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	73	0	82
TfD	0	0	11	0	11
MfD	0	0	2	0	2
FfD	0	0	4	0	4
RfD	0	2	26	0	28
AfD	0	0	13	0	13

• 3 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 8 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 9 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 3 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 128 sockpuppet investigations
• 17 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 0 Fully protected edit requests
• 3 Candidates for history merging
• 12 requests for RD1 redaction
• 27 elapsed requested moves
• 3 Pages at move review
• 46 requested closures
• 168 requests for unblock
• 1 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 23 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (21 out of 7808 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin 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 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup Group A 2024-06-04 02:18 2024-06-11 02:18 move Move warring: per RFPP Daniel Case Robert Adams (spiritual teacher) 2024-06-04 01:59 2024-06-25 01:59 edit,move Edit warring / content dispute: per RFPP Daniel Case Rescue of Ori Megidish 2024-06-04 00:52 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Combat operations in 1964 during the Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation 2024-06-03 23:20 2024-07-03 23:20 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan User talk:Leonidlednev 2024-06-03 22:41 2024-10-08 05:50 move Persistent vandalism Daniel Clancy (album) 2024-06-03 22:03 2024-07-03 22:03 move Persistent vandalism and disruptive editing Carlosguitar Israel–Maldives relations 2024-06-03 21:13 2025-06-03 21:13 edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Sporting CP 2024-06-03 17:42 2024-09-03 17:42 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: Enough. ECR protected. Black Kite Economy of England 2024-06-03 09:21 2026-06-03 09:21 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Draft:Yash Shah 2024-06-03 01:47 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Daniel Case Joseph Kallarangatt 2024-06-02 20:25 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP; raising to ECP Daniel Case Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unzela Khan 2024-06-02 20:21 2024-06-09 20:21 edit Persistent vandalism Star Mississippi Template:Copy to Wikimedia Commons in 2024-06-02 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2571 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II

Theresa Greenfield

• Draft:Theresa Greenfield
• Theresa Greenfield
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theresa Greenfield - redirected to 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 June 4#Theresa Greenfield - endorsed
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 June 15#Theresa Greenfield - no consensus to overturn
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 July 11#Theresa Greenfield - no consensus to overturn

This article has had a rough history. It was nominated for deletion and redirected back in May this year, citing notability concerns. The deletion result was challenged at deletion review three times, as noted above. Meanwhile the article was recreated in place (in good faith) by several editors before the redirect was protected by Muboshgu in June. It was then created as a draft in July, which was submitted to AfC and has been declined three times by two reviewers (Robert McClenon and Bkissin). The draft was significantly reworked since the last decline in August and a third reviewer (UnitedStatesian) decided to accept the draft and made a request at RFPP to unprotect the redirect, which is how I came across the situation.

I declined to unprotect yesterday, suggesting that the draft should pass review first and not realizing that UnitedStatesian's request was an attempt to do so, and because they had already asked Muboshgu and they declined, so I said it should be reviewed one more time. In the midst of that one of the draft's editors pinged Robert McClenon, who again said that he would not accept. While discussing that on the draft's talk page and still not realizing that UnitedStatesian was an AfC reviewer trying to accept, I suggested someone else should review (since Robert McClenon had reviewed twice, or three times if you count the comment today, and was clearly becoming frustrated). Two things happened then more or less simultaneously: UnitedStatesian made a new unprotection request at RFPP explicitly stating they were accepting the draft, and Bkissin chimed in on the talk page that they also would not accept. It's currently marked as "under review".

So basically I've dug this hole as deep as I'd like it to go, and would like someone who hasn't already been involved in this to go get a ladder. Everyone's actions here have been in good faith, but we're clearly stuck. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I am uninvolved, and I do not see any issue. If the article is significantly different from the deleted version (which I have not checked yet) it must be restored (unprotected and moved from the draft); if there are users who doubt notability they can nominate it for AfD. This is how consensus is supposed to work.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Ymblanter, it's in the AFC process, and has been declined a few times. It's under review again now. If it's approved, then you are indeed correct. But what if the draft is declined? Should we move it to mainspace regardless of the AFC review? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I am the reviewer, and I have made the third WP:RPP request, at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Theresa Greenfield, precisely so I can accept the draft. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

UnitedStatesian, is this a good idea? You've been quite vocal about wanting this to be published. I would hope the AFC review was done by someone uninvolved in this process. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

My only involvement has been in the review: only edit to the draft was adding {{draft article}} to it, no participation in the AfD or DRVs. Of course, the review has required discussion on lots of different pages, as is occasionally the case, so I guess that makes me vocal. That said, as in all cases, if my review is stopped by community consensus that continued page protection is warranted, there are plenty of other drafts that need reviewing and I will of course move on to them. UnitedStatesian (talk)

I know that in a situation like this, some editors will say that the answer is clear. I think I see at least two questions where policies and guidelines are not clear, and where perhaps they should be clarified.

The first question is the role of Deletion Review. The redirect has been salted to enforce a Deletion-like decision. The question is: Should it simply be unsalted in response to a request at Requests for Page Unprotection, or should there be a (fourth) appeal to Deletion Review. The instructions for Deletion Review say that it considers situations where the circumstances have changed since the deletion; but some of the DRV regulars get annoyed at such requests and say just to go through AFC without going to DRV.

The second question has to do with the interaction between political notability and general notability. It is usually the rule, including at AFD, that political candidates who do not meet political notability are also not considered to meet general notability solely on the basis of their campaign. This is such a case. Greenfield was not generally notable before she began running for the US Senate. So is this an exceptional case where she is generally notable based solely on her campaign? Questions of general notability are decided at AFD. Since this draft is currently in AFC, the instructions for the AFC reviewers are that a draft should be accepted if it is thought that there is a better than 50% chance of surviving AFD.

A third question, which is not one of unclear policies and guidelines, is whether the reviewer is neutral.

Those, in my opinion, are three questions that are applicable. I am finished reviewing, but I am not finished expressing an opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The notability question can be decided only by community discussion, and the only applicable mechanism we currently have is AfD. The article has failed AfD and DRs, and therefore should not be reinstated - unless there are significant changes which can make it notable, or unless it has been significantly changes with new sources added so that notability can be reasonably considered on basis of these sources, which have not been presented to AfD. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, the only relevant question is whether significant enough sources have been added as compared with the AfD. If yes, the article should be accepted, and a new AfD can be opened. If not, AfD should not be accepted (with the understanding that if she makes it to the Senate in a month, the draft immediately gets moved to the main space - but this is irrelevant for the current discussion).--Ymblanter (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Since the old version was redirected, not deleted, the history is visible, and any editor, not just an administrator, can see the version at the time the AfD closed: it is here, with 5 references. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ymblanter, I see what you're saying, but I find it kind of ridiculously bureaucratic to accept the article just to nominate it for deletion again. At the same time I imagine the best we'd get from another deletion review is relisting the original AfD, which isn't much better neither in terms of bureaucracy nor in terms of moving forward. For what it's worth, this is the article prior to the deletion discussion, versus the current draft (diff, probably not terribly useful). You can see that the draft is expanded substantially from the deleted/redirected article, but does any of the added info address the notability concern? There was a strong sense in the AfD that US Senate candidates are not inherently notable, but do the 62 sources in the draft suggest she is an exception to that general rule? If the only way we can answer that is through a second AfD then I guess that's where we go from here. Can we simply create a new deletion discussion or relist the original and refer to the draft, rather than doing all the work of moving it around? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, my point is that some community discussion should happen somewhere at some point. It should not be happening here, here at AN at best we can have consensus of random admins whether it is time for that discussion to happen, but we can not seriously be discussing whether Theresa Greenfield is notable. We can only discuss whether enough sources have been added for the article to reasonably stand a chance at AfD. It superficially looks to me that we are ready for this community discussion, though at this point I do not see consensus. But it should not depend on a decision of one person who decides to remove or not to remove protection of a redirect. Administrators do not have any particular say in the content area, and the further process should not depend on whether a user accepting AfC is administrator or not. Concerning the process itself, a new AfD seems to me much better than MfD (for the reasons explained below) and reopening the May AfD (well, if the article is essentially the same, one AfD is enough, and if it is different the old arguments are not relevant anymore), but I am open to better solutions.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

For consistency, perhaps we should treat this the same as Draft:Rishi Kumar, another "local" candidate for a Federal office whose article name redirects to a similar place as Theresa Greenfield. The deletion discussion, as well as AFC comments, determined that the article should reside in draft space until after the election. The same should be applied here. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The current draft for Greenfield's article lists significantly more coverage in both regional and national newspapers than Kumar's draft. To support analysis (because the current draft lists a somewhat daunting number of sources, some of which are fairly minor), I pulled out a list of ten example sources that contribute to notability at Draft talk:Theresa Greenfield#Greenfield draft status, and I added a couple more here: Draft talk:Theresa Greenfield#Two additional sources. To me, this kind of discussion supports Ymblanter and Ivanvector's points that we need to figure the right way to get to an AfD -- I believe that a better venue for a robust and organized discussion about notability thresholds would be AfD. I believe that even though it'd be a bit bureaucratic to create the article just for somebody to nominate it for AfD, it'd at least be a logical process. Dreamyshade (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

There's always Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, which is where Draft:Rishi Kumar was discussed. I have doubts that this candidate was notable before becoming this candidate, and I am concerned that the existing coverage is nothing more than routine for any federal-office candidate. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of MFD. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the draft should be deleted. Draftifying the article until after the election is a possible outcome of an AFD. I don't see the relevance of MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, if I saw this Draft article in mainspace I would AfD it. Lots and lots of sources, but zero coverage of her outside of her political candidacy. Obviously, should she win the election... Black Kite (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I just took a brief foray into the draft and right off the bat removed some citations that seemed to have no point other than to make the reflist look impressive. Such articles, if they appear in mainspace, tend to get moved immediately to draft space. There it should stay until the reflist is cleaned up. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I am involved in the sense that my wife and I have donated to Greenfield's Senate campaign (and about a dozen similar campaigns) recently. But I do not support accepting this draft before the election. We have quite a few years of precedent that we do not accept biographies of otherwise non-notable unelected political candidates, but instead cover these people in neutral articles about the election campaign. In this case, the redirect to 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa is correct. I think that the description of Greenfield in that article could be expanded in the interim. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll add, as an administrator, that I am not comfortable unprotecting the main space title so the draft can be moved there. I am not getting the sense that the other three admins in this discussion (User:Ivanvector, User:Muboshgu, and User:Cullen) are comfortable with that either. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

