Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Total
CfD	0	9	49	0	58
TfD	0	0	14	0	14
MfD	0	0	3	0	3
FfD	0	0	2	0	2
RfD	0	2	28	0	30
AfD	0	0	2	0	2

• 3 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 12 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 7 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 7 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 142 sockpuppet investigations
• 6 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 2 Fully protected edit requests
• 7 Candidates for history merging
• 38 requests for RD1 redaction
• 28 elapsed requested moves
• 2 Pages at move review
• 46 requested closures
• 163 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 22 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (21 out of 7801 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Om Parvat 2024-06-08 05:48 2024-12-08 05:48 edit,move Arbitration enforcement revise to ec upon further review. Robertsky Skibidi Toilet 2024-06-08 04:14 2024-12-26 20:45 edit Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content: per RFPP Daniel Case Black Sea Fleet 2024-06-08 03:56 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Vikrant Adams 2024-06-08 03:54 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Daniel Case Trinamool Congress 2024-06-08 00:47 indefinite edit,move continued disruption by autoconfirmed accounts; raise semi to ECP Daniel Case Drone warfare 2024-06-07 14:20 2025-06-07 14:20 edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish International Solidarity Movement 2024-06-07 14:16 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Israeli war crimes in the Israel–Hamas war 2024-06-07 12:38 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish User:Aoidh/ 2024-06-06 22:59 indefinite edit,move User request within own user space Aoidh Al-Sardi school attack 2024-06-06 20:53 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement for contentious topic Malinaccier Dance of Flags 2024-06-06 17:57 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Indian National Congress 2024-06-06 17:51 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/IPA; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Telugu Desam Party 2024-06-06 17:47 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/IPA; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Agent Galahad 2024-06-06 02:37 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate Elsett 2024-06-05 22:22 2024-07-05 22:22 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry Ponyo Wikipedia talk:Contents/Lists/Reference 2024-06-05 21:16 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated SuperMarioMan List of Pakistanis by net worth 2024-06-05 16:48 2025-02-13 08:30 edit Edit warring / content dispute: Restore to semiprotection when dispute is resolved Anachronist Pors 2024-06-05 13:52 2024-09-05 13:52 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry, editing by IPs that are a clear behavioral match to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bensebgli Rosguill Morty Smith 2024-06-05 02:51 2024-09-05 02:51 edit Persistent sock puppetry NinjaRobotPirate 2024 Indian general election 2024-06-04 19:32 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/IPA; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Template:Catalog of Fishes 2024-06-04 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 3449 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II

Inappropriate non-admin closure by User:FormalDude

User:FormalDude closed this RfC in violation of WP:NACD, which states that non-admins should not close discussions involving "close calls or controversial decisions"; the survey was a perfect 10-10 split, and the proposed question regarded the characterization of a controversial Florida bill, ticking both boxes.

Additionally, in my opinion, their edit history casts a bit of doubt on their impartiality, as it seems to suggest a social-liberal bias, which may conflict with this RfC.

I left a message on the editor's talk page voicing my concern, but it appears to have been ignored. Oktayey (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn I can't see that being anything but a no-consensus close. It's both numerically close, and both sides make cogent arguments. Either overturn and reclose as "no-consensus" or just re-open it and leave it open longer to see if the discussion leans either way with further commentary. --Jayron32 16:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - WP:NACD is for deletion discussions. Any uninvolved editor in good standing can close a RfC, so I wouldn't call this a violation. I agree sometimes it's better for admins to close controversial things, but the close request asked for an experience closer, which could be an admin or could be an experienced user such as FormalDude. WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  An experienced closer is a bit different than an experienced user, in my view. An experienced closer should have a history of closing discussions, including some difficult and close RFCs, that have either not been challenged, or survived challenges. I'm not saying that isn't the case here, but it is different than simply being an experienced editor. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  Their status as an non-admin played no role in my assessment above. I don't really care if they were an admin or not, the assessment of the close should be done on how the close was handled, not on who handled it. Ad hominem rationales are rarely useful, it doesn't really matter who they were; just if they closed it correctly. I don't believe they did here, I don't think the rationale represents a reasonable summary of the discussion. --Jayron32 17:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  ScottishFinnishRadish but isn't there a catch-22 there? If an experienced closer is someone who "should have a history of closing discussions, including some difficult and close RFCs, that have either not been challenged, or survived challenges" then it's impossible for any non-admin to become an experienced closer since such editors would be effectively prohibited from taking the risk in the first place. Valenciano (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  Luckily there is a very broad spectrum of closes to make, so one can work their way up through varying levels of difficulty and contentiousness. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  I understand and agree with what you are saying. I was saying they could be an experienced editor, not that any experienced editor would be an experienced closer. Was bringing up the point of an experience closer being requested, to distance this situation from my early sentence that said any uninvolved editor could close a RfC. WikiVirusC^(talk) 17:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  That section of the article regards closing discussions broadly, not just deletion discussions. Both the terms "deletion discussions" and simply "discussions" are used, but the relevant part refers to "discussions" generally. Additionally, WP:BADNAC also says:

  "A non-admin closure is not appropriate [when] The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial."

  Oktayey (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  WP:BADNAC is an essay. If we didn't allow non-admins to close contentious RFCs nothing would ever get done. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  Per ScottishFinnishRadish, those pages are meant to guide people before they make a decision to close a discussion, they are not supposed to be rules we enforce around this matter. Ultimately, every close should be assessed on the merits of the close itself, not on who closed it. The NAC page should inform closers, not reviewers. --Jayron32 18:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  In WP:NACD, while the first sentence does use both deletion discussion and discussion. It is all in one sentence so I believe the latter discussion is still referring to deletion discussion. The last paragraph is completely about deletion discussions with same reasoning of deletion discussion being mentioned first before simply referring to it as discussion. Of the 6 bullet points in between, the majority are referring to deletion discussions directly, one is mentioning {{nac}} which is mostly used in AfD, and one is the OPs point of controversial/close calls. If people wanna say he violated an essay then so be it, I was stating they didn't violate WP:NACD. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse I would agree with the way it was closed, because consensus is not a vote count and the evidence that the Act is "commonly known as the Don't Say Gay Bill" given in the discussion is actually quite clear; indeed, I am having trouble working out how those who voted "B" could calculate it otherwise. But, yes, it should probably have been closed by an admin. Black Kite (talk) 17:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  I will note that people voting the other way made equally as cogent arguments regarding the matter. Closers aren't supposed to decide which argument is correct, they are supposed to summarize the argument, discounting votes only if they are unreasonable, not merely that they disagree with them. If a closer wants to decide that they agree with one side more than the other, they should vote and let someone else close. --Jayron32 17:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• I'd disagree, to be honest. Most of the "B" !voters appear to be claiming that it's only the critics of the bill that call it that, which is clearly not the case, as a quick Google search will tell you straight away. Someone in the discussion said it should be "which critics and many others have called ...", but that wasn't an option. But in the end, I'm not sure it actually matters since A is the status quo wording anyway. Black Kite (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• That's actually not true, if you count, only the second and fourth "B" voter said so. The bulk of "B" voters had far more nuanced and multifaceted rationals that I don't want to mischaracterize, but which you can see cite multiple evidences and policies and guidelines and give multifaceted explanations around phrasing. I see lots of references to NPOV and TONE based arguments like WP:IMPARTIAL, either by directly linking it, or explaining it as such, and others which look at the quality of the sources and not just the number. It's clear that many of the B voters had carefully considered, well thought out, and well explained rationales, and were not as you just characterized them. Most, indeed, made no such argument as you claim they did. --Jayron32 18:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  Even when B !voters cited TONE, NPOV, or IMPARTIAL, they did so because they claimed supporters do not call the bill by its shorthand, which other editors explained is not implied by option A in the first place, or they did so because they claimed that only critics called it by its nickname, which other editors demonstrated with RS is not true. ––FormalDude (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Once again, disagreeing with a rationale does not mean you have the right to invalidate that rationale. The closer has the right to disagree, but that means they lose the right to close; they have an opinion and should express that opinion through a vote, not a closing statement. A closing statement summarizes, it does not hold opinions. --Jayron32 11:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I do not disagree with a rationale, other editors disproved rationales during the course of the RfC, and I summarized that. ––FormalDude (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• Redo the close and thank the closer for their effort. It has an important impactful structural problem/ oxymoron in the first sentence. In Wikipedia "Slightly in favor of" is called "no consensus" and it calls "slightly in favor of" a wp:consensus. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  • Undo the close, then redo it with the same result but a very slightly different opening sentence? Or am I misunderstanding your opinion here? — Trey Maturin™ 18:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry for my ambiguity. I meant overturn. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

    Overturn and then… what? Close with the same decision but a different rationale? Or close with a different decision? — Trey Maturin™ 23:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

