesn't have the all-fanciful admin bit, needs to re-read WP:NOBIGDEAL. It's almost shameful that having the admin toys is considered an endorsement of ones opinion. There's plenty of admins who were given the tools in the olden days and just kept them up to now, but they were only ever put through RFA with a few people, when adminship was actually seen as the lack of a big deal that it should be seen as today. Maybe we need to step back on how we see admins as some god-like figures, and see them more as humans, just like every editor on this platform. EggRoll97 (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- That is a great speech about the all-fanciful admin bit, can you do one about the all-fanciful admin-and-also-not-having-quotes-on-your-talk-page-about-how-you-think-one-of-the-sides-is-right bit? jp×g🗯️ 23:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- It does no such thing, and I feel like I'm going insane with people saying this. The actual quote is the most mild sentiment imaginable. Is Tranga now disqualified from closing RFCs about Tibet, or Aboriginal issues? Parabolist (talk) 02:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- That is a great speech about the all-fanciful admin bit, can you do one about the all-fanciful admin-and-also-not-having-quotes-on-your-talk-page-about-how-you-think-one-of-the-sides-is-right bit? jp×g🗯️ 23:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Vacate This is far to controversial an RFC for a non-admin close. If it the decision is not seen as having come from somebody uninvolved (even if they actually aren't INVOLVED in a literal sense) then it leaves room for endless Wikilawyering about how strong a consensus was every time the topic comes up. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 22:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse good close, INVOLVED argument not convincing, no admin is magically going to produce a better one just because they've gone through an RfA. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse per NOTBURO. I share Newimpartial’s impression of FUD; I can’t speak to anyone’s motives but I object to undermining a close other than on the basis that it was wrongly concluded. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Warning of meatpuppetry[edit]
Potential meatpuppets incoming: Article in Israeli website --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- This discussion falls under ARBPIA, so any comments from non-ECR accounts or IPs can be removed. Black Kite (talk) 11:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Good idea. Done. Black Kite (talk) 11:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
A quick job for someone?[edit]
At Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates, the entry under June 15 for Kevin Campbell has been marked ready for over two and a half days now, even while other stories have been posted. I can't post it myself as I nominated it. Could someone do the honours? Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 10:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Done WaggersTALK 10:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 11:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
weird edit war and discussion[edit]
- [6] I make a small change to an article with an edit summary explaining why
- [7] Dahn (talk · contribs) reverts without explanation
- [8] I revert asking what happened, maybe it was a misclick?
- [9] Dahn reverts again with a weirdly confrontational edit summary
- User talk:Dahn#links to Raab - I ask the user to explain this disruptive behavior, and in turn get an escalation
Apparently there's a fair bit of disdain there for Wikipedia:Editing policy, Wikipedia:Ownership of content, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Casting aspersions: they're entitled to reverts without explanation, I was making frivolous and cosmetic changes without explanation, on something that they specifically created, all these discussions are a waste of time, they're now being harangued, and apologies for my hurt feelings...?!
In general, sure, it's a weird disagreement about odd little details. But what came next does not quite strike me as a normal discussion. --Joy (talk) 14:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- I view this as a content dispute, in which one user claims that I did wrong, then proceeds to lecture me that I need to revert myself/accept their edit, then calls me disruptive when I do not. I may have been confrontational about the scope of the edits, by calling them frivolous (changing a valid link to a redirect, under what I see as a potentially serious misinterpretation of the stylistic guideline). But let it be noted that I was then harangued on my talk page, beginning with a claim that I should recognize my edit as "disruptive (and) just to make some sort of a point". In the diffs provided above, you can see Joy escalating the matter by already suggesting, on my talk page, that I should be blocked, and calling my response to their "disruptive" claim a "rant". To address another accusation brought up against me in the package above: I do not imagine I "own" the article, but I see absolutely no reason for the original edit, and do not see how it improved the quality of the prose (in that sense, it was "frivolous" -- I also clarified that I mean "frivolous" in relation to Joy's other pursuits). Dahn (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)