What about User:Ymblanter? UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

collapse tangential thread

@Cullen328: I think you'll find, as I have, that the precedent you cite is beginning to change: certainly Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marquita Bradshaw and Cori Bush (both of whom, editors asserted, essentially, were "notable because they weren't previously notable," which doesn't make a lot of sense if you think about it) are signs of that. Both show that, instead, Wikipedia is going more consistently wherever reliable sources' significant coverage takes us. Which is a good thing. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC) Marquita Bradshaw was a mistake to not delete, but thank you for reminding me that the closing admin recommended we discuss a merge. I'll get on that shortly. That article has the same reference puffery as Anachronist was finding here. Winning the primary election in Cori Bush's district is tantamount to election. WP:OTHERSTUFF existing doesn't mean that Theresa Greenfield should exist. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC) Just make sure if Marquita Bradshaw is merged, this time you ask a different admin. to protect the resulting redirect. Because you know, WP:INVOLVED. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC) My take on Marquita Blackshaw was that the claim of being the first black woman to win a major party primary in the state of Tennessee was enough to convince enough editors to express keeping the article. Thus, the argument was framed in a way that may pass WP:NPOL as expressed in WP:POLOUTCOMES. --Enos733 (talk) 05:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• This is not nearly as complicated as you are making it out to be. You come across an unprotection request, you check whether you would WP:G4 the draft if it were in mainspace. If you would, you decline to unprotect. If you would not, you unprotect. If you don't know, leave the request alone. If everyone leaves it alone, the filer will start a discussion somewhere to achieve a consensus that admins will be comfortable acting on. It is irrelevant how many admins would AFD it or !vote delete. There is no set>=n, where n is the number of admins that can dictate without a need for community consensus whether or not a topic deserves an article. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• Let me emphasise: if you would not G4 the draft as soon as it got to mainspace but would require an AFD, you have no authority to stop an editor who has the ability to accept drafts from doing so. G4 is more or less an objective measure. You just have to read the AFD and compare the two articles. Everything else is irrelevant. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

This is related to a concern I've expressed earlier in this process: WP:PROTECT describes protection as being appropriate when there is "a specifically identified likelihood of damage resulting if editing is left open". I haven't seen any threat of edit warring or other damage here -- everyone involved in this discussion has been acting in good faith, being civil, and making efforts to interpret WP:GNG and WP:NPOL in constructive ways for an encyclopedia. The draft article can definitely be improved further, but we don't have a requirement for articles to be excellent before they get created. I don't see a policy basis for using full protection in this way. Dreamyshade (talk) 04:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The redirect was repeatedly expanded into full article contra AFD consensus between the AFD and the full protection. So, that's the threat. WP:SALT, which is policy, says in its first sentence, that admins can prevent creation of pages. That is what this full protection does. It keeps the redirect (which doesn't have consensus to delete, and also doesn't need to be edited anyway) and stops the full article from being created. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• I don't see how one AfC reviewer gets to overrule the numerous prior discussions on this. The consensus in the AfD was that the subject isn't independently notable as an unelected candidate for office and should be covered in the article about the election. This is a very common outcome. The issue was taken to DRV three times, each time by someone who had found more news sources which cover her in the context of the election, and each time the discussion declined to reinstate the article. The draft which we now have still doesn't attempt to address this fundamental problem. Yes, there are plenty of news articles, but that's because competitive senate elections always generate news coverage. Essentially all the sources cited still cover her in the context of the election. I suggest we wait until the election, which is just over a month away. If she wins then she will be unambiguously notable, if she loses then I suspect the fuss will die down. Hut 8.5 07:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

  This is probably the best outcome we can now come up with.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

  I don't see "competitive senate elections always generate news coverage" as a counter-argument by itself for WP:GNG - a campaign like this generates significant news coverage because it's "worthy of notice" to a lot of people, because it's important and of interest to a lot of people. I believe a person primarily covered in the context of an election can still meet the notability standards, especially if there's a lot of national reporting and in-depth reporting over a couple years or more. The question to me is whether the current draft Greenfield is there, and AN still doesn't seem to be the right venue for that -- there are a lot of comments here that are essentially AfD-style comments, without being at AfD (including mine). Dreamyshade (talk) 22:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• One key point I feel that I should note is that AfC reviewers don't (and aren't supposed to) act off a "guaranteed to be notable" standard. Instead, if something is likely to pass, we should accept it, and then let the Community review it. Likewise, unprotection requests should work off that basis. Now whether people think it should wait until after the election, I discourage that, but it's viable as a second choice. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• I will restate a few policy and procedure issues that I think are touched on by this case:

Here are three issues that are involved in the question about Theresa Greenfield:

• Should candidates for politically notable offices be considered to meet general notability on the basis of significant coverage of the campaign, if the candidate was not previously considered notable? It has in general been the practice of Wikipedia that candidates are not considered to satisfy general notability on the basis of election coverage, and therefore do not qualify for articles before the election if they did not have them before the campaign. This question arises frequently, and it would be a good idea either to address it on a general basis or to decide that it is always addressed on a case-by-case basis.

• When should a single AFC reviewer be allowed to accept a draft if the same title was previously deleted by AFD? When should Deletion Review be required? The instructions for DRV say that DRV can review deletions when the circumstances have changed, such as new sources or new activities. However, the DRV regulars normally tell applicants not to go to DRV but simply to submit the new draft for review.

• When should a single AFC reviewer be allowed to request that a title be unsalted if the same title was previously create-protected? This question is related to the above, but is not the same.

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• *Gets up on soapbox* I think Wikipedia is grossly irresponsible in our election coverage for the role we play in promoting incumbents over challengers. We should have some level of information about candidates for people seeking information about an election. This doesn't need to be done through a full article but could happen through reasonable coverage in an election article. The incumbent will still get a full article as opposed to say a paragraph (or two, maybe three) but our readers deserve to know more about Greenfield than Theresa Greenfield, businesswoman, candidate for Iowa's 3rd congressional district in 2018 which is what we're saying now.*Gets off soapbox*
  Why do we create protect articles (SALT)? Because repeated discussions are a drain on the community's time and attention. DRV has said three times that this isn't ready for mainspace. Robert is right that DRV also frequently says "don't bother us go to AfC or just recreate it" but that's after substantially new information or reasonable time has passed. Neither is true in this case. I am all for consensus changing but repeating the same discussion regularly is a form of disruption. This salting should hold. I am thankful that I got the chance to levy one of my biggest systemic criticism of our content in a public forum but other than that don't think repeated discussions are helpful. Waiting until after the election is not so cop-out or thwarting of our process. It is being respectful of the time, energy, thought, and collaboration that has already occurred about this topic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
• The rule should be that challengers who receive significant national or international coverage (that is, non-local coverage, or coverage outside of the area where they are running) are notable enough for a page. Greenfield would meet that test (most general election US Senate candidates would), but not every candidate for every office would. Lev!vich 01:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
• I have some thoughts about this. If we were looking at an open seat, with both candidates not previously having held elected office, we would not advantage any incumbent. Furthermore, the idea that we are giving an advantage to the incumbent because they have an article disregards to an extent the possibility that their article itself may prove less-than-flattering (as people with opposing views often try to insert as much negativity as they can, while those with supporting views try to keep that sort of thing out). We have articles for all U.S. Senators because that is a reasonable barometer of notability, given the power and influence they wield. This includes articles for senators who or elected for a single term and did not run for re-election, so incumbency over an opponent was never an issue at all. We can't treat articles on U.S. senators any differently based on their possibly being challenged by somebody who does not fall into any other bucket for notability. That said, I do think there is inherent notability in a major party nominee for a U.S. Senate seat garnering national attention due to their perceived possibility of winning that seat (or, sometimes, due to other behaviour in the course of the campaign). This, of course, raises a question that has not yet been addressed, which is whether we should then create articles generally on historical losing major-party U.S. Senate candidates who garnered such attention during their candidacy. This is a discussion perhaps best left until the current silly season passes. If we do enact such a standard in the future, than Theresa Greenfield will merit an article at that point even if she has lost her Senate bid. BD2412 T 03:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

A problem with this suggestion is the phrase "major party candidate," which inserts a bit of political favoritism into which candidates may receive articles, and does not account for the fact that the relative strength of a party (or its nominee) varies from state to State. Even if we defer to the political jurisdictions themselves of who is a major party nominee, the Legal Marijuana Now Party is a major party in the State of Minnesota and I don't think that its nominee is notable. --Enos733 (talk) 04:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Major party candidate here is basically shorthand for someone coming from a political party that is able to provide the resources to make a U.S. Senate race competitive, which is what leads to the national press coverage of the subject. BD2412 T 15:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