    I meant just overturn and then somebody else close it. But if if you want my opinion on a close should be the main finding should be it would be "no consensusus". North8000 (talk) 02:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse: So, just by the split (which is not exactly "even" BTW, there were several "either" votes, which in this case I'd count towards consensus on either option) I would ordinarily be calling for this to be overturned and re-closed by an admin. The problem with just citing the split here, though, is the same as what Black Kite said, namely that consensus is not a vote. There's an exhaustive list of sources at the bottom of the page, and it's clear from that list that many very strong sources don't use the "critics" phrasing. Even a non-admin closer has the right (and in fact, the duty) to assess the relative strength of the arguments rather than just counting heads. And that obviously goes some distance towards whether or not the close was close or not. Loki (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
• (involved) Overturn or make it no consensus. Both sides have strong arguments, sourcing, and analysis from a closers perspective and the !vote count is to close to look at that considerably. The thing about making it no consensus is it will de facto be A, but it would also leave the door open for any other alternative options to be considered, which I think would be helpful. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 19:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
• (involved) Overturn I also left FormalDude a message about this close. See User_talk:FormalDude#Improper_closure_on_Talk:Florida_Parental_Rights_in_Education_Act. A big problem here is that User:FormalDude's edit history suggests a strong POV on American Politics. This user has 300 edits at Talk:Donald Trump, which is more than double the number he has at any other page.[1] The second most edits is at Talk:Andy Ngo, again a hot-button article that is heavily tied to partisan politics. Several other articles in his top ten edited talk pages fit the same description. Then he comes along and closes this RfC, which is also deeply tied to US partisan politics, and in particular to likely Presidential candidate Ron DeSantis. Notice also the deep involvement in the RfC here[2], on whether or not Jan. 6 should be classified as a terrorist attack. Having an opinion is one thing, but per [3], USER:FormalDude contributed 24 diffs to the RfC [under two different names for the RfC, as it was re-titled in the middle], arguing that Jan. 6 should be classified as a terrorist attack, i.e.[4] Obviously, everyone is entitled to their opinion about that question, but the edits do not suggest that USER:FormalDude is a neutral observer to US partisan politics. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I edit American politics. Someone who is not familiar with American politics is probably not best suited to handle such a closure. The outcome of the discussion to include "Category:Terrorist incidents in the United States in 2021" to January 6 United States Capitol attack ended up with consensus to include, which is what I supported. Not sure how that makes me non-neutral to U.S. politics (and I might add that that's from December 2021). You're acting like I have a history of going against consensus in American political topics, but I think a thorough search of our editing histories would reveal you are much more consistently at odds with consensuses in the topic area than I am. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  I am not suited to such closures either. Hence I don't make them. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  If you're not suited to close them, what makes you think you are suited to review the closures? ––FormalDude (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  To the best of my knowledge, it is standard practice for involved editors to participate in closure reviews. I did note my involvement in my initial response. Obviously I won't close this discussion, either. Am I missing something? Adoring nanny (talk) 00:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse as it appears to be a good measure of the consensus of the discussion, admin or not is irrelevant. This challenge is just "I didn't like which way it went". Zaathras (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
• Vacate - and issue a warning to all of the combatants in the American politics topic area, and based on the various noticeboard complaints and topic area contributions by and about FormalDude I think it is safe to consider him one of those combatants, to stay away from closing any discussions in the topic area. nableezy - 21:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn: I tend to agree with FormalDude's thinking but with such a basically an even split and reasoned arguments on both sides I can't see calling this one way or the other. If I had to pick a one or the other I would agree with the closing but I think it's just too far into the no-consensus category to close with a decision one way or the other.
  Springee (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
• (Involved) Endorse - I've been going back and forth on whether I should comment here, as I challenged an earlier closure of this same RfC, on involved grounds. I'm still not sure if my comment here will help, or be seen as improper. In the case of the earlier closure, the editor who closed the discussion was one who had both contributed to the RfC and extensively edited both the article and talk page, and as a result their status with respect to involvement was clear. However for this closure, prior to closing the RfC FormalDude had never edited the article nor its talk page. Nor has he edited Ron DeSantis (and only one minor edit to DeSantis' talk page), Government of Florida or its talk page, Florida Legislature or its talk page, Florida Senate or its talk page, and Florida House of Representatives or its talk page. As far as I can tell, FormalDude is completely uninvolved with respect to Floridian politics.
  However, editors here are saying that FormalDude is involved, because of his broader contributions to the American politics content area as a whole. While I understand that involvement is typically considered broadly, are we really wanting to consider it this broadly? I worry that by construing it so broadly as to consider any/all edits elsewhere in the topic area, that experienced closers with background knowledge of the topic but who have not directly edited the article or closely related ones will be unable to close discussions such as the RfC we're discussing. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  "I worry that by construing it so broadly as to consider any/all edits elsewhere in the topic area, that experienced closers with background knowledge of the topic but who have not directly edited the article or closely related ones will be unable to close discussions such as the RfC we're discussing."

  I find this concern a bit exaggerated. I think it's reasonable that editors shouldn't be precluded from closing a discussion solely because they've made any edits on the topic at hand, but having a history of edits that consistently suggest a bias relevant to the topic does put into question their ability to make a fair judgement. Oktayey (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  Nothing improper about an involved user commenting. I did so myself. Cheers. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse (uninvolved), largely per Sideswipe. This discussion involved two contentious topic areas; US Politics and Gender and Sexuality. Editing within these broad topic areas doesn't make an editor involved in specific disputes, and no evidence has been provided that FormalDude has edited in relation to this specific dispute. BilledMammal (talk) 02:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
• overturn. there is no consensus. close it as no consensus. lettherebedarklight晚安 13:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse Non-admins are allowed to close discussions and there is no evidence that the closer is involved. Moving to the close itself, the count of 10-10 in the survey section is correct, but there were other contributors in the discussion section who expressed support for option A/the status quo. Additionally, it is clear that this close may not be the final word on the wording. A no consensus close and a close in support of option A keeps the existing wording ("commonly referred to"). The only difference in effect of the close is that, in general, editors are advised not to reopen a settled close for a longer period of time than a "no consensus" close. Finally, we will likely see more sources talk about the effects and impacts of the legislation for a while longer and we will have more information about the common name of the legislation. --Enos733 (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn to NC As far as I can see, there is no real difference between NC and choosing option A. Note: being a non-admin isn't relevant here. And I'm not seeing a clear case for being involved. But I don't think that discussion can be said to have found consensus and I don't see an argument that one side had better policy/guideline-based arguments than the other. So NC it probably should have been. But this doesn't really change anything as far as I can tell. Hobit (talk) 00:43, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
• Meh. This is a meritless close review that raises no valid points concerning the close itself other than vague accusations of bias. I simply don't see why someone being left- or right-leaning precludes them from closing a discussion concerning American politics. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 03:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  The OP literally wrote in the opening sentence that the survey was a perfect 10-10 split. Maybe I'm missing something as an outside observer, but it appears patently absurd to claim that this is only about bias. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn maybe some of you can see a consensus in that thread, but I do not. There were solid arguments on both sides, and there was no clear numerical advantage. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
• Vacate, largely per Nableezy. 10-10 splits on highly contentious AP2 articles should not be closed by non-admin active participants in highly contentious AP2 articles. FormalDude is an extremely active and vocal participant in American political disputes on Wikipedia; these disputes should be settled by admins or at least non-admins in good standing who are outside of the AP2 culture wars. Endwise (talk) 01:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  Also, I think the fact that FormalDude ended up having to reverse the actionable part of his close on a contentious AP2 article only a couple months ago (his original close said that a lack of consensus to call a BLP "far-right" meant it must remain in the lead sentence), shows why these culture war disputes should be settled by people outside of those culture war disputes. Endwise (talk) 02:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn per Lepricavark. starship.paint (exalt) 03:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse (involved editor). I considered closing this RFC myself, and I was going to have found "no consensus". But, while I was drafting my summary, I realized I was making a few points that I didn't think had been fully articulated in the discussion, and so I changed course and decided to cast what ended up being the last !vote here—"Narrowly A/Status Quo".
  As I understand, however, a close should not be overturned merely because a reasonable editor might have reached a different conclusion. Rather, per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, a close should only be overturned if it was inherently unreasonable. And I don't think that standard is met here. FormalDude conceded that this was a close call, finding "[c]onsensus ... slightly in favor of ... the status quo" (emphasis added). He fairly summarized and evaluated a few of the arguments and also noted that there was an under discussed third possibility. In the light of the discussion, I don't find anything inherently unreasonable in the closing summary or the ultimate finding.--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus (uninvolved). There is a clear problem with the close—namely that it does not accurately summarize the (lack of) consensus attained in the discussion. I agree with many stated above that merely having a political position on an issue does not inherently render one unable to make a closure—just as many editors correctly noted in this discussion that an editor's mere Christian faith does not serve as a reason to bar them from making closes in WP:AP2-related areas. While I find the nom's appeal to the fact that FormalDude has taken a generally left-liberal-favorable stance in AP2 discussions to be unpersuasive as a disqualifier per se, that does not excuse the fact that the closer failed to implement the plain reading of that discussion—one that would result in it being a clear and unambiguous no consensus close—and instead inappropriately put their thumb on the scale by making a closure that merely contained their own opinion rather than a faithful summary of the discussion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  Perhaps you could explain how it is clear and unambiguously no consensus when a significant portion of one side's arguments were demonstrated during the course of the RfC to be logically fallacious or based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact. After all, consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn The only "issue" that would really stand out to me here is the closer's history in the topic area. I do not, however, believe it was a bad close because of the closer's lack of sysop, nor because it was an "even split" (see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY). I will make the point that while administrators are implied to have the trust of the community by virtue of having passed an RFA, that does not discount the ability of any other uninvolved editor to close a contentious discussion properly, while correctly determining consensus. It may be rare, or it may be common, depending on the venue, but it is not impossible for an uninvolved editor to determine consensus better than some current administrators. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 07:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn. While obviously a good faith close, and not a violation of policy to close, this demonstrates why people usually prefer experienced admin to close these contentious discussions, particularly when opinions are evenly split. The consensus is not as clear as the closer makes it out to be. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse (uninvolved) - Are we really having a full AN review to decide whether or not to overturn to no consensus when the outcome differs little (only, to an extent, on how decisive the RFC is)? Especially when the close specifies anyway that there is a "Consensus .. slightly in favor of option A, the status quo", thus showing only a weak consensus which probably won't have that decisive an effect? In this case, whilst the close was imperfect because it fails to fully indicate why they've found the consensus to be as it is, it is a reasonable reading of the consensus to arrive at this result given the three or four "either works" votes who indicated, effectively, it didn't matter which way it came out (pointing to a status-quo close, since if the outcome doesn't matter defaulting to status quo is the natural outcome). Additionally, the closer explained why they found the option A !votes more persuasive and their explanation is reasonable - that the option A advocates had shown that the term was not only being used by critics. Stating that this was "reasonable" does not mean I agree with it, it just means it was not unreasonable, which is the standard for overturning.