• Let me throw these two things into the existing discussion. A 2019 Centralized Discussion on candidate notability was closed with No Consensus, so this is an issue that we have been contending with for years now. Additionally, a candidate not having an article is not shutting out that candidate. In the United States context, we have articles for each state's congressional and state elections. Information about the candidate can easily be added there without creating a separate article. In Parliamentary contexts (Canada more specifically), we have created list articles with basic information about a party's candidates. How many of these losing candidates pass the ten year test in terms of their long-term relevance? Bkissin (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
• This is trivial. Does the topic meet the GNG? Yes? Have article. We don't expect coverage of baseball players outside of baseball, why does anyone expect coverage of a politician outside of politics? Hobit (talk) 01:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • What he said. The existing policy to routinely reject articles on as-yet unelected politicians seems absurd to me. If a person gets coverage, I don't care who they friggin' are, or what the context is, if they get stuff like national coverage, then my God shouldn't we have an article on them? Why do politicians get assigned a different standard than other people? You pass GNG, you get an article. End of discussion. You don't pass GNG but you do pass a subject-specific guideline, boom, you get an article. That's how it works for everything else on Wikipedia. That is exactly how it should work for politicians. Anything else is following a rule because it's a rule. WP:IAR is a POLICY! A loose necktie (talk) 02:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Just to respond to the above comment from an WP:AFC perspective (and not as a response to this particular draft), we tend to view such things like "running for a political office" as akin to WP:BLP1E; i.e. if the only coverage of a person is because they ran/are running for office, then they could have dozens of references but it's all about the same event (and is somewhat reflected in WP:NPOL). A notable example I can think of is from earlier this year, where there was a trans politician who (if they won) would have been the first trans politician from somewhere like Maine (or the USA, can't honestly remember); they didn't even make it past the primaries, so despite the relatively large body of coverage the article was deleted ("they ran for office that one time" isn't something that makes notability). You might think we hold this ridiculous standard for aspiring politicians, but we have tons of special exemptions (going in both directions) to either raise up "hidden" groups like educators or keep the veritable flood of bit-playing actors or potential-politicians who never get elected from having one-paragraph permastubs. Primefac (talk) 09:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
    • I would agree in the case of a candidate who runs once, but after the first time there is a point when they become a perennial candidate, maybe hoping to eventually reach Lyndon LaRouche-level. 2020 is this candidate's second campaign (as is referenced in the draft via significant coverage in reliable sources). Separately, the reference above to the WP:10Y test above is interesting, since there was a Senate election in this same state exactly 10 years ago, and guess what, we have an article on the losing candidate. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
      • • UnitedStatesian, the two cases are not comparable. Roxanne Conlin was a U.S. Attorney confirmed by the Senate, and was also the first woman president of the American Trial Lawyers Association. She is notable for those reasons. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
          • Of those two reasons, neither has an inline cite to an independent source. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
      • And how many articles do we have on football players, who all qualify for standalone permastub articles based on subject specific guidelines and whose articles will never, ever be expanded in 10 or even 100 years but also never, ever be deleted, while wringing our hands over allowing people to create articles on as-yet unelected political candidates with ample national coverage and lots of published information, whom we disqualify from having articles because "we just don't do that"? If we cared about permastubs, we'd address it in other contexts. We don't. And we could all stop caring about the politicians if we just followed our own policies regarding what makes a subject notable, and stop applying different rulers to different topics as a means to delete or remove articles on those subjects— I'm all for using them to include, since that is how they were meant to be used. Think of the headaches that wouldn't have to happen! Of the discussions we wouldn't have to waste time on! Like this one! Yay! A loose necktie (talk) 17:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
        • And how many articles do we have on football players Usually best not to compare the sphere of interest here to one of the known problem children of the notability guidelines. --Izno (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "We don't expect coverage of baseball players outside of baseball, why does anyone expect coverage of a politician outside of politics?" Unless and until she is elected she hasn't done anything in politics. She's basically stood up and said "please, please, please let me do something in politics, I would really appreciate it, I have such great ideas", but she's done zip. Giving her an article is not the same as giving a baseball player an article for playing baseball, it's the equivalent of giving anybody who ever wanted to be a baseball player an article. --Khajidha (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Notified: Draft talk:Theresa Greenfield. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 18:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• This is a good discussion, and I have to get up on my own soapbox here and echo Barkeep49's grand concern above that we're generally irresponsible in our election coverage, but for me it's in the opposite direction of Barkeep's argument. We cover elections in far too much detail. We're supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a newspaper: we're supposed to write basically academic summaries of things that already exist or have already happened, after all the discussion is had (so we're not the ones having it; WP:OR, WP:NOTESSAY) and when things aren't constantly changing, based on reliable sources that review those subjects in retrospect, not as they happen. We're incredibly poor at providing balanced coverage of anything that is ongoing because we're not set up to be objective to current events. We should not write about elections at all until the ballots are counted, in my ideal world, and certainly not while the propaganda machines are in full swing. Maybe this gripe is neither here nor there with respect to this discussion, but since it was brought up now you all get to enjoy my opinion. (/soapbox) There are a lot of quality arguments here on what our guidelines should be, and those are good discussions to have, but there's pretty clearly not a consensus here to restore the article or to do anything with the protection. I think Cullen328's advice to expand her content in the Senate election article is the way forward. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

  I agree we cover many ongoing events in more coverage than an encyclopedia strictly would. In an abstract sense the idea of saying "we're not going to cover something until X months/years after it happens" makes sense to me given NOTNEWS/the first pillar. However, that's only in the abstract sense; I can't imagine if we had only begun covering COVID or if we couldn't reference someone's death because not enough time had elapsed. If we're going to start drawing lines about where we need to be careful about covering ongoing events the idea that we're covering elections too much seems like a strange place to start drawing that line. Our articles on elections are poor and serve our readers poorly - they become lists of endorsements and other things that fit nicely in tables rather than prose. But the fact that we do a poor job of it now isn't to say we're over covering it; it's to say we should do a better job of covering them with-in our encyclopedic mission. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• For most topics, a deletion review is final. On this particular matter, we've had several successive deletion reviews and now we've got an appeal to the administrator's noticeboard. As this is purely a content decision, it's simply not open to administrators to overrule DRV here. I suggest that this is closed without result and referred back to DRV.—S Marshall T/C 01:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
• I'll just say it again: there can be no dispute as to if this meets the GNG. And the SNG says: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." We have a huge number of high-quality sources that cover her in massive detail. So from a guideline viewpoint, this is open-and-shut. The problem is that people are trying to create a new SNG and even though they have failed to do so, somehow we still pretend like that SNG exists and has consensus. It's a bit maddening frankly. Hobit (talk) 13:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

  You missed a bit: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article --Khajidha (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

  Certainly. And we'd done things like not have articles on things like "Donald Trump's hands" on that basis. But a person with this much coverage? I can't think of any such case. The GNG is a bit more clear "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." This is clearly way over the bar of the GNG. And yes, we can merge articles still for organizational reasons. But AfD doesn't normally address *that*. The simple fact is, this person easily meets every relevant guideline we have for inclusion. Her case is not unusual. If we don't want articles like hers, there should be consensus that can be found for the general case. But no such consensus exists. Hobit (talk) 16:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

  Reading that draft, I don't see anything that I would call "significant". She exists. She has a family. She has run for office. But she hasn't really DONE anything, so there's nothing to say about her. --Khajidha (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

  Erb? First of all, that's not part of our inclusion guidelines. We have articles on people who are only famous for being famous. Secondly, she's done a ton. In the last hour there is reporting on an FEC filing against her [1]. In the last 12 hours there is a story on her leading in the polls against the incumbent [2]. She's been campaigning and the news folks think that is important enough to report on [3]. She was in a debate covered and broadcast by national news [4]. I doubt that 5% of our subjects have done as much. Probably not even done as much as she has in the last 7 days. Hobit (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

  Still nothing there besides "hey, this lady's running for election". --Khajidha (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

  A) Most soccer players are just "hey, this guy plays soccer". Most academics are "Hey this guy is an academic". And she has tons more coverage, include deep bios etc., than the vast majority of either of those. B) who cares? That isn't even vaguely part of our inclusion guidelines. She meets WP:N with more coverage than 90%+ of our bios. You are far into WP:IAR territory. Hobit (talk) 12:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

  The difference is the soccer player actually plays and the academic has earned a degree or published a work. Giving her an article is the equivalent of giving an article to anyone who walks into team tryouts or applies to a university for admission.--Khajidha (talk) 03:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  I'm guessing you don't understand US senate elections? It takes a lot of work to become a senate candidate in a competitive race. To maintain the sports analogy, it means you've made it to the playoffs, but might not win the championship. We cover even athletes that have never won a championship. Now it *is* tricky because in some non-competitive races for lesser offices it is pretty much someone just applying. But that certainly isn't the case here. Hobit (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  Oh, I understand them and I'm not saying that running an election campaign is easy. But the entire campaign is still just the equivalent of trying out for a team or applying for admission to a university. It's still just "I wanna do something" and not "I'm doing something". --Khajidha (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  And that's not an inclusion criteria in any policy or guideline. Perfectly reasonable WP:IAR viewpoint, but not based in any of our rules. Hobit (talk) 12:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

  It's the perfectly obvious reading of the policy. 1) No source establishes notability outside of the election and 2) the coverage of her campaign is simply routine coverage of an election, not enough to establish her notability. --Khajidha (talk) 14:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• My apologies for what I am sure are going to be some formatting errors, but I have not extensively used my Wikipedia editing permissions over the years. I was recently shocked to discover that Theresa Greenfield does not have a Wikipedia page; and not only that, but "Theresa Greenfield (American Politician)" is an article that's been created and deleted several times, and "Theresa Greenfield" redirects to a section of the article about the Iowan Senate Race (and that section isn't particularly about Greenfield), while her opponent has a very robust article. This back-and-forth appears to have been going on since this spring, and the election is just over two weeks away. I'm honestly surprised that this discussion largely seems to be circling around notability. Nearly all of the highest level legislative change or stability in the United States comes from the governing power of the US Senate. Having been controlled by one major political party for many years; but with numerous Congressional seats up for election, and many polls showing potential political shifts, there is a chance for another political party to take control of the Senate, with the implications of immense changes in US policy, both domestic and abroad. Only a very few number of US States have the chance to alter their representative political party in the Senate, and Greenfield is the incumbent's opponent in the "swing state" of Iowa. As a Greenfield victory could alter the political makeup of the US Senate, the leading legislative body of one of the most internationally-influential countries in the world, her political career is very notable. There are very, very many news sources - on the local, state, and national levels - citing her campaign; which, as an example, just raised a record amount of money for a Iowan running for US Congress. I've always thought of Wikipedia as a place for unbiased information - the Encyclopedia of the internet - and as authors, editors, & admins - it would seem that we have the opportunity to "balance out the objectivity" with her State's incumbent's article. I realize this is adding some real-world context to a platform that should be neutral of current events, but voters in Iowa started receiving their ballots last week, and the election closes in just over two weeks. They are trying to make their most critical political decision right now, and an objective, unbiased article on this candidate is an immensely important resource. If they currently search Wikipedia, and see the incumbent's robust article and no article for Theresa Greenfield, that is a potential strong influence on their decision-making. Please reconsider unlocking ("un-salting?") this article ASAP so that we can populate it with objective, practical, widely-covered information. Charlie918 (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

  "As a Greenfield victory could alter the political makeup of the US Senate, the leading legislative body of one of the most internationally-influential countries in the world, her political career is very notable. " Nope. Her career will only be notable if she wins. "If they currently search Wikipedia, and see the incumbent's robust article and no article for Theresa Greenfield, that is a potential strong influence on their decision-making. " Why would you go to an encyclopedia for this? This is something that newspapers and voter's organizations and such are much better designed for. --Khajidha (talk) 17:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

  Well I'm afraid there are Wikipedia precedents that are counter to your argument of not being noteworthy until being elected to office. Tommy Tuberville is the nominated Senate seat challenger in Alabama, and has never held public office. He has in fact been the head of several organizations, as has Greenfield. John E. James is the nominated Senate seat challenger in Michigan. He has never held public office, and therefore his only notable accomplishments on his Wikipedia page are that he served in the military and worked for a company. With the nearly daily news articles between city, state, and national news outlets about Theresa Greenfield for the past month, I can't see why these two yet-to-win political candidates are cleanly permitted to have Wikipedia articles, but one of the nominees in one of the most critical "swing states" - a multi-business owner and setting a political fundraising record for the state - would not be notable. This sincerely might just be my misunderstanding of what constitutes 'notability' on Wikipedia. Charlie918 (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

  Charlie918, Tommy Tuberville is notable for his college football career. James' article may not survive an AfD. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument to make. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

  Muboshgu, then this is most likely simply a teachable moment for me, and there's probably a well-written explanation somewhere that I just can't seem to locate. For a Wikipedia article about a person, what constitutes "notability?" If I do a Google search for "Theresa Greenfield," there are virtually limitless articles from various print, digital, and televised news outlets about her going back months, nearly daily since her televised debate, with her name in the headline. There are even more articles significantly about her where her name isn't necessarily in the headline (e.g. "SCOTUS battle crashes into decisive Senate race in Iowa," Politico, James Arkin, September 30, 2020). Is the sheer volume of content created specifically about an individual by news outlets not a consideration in determining someone's notability? If not, what is? Honestly thank you for any insights, this is the first time I've been involved in a blocked article discussion. Charlie918 (talk) 03:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  Charlie918, apologies if I assumed that you are better versed with Wiki policy than you are. The main notability guideline is WP:GNG, and the specific notability guideline for politicians is at WP:NPOL. The presence of citations alone is not enough as the context needs to be considered. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  Muboshgu, many thanks for these links, this is precisely what I had been looking for. My next inquiry may require further source citation. Under the politician-specific guidelines you shared WP:NPOL, it reads, "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline" WP:GNG. In that first page, it is my interpretation that as the final one of two candidates to represent the entire state of Iowa in the American senate, Greenfield passes the "Major local political figures," and while I've previously noted she has significant press coverage, "who have received significant press coverage." In looking at the General Guidelines you linked, there appear to be five qualifiers: (1) Significant Coverage - there are virtually countless articles, hours of taped interview footage, social media, and more that cover Greenfield's political campaign, personal life, and career. (2/3) Reliable Sources - there are many, many articles and news TV segments from city, state, and national outlets covering Theresa Greenfield, so my assumption is that these qualify as reliable sources. (4) Independent of the Subject - these news articles were not produced by Theresa Greenfield. (5) Presumed - this of course seems to imply that even if a subject meets all the criteria, a more in depth discussion may need to occur for the subject to receive an article. Reviewing most of the comments in here over the last five months, it would appear that the majority of these comments seem to support having the article. If the question remains about notability, I wonder if this context is appropriate to apply: The United States government is is one of the most internationally-influential governing bodies in modern times. Within that government, the United States Senate - made up of two representatives from each of the 50 States - is arguably the most powerful, able to enact laws, impeach a president, make treaties, and more. In America's two-party system, simple majority of the Senate means that party will be able to enact their agenda for 2-4 years, and block the agenda of the other party, and thus significantly determine the country's global and domestic policies. In America's current election, there is a chance for the Senate to change party power, with many Senate seats up for election. Based on the political affiliation of the various states' populations, most of these elections are insignificant - people will vote for their party, and their Senate representatives will remain of the same political party. However, there are just five state elections that are qualified as a "toss up," which means due to the near-balanced political affiliations of their residents, determined through a combination of the national census and polling, it cannot be confidently forecasted which political party will win the state. Theresa Greenfield is the Democratic candidate in one of those five states. If the American Democratic party does in fact take control of the Senate in this election, the international and domestic policy changes - including enacting impeachment proceedings for the current president if he remains in power - would be significant, affecting - in various ways and degrees - billions of people around the world. Given this context, and the objective criteria thresholds of Wikipedia, it is my belief that Theresa Greenfield is notable, and should be permitted to have her own Wikipedia page now, not after her potential electoral victory. Thank you for your discussion and patience. Charlie918 (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  How much of that coverage is about her per se and how much is about the election? Consensus on Wikipedia has always been that people who are otherwise not notable do not gain notability just by running for office. That's why this article has been redirected to the election article and that outcome has been endorsed multiple times. Unless and until that consensus changes (and this is not the place to argue that, per User:Spartaz's post below), there is no point in continuing this argument here. --Khajidha (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  Khajidha In preparing a draft article on my desktop before learning about the controversial history of this Wikipedia article, I have 21 articles saved in Word with Theresa Greenfield's name in the headline just from the last two weeks. The subject matter is a mixture of reviewing her professional career (as it relates to her qualifications for the role), her efforts and notable events of her campaign, and her personal background (education, family, organizational memberships, etc.). Several lines up, Muboshgu, who made the original redirect and lock - to my understanding - made the case that because Wikipedia articles currently exist about campaigning politicians who are otherwise non-notable is not a considerable precedent in determining if a page about Theresa Greenfield should be permitted; then your reverse argument, that "Wikipedia's consensus is that articles about political candidates who are otherwise not notable should not be published," would seem irrelevant. If a precedent is not to be considered, and only the objective notoriety rules of Wikipedia are to be weighed, then Theresa Greenfield would appear to qualify by those rules. Charlie918 (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

First of all, I have to cop to not having read all the links, so if this has been stated already, my apologies. While on the one hand it rankles that she doesn't have a page, on the other, I get the Notability issue, and I'm a believer in the policy. Still, I remember the AOC situation, and in retrospect, that was a blunder on our part. But if we obey N, where is the blunder? Well, either in the fact that "being a candidate doess not ipso facto make you notable" (for which this is not the right venue, WT:N is, so let's set that one aside right now) or else, we're not taking the right approach.

What about this? We have here, in my opinion, a WP:BIO1E event; Greenfield *is* notable (or rather, the one event is), but not before she was a candidate. Therefore, what? Same thing as for Sandra Bland ^[noredirect] ⟶ Death of Sandra Bland; so we create Senate candidacy of Theresa Greenfield. Anyone here want to declare that this is definitely not notable? I bet I could drown you in sources for that. Then, Theresa Greenfield gets pointed to that. If she loses, and never does another thing in her life, that will be her obituary. Am I missing something? Mathglot (talk) 02:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

2020 United States Senate election in Iowa is the article for the "one event" in question. --Khajidha (talk) 03:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

That's a related topic for sure, but not quite the identical topic, and not a BIO1E, but rather a recurring event whose article title could be generated by computer. If that article were entitled, 2020 Ernst-Greenfield Senate election you might have a point, but it still wouldn't be the same topic. Mathglot (talk) 04:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

This is an entirely pointless discussion because this is essentially a content dispute where the policy, precedent and weight of several discussions is not to have an article. This whole thread is simply extended special pleading and asking the other parent. If you think the page should exist then your quest starts at WT POLITICIAN and I wish you good luck with that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I believe this is a quite productive discussion, because it points out that there is no clear and accepted community consensus or clear written guideline for the notability of prominent candidates for high-level office who receive substantial, reliable, independent coverage over time (including significant national coverage). There are a lot of experienced editors here with one interpretation of the guidelines, and a lot of experienced editors with a different interpretation. And this discussion is very diffuse, over several talk pages -- there's also more at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Changing NPOL to include at least some more nominees. Dreamyshade (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• The US election is in a couple weeks? She was deleted because she's only notable for being a candidate, right? Why can't we just keep this deleted, wait to see if she wins, and then have a new discussion after the election? This happens all the time, specifically with US elections, and then once the candidate has officially lost most or all resistance to keeping the article goes away, especially if you give it a couple years. SportingFlyer T·C 12:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• If the person passes GNG and there is no WP:BIO1E issue as pointed out above (the article was deleted at AfD before she received in-depth coverage), there is no proper reason to ban this article no matter how close or far an election is. Oakshade (talk) 06:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

• Two points:
  1. Is there an article for every other currently running candidate in every election for US Senate/House seat that is up for grabs this election? (I am assuming we have articles on the incumbents office holders)? If we have them on nearly all of them and hers is an an exception, that's a problem that we should fix. If hers is but many that we do not have, then I fail to see where the problem is. The arguments that show her lack of notability (just running for election is not showing depth of coverage about her directly) have been well presented.
  2. If we move her article to mainspace, it cannot look like a political ad. The draft presently looks like this with the section on her platform. Her platform can be discussed but it needs to be presented far less as a political position and more neutrality along with any criticism of it. Ideally, the platform should be part of the election article, and only her key policies that she has stood being and discussed at length should be on her bio page. --Masem (t) 14:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Redirect

While this article is in limbo can we at least get the redirect pointed to 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa#Democratic primary so users can easily find the three paragraphs on the candidate there? There's no named section for her so at present it represents a navigational challenge. Artw (talk) 02:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Right now due to the confusion around this article there’s a half dozen venues I could make this request, if this isn’t the right one feel free to point me at the right one, but it seems like an easy move to make Wikipedia slightly less broken in this case rather than fully broken. Artw (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Artw, I've just made the change. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Cheers. Artw (talk) 04:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

IAR

Allow me to quote from black-letter written Wikipedia policy: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." WP:IAR.

In this case, we have this long tortured discussion about particular paths around purely procedural matters, which is preventing the movement of a perfectly valid draft (I'm not saying a perfect article by any means - a valid draft) about someone who is clearly notable as evidenced by literally thousands of high quality third party reliable sources. If a particular set of rules which work in ordinary circumstances have brought us to this absurd state of affairs, that's ok: one of the oldest and most important rules of Wikipedia exists to save us.

If Wikipedia, due to some procedural rules, doesn't have an article on the clear frontrunner in a US Senate race, then it is the rules that are preventing people from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. IAR tells us what to do: ignore those rules. This is policy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Note that User:Francis Schonken made a NAC closure of this discussion[5] and moved the draft to Theresa Greenfield (politician), while Theresa Greenfield is a fully protected redirect. Apart from other considerations (e.g. that IAR doesn't trump consensus, and a close should judge the consensus here instead of misusing IAR as a supervote), this technical issue, forcing Francis Schonken to create a disambiguated page to circumvent the full protection shows wby this shouldn't have been closed and enacted by a non-admin. Fram (talk) 08:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The "A" in IAR stands for "All" – so I wasn't too selective in which rules I was ignoring and which ones I wasn't (...but there certainly was more than one I was ignoring, although I certainly must have been still very far from ignoring each and every rule this namespace holds). For the record, I was in the midst of filing a WP:RM#Uncontroversial technical requests to get the content to the right place (didn't want to leave the article in a place with an unnecessary disambiguator in its title), but stopped typing that request now. I'd like to invite Fram, or whoever reads this, to do a better proposal for triggering prompt reaction to get this sorted in the shortest delay of time possible. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