As to whether FormalDude is WP:INVOLVED, simply being an American of one or the other political persuasion should not be enough to be "involved". We should not establish a standard of "involvedness" that in practically terms would mean that only people from outside the US can close US-related RFCs (and possibly not even them?). Being involved means an actual, tangible, clear reason to believe that the closer was not a fair arbiter, and no evidence has been produced to that effect.

On the BADNAC point, others have already done a good job of explaining why this does not apply. FOARP (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse close is reasonable, consensus isn't about numerical arguments, and there's room for discretion. The community long ago decided to empower non-admins to close discussions and unless FormalDude was involved (involvement, isn't just having an opinion, as others have said) or that FormalDude put their thumb on the scale (alleged, but not shown that I can see), reading FormalDude's close through, and without reading every argument in the discussion at a high level of critical detail, I think that FormalDude's statement that there was a weak consensus for one of the options is one that can be arrived at. Andre🚐 00:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• Wait, I'm really confused. It seems to me that overturning it to no consensus would have no effect in the mainspace? So the purpose of this close review is what, exactly?—S Marshall T/C 09:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  The issue I see is that it makes it more difficult to have another discussion on it in the future. If someone can point to a consensus result rather than a no consensus result that will have an effect on future discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:40, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  In the RfC, I said that option A was status quo. It was indeed what was there immediately before I started the RfC. But during the discussion, one user said[5] it had never been stable in the article. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  Oh okay.

  There are two limbs to the original complaint here: (1) That only sysops were eligible to close per WP:NACD, and (2) That the closer wasn't impartial, which as I understand it reduces to WP:INVOLVED. Argument (1) fails because NACD is specifically about deletion discussions. You don't have to be a sysop to close a RfC. Argument (2) fails because it's utterly unfeasible to exclude every editor who's got a view on US politics from closing discussions about US politics.

  Further, the only purpose of overturning to no consensus would be to enable a repeat of the same discussion. I don't see how that's desirable. The community doesn't agree and nobody's changing their minds, so we need to leave it there and focus our time and attention on something else. So I would endorse.—S Marshall T/C 15:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  There's a third option you did not consider: That the closer didn't summarize the discussion, as a closer is supposed to do, but instead used their role as a closer to issue a WP:SUPERVOTE. Surely, that's not a valid way to close things. --Jayron32 15:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'm admittedly not an experienced closer, so maybe I'm way out of line here, but I'm not sure I agree there wasn't a summary. As I read the discussion, there were a few categories of arguments, including:

  1. Which phrasing is more supported by reliable sources?
  2. Which of phrasings is more accurate?
     1. Is "commonly referred to as" (option A) less accurate because supporters don't use the term?
     2. Is "which critics commonly call" (option B) more (or less) specific?

  Not every comment fit these categories, but I think it's fair to say the vast majority did. One exception is an argument that "critics commonly call" or an alternative option (roughly, "which critics dubbed") should be used because the term originated with critics of the bill).

  As to reliable sources: Both sides said they were supported by reliable sources, and FormalDude appeared to agree with them: There was similar debate about each option, and both are reliably sourced, so it came to down which wording is more accurate.

  As to accuracy: FormalDude first addressed the 2.1 arguments, noting, "Some brought up that option A is misleading because it implies that supporters refer to the legislation as the "Don't Say Gay" bill, but that was countered by the fact that option A is still true even though [supporters] do not use the shorthand." (fairly certain he meant "supporters" instead of "critics"). He then addressed the 2.2 arguments, in which he found that supporters of option A had the better arguments. (The option A supporters had, to paraphrase, said that, because the Option B phrasing was underinclusive—leaving out non-critics who use the term—it was not more specific.) "A more reasonable objection was to option B, claiming that it is misleading because the shorthand is not only used by critics." He then concluded, "The use of the shorthand by nonsupporters and media sources covering the bill makes "commonly referred to as" the most more accurate of the two options."

  In sum, I don't see anything that FormalDude said that wasn't covered by the discussion. Even though, as I noted, I would have found no consensus, I really think this wasn't an unreasonable close. Is there something big I'm missing here?--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  The problem, for me, comes in the "addressing", except for things which are completely egregiously wrong, you don't address to disagree with things, you merely paraphrase or state what the side said. Discounting or refusing to give weight to a particular line of argument in a summary of a close is a serious thing, and not to be undertaken merely because one just doesn't agree with the conclusions people have drawn. "Have better arguments" is a rather spurious assessment, it's just saying "I don't agree with them". If they had said things which were demonstrably false (which I don't believe they did) or which were egregiously outside of Wikipedia standards (which I don't believe either side was) they interpreted the application of said policy and of said evidence in different ways, but that's not wrong. If someone wants to disagree with the arguments being made, that's what the voting space is for. The closing should not be done with an eye towards disagreeing with the arguments, only on summarizing them. --Jayron32 18:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  Jayron: Again, I did not personally disagree with the arguments being made. I merely pointed out arguments that had been discounted by editors during the course of the RfC. I didn't say anything in my close that wasn't said multiple times throughout the discussion. Do you not see that option A is still true even if supporters do not call it the "Don't Say Gay" bill and the shorthand is not solely used by critics are objective facts?

  Also, I think I was clear that this is a rough consensus, and I explicitly left open the possibility for change going forward. ––FormalDude (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Close review for Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC on draftifying a subset of mass-created Olympian microstubs

From the beginning of March until just being closed, a discussion was held on whether to move to draftspace a group of nearly 1,000 historical athletes who had competed in the Olympic Games from 1896 to 1912 created by Lugnuts. After around two months of discussion and a count of approximately 68 support–45 oppose (60%–40%), it was closed by Bradv as no consensus; his close was taken to the administrators' noticeboard for discussion and eventually he re-opened his close. It was re-closed by GRuban with a consensus to draftify. I disagree that this was the correct closure, and am bringing it here for review as such. Below is GRuban's close, with notes containing my commentary on why its wrong:

The motion carries, WP:Consensus to move the listed articles to Draft space. Note that the motion allows, and even encourages, editors to edit and improve the articles so they can be returned to main space. Not mass, or batch, or automated moves back to main space. As long as the editor sincerely believes they have improved a given specific article enough to pass Wikipedia:Notability, they may move it back to main space; at worst, that way it will face an individual WP:AfD, not 900+ all at once! Until then, or even instead of that, editors may make similarly individual and considered redirects in main space to replace some articles. Redirects will generally need to pass a lower bar, the main concerns are that the redirect will be a reasonably likely search term, and there is an obvious target article. Again, at worst, that way they will face specific WP:RfDs.--GRuban (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

TL;DR

I'd like to thank all those who participated in this discussion, over 100 people, all of whom remained civil, and many of whom brought up very insightful points. I'd also like to thank User:BilledMammal for making the proposal, User:Bradv for closing it the first time, and User:FOARP for convincing him to reopen. I'm trying to fill some pretty big shoes here; I'm an experienced editor, and have closed maybe 100 RfCs, but Bradv is not only an experienced editor, but also an experienced administrator, so it takes quite a bit of hubris to think I can do a better job, and I won't be surprised if there is another thread on WP:AN after this asking that my close be also reopened. But I am still trying hard so that there is not.

So, the decision. I counted a noticeable majority of voices in support of this proposal than opposing it here; something like 68 to 45, and even more if we consider the ones who agreed that the articles should be removed from main space, but wanted redirects instead of draftification (which, as above, will generally be individually allowed). I might be off by one or two in my count, but I am not off by 10. Now as people say, correctly, RfC is a matter of stating arguments, citing policies and guidelines, not a matter of counting votes. The closer does not just count votes. But when I close and judge arguments, I try to remember that the editors stating them are as much editors as I am, many even more experienced than I am, and if many experienced Wikipedians are all saying something, it's definitely worth considering that they just might be right.

So, those arguments. The "support" side mainly said that these articles are stubs that are essentially database entries, and cited only to one or two specific databases, violating WP:GNG, WP:SPORTCRIT, and WP:NOTDB. I looked at a randomly selected subset and they were all of the exact form: "(Name) (born–died) was a (nationality) (sportsman). He competed in the (sport) event at the (year) (season) Olympics." Exactly those two sentences, no more text, and cited as stated. The support side has a point. There are a number of people on the "oppose" side that said that the articles aren't hurting anything, there is WP:NODEADLINE, so they might be expanded, Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, so we have the space, and that at the time that Lugnuts wrote the articles, WP:NSPORT said that just participation in an Olympics, even without winning a medal, was an indicator of notability. Unfortunately, I have to discount those arguments; we have a long and time-honored precedent of deleting articles that are not actually hurting anything, but just because they don't meet Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability; and those policies don't have a "grandfather clause" that say that articles that were made before the policies were written are forever acceptable. We can work on not-harmful articles that don't quite meet standards in our user spaces, or in draft space, but until they do, we don't allow them in main or article space.

Many others of the "oppose" side, maybe even most of them, said two related things: that mass moving articles to draft space is basically deletion, as very few people will ever find them there; and that deletion is not something that can be decided at the Village Pump, that's what we have WP:AfD for. That is basically the argument that Bradv found in his close that there was no counter-argument against; he cited WP:DRAFTIFY and this previous Village pump discussion that articles shouldn't be moved to draft space as a back door to deleting them via AfD. Now Bradv had a good point as well; he's a very experienced and respected editor. Many on the "support" side, at least implicitly agreed that moving these articles to Draft space would be close to deletion; some said they were only supporting draftification because they really wanted the articles deleted, and while others said they supported draftification to avoid deletion, and that the text would still be there for people who wanted to improve them, they admitted there would be a real possibility that no one ever would. However, the "support" side said that that this many articles would be too much for AfD, which only handles one or at most a few articles in a single discussion, not hundreds as here, and especially not the thousands of Lugnuts's similar stubs, which many on both the "support" and "oppose" sides agreed would likely soon be brought up a similar discussion. In questioning Bradv's close, FOARP said that this Village pump discussion was essentially similar to WP:AFD, so should be allowed to draftify articles if the decision went that way, and this was eventually successful enough to get Bradv to withdraw his close. This similarity to AfD was actually brought up in this discussion earlier, by PerfectSoundWhatever: "Wikipedia isn't a burocracy, so I don't think its a problem to do this process here instead of AfD if enough editors come to a disagreement. Different room, same discussion." Now I wouldn't always agree with that in many cases, AfD is where it is for a reason, it's a high visibility forum, many editors specifically go there to decide the fate of articles, if this were a lower visibility discussion I would not consider it a sufficient substitute for AfD. But in this case, there were over 100 editors actively participating, including many very experienced ones. Very few AfDs get that level of participation. I think per WP:IAR, and WP:NOTBURO, we can consider this a sufficient venue, as PerfectSound wrote.

Finally, the redirect option. A noticeable number of people were opposed to draftification, for all the above reasons, but preferred replacing the stub articles with redirects to existing articles on the Olympics of that year or the competitors' countries, because that way at least the redirects could be found by readers; even more would accept redirects equally with draft space, or as a compromise. However, several were explicitly opposed to redirects, because it wouldn't be always clear which article to redirect to, and in any case, over half the participants didn't mention redirects one way or the other. So I can't see a consensus for redirect, even as a compromise. However, I can point out the initial term of the proposal, "5: Editors may return drafts to mainspace for the sole purpose of redirecting/merging them to an appropriate article, if they believe that doing so is in the best interest of the encyclopedia". So if someone believes they know a good redirect target, they can feel free to make a redirect; if others disagree, they can discuss or at worst nominate it for WP:RfD. As long as it is one thoughtful redirect at a time, and not a mindless batch or automated process, I believe the community will accept it. User:Valereee even suggested doing draftification and redirect replacement simultaneously.

Personal note: Personally I'm not much of an editor of articles about Olympic competitors (arguably if I were I wouldn't be a suitable closer here!). However I've run into Lugnuts here and there - with all his edits it's hard to imagine an experienced editor who hasn't. I had always looked at his many short articles, not just on sportspeople, but on the many, many topics that he wrote about, and thought: these are not my cup of tea, but I'm glad we have him. I'm sad that he's gone. I'm even more sad that he went like this, with a statement that he intentionally added copyright violations and incorrect information. That several people in this conversation think he was lying about this, and just saying it "to piss off all of those who did not like him" doesn't really make it much better. What we're doing here by building the Wikipedia is a 90%+, maybe even 99%+, a very good thing. If I'm ever this angry at the <1-10% of what this project does that I don't agree with, I hope I can leave without deliberately acting to damage the project as a whole. A sad thing all around.

In conclusion, based on the notes above, I believe that closing this discussion as having a consensus to draftify is incorrect and suggest that it be overturned to no consensus. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you, BeanieFan! That's a beautiful demurral, and you should probably expand the collapsed "Notes", since they are, after all, your main argument. I'm afraid I still stand by my close, with only one exception: I forgot to thank you among the list of User:BilledMammal, User:Bradv and User:FOARP. I am a strong believer in the principle behind Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard, and when I read the arguments, where you several times pointed out how you believed you were able to save some of these, I was quite proud you were one of us, and I should have pointed it out specifically. I make a special note on my userpage by those articles which I believe I played a large part in restoring after deletion, because I'm quite proud of them. So I applaud your saving any of these articles which you can; and this motion gives you, and anyone else who feels the call, a large amount of time to save them. I wish you the best of luck in doing so, and might even join you in a few. --GRuban (talk) 23:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks :) I've uncollapsed the notes. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• [Involved, opposing draftification and supporting redirection.] When I saw this close come in, I didn't read it all. That's not a judgment about the outcome or the closer; I was just glad someone took the time to tackle this and get it over with (again). Reading it now, I have to object to one big thing: the closing statement mentions the fundamental objections concerning the relationship between draftspace and deletion (i.e. that many people pointed out that our deletion policy is explicit about draftspace not being used as back-door deletion), and then counters those arguments with ... something that doesn't actually address those concerns. The other side, which the closer considered stronger was effectively "but going through proper deletion processes would just take too much work". The closer is supposed to evaluate the strength of arguments according to policy and guidelines, not invoke WP:IAR to pick a side when closing a discussion in which only one person even mentioned IAR. I am concerned about the precedent this sets for deletion and draftspace, effectively contrary to the result of all past discussions on the topic. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  The discussion was held at VPP which is where one goes to modify policy. The concern about the policy saying something about back door deletion is addressed by the venue. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  It wasn't an RfC asking whether to modify policy. It [merely?] creates a precedent which conflicts with policy, which is not ideal regardless of the venue. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  Policy is descriptive, not proscriptive, so holding a widely advertised discussion at the correct venue but not saying the magic words I invoke thee, village pump, to change policy isn't a problem. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  @ScottishFinnishRadish, I am perfectly game for a policy that requires that wording for any policy discussion to take effect Nosebagbear (talk) 11:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  The real question is can we change that to policy without the invocation being policy. A real noodle tickler. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• Without comment to the rest of it - after Bradv was bullied into undoing the close as no consensus, there really was no other likely outcome of this RFC, and any subsequent re-close had a predestined outcome. That seems incredibly flawed to me. --Rschen7754 00:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• (involved, supported) Thanks to GRuban for the thorough the close, and the even more thorough anaysis at User:GRuban/Lugnuts Olympic microstubs, which made writing this involved endorse easy. A WP:CENT-listed RFC at the Village Pump open for over two months with 113 editors participating is the highest WP:CONLEVEL possible: it's global, not local, consensus. Of the 113 editors who participated, only 32 thought these articles should remain in mainspace, while 81 thought they should be removed from mainspace. 81/113 = 72%. That's overwhelming global consensus to move these out of mainspace. Of the 81 editors who agreed these articles should be moved out of mainspace, 2 thought they should be outright deleted, 11 thought they should be redirected and not draftified, and the remaining 68 supported the proposal (5-year draftification with the option of redirection, expansion and restoration, or deletion). 68/81 = 83% - so the vast majority of participants agreed they should be moved out of mainspace (72%), with the proposal being by far the preferred method among those who thought they should be moved out of mainspace (83%). A lot of time and effort went into this proposal, over a hundred editors reviewed it, and there was broad agreement that the articles should be removed from mainspace and that it should be done using the method that was proposed. Yes, this RFC could only have been closed one way: with consensus for the proposal. There really is no grounds for ignoring or setting aside 81 !votes. Levivich (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  Where are you getting 81 people who supported and only 32 who said oppose? GRuban counted 68s–45o and the discussion certainly didn't seem that much in favor of draftification. And by the way, this is WP:NOTAVOTE. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• how long are we going to drag this out? lettherebedarklight晚安 01:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• Common sense prevails, thank god. Good close, finally. Zaathras (talk) 02:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• (involved, supported) I believe the close is an accurate reading of consensus, as there was broad agreement to address the group of articles in the manner described. This was an RfC with substantial participation, and as I noted in my comments the highly unusual pattern of Lugnuts' article creation justifies a rather unusual approach to dealing with these articles. Jogurney (talk) 02:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• Involved, supported. Good close; there are a few arguments made by BeanieFan11 that I want to push back on. First, they say that older articles shouldn't be draftified except at AfD, but there is no good reason not to permit, and a policy based reason (WP:NOTBURO) to permit, the draftification of such articles at a more visible forum. Second, they say that WP:NOTDB doesn't apply as this situation doesn't match the examples; it matches the general criteria, and per WP:NOTEVERYTHING The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive. BilledMammal (talk) 02:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• Weak endorse involved. A 60-40 margin with a large number of contributors is a solid consensus in any forum, absent appeals to policy. Weak because a no-consensus close was also within the discretion of the closers. I would hope that future closers also take into account the comments in discussion sections and alternative proposals to get a better sense of where consensus (if any land). Sometimes, I feel that closers in multi-part discussions look narrowly at one question and may miss important insights in other places as some people may not participate in all questions (this is especially true in discussions where additional questions or options are added over time). --Enos733 (talk) 04:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse, involved - No closer had an easy job on this, Gruban got the job done.