An "uncontroversial technical request" to get a fully protected page unprotected so you can get a declined AfC submission, the topic of a lengthy discussion at WP:AN, at your preferred result? That would me a rather severe misuse of the term "uncontroversial"... The better way would be to propose a closure here, get a consensus for it, and then let people implement the close. If there is no consensus to be found, then we are stuck with the status quo. Fram (talk) 08:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The "A" in the abbreviation of the name of the IAR policy still seems to trip you over. Yes, IAR would usually mean ignoring multiple rules. Anyhow, closure request logged at WP:ANRFC#Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Theresa Greenfield. Thanks for that suggestion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not claiming that you wouldn't be ignoring all rules when you would post a highly controversial move at the "uncontroversial moves" requests. I'm just pointing out that it would be a doomed effort which would only boomerang against you, as it would be very swiftly rejected and would reflect badly on you in discussions about your actions. WP:IAR doesn't, contrary to what you seem to imply, mean "edits used with this rationale can't be criticized or lead to admin actions against me". Fram (talk) 10:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I understand that. Thanks for reminding. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

While I appreciate Jimbo's concerns, I feel I have to point out the last time an admin "took initiative" and IARed like this, they got desysopped. Specifically, I agree with his talk page comment "I would personally WP:IAR and move the draft into article space, but I believe doing so would simply generate unhelpful press coverage of an unfortunately disappointing failure of the slow grinding wheels of our policies." - or indeed, reams of pages on here and possibly Arbcom from everyone who disagrees. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm with Jimbo on this one. Let's not make the Donna Strickland and Clarice Phelps mistakes yet again. Lev!vich 14:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm with Ritchie on this one. It's all well and good for Jimbo to say "IAR!" from his high perch, but regular editors who use that as a reason to bypass a consensus discussion are going to face harsh criticism for their actions, if not winding up blocked. If Jimbo thinks this is good enough reason, let him do it & deal with the fallout. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

There was an overwhelming community consensus at wp:AN, and an obvious conclusion. She slam-dunk met WP:GNG many times over and per wp:notability that means we need look no further regarding wp:notability. Egalitarianism aside, something that comes from Jimbo has extra weight, and even that was just to expedite (and read the community consensus from a different place wp:AN) what was inevitable, and which had strong community consensus. North8000 (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Towards closure

For reference, the previous discussions: AfD from May, DRVs June 4 (endorse), June 15 ("There is substantial and well-argued support for the idea that we should have an article rather than a redirect here; but it falls short of a consensus to overturn"), and July 11 ("I don't see a consensus to overturn here"). Draft AfC rationales here.

Both sides have been thoroughly argued here and elsewhere. I note this to make clear that even though this particular section of the discussion has been open for less than a day, closing it at this time is justified. There is clearly a time sensitivity here, due to the widespread attention that this matter is receiving.

The key argument in support is that the subject is now notable, due to the press coverage received in the last several months. The key arguments in opposition are that the subject is not notable, either directly citing WP:NPOL or stating that she is "only running for office", and that WP:AN is not the correct venue to decide this matter.

The current draft lists 67 sources, the vast majority of which relate to the present election. Reading through this discussion and the discussion on the draft, the majority view is that they are sufficient to pass WP:GNG. I don't see a need to quote specific arguments here, they have been repeated many times below.

On WP:NPOL, it is undisputed that Greenfield fails to meet either of the presumed to be notable criteria. However, many users note that the same section continues: Just being...an unelected candidate for political office does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline.

As to forum, it isn't clear what the correct venue would be. WP:DRV could be appropriate, but so is WP:AFC. A recent AfC reviewer noted that no AfC reviewer can accept this or any future version of this draft unless [an administrator unprotects Theresa Greenfield]. Since non-admin AfC reviewers are unable to accept this draft (even if they believe it should be accepted, as at least one previous reviewer has stated in this discussion), this requires administrative attention.

Consensus is that the subject does meet the GNG. NPOL defers to the GNG in the case of unelected candidates. Consensus can change, and clearly it has changed since the AfD nearly five months ago. The move protection should be lifted, and the draft version of Theresa Greenfield should be accepted. The administrator responsible for the original protection has offered to implement this, so I'll allow them to do so.

If users believe that the current version of the article is still unsuitable, then the normal process would be to nominate it at WP:AFD.

ST47 (talk) 21:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

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

---

Current state of play:

• The current article is at Draft:Theresa Greenfield (in the last few hours it was moved to Theresa Greenfield (politician) and then moved back).
• The AfD was closed as redirect to 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa#Democratic primary on 31 May 2020 (with three deletion reviews).
• Theresa Greenfield is the redirect per above, and was fully protected on 15 June 2020.

It seems Draft:Theresa Greenfield should be moved to Theresa Greenfield after unprotecting the latter. Let's come to a quick decision—I don't see any reason the unprotection and move should not happen now. Johnuniq (talk) 08:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support Johnuniq's suggestion as to how to end this without further delay. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support Given the current state of the election race, the notability concerns from earlier this year are clearly obsolete. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support per the above and per this comment. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support per the above.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 10:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support and also encourage us to think this over afterwards to figure out how this slipped through the cracks to end in such an odd place.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • It's not slipped through the cracks. We have a number of editors who really really think that nominees for elected office, no matter how well covered, shouldn't have an article if that's the only reason they are covered. This has been a long (long) running debate. Hobit (talk) 19:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Jimbo. I always wanted to be able to write that. And per my previous contributions to this discussion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The subject is non notable aside from running for office and even less notable than Kara Eastman.--MONGO (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support per the lengthy comments above. Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per User:MONGO. IAR would only apply if this actually improved Wikipedia. It does not. --Khajidha (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Oppose There is a process for determining the suitablility of articles. That process is not AN. That process has, multiple times, determined that Theresa Greenfield isn't notable, and should not have an article. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

"Theresa Greenfield isn't notable, and should not have an article\" - not exactly the most convincing argument in an AfD I've ever seen, is it? That's why I specifically quoted DGG, who is one of the more sensible admins at AfD, even if I don't always agree with him. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

That's because I'm not making an AfD argument, but instead stating the consensus of the previous AfDs and DRVs. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Noting that AN is one of the places that folks have proposed for DRV outcomes to be appealed ([6]). So this would appear to be as in-process as we get when appealing a DRV result. Hobit (talk) 20:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support per above. This has gone on long enough. --Brad Patrick (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. It seems that JW himself is not really sure of the chances of the challenger to be elected at the beginning of the next month. Moreover, it seems that some contributors think that being the focus of some buzz, here at en:wp, will help her winning the race. But, four years later, the pages buzz (part 1) and buzz (part 2) are rather appearing as a pitiful (and failed) attempt to twist the fate. And that, despite their resp. 778 and 2297 references. But, yes, if she is elected, I would probably try to locate Iowa on a map, at least more precisely than "somewhere between Canada and Mexico". Pldx1 (talk) 13:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Consensus has been built previously in the year using long-standing guidelines around notability. Compromises have been attempted (redirect to the election page, incubate the page in draftspace, etc.) but have been largely ignored by a group of editors who have brought this topic up in a number of fora hoping to get the answer they want. I don't see why people can't wait two weeks before moving forward. Throwing out well-established guidelines because you don't like the outcome is sad. Bkissin (talk) 13:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Look at the dates on most of the refs, dude. This is a moving target. "I don't see why people can't wait two weeks before moving forward" - because it will expose WP to complaints about political bias, perhaps? Possibly these will be justified. Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

It's a moving target that will settle down on 4 Nov. Cabayi (talk) 14:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

LOL, Wikipedia is always facing allegations of political bias by people who don't like what they read or don't get their way. Look at the current issues surrounding the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict! To be fair (and insulate ourselves from further claims of bias, we have ruled the same thing in AfD regardless of the candidate or party. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Parnell (Pennsylvania politician), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel T. Lewis, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quinn Nystrom, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Ronchetti and several others from this campaign season alone! But hey, until we determine a new policy on the topic (which given the last attempt, doesn't seem to be able to reach consensus) then I look forward to discussing this with you all in 2024. Bkissin (talk) 15:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

People also scream political bias at the DM/Fox/NYP reliability RfC results. Didn't stop anyone then (not that I disagree with the results, but point remains). "Complaints of political bias" should never be an argument. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support I think back in May and June this article was debatable in terms of notability, but in the last month has received far and above sufficient media attention, not just to the race but to the individual to warrant the article. If that somehow changes, opponents can always bring it back to AfD.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 14:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support Yes, there were previous versions of this article that were reasonable to delete a few months ago, but Greenfield's coverage has massively increased and is sufficient to pass WP:GNG, and this draft is sufficient for mainspace. Dreamyshade (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - I agree with Pppery that this isn't the forum for this decision. It's a decision for the community, not for admins.

That said, on the basis of WP:NPOL and WP:NOHURRY, Theresa Greenfield (& all other unelected candidates whose notability was first noted after nomination) should remain redirected to 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa (& their respective election articles) until after the election. Doing otherwise dips into WP:ADVOCACY & WP:PROMO and there's nothing in WP:POLOUTCOMES to suggest any other action. Let's see if Greenfield is still notable on 4 Nov.

As Jimbo said, we need to consider how we ended in such an odd place - a rethink of WP:NPOL in respect of candidates would resolve that, but it's probably best to wait til the Supreme Court has decided the election before getting into that. (Note:I fell down this rabbit hole with Kevin Stitt in 2018 with this AFD. It would be good to see some clear resolution to the questions this time round.) Cabayi (talk) 14:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I think you are touching on the right thing. In the U.S., a major party candidate for the U.S. Senate is not the same as a non-partisan local dog catcher. Sufficient reliable sources and media coverage of a party candidate (post-primary, at that) is significant. The candidacy within the context of the article on the election itself is one thing; now that WP is considered a relevant source for information about the election by millions, it should not get wrapped up in this on a repeated basis. It is a clear statement of notability, in this context, that a person is a major party candidate running for one of 100 of the most powerful elected positions in the United States. This should, by definition, satisfy notability requirements. The additional sauce in this instance is that she's _very_ competitive. [7] --Brad Patrick (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)\

now that WP is considered a relevant source for information about the election by millions Just because people think they can get election information here does not make it our purpose to do that. It is absolutely the wrong place for WP to be serving as an election hub for any country. We'll happily report the results of an election as encyclopedic topic information, but we're not in any type of position to be able to talk about fair coverage of all political candidates and issues on a global basis to make it appropriate to work coverage of political candidates from that angle. It is extremely appropriate to judge any political candidate's article through the eyes of an advocacy concern and make sure that the article is more than just a soapbox for the candidate, which appears to be part of the problem with how Greenfield's article has been presented through its iterations. --Masem (t) 16:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support - it's not throwing out any rules. The topic meets all the policies and the guideline WP:N. In my view the argument that such a candidate should not have her own page is farcical, particularly when compared to the other things we give a page to. This website, this community, has a rule that all schools are notable, all train stations are notable, we have articles about bagel shops and pro wrestlers and porn stars and pizzerias, but not a major US senate candidate? Come on. Don't forget our mission is to share knowledge. Let's not pretend this isn't a topic many people are interested in or that we can't write a policy-compliant article about it. Lev!vich 14:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