A review of an RFC close is not supposed to be a relitigation of the RFC, with respect to BeanieFan’s notes a-k, most of these points were all extensively litigated during the RFC. For example, the reliability of the prose content at Olympedia was extensively discussed with examples of unreliability being raised and the opaque editorial processes and apparent amateur nature of Olympedia being discussed. The ones that weren’t were a) and i).

Regarding a), the count of !votes varies dependent on the method applied, but there is no count that did not have a substantial majority in favour of the motion and an even more substantial majority against keeping the articles in mainspace. Numbers do not decide everything, but they do have a quality all of their own.

Regarding i), Bradv’s reasons for vacating his close do not ultimately affect the validity or not of this close. FOARP (talk) 06:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse (involved, but opposed draftification). Even though this was not my favoured option, it is a good close. I think it's time to end this here. Black Kite (talk) 09:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse (involved) Dear goodness, are we seriously going to challenge the close no matter what it is, aren't we? The closer left a highly detailed rationale, the close seems perfectly reasonable, and it's time for this to be over. Let it end, ffs. --Jayron32 11:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse this reasonable close. I'm really getting sick of seeing reasonable closes of extremely complex discussions challenged by whoever's "side" didn't "win", nitpicking over every possible misstep made by a well-intentioned closer in writing the statement. I frankly wouldn't recommend to anyone to ever close anything the least complicated ever again without the support of a panel, a proofreader, and preferably a PR flack. It's not worth the aggravation. Valereee (talk) 12:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  Amen, Valereee. This tendency to challenge any unliked close is getting crazy. We've now had two entirely reasonable closes -- even though they came to different conclusions, I contend they were both a reasonable read of the discussion. At this rate, no one will be signing up for the grief of making a close, and our entire constitutional system of weighing arguments and consensus will be replaced by a virtual division of the assembly. We had a no consensus close, it got complained about so much the admin reverted it, now we have the opposite close... and yet more complaining. It has to stop somewhere. This should be that point. Endorse in case that's not clear, not necessarily because I'd have made this particular close, but because its reasonable enough and there has to be some finality. Courcelles (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  Also concur. I had a minor issue with the last close, but not enough to actually support overturning because it was still reasonable which is the threshold for upholding a close. Maybe there should be some expectation that someone looking for a review, and those commenting on the close review, be uninvolved? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  The only people likely to look for a review are involved editors, as for the most part uninvolved ones won't take notice of the discussion and close - because of this I think involved editors need to be able to bring a close to a review board. For the second part, I don't think it is beneficial forbidding involved editors from commenting, but it may be useful to split the discussion into two sections; the first for uninvolved editors, the second for involved editors. As part of this it might be worth having a unified review forum - WP:Village pump (close reviews) - where all closes can be reviewed, and we can have a unified set of rules for how close reviews should proceed (I've brought this last idea up in the past, and I continue to believe it is a good idea). BilledMammal (talk) 13:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  We have so many review noticeboards already that barely get any attention (or even use, WP:XRV is a ghost town) but in general, close reviews that are related to policy and required no use of the mop are not really an administrator matter, so I'm not at all sure AN is the best place to be holding these. It just seems to be the default because it's so widely watched. Courcelles (talk) 13:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  Part of the idea would be to merge all the close review forums together (WP:MRV, WP:DRV, etc but not WP:XRV), as well as using the forum to support the review of closes that current lack a forum (merges, and any others that I am missing), to increase the attention on all the closes under review as well as diversify the editors engaged in reviewing the closes. BilledMammal (talk) 14:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  Or perhaps that if it's brought by someone on the "losing side" that they be joined in their objection by at least one !voter from the "winning side", so as to show bipartisan support of the review. Valereee (talk) 13:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  I could see this if it is the same as a "second" in parliamentary procedure, whereas the initial mover must be in support the motion, but the seconder only is agreeing that it is worth discussion and can freely oppose the motion when it comes to a vote. The analogue would be getting that person who agreed with the final outcome to publicly vouch there was some merit to discussing the close, not to !vote to overturn. Courcelles (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not certain that would work either for more obscure discussions; I think we need to be careful to avoid putting barriers to people opening reviews, but it would be beneficial to make it clearer who is and isn't involved. BilledMammal (talk) 14:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  If you literally cannot find even one single person who did not vote on your side to agree the close is worth discussing, maybe that's not such a bad barrier. Valereee (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  For larger discussions with a diversity of opinions I think that is reasonable, but for smaller ones it's not. To take a recent example, Necrothesp took the close of the RM at Murder of Maxwell Confait to move review, where it was overturned - but I would be surprised if any of the editors who supported the move would have endorsed such a choice. This is particularly true for discussions that are closed in favor of the minority position (for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. Lawrey) where there are even fewer editors that those who wish to overturn the close can go to for that support. BilledMammal (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  Also, we are very off topic. Should we move this to the talk page? BilledMammal (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn: I think bradv had it right. There was definitely not consensus and the concerns that those who opposed the action had are valid. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn - We have already proven that this idea is massively flawed. Alfred Keene, Alexander Duncan, Addin Tyldesley, Fred Narganes, Garnett Wikoff and Herbert Gidney were all able to be improved. How many other examples are there in a list that amounts to hundreds of articles? This is the danger of grouping articles together. I agree with BeanieFan11 that it sets a bad standard that is already going to be used against more articles. I object to Olympedia being called a database and being tossed out as a source. Pages like https://www.olympedia.org/athletes/47426 and https://www.olympedia.org/athletes/22156 are full on biographies, which is not what a database is. I reject any "hasn't this gone on long enough" arguments due to WP:DEADLINE. I agree with Beanie that this situation sets up a bad precedent and I think it's really asking a lot of people to be able to follow rules that do not exist yet like in this situation. I also agree with Beanie and I don't think anyone should pay any attention to various things Lugnuts have said. All of these articles were looked at by multiple people and many had more than one editor involved. How do we know various errors were indeed purposely put in articles and how do we know they weren't fixed if they were? People could go through and look, but people not wanting to go through these articles one by one and look is how we got here in the first place.KatoKungLee (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn and instead I'll flip a coin—heads we draftify, tails we don't—and everybody has to promise not to challenge it this time. – Joe (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  That's brilliant, and could be much more widely applied. What were Bradv and I thinking in reading what everyone had to say? Have you considered standing for Arbcom on this platform? --GRuban (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse (uninvolved). The final closure on this makes the most sense. In general, I'm a "keep everything" kind of guy but the vast majority of these are so ridiculously void of notability or content that they do not meet the standard for inclusion. Should more information become available, they should be re-added. This should not mean that all should face the same fate necessarily and I think a few would survive an attempt to make them an article again...but only by the slimmest margins. As for the !vote, 60-40 is a 3-2 ratio and a reasonable standard for a consensus. It isn't a just over the line of a simple majority and the opinions expressed are well-founded. Buffs (talk) 14:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• (involved) Two closes and two challenges, each of which likely took more time to create than the nearly 1,000 procedurally generated items under discussion. A smoother process for handling poor WP:MASSCREATE situations would be beneficial. CMD (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  Maybe we could have a widely advertised and attended discussion at the board where policy and other proposals with community-wide implications are held? Certainly that can't end with a series of closes and reviews. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment this could have been closed either way. My concern has always been that the list of articles generated seems to have been done so using automated features and there appears to have been no attempt made to check any non-paywalled sources already in the articles. As has been shown above, there are a number of these people who are clearly notable. I've seen similar lists generated elsewhere which have clearly also not been checked properly (iirc one had a knight of the realm on it with a tonne of coverage). It would be lovely to have a way of dealing with this sort of article sensibly. We don't - and I don't think the precedent being set here will make things any better fwiw, but, honestly, I've given up caring now. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse (uninvolved): The closure is a valid and reasonable reading of the discussion. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 18:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• Comment We are going to be here forever if we allow persistent "Overturn!" discussions from those that it didn't go their way. The first one was reasonable because of the issue of INVOLVED-ness, but this one isn't. It didn't go my way but I appreciate that the close was valid. The other people who are whining about it need to stop now. Black Kite (talk) 18:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  Cynical of me, but being here forever generally benefits one side of a discussion. Valereee (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  [6] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn Bradv had it right and shouldn't have been bullied into vacating his close. As Rschen7754 notes above, this outcome was pretty much guaranteed once the first close didn't stick, and that's unacceptable. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  Since this repeats an earlier opinion, I'll ask: Why do you think a certain close was predestined? Why do you believe it was guaranteed a second closer would not concur with the first close? Valereee (talk) 20:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  This is a personal opinion based on observation, so I might that I could be mistaken. However, my experience after participating in various discussions pertaining to sports bio stubs is that the editors seeking removal from mainspace will not drop the issue until they have achieved their end. I have mostly disengaged from such discussions out of concern that I may eventually be targeted for sanctions if I continue to vocally oppose this campaign. And it is for that reason that, having answered your question, I am not willing to be drawn into further discussion. If the closing admin chooses to disregard my input, as Zaathras rudely implied while twisting my words (yet another demonstration of the undisguised lack of respect accorded by deletionists to those who want these articles kept), then so be it. The deck is clearly stacked in favor of the deletionists, and I do not consider this a hill worth dying on. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  A chilling effect: pressure on the closer to close it a certain way to avoid potential onwiki harassment. Rschen7754 00:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  Because it would be so much harder to avoid potential harassment by...not making the close in the first place? Valereee (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  "I liked the last outcome, and everyone was a big meanie!" is not a valid reason to overturn. This will be laughably ignored. Zaathras (talk) 21:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  The only thing that's laughable is your comprehension of my comment. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC) While I continue to take umbrage with Zaathras' characterization of my words, I'm striking this comment because it was inappropriately hostile. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 05:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  Interesting Ordinarily, I'd let it go since you deleted it, but the Reddit-esque edit summary makes it clear that you still haven't a clue what this is about. You distorted my words and used your distortion as a basis to belittle me. Unsurprisingly, I was not amused. The next person you do that to won't like either. It's time for you to stop treating Wikipedia like a message board. This community is sometimes forgiving of boorish behavior when it comes from credible, well-established editors, but until you reach that status you should probably think about your edits more thoroughly before submitting them, especially when you're posting on an administrative noticeboard. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  I was asked at my talk page to turn the temperature down, but if you insist on poking the bear, then that's on you, my friend. Every "overturn" thus far, esp. the 18-volume novel of the OP, has just been one big I-don't-like-it. I'm sorry if your argument isn't as deep as you imagine it to be. Zaathras (talk) 04:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  We can agree to disagree on the merits of my argument. I've certainly been disagreed with many times before. I've even been wrong on some of those occasions, and it's not impossible that this is one of them. Either way, neither of us is going to change our position, which again is fine. What bothers me is when people give my words a tone and tenor that they clearly never had. You can say that I was poking you, but I'm not sure how you expected me to respond to your initial reply. As you wrote at your talk page, what is one expected to do when clearly provoked? You baited me (twice), and I admittedly took the bait (twice). So congrats, I guess, but don't fancy yourself a victim. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 05:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  I don't particularly agree with your tone here Zaathras. One thing I've got to say is that the appropriate response to bullying, if Bradv felt bullied, was to take the issue to WP:ANI to be addressed there, and not to vacate the close if he believed the close to be correct. I'm not going to minimise the impact of having a decision you spent a long time on roundly criticised, but that is not bullying even if it can feel like it. Reviewing the previous AN, I cannot say that I see any obvious instances of bullying. The accusations of being WP:INVOLVED might seem personal because they hinge on the closer's previous words/actions, but they were not unreasonable even if I personally did not buy the argument. FOARP (talk) 09:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn As others have suggested, a closer's decision should be respected barring extreme circumstances. Bradv appears to have felt pressured into withdrawing his original close through well-meaning but possibly overzealous criticism, so it would be better to overturn the second close and reinstate the original decision. Heaven bless, Harper J. Cole (talk) 00:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  Bradv's closure was vacated, the community has already made that decision. It has no bearing on the current discussion. Zaathras (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - I’d like to ask the people raising the issue of the vacated closure why exactly they think it impacts the validity of the present close. As far as I can see a vacated close is just that - a close that is no longer in effect. The present closure was not bound to follow it, nor is the reason given by BRADv for vacating it decisive of the outcome of this discussion.

I should add that I am sorry that BRADv felt hard done by by the response to their close. I also have to say that that a reading of the AN discussion at the time of the decision being vacated shows that overturning of the close was a distinct possibility and that was not based on bullying or unreasonable arguments. If any closer feels they are being bullied, I encourage them to report this to WP:ANI so that appropriate action can be taken. FOARP (talk) 06:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Gentle editors. I love you all, really. I always remember that what we're doing here writing the Wikipedia, for everyone, for free, is a really good thing, and no one discussion, not even over a thousand articles, should overshadow that; we have a thousand times a thousand articles, after all. Two requests, though (there's a more detailed explanation in the collapse):

1. Please be nice to each other.
2. Give Bradv's close withdrawal full credit. --GRuban (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

TL;DR

I really appreciated that in the RfC itself, even though it was clearly important to over 100 participants, no one was personally attacked. I appreciated that when BeanieFan11 started this close review, he did it with diligence and care to address my reasoning in my close; as opposed to, say, personal comments about me, my lack of good faith, intellectual independence or courage. Can I personally request that we keep all that up? Thanks. A number of people are saying this close was invalid because Bradv's first close should have been endorsed, if only he hadn't been bullied. Well - he withdrew that close. He had the right to do that. I'm sure his reasons for doing that were complicated, we're all human, we're all complicated. But if we're saying that the only reason he did that was because he felt bullied - well, I'm not him, but if someone said that about me, I'd feel they were attacking my (as above) good faith, intellectual independence, and courage. It takes courage to stand by your principles when you're attacked, and, admittedly, not everyone has that courage, but I am assuming that being a long term admin, Bradv does. It's kind of a requirement of carrying the mop: knowing that people are going to be mad at you for what you do, and tell you so, not kindly either, and still being able to do it anyway. Sure, at least partly Bradv vacated his close because he felt bad that people were yelling at him, he's not only an admin, he's human too. But I'm also quite sure that at least partly he did it because he genuinely thought there were real reasons to let the community take another shot at closing the discussion, the reasons that FOARP and others gave in their request to reopen the close; even if he didn't completely agree with those reasons, he at least thought they were sufficient to give the community to chance to decide again. I'm giving him credit that that was more important in his withdrawing his close than him being afraid of people yelling at him; specifically because I respect his good faith, intellectual independence, and courage. I think we should all do that here. --GRuban (talk) 13:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse both closes (uninvolved): Both attempts to close the discussion were valid and reasonable readings of the discussion as of those datestamps. NOTE: it's impossible to reinstate a withdrawn close (the discussion has grown since User:Bradv's effort), so that's not an option available, as User:Zaathras has correctly commented. We can't go back in time in the discussion. This latest close by User:GRuban is also a perfectly valid reading of the discussion. Gruban is wise to recognize how carefully User:BeanieFan11 crafted their statements in this discussion. Gruban's advice in the hatted TL;DR is well-intended and should be well-taken. BusterD (talk) 15:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  +1 to all of this. Valereee (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse GRuban's close Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
• overturn to NC We evaluate these discussions by numbers and strength-of-argument. We evaluate strength-of-argument by how well things line up with guidelines and policy. We all agree this is specifically against our rules. So the stronger argument is on the side of the opposition. If this were 70/30, sure. But 60/40 when specifically against our rules? Nope. Add in the issues with the first closure (I think bullying is too strong of a word but not by a lot) and I don't see how consensus can be said to exist here. It's about as non-consensus as one could hope. Hobit (talk) 03:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse, because this was a widely-advertised and well-attended discussion in the right place to make this decision. Consensus did exist and it was to vary our rules in this way. The alternative, which was to use AfD for a thousand identical articles, was clearly unworkable and would have swamped AfD for years.—S Marshall T/C 06:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn. The fact that so many people are arguing that both closes were reasonable is clear evidence to me that there was no consensus to discern, and that the closes were decisions for the purpose of making a decision (if you like, supervotes) rather than an actual reading of the nonexistent consensus. So I still think no consensus is the only plausible outcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:47, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn to NC - Much like David Eppstein above me, I think that because this discussion is still ongoing, with no real indication of whether "endorse" or "overturn" is more prevalent (and indeed more policy-supported), there cannot be a valid consensus in either side's favour. With this said, I must credit GRuban for their close. It was well written and argued, I simply disagree with it, though I do agree with the argument that due to it being a well advertised discussion we can consider it a deletion discussion. Disclosure that I opposed the draftification. Anarchyte (talk) 07:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse (Wholly uninvolved in this entire debacle) I don't see any misinterpretation of consensus with GRuban's close and therefore no reason to overturn it. I believe that there are some extremely invested individuals who will be unable to accept any result in these deletion-based discussions that don't result in their desired outcome. Also, I'm fully in agreement with BusterD above.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse close (involved). In my opinion GRuban's close accurately reflects the consensus reached in the RfC. I can't comment on the accusations of undisclosed involvement on bradv's behalf as I've no involvement in and only little knowledge of previous discussions on this topic, other than to say that I hope the editors making them were doing so sincerely and in good faith. Nevertheless, it's misleading to characterise the review of his close as entirely unfounded – indeed, FOARP's post initiating the review did not even mention this involvement in passing, and rather advanced argumements based on WP:NOTBURO and WP:CONLEVEL. A sizeable proportion of editors who contributed "overturn" !votes also cited these two as grounds, and they apply equally in endorsing GRuban's close. As Levivitch notes, this was an RfC listed at Centralised Discussion that was open for over two months and that attracted contributions from 113 individual editors. By sheer virtue of visibility it is anything but a "back door to deletion". As ScottishFinnishRadish notes: The discussion was held at VPP which is where one goes to modify policy. The concern about the policy saying something about back door deletion is addressed by the venue. The only thing (off the top of my head) for which a higher CONLEVEL might be needed would be for a course of action that went against the Five Pillars, but that's not the case here. As to BeanieFan11's other objections – they're relitigations of the original RfC and so beyond the scope of this discussion. XAM2175 ^(T) 11:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  I do however take particular exception to to note g holding that [if a] guideline is abolished, that does not mean to get rid of articles previously passing it by the thousands without any sort of effort to see if they're notable!, which is an absurd mischaracterisation of the draftification proposal. XAM2175 ^(T) 11:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Request for double check