But we don't generally have articles about PROPOSED schools or train stations. Or PLANNED bagel shops and pizzerias. Or pro-wrestling TRAINEES. Or people who AUDITION for porn movies. Those are the counterparts to election candidates.--Khajidha (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

TG, a "proposed" Senator, is still more important/notable/worthy of a standalone page/whatever formulation we want to use, than like any high school ever built, or even the most famous porn star. More humans are interested in, and need, knowledge about TG than about any high school or porn star or Pokémon, and all but the most famous train stations. If we're not writing about topics like TG, then what the hell are we doing here? We have an article about every damn road in England. Lev!vich 14:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

"We have an article about every damn road in England" - No we don't, I keep finding new ones to write all the time. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, and when you run out, you're going to clear new roads and write articles about them! I look forward to reading about Ritchie Boulevard and Ritchie Lane... I hope you name at least one of them Levivich Way. Lev!vich 15:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Things that "are" are more encyclopedic than anything that "may be". In the only sense in which TG could be encyclopedic, she is just a "may be". --Khajidha (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Thats where I disagree. Open a newspaper. She's not a maybe. She's already notable, win or lose. We have more secondary source material to summarize about TG than I dare say 90% of the pages we have on Wikipedia. It's only through contortions (here, the contortion of WP:NPOL) that one can claim she is not worth including in the encyclopedia unless she wins. There is no logic or data that leads to that conclusion. Lev!vich 15:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

She's a "may be" in the sense that she may be elected. --Khajidha (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm saying she is notable even if she may be elected. Her notability does not depend on her getting elected. The secondary source material won't disappear if she loses. If our job is to summarize the world's knowledge, we're not doing our job if we don't summarize the knowledge about TG. It's a hole in our coverage, regardless of the outcome of the election. Lev!vich 15:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I guess we have different ideas about what secondary sources about her means. Because 57 different ways of saying "this lady is running for election" don't impress me as notability. --Khajidha (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

If all the secondary sources said was that she was running, I'd agree with you. But of course they say much more than that. Lev!vich 16:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I've read the draft. Still looks like 57 ways of saying "she's running" to me. --Khajidha (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Well that's a mistake, judging the notability of a topic by the sources that are in the draft. WP:BEFORE and all that. Lev!vich 16:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Well then, what sources should I be looking at? What can you show me that is more than just either "she exists, she's been married twice, and she's a mom" and "she's running for office"? --Khajidha (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Wait, now you're moving the goalposts. Before you said 57 different ways of saying "this lady is running for election", now you're saying that and she's been married twice, and she's a mom, and that second part is more than just "this lady is running for election"; in fact, "married twice" and "mom" sound to me like the kind of biographical details that one would find in WP:SIGCOV of a WP:BLP. So I'll tell you what: you set forth the definitive criteria for a source that "counts", and I'll tell you if I have any examples that meet that criteria. Lev!vich 17:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Biographical details fill out articles, they do not establish notability. You can give me all the sources you want that she has been married twice and has kids, but that tells me nothing about her notability. And I don't see anything in that second section beyond "this lady is running for election". Unless there's something super outstanding about her campaign, like collusion with foreign powers, all campaign coverage is just "she's running for office". --Khajidha (talk) 18:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

If your definition of "notable" is "elected", then she is not notable. But my definition is the one in WP:N (at least two GNG-satisfying sources), and that criteria is met. Lev!vich 18:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

No, my definition of "notable" is not "elected". But my definition of notable says that people who simply want to have a job, as opposed to those who have that job, are not notable just because they want it. An applicant to a university is not notable. An academic is. A person who does a walk-on tryout for a sports team is not notable. An active member of that team is. A candidate for senate is not notable just because they are running for senate. A senator is. --Khajidha (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Now that's a red herring. Nobody is arguing that she is notable just because she is running for senate. She is notable because she meets the criteria set forth at WP:N. Lev!vich 18:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

How, then? How is she notable? There is no coverage of her separate from this election. She was not notable before the election and just running for office does not make her notable now, no matter how many sources say that she is running for office. --Khajidha (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

What part of, "She is notable because she meets the criteria set forth at WP:N" is unclear? Again, if you define "notable" as "subject to coverage separate from the election" or "notable before the election" (or "notable if elected"), then she is not notable. But if you define "notable" as "two GNG-satisfying sources" (which WP:N does), then she is notable. Lev!vich 18:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I define notability as "subject to coverage separate from the election". --Khajidha (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Which is a different definition than the one that has consensus (WP:N), and one that we don't apply anywhere else. We wouldn't, for example, say that a senator/athlete/scientist is only notable if they are subject to coverage outside of their being a senator/athlete/scientist. Lev!vich 19:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Did you not see my point above? Being a candidate is not parallel to being a scientist or an athlete. It is parallel to applying to a college or trying out for a team. --Khajidha (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

That's a view that does not have consensus. WP:GNG and WP:BASIC apply to everyone; there is no consensus to exclude political candidates from GNG. She might not be notable in your view, but under our general notability guideline, she is. Lev!vich 19:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose as too soon. As with Draft:Rishi Kumar, another candidate who isn't notable outside the context of WP:1EVENT (this election), Theresa Greenfeeld has nothing more than routine coverage for a person running for national office. Wait until after the election; if she doesn't win, she wouldn't qualify for an article here, although her campaign might. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • WP:1EVENT supports having this page. It says, If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. Editors commonly cite 1EVENT to argue that people aren't notable for one event, but that's not what 1EVENT actually says; for significant persons in significant events, it says the very opposite. It's like making an argument based on the shortcut instead of the actual policy being linked to. We could call it argumentum ad shortcutae, perhaps? Lev!vich 17:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support I wanted to close this. Maybe I'm not brave enough, maybe I just thought it would help to strengthen consensus instead. This is mostly "per Jimbo". The idea that someone could be elected to the United States Senate and not have a Wikipedia article is deeply embarrassing to me, and would constitute a high-profile failure on our part. I'm certainly sympathetic to those calling for clearer guidance on notability standards in these cases—we probably don't need articles on otherwise non-notable people if they're, say, the Republican candidate in Rhode Island, or the Democrat in Idaho. Sure, there are major party candidates who everyone knows will just lose by huge margins and that's all we'll hear from them, but it's abundantly clear that that is not the case with Greenfield. The earlier AfD was fine, if a bit on the zealous side, but circumstances have very much changed since. --BDD (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

"The idea that someone could be elected to the United States Senate and not have a Wikipedia article is deeply embarrassing to me, and would constitute a high-profile failure on our part." Why? To me, that is far from a failure on our part, it is a SUCCESS on the part of democracy. --Khajidha (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

It looks reactive, like our measures of notability are off, which I suppose is the case. It's one thing if there's a freak electoral result—Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was a list entry and only became a stub upon winning her primary—but a Greenfield win would not at all be a surprise. I'm not sure what you mean by such a case being a success for democracy. --BDD (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The idea that someone who was not notable (and thus didn't have an article here) won, means that "nobodies" can win. And that's a good thing.--Khajidha (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• Strong support per Levivich, Ritchie333, Future Perfect at Sunrise, BDD, Jimbo Wales, and others in previous discussions. We don't have a criteria that says someone must be notable outside of running for a political office, as Mongo and Khajidha are attempting to argue above. We do have WP:GNG, which supersedes WP:NPOL, and by that standard Greenfield overwhelmingly passes the bar for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." (There's also been a persistent misapplication of WP:1EVENT, which Levivich insightfully demonstrates above). Greenfield and/or her campaign may not have been notable months ago; I don't have a time machine. But all of us as Wikipedia editors need to be willing to revisit our assessments and preconceived notions as new sources emerge, and unfortunately several of us have not been able to do that. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support. The candidate meets the GNG handily. NPOL itself acknowledges that unelected candidates for political office can be notable per the GNG. While I do personally believe NPOL should be changed so that candidates running in major elections are considered inherently notable, such a change would not be needed for Greenfield's article to be created as the GNG criteria are already met. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support. Clearly way way way over the GNG. And WP:NPOL defers to the GNG. That said, the *venue* could be considered to be a problem. I'll leave notes at the DRV talk page. But yes, WP:AN has been one of the options when asking to overturn a DRV outcome (the other is DRV), so this isn't out of process per se. Hobit (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• I don't know. I guess Alvin Greene is some precedent but now that I actually read that article it feels like tabloid material and the thought occurs that we would be better off without it. Haukur (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support. It is absolutely absurd situation that byzantine procedural obfuscation prevent an article on a major party candidate in one of the most closely watched Senate contests. older ≠ wiser 19:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above. The draft certainly demonstrates significant coverage in reliable sources, exceeding WP:GNG by a mile. There has been so much poor judgment involving this article. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Jimbo, who I'm glad to see has talked some sense into the discussion. Greenfield is clearly notable, and it's embarrassing that it has come this far for the error to be rectified. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support. BIO1E: The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. None of the invocations of PROMO make sense to me; it is clearly in the public interest to know about these candidates. We may need to revisit the relationship between the GNG and the SNGs after the dust has settled. Enterprisey (talk!) 20:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Question: What if she loses? The argument seems to be that people aren't notable for losing elections. So say we allow the article now, and she ends up losing the election. Is it then deleted all over again, orrr is it just edited to "Theresa Greenfield (born October 20, 1963) is a person who was the Democratic nominee for the 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa."? "Politician" would no longer really apply, and I don't know why the current lead says she's a businessperson at all, nevermind puts it first, she's not notable for it, and neither are the companies she serves as on the boards of, apparently. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't see why it would matter. She meets the GNG by a mile. I think people ignore the fact that the GNG doesn't require you to be notable for anything in particular, just covered by reliable, independent, secondary sources. Hobit (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • If you are a political candidate, you are a politician whether you win or lose because you are "one engaged in politics"—you just aren't a "politician" by wikt:politician definition 2 (or what some would call a "career politician"). -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support and do it FAST IAR is not needed for the end result but use it if necessary just to speed up the procedures on this embarrassing situation. And it's no reflection on past actions on this article; everyone was just trying to handle it properly. North8000 (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Please do not make content decisions on the administrator's noticeboard: that's really inappropriate.—S Marshall T/C 21:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

---

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

• Oppose Wanted to sneak this in before closure. She can be adequately covered on the election page - if she loses, she won't have lasting notability, and content shouldn't be discussed here. SportingFlyer T·C 21:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  Even if she loses the election, the notability will be lasting with GNG-passing coverage in abundance.Oakshade (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Related AfDs and articles

I think it would be helpful to list other AfDs (current or past) that may be impacted by whatever outcome the above discussion comes to.