Would another admin please review my revision deletions on Wallace Wilkinson to make sure they are kosher? I'm not as active as I used to be, especially with the admin tools, but the information seemed really controversial and poorly sourced, and I didn't think it needed to remain visible. (Honestly, I didn't even have the courage to check one of the sources, because it sounded like it linked to some stuff I REALLY had no interest in seeing!) Wilkinson is dead, so it wasn't a straight-up WP:BLP deletion, and the "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive" criterion is a bit subjective, imo. If the action was wrong, I'm absolutely fine with it being undone and with being (politely) educated about why it was inappropriate on my talk page. Thanks. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Very good deletion. Courcelles (talk) 14:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

SPL addition link, so not to have this URL on the AN? Hell no, I've indeffed that account as a troll. Courcelles (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

And added to the spam blacklist. Courcelles (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• Typically you should specify which criterion you're deleting under in the deletion log entry, but this is textbook WP:RD3, and a good deletion, and no need to nitpick about process here. Good blacklist entry too. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, @Courcelles: and @Ivanvector:. I always want to be judicious with the tools. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

An apology for my actions in October 2022

NB. Although this is perhaps slightly outside the scope of matters of general administrator interest, WP:AN felt like the "right place" — further apologies if not.

I'm not very good at writing my thoughts down (as my article creation statistics clearly show), but over the last six months I've been reflecting on my decisions and behaviour which led to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block. For those unfamiliar, the ArbCom case has a succinct timeline.

I've made personal apologies in private to a number of people, but I also understand that I owe one to you, the community, and I'd like to take a moment to do that now.

I'm sorry for letting you down after you had placed your trust in me, both here as an admin and a functionary, and globally as a steward — I have no excuses, but have tried below to demonstrate an understanding of what I did wrong and show what I've learnt. I hope the community can come to forgive me, and allow me to cautiously rebuild the trust I've damaged, but I understand that this comes from actions and not words.

In addition to the community in general, and those I've emailed, I'd like to offer my apologies to:

• Lourdes and Athaenara, for performing an unwarranted check on their accounts,
• Athaenara directly, for leaving uncivil remarks on their talk page, and
• the Arbitration Committee for my conduct prior to, during and after the case.

What I did wrong

At the most basic level, I failed to recognise my emotional compromise and react accordingly. This led me to make further compounding errors due to my involvement in the situation, namely;

• Performing a check on Athaenara and Lourdes — I didn't follow my own advice and not only failed to request prior opinions on if this check was warranted, but when such an opinion was given, chose to ignore it.
• (Re-)blocking someone with whom I was angry, which despite the beliefs I had at the time in regard to "how WP:INVOLVED worked" is an bright line I should have known better than to cross.
• Behaving aggressively during the resultant ArbCom case — my behaviour towards arbitrators prior, during and after this incident was abhorrent, and cannot be excused by claiming I was upset and angry.

What I've learnt

It's taken time to understand that almost the entirety of the initial incident and its aftermath was caused by my involvement, so I've focused on adjusting my understanding of what it means to be involved.

• The involvement policy is designed to protect against emotional/etc. compromise — that is, having a bright line should (and normally, does) help administrators know when to step back and ask for someone else to take action.
• In some cases, the concept of apparent involvement (i.e., an administrator appearing to be involved) is more important than actual involvement.
• I got very hung up on the idea that I was being labelled as involved solely because the incident in question related to transphobic remarks, and I am openly queer. I now understand that although this contributed to how strongly affected I was, this fact was only ever "in addition to", and was never the sole reason.
• Administrators making (actual, or apparent) involved actions undermines the neutral role we've been entrusted by the community to play here on Wikipedia.

On reflection, I understand that had I been more conscious of how the incident had made me feel, identified the likelihood of being WP:INVOLVED by my emotions, and stepped away from taking any actions, this entire thing wouldn't have occurred.

Put another way, had I not been emotionally compromised, I would not have;

• Made any checks — my judgement was clouded by hurt and anger, mixed with perhaps a disbelief that an admin whom I had previously known quite well (Lourdes) would "do such a thing by choice" (i.e. unblock Athaenara).
• Made the re-block — for much the same reasons as above, I saw the unblock as an "egregious miscarriage of justice" which had to be "put right".
• Responded as aggressively — I considered my anger and actions to be "righteous indignation", to which any criticism was paramount to agreeing with the statements made by Athaenara.

This emotionally compromised state caused me to lay blame and reasonable suspicion at the feet of someone I was evidently angry with, and then redirect this towards a number of people who, if not trying to actively help, were at the very least doing their best to understand.

I've also come to understand that situations where you feel a need to aggressively defend yourself are often those where we should take extra care and time to reflect. I wholeheartedly regret every action I took, and each word I said in anger.

I wish I could go back, take a few extra breaths, and see that I was desperately needing to step away from what had become something Wikipedia should never be — a personal battleground.

I sincerely apologize, and thank you for reading. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 14:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Notes

• From someone uninvolved in the whole debacle, I can't say I believe your actions were right, but Arbcom has already said that, as have many others in droves, so I'll refrain. However, we're also all human, and all make mistakes, and further, are all susceptible to letting our emotions get the better of us. Do I think you probably should stay away from CUOS? Yes, most likely, because that kind of trust is not easily given back. But I think that, so long as you truly understand the problems, it's perhaps time to move on from the original incident. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 18:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
• I don't know if you want to hear this from me in particular, but I'm very glad to see this and wish you only the best. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• i thought we all agreed to forget about this lettherebedarklight晚安 01:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  Not helpful. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• Sammy, thank you for writing this. It is not every day that people own up and apologize for past actions, and I admire your humility and sincerity. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• I can't speak on behalf of the Arbitration Committee, but I can speak on behalf of myself. Thank you for your words. I understood the anger at the time, and I understood where your actions and words came from, so I never felt negativity towards you for them. I am very glad that we have not lost you as either an editor or an administrator, and I do look forward to the day that you regain the full trust of the community. Worm^TT(talk) 08:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• TheresNoTime, your apology above is highly appreciated. I wished you well even in the Arbcom case; and continue to do so. I make many more mistakes than you do, and apologise too little, so a good lesson here for me too. And like lettherebedarklight write above, time to forget about this and just enjoy being here. Warmly, Lourdes 09:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• Thank you.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• I rarely enjoy reading apologies, but this one came from the heart; it's a gem. Well done. --Andreas JN466 13:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

RfC on a contentious topic needs a procedural close by an uninvolved admin.

See Talk:Coerced religious conversion in Pakistan#RfC about restoring sourced content. In my opinion, this RfC (asking whether a removal of content should be reverted) needs a procedural close, since it includes material copy-pasted from a source cited - an article in the New Indian Express. Could I ask an uninvolved admin (or other experienced contributor) to take a look, and close the RfC as invalid, if they agree with my analysis? We are trying (not entirely successfully so far) to discuss the disputed material in detail elsewhere on the talk page, making the RfC rather redundant if we can actually look at it in more detail - a simple revert is clearly no longer on the cards. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• A simple revert, as asked by the RFC, was never on the cards IMO since restoring the deleted material as is would have violated WP:BLPNAME, etc. I had not closed the RFC early in the hopes that the discussion would explore the possibility of adequately summarizing and rephrasing the material so that it is policy-compliant. But the discussion so far does not appear to be about that; so I would support an early closure of the RFC. I would ask another admin to review and implement any action since I have already protected and put this article under CTOP restrictions (and I have previously closed a poorly-crafted RFC started by the same editor), and it would be good to have an independent assessment. Abecedare (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

•  Done. --Jayron32 11:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Help cleaning up bot-mangled citations

This came up last month, but there hasn't been much movement on it since, and I'm not sure where else I can raise a signal about it. Use of the ReferenceExpander bot without manually checking its output has led to references being contracted instead. For example, the bot sometimes follows a link that now redirects to a new, uninformative place, but since the link technically "works" the auto-generated citation omits the archive-URL and creates a footnote that is nicely templated but completely useless. It also removes all sorts of ancillary information included in manually-formatted citations, like quotations. If multiple citations were gathered into the same footnote, it creates a replacement based on only the first of them. It can see a citation to a chapter in an edited collection and replace the authors' names with the editors of the volume. It can see a URL for a news story and create a {{cite web}} footnote that omits the byline which had been manually included. A list of potentially affected pages is available here.

It's frankly a slog to deal with, and there doesn't seem to be any other option than manually looking at each item.

(Per the big orange box, I have notified the editor whose actions prompted all this, but they are both retired and indeffed.) XOR'easter (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Hey @XOR'easter sorry. I was going to try working through at least a few of these a bit at a time, but I've been busy with a lot of other stuff. Is anyone here interested in gathering together a crew to tackle some of these as a group? It feels pretty daunting for just a few people. –jacobolus (t) 02:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I can help. --JBL (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I started reviewing the list, and fyi, in the 1853 or so citations affected here [7], I noticed https urls were occasionally converted to http. Beccaynr (talk) 03:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Wow, I hadn't even thought to check for that. XOR'easter (talk) 04:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Have you asked the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors for help? They are also having a copy-editing drive this month, and maybe something like this could be added to that project. Beccaynr (talk) 05:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I did ask, as it happens; apparently it's not in their wheelhouse. XOR'easter (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

WikiFaerie are not as well-organized, so I am not sure how to conduct outreach, but I will try to work through the list you have developed when possible. Thank you for calling attention to this. Beccaynr (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@XOR'easter: Perhaps WP:WikiProject Citation cleanup? Not the most active of projects, I think, though. AddWittyNameHere 21:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion; I've commented over there.

What gets me is that these are not all obscure pages. DNA, for example, is a Featured Article with almost 2,000 watchers, and yet nobody seems to have noticed when citations were modified to have a last name "Bank", first name "RCSB Protein Data". XOR'easter (talk) 00:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

There are so many bots and bot-like gnomes running around making so many hundreds of thousands of minor cleanups to citations on articles, 99% of which are fine, that it makes it very tiresome to consistently check all edits appearing on one's watchlist and notice the thousands of edits that fall into the 1% of cases where the software totally screws up the citation. And yet, these supposed cleanups happen so often and so repetitively to the same articles that it seems that, eventually, all citations will be garbaged by bots. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I've been very slowly working my way through one of the more severely damaged articles, Falun Gong (a CTOP I've never edited before). Out of the numerous affected references, I have yet to see the ReferenceExpander script suggest a correct citation. 04:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC) Updating to add that I have now found a correct citation produced by this tool, giving a success rate in my sample around 10%. Even ignoring the information lost from the manually formatted references that are not converted into the cite templates, I'm seeing the tool assign incorrect titles and incorrect dates, leave out authors when a byline is clearly evident at the top of the article, confuse archives with live urls, and associated basic errors.

At this point I'm extremely suspect of any edits performed using this script, since its parsing both of the existing reference and of retrieved webpages is, in the general case, objectively inadequate. It might be faster to batch undo as many of these edits as is technically feasible, and I'm sadly wondering if we should formally encourage the maintainer to disable the script pending improvement. Courtesy ping User:BrandonXLF. Folly Mox (talk) 03:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

RfC notice

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Request_for_Comment:_Should_editing_on_Wikipedia_be_limited_to_accounts_only? - Notice about a discussion asking whether editing on Wikipedia should be limited to accounts only? - jc37 15:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Badalucco 1766

Draft:Badalucco 1766 appears to be more of a WP:REFDESK question than a draft for a future article. Should something like this be tagged for speedy deletion? Should it go to WP:MFD? Should it be left as is to eventually be deleted per WP:G13? For reference, I came across this via WP:HD#Can I place a personal ad with Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

My personal, non-policy-based opinion is that random stuff in draftspace is usually best left for WP:G13. Since the user seems to be asking a question in good faith, perhaps you could direct them towards a more appropriate venue? Spicy (talk) 00:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this Spicy. Per your suggestion, I've posted about this on the creator's user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd CSD it as G6. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 21:52, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Bebel2024

Bebel2024 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) contributions are clearly disruptive. Several of their edits and article (if not all of them) violate WP:NOTNEWS and they seem to lack WP:COMPETENCE to edit here. In their home wiki, the pt.WP, they were indef. blocked due to their disruptive behavior. During their block discussion, they stated that they were autistic and attempt to apologize in "broken Portuguese", showing very poor communicative skills. Their English, based on a few edits and article that I've analyzed so far, is also very poor. I think some sysop should give it a look. There are several articles that should be deleted and several edits that must be reverted. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 02:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Somehow or other Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion has been listed for speedy deletion

Hi all,

Somehow or other Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion has been listed for speedy deletion as of 20 May 2023: please see Category:Candidates for speedy deletion.

No doubt this is due to some mix-up in transclusion of deprecated template regex . Or something like that. Pure guesswork on my part. Things like this are pretty much a mystery to me.

@Aquabluetesl, Crainsaw, Pppery, Robert McClenon, Explicit, Spiderone, Sundostund, Sundostund, DefenderTienMinh07, and Fakescientist8000: Somehow or other Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion has been listed for speedy deletion. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Appears to me to be resolved now, are others still seeing it? I believe it was caused by a G7 tag on this page; I did some purging after declining that, but it wasn't immediately effective. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it, and there's nothing in the edit history, could've been a glitch or something like that Crainsaw (talk) 13:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Per Justlettersandnumbers, sometimes XfD subpages get tagged with speedy templates, which are then transcluded to the main XfD page. Seems to have been fixed on my end. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 14:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I didn't see it this time, but I have seen this before. These errors illustrate why speedy deletion tags are requests to a trusted human administrator to delete a page after checking the reason for deletion, who can verify whether there was a mistake due to the complexity of transclusion. Thank you to whoever did the cleanup. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland closed

An arbitration case, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland, has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• The Arbitration Committee formally requests that the Wikimedia Foundation develop and promulgate a white paper on the best practices for researchers and authors when writing about Wikipedians. The Committee requests that the white paper convey to researchers the principles of our movement and give specific recommendation for researchers on how to study and write about Wikipedians and their personal information in a way that respects our principles. Upon completion, we request that the white paper be distributed through the Foundation's research networks including email newsletters, social media accounts, and web publications such as the Diff blog.
  This request will be sent by the Arbitration Committee to Maggie Dennis, Vice President of Community Resilience & Sustainability with the understanding that the task may be delegated as appropriate.
• Remedy 5 of Antisemitism in Poland is superseded by the following restriction:
  All articles and edits in the topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland are subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction. When a source that is not an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution is removed from an article, no editor may reinstate the source without first obtaining consensus on the talk page of the article in question or consensus about the reliability of the source in a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Administrators may enforce this restriction with page protections, topic bans, or blocks; enforcement decisions should consider not merely the severity of the violation but the general disciplinary record of the editor in violation.
• François Robere is topic banned from the areas of World War II in Poland and the History of Jews in Poland, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• My very best wishes
  • is topic banned from the areas of World War II in Poland and the History of Jews in Poland, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • Based on their disruptive attempts to defend Piotrus and Volunteer Marek, My very best wishes is subject to a 1-way interaction ban with Piotrus and a 1-way interaction ban with Volunteer Marek, subject to the usual exceptions. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Volunteer Marek
  • is topic banned from the areas of World War II in Poland and the History of Jews in Poland, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • is limited to 1 revert per page and may not revert a second time with-out a consensus for the revert, except for edits in his userspace or obvious vandalism. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• François Robere and Volunteer Marek are prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, posts and comments made by each other, subject to the normal exceptions. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• The Arbitration Committee assumes and makes indefinite the temporary interaction ban between Levivich and Volunteer Marek. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Piotrus is reminded that while off-wiki communication is allowed in most circumstances, he has previously used off-wiki communication disruptively. He is reminded to be cautious about how and when to use off-wiki contact in the future, and to avoid future conflict, he should prioritize on-wiki communication.
• The Arbitration Committee affirms its January 2022 motion allowing editors to file for Arbitration enforcement at ARCA or Arbitration enforcement noticeboards. In recognition of the overlap of editor interest and activity between this topic area and Eastern Europe, the committee extends this provision to that topic area. It does so by adding the following text in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe:
  As an alternative to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, editors may make enforcement requests directly to the Arbitration Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
• The Arbitration Committee separately rescinds the part of the January 2022 motion allowing transfer of a case from Arbitration Enforcement to ARCA, in recognition of the now-standard provision in Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee. It does so by striking the following text in its entirety in item number 7:
  In addition to the usual processes, a consensus of administrators at AE may refer complex or intractable issues to the Arbitration Committee for resolution at ARCA, at which point the committee may resolve the request by motion or open a case to examine the issue.
  [archive / log]
• When considering sanctions against editors in the Eastern Europe topic area, uninvolved administrators should consider past sanctions and the findings of fact and remedies issued in this case.

Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked for up to 1 year. Administrators placing blocks should take into account an editor's overall conduct and Arbitration history and seriously consider increasing the duration of blocks. Any block 3 months or longer should be reported for automatic review either (1) at ARCA or (2) to an arbitrator or clerk who will open a review at ARCA. The committee will consider presented evidence and statements before deciding by motion what, if any, actions are necessary, up to and including a site ban.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland closed