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John E. James -- active AfD of a US senate candidate who has a meaningful chance of winning. Hobit (talk) 19:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Mr. James is running for the US Senate in the state that ranks 10th in population, representing more than 10 million people. He will forever be either a US Senator or the guy who lost that Senate race. It's not reasonable to maintain a fiction that rules are more important than ground truth - these candidates are more than a line item on another page.--Brad Patrick (talk) 20:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• Draft:Kara_Eastman -- US house candidate in 2018 and 2020. Much smaller race than most US Senate races, but still closely related though the coverage isn't quite as overwhelming. Hobit (talk) 20:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Draft:Al Gross (politician) -- Also a US Senate candidate in a competitive race with significant coverage available (not all of which is reflected in the current sourcing). Dreamyshade (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Gade, the 2020 Republican US Senate candidate in Virginia. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• I would argue that all of the articles that were mentioned are notable. In particular, now that Theresa Greenfield is on the mainspace, Dr. Al Gross is one of the only major party U.S. Senate candidates this cycle without an article, and there is a draft written available about him. This article should be moved to the mainspace, as should the draft about Kara Eastman. The articles about John James and Daniel Gade should stay up at least through November 3. I say this because the voters need to have information about the candidates on their ballots. Narayansg (talk) 22:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  I say this because the voters need to have information about the candidates on their ballots. This isn't an effective argument for inclusion on Wikipedia. If they pass the general notability guideline or any other notability guideline, then they are eligible to have an article (and notability isn't temporary). If they are not notable, simply being a candidate does not make them so. But it's important not to assume the inverse: Simply being a candidate doesn't make them not notable, either. WP:NPOL defers to WP:GNG in the case of candidates. ST47 (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  It also defers to several elements of WP:NOT: WP:NOTNEWS, WP:PROMO, WP:CRYSTAL, along with WP:BIO1E. It may seem oddly political to oppose these, but I would strongly prefer to not turn Wikipedia into a partisan US-orientated website, and instead allow for articles on people only if they are notable. (We can always cover the candidates on the election page, which will likely be watched by interested parties on both sides of the aisle.) SportingFlyer T·C 22:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  For these draft articles, there's a problem related to the cycle that the draft Greenfield article got stuck in (resolved only with a vote here): there's no avenue for robust community discussion of notability for an AfC draft, because a single AfC reviewer can decline a submission and keep declining it. As a relevant example, I saw that for Gross, User:Narayansg moved the draft article to mainspace a few weeks ago, and another editor moved it back to draftspace as "Doesn't meet wp:npol yet" instead of following a documented community process for mainspace articles where you want to contest notability (like PROD or AfD). So, where to go to discuss whether a candidate like Gross or Eastman reaches the threshold of WP:GNG? I expect that few candidates do, but the exceptions (like Greenfield) are important. Dreamyshade (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  Anyone can accept an AfC submission too. If you believe it's ready, you can move it to mainspace. See WP:DRAFTIFY, It is not intended as a backdoor route to deletion. and Other editors (including the author of the page) have a right to object to moving the page. If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace and if it is not notable list at AfD. If there is a dispute over whether something should be in draftspace or mainspace, the page should be moved back to mainspace and the dispute should be brought to WP:AFD. If you can't move it to mainspace due to protection, ask an admin. ST47 (talk) 23:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  @ST47:, I actually tried to move the Kara Eastman draft and couldn't for the simple reason it already has a history. Is this a common problem? And could you treat this as an "ask an admin" request for the move (even though I don't believe it is a protection problem)? Hobit (talk) 13:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

  It's probably not particularly common, but yes, ask an admin, or ask at WP:RM/TR. That one hasn't had an AfD since 2018 and the current version is better-sourced. However, the principal author of Draft:Kara Eastman has requested (through a comment on that page) that it not be nominated again until after the election, I would respect that request unless there's broader support for her immediate notability. ST47 (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• One guideline that doesn't appear to have been explicitly mentioned above is WP:NOPAGE (aka WP:PAGEDECIDE). If a political candidate is only noteworthy/covered within the context of political candidacy, it is not (erm...) incumbent upon us to have a separate page for that candidacy, given that the individual for-all-time notability of that candidate is marginal, even if coverage of the election itself including coverage of candidates is significant. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

• After reading/participating in the discussion around Greenfield, I found myself very curious about which other non-incumbent candidates in the various Senate races have articles. I put together User:GorillaWarfare/Senate races with my results, and figured I'd share it here in case anyone was interested as I was. Many of the candidates have previously held office and met NPOL as a result of their past positions, but I found eighteen biographies of non-incumbent candidates who were not previously elected for office (including Greenfield). Out of that eighteen, four were independently notable for reasons unrelated to their runs for office. Out of the remaining fourteen, there were 9 Democrats, 3 Republicans, and 1 Independent, plus Mr. Willie Wilson in the Willie Wilson Party. They are evenly split gender-wise, with 7 articles about women and seven about men. Edits welcome if I've made any errors. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Paid editor blocked with 30,000 edits

I just blocked Lapablo for abuse of multiple accounts and undisclosed paid editing. Their previous account, Ukpong1, had been blocked for "advertising", and this new account picked up where the first left off, but was much more subtle and deceptive about it. Lapablo has managed to acquire several permissions: AFC reviewer, new page reviewer, page mover, and autopatrolled; and they have made over 30,000 edits.

I'm starting this thread in order to get the cleanup process started. There's going to be a lot of spam in their contributions, and it all needs to be checked for neutrality and proper sourcing. Please help. – bradv🍁 17:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• Here is a list of their creations (and I believe AFC) for us to go through. Praxidicae (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry actually Primefac's list includes the AFC accepts here. Praxidicae (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• Like many paid editors, a large portion of Lapablo's contributions are constructive, and we can reasonably assume that only a small percentage of them are paid contributions. And even of the articles that were written for pay, most are likely to be notable. Before someone suggests it, I don't think mass deletion is the answer here – we simply need to check through these to make sure they're up to our standards, and remove or fix the ones that aren't. – bradv🍁 18:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

  I would say the same thing goes for the AFC accepts - if it's a reasonable accept, then leave it be, otherwise kick it back to the draft space to be reviewed by an impartial reviewer. Primefac (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

  Mass delete is certainly not an option here, everything from my random sample check was notable (mostly Nigerian village one-line stubs).--Ymblanter (talk) 18:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• Wait, this was actually real? It's been months, and ArbCom was working all this time? Wow! Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

  This was a checkuser block, based on a report that was submitted about an hour ago. I'm not aware of anyone working on this for "months". – bradv🍁 18:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

  There was this which went to COIN and a few other places I think. In the end, the OP was blocked; I think the general sense was that they were targeting Lapablo because of the latter's work against spammers. The OP was advised to send private evidence that they claimed to have to ArbCom. Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

  User:RickinBaltimore, you blocked User:Supolsanko in August due to casting aspersions on Lapablo (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1044#Personal attack by Supolsanko), who has now been blocked for socking and undisclosed paid editing - vindicating Supolsanko. They were also rude, but should they be unblocked now as a proven whistleblower? Fences&Windows 15:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  I'm hesitant due to this comment they made on Lapablo's talk page: "All three articles I created here were taken down by you within three weeks of creation as if you were the only editor here. My grievance with you is that you do not obey rules." I checked their deleted contributions, and they had none, which tells me this is a sock. I'd be very hesitant unblocking at this time, though if another admin wishes to do so, I will no object. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  In reviewing this, I would say that wrt to sockpuppetry, it could be argued the creation of a different account was because they didn't want their identity exposed to Lapablo. However, they did edit project space with such a undisclosed alternative account so have violated the sockpuppetry policy. Without knowing what their other account was, we can't also say that this isn't a case of forgotten passwords. However, their userpage does seem to say that this account was here to whistleblow (and any other account was probably still being used).

  I want to try and assume some level of good faith here, as the action of reporting the account was constructive for the project. However, this comment by the user does concern me. They are incivil there, and the subsequent ANI report was started about this diff.

  I don't think I'm going to unblock this account, but I also think just leaving the user blocked isn't necessarily the right thing to do here. Any thoughts from others? Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

• The previous time this happened, DannyS712 ran a script to add pages that the paid editor had patrolled to the New Page Patrol queue. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

  Danny is ready anytime a consensus is presented to act on. Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

  Indeed - if an admin confirms that there is consensus to unpatrol and requeue all of the pages, I can (also, if someone is willing to grant me account creator rights for a few days to be exempt from rate limits, it'll make things go faster, otherwise I have to hard-code a delay to avoid abusing my global rollbacker rights) DannyS712 (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

  DannyS712, I will confirm that it is appropriate to unpatrol and requeue all of the pages patrolled in this situation (this is standard NPP practice in such situations and i have done it manually on occasions). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

  @Barkeep49: So is there consensus / approval for the mass unpatrolling? And, if there is, can I request account creator rights for the ratelimit exemption? DannyS712 (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

  DannyS712, yes there is consensus to unpatrol these reviews. I'm not someone who typically grants that PERM and so I don't feel comfortable doing so here despite what seems like a logical and reasonable request. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

  I've added the right DannyS712 for a week under NOTBURO if nothing else. --Izno (talk) 16:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

  @Barkeep49 @Izno since last time this was dealing with a new page reviewer that was blocked, the query I ran then was to unpatrol and requeue pages they had reviewed. Am I current to understand that the intention now is to unpatrol and requeue all pages that were created, since they were autopatrolled and thus didn't go through the normal review process the first time? DannyS712 (talk) 22:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  DannyS712, I'll manually go through their 55 created articles in mainspace and requeue what needs to be done. Your script can just focus on their use of NPR. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  @Barkeep49: Okay. I count 291 pages to re-enqueue and 66 to unreview -  Doing... DannyS712 (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  @Barkeep49: Should be  Done - 635 logged actions made (enqueueing also unreviews) - see [8]. Happy to have my account creator rights revoked now, or if you want to leave them until they expire in a few days a won't abuse them :) DannyS712 (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks DannyS712. And just for the record it looks like GSS and SamHolt6 went through their AfC accepts. I did look over their page creations since receiving autopatrol. I only found a couple of their actual article creations that might be fishy and have put them back into the queue. On the whole they had done some valuable work covering African politics and I'm sorry to see that they decided to do UPE given the positive record of content creation they'd done. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  DannyS712, wouldn't local consensus supporting permission use be sufficient for not 'abusing' global rights? Granting a local technical group to also grant them seems to just be an extra, if the perm is already there. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

  @ProcrastinatingReader: Per Wikipedia:Global rights policy#Global rollbackers, Global rollbackers may use the rollback, suppressredirect, markbotedits, and noratelimit functions on the English Wikipedia only in the context of counter-vandalism efforts (unless they hold such rights separately in a usergroup permitting local use for other reasons). - since this directly alludes to the rights also being available from local user groups, I believe using my global rollbacker rights for this would violate the policy DannyS712 (talk) 00:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• Wow that's crazy! What was the evidence of undisclosed paid editing? Was it a CU thing? PackMecEng (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

  PackMecEng, yes, please see OP's reply to my comment. The user talk page gives clue as to how that came about. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

  Usedtobecool, That was evidence for the CU block. I was asking on the confirmation on the undisclosed paid editing. Unless I am missing something? PackMecEng (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

  Unless I am mistaken private evidence, such as that sent to the paid-en arbcom queue isn't generally made public for the obvious reasons. Praxidicae (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

  Right, I was asking if there was private evidence, not to specifically reveal it. PackMecEng (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

  @PackMecEng: You are correct – the bulk of the justification for the block is private evidence. Bradv and I actually block-conflicted and I would have blocked as a "appeal to ArbCom" block rather than a "CheckUser" block. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

  Fair enough, thanks for the clarification! PackMecEng (talk) 20:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• As I noted earlier, this is now the 11th new page patroller (by my count) that has been blocked for spamming in the last two years. There is starting to be a wider pattern. What can we do to reduce the chance of this happening again? MER-C 19:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it needs to start with a discussion of how to get people to understand that the quality of sources matter so we can weed out the trash that's currently infiltrating Wikipedia, such as the black hat SEO garbage I've been removing. Praxidicae (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

One can start by closing Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_314#RFC:_Reliability_of_Entrepreneur_(magazine). If Entrepreneur contributors is marked as unreliable or deprecated this will take out one of go-to sources for spammers. MER-C 19:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• NPP is just a step in the ladder to various levels of status that protects one from scrutiny. I have only ever seen one editor claim that they review articles from autopatrolled editors just as they would the rest. And we do encounter autopatrolled editors who start creating UPE articles as soon as they get the flag having only ever created articles on say, biological species, until then. There is a lot of talk about how AFC is a mess because it is the gateway to higher permissions and has a low bar. And so on. But it takes highly experienced editors with some amount of balls to challenge the work of editors who are past the first few rungs of that ladder. That is what's been lacking.

  On another note, we need something akin to AIV or SPI for paid editing, your talk page seems to be one, I don't know of another. COIN is too much like ANI. Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

  MER-C, hmm, throwing out an idea, do we need a task force to spot check random pages from autopatrolled editors to find those abusing the right? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

  Do we know which of their rights they were abusing? Autopatrolled has always seemed the most dangerous to me, but I suppose it wouldn't be hard if you're an AfC reviewer to get a confederate IP to create a draft you'd then approve. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

The problem with AFC is not usually getting paid to write and accept articles because at that point, they could just create it in mainspace themselves, people pay handsomely to accept their already written articles. There are people on the typical sites, like Freelancer, Upwork, PeoplePerHour, etc...that advertise their user rights from AFC to autopatrolled and extended confirmed to admin (which to my knowledge at least has never been accurate for at least the latter.) In particular I would say for serious UPE, such as this, autopatrolled is definitely the most dangerous. Praxidicae (talk) 12:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Our course of action when we see such listings should always be to reply "hey, I'm interested; can I see some examples of your past work?" Sting operations worked for French Wikipedia, and I wish we'd use them more here. Even if the effect is just to make them unwilling to share past work, that's still a success, since it might cause some of their (actual) potential customers to think twice. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• Precisely the kind of situation I was referring to when I wrote the UPE essay on my user-page. Celestina007 (talk) 22:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I have in the past tried to review autopatrolled editors, or at least a portion of them, but I have not done so for many months now because of the pressure of work at AfC. I always patrol/review, but every few months I change my area to keep from getting stale. DGG ( talk ) 06:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
• Perhaps some way to map accepts against deletions (esp G11s)? I mean I keep my own personal list which includes any AfDs raised within 1 month of me accepting them (all 3 of them), but obviously self-generated lists are not wildly helpful here! In terms of AfD issues, you'd be highlighting by % most likely, which does allow UPE reviewers to get round it by handling lots of other reviews normally, but that's unavoidable. However, if a reviewer had 3 G11s get through, even if they did 60 others without issue, that would be sufficient concern for me to take a look at some others. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

The percentage of overturned or overruled work depends to a large extent on what sort of articles or drafts you work on. If it is uncertain whether or not a draft will be approved at AfD, sometimes the only way to deal with it is to approve it --- and even send it to afd oneself, in order to get a community decision. The people at AfC or NPP are only screening, not deciding. I've noticed that the ones that go unreviewed for extended periods are the ones which are difficult to deal with, but someone has to take the responsibity for doing the screening. DGG ( talk ) 20:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

DGG, that's a fair point. Leaving things in draft forever is a bit close to WP:WEBHOST for me: in the end there has to ba a shit-or-get-off-the-pot moment. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

and letting the unreviewed ones get deleted by G13 is admitting our own failure: if we are going to use the AfC process, we have an obligation to our users to employ it properly. G13 is proper for material that is apparently abandoned & not worth rescuing, or clearly unsuitable, though not to the point that it's worth dealing with at MfD. DGG ( talk ) 23:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

DGG, agreed. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• I think we're going a bit overboard with the G5 deletions of mainspace articles. Some of these are perfectly cromulent villages in Africa (e.g., Oborhia, Umudobia, Orie Uratta). Just because something can be deleted as G5 doesn't mean it's the best thing for the encyclopedia. BD2412 T 16:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

  @BD2412: Concur. A more noble spirit would embiggen the breadth of Wikipedian knowledge on the subject. Buffs (talk) 21:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

An Biden conspiracy theory needs to impose 1RR

Hello, i see that Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory contains a controversial issues, so please invoking 1RR for the article in order to maintain stability of the article and please move protected the article only for administrators, so any users except administrators cannot move protected the page. I intend to request that in RFPP but i fear it will declined. The reason of it is the article may become a target of requested move by non-admin users, and sometimes page move vandalism happens in the article, such as move "conspiracy theory" to "allegations", which IMO is incorrect. 110.137.170.83 (talk) 09:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

It's already tagged on the talk page as under WP:ARBAP2 sanctions, which includes a blanket 1RR restriction. It is also currently under 50/300 protection AND it does not appear there are any recent violations of 1RR that need dealing with. What mare do you need done? --Jayron32 10:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

But please Jayron32, i see that one IP user (182.1.237.76) invoking 1RR notice in the talk page, please see that page. It seems that IP invoking 1RR that remainds all users cannot reverting the edit in 24 hours. The reason IP invoke that notice because the IP cannot agree any revert edits that contains controversial page, so this IP invoking 1RR. 110.137.170.83 (talk) 10:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Let me re-iterate my question: What recent disruption to the editing of the article do you see that needs addressing? --Jayron32 10:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

First, one user changing title of the article from "conspiracy theory" to "allegations", I believe i see that edit in my eyes, second there is a request move for a controversial page, also caught in my eye. Because this article is controversial, i only see that problem and i not initally suggest this to impose 1RR in the article, however my mind is changed, and i needs reassure the admin to impose 1RR as part of ARBAP2. For move the page, i suggests that only administrator can have move rights to the page. Thanks. 110.137.170.83 (talk) 10:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I see no recent change of that nature. Can you include some diffs? --Jayron32 10:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

No Jayron32, i want to reverting contribution by that IP that invoke 1RR without administrator permissions. Thanks. 110.137.170.83 (talk) 10:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

You already did. It doesn't look like you needed anyone else to help. --Jayron32 10:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. If problem persist, i want to ping you. 110.137.170.83 (talk) 10:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a bad look for Wikipedia: there are a bunch of allegations that I'd consider unproven, or at best supported by a deeper rabbit hole of reporting than I've been willing to look into (I just don't care that much about the matter). Claiming they are false (disproven outright) is a leap from that though, as it is notoriously difficult to prove a negative. So that article editorializes way too much. It comes across as biased and non-credible. Whatever interventions are being made around it should result in a neutrally written article, as all articles are supposed to be. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 06:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

(technical) why does article have a redirect from the clean "_" version to the unicode "%E2%80%93" version? Seems backward and/or unnecessary as wikilink will always be a redirect. Slywriter (talk) 03:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Mandatory IP masking incoming

Johan (WMF) has indicated that mandatory masking of the IP addresses of anonymous editors is being implemented for all Wikiprojects in the near-mid term (probably sometime in the next year or so), stating that this is an order from the WikiMedia Foundation's Legal Department. Apparently a statement from the Legal Department is forthcoming. As this is likely to hinder anti-vandalism efforts in the near-term, feedback is being requested to make this cause the least amount of disruption possible. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Could IPs be put through some cipher or something so they have a persistent identity? Just a thought. (please  mention me on reply; thanks!) -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

IP addresses having a persistent identity is one of the things that is being considered. However if a vandal is rapidly going between ipv6 domains on the same range it becomes much more difficult to track them if the IP is masked, even if the identity of the individual IP address is persistent. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Could someone explain what IP masking actually means? Does that mean, in particular, that we won't be able to look up the contribution history for a particular IP editor? And to tell that two edits were made by the same IP editor? Nsk92 (talk) 22:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I think what is being proposed is that the actual IP address itself is not displayed, but the history of edits associated with that IP Address is preserved (at least in the short term). Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

That is how I read it too, but it could be worth asking Johan or someone to clarify. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I asked for clarification in the Meta thread, but I am still pretty confused. If what you say above is correct, how would edits by different IPs be visually distinguished in page histories? And also in talk pages, where IP signatures are displayed? Right now we see the actual IP addresses there. What exactly would we see instead? If we see some generic phrase like "Anonymous IP editor", it will not allow to distingish which edits were made by which IP editor and I can't see how individual IP contrib histories can be preserved in this case. Or, is the system going to start assigning the IP ediors its internal identifiers, perhaps enumerating them in order of apperance, something like "Anonymous IP editor 4029", "Anonymous IP editor 4030", etc ? That would at least allow for the history of edits associated with a particular IP to be preserved and displayed. Nsk92 (talk) 23:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Amazing. There are security bugs (with legal implications, I would think) that have been sitting unfixed on phabricator for months or years. This is well past any normal responsible disclosure window. It's purely a courtesy that I'm keeping my mouth shut, and the next person who rediscovers the same bugs probably won't be so considerate. But legal instead prioritizes protecting the privacy of those who never asked for it. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah, the 'ol "But it came from Legal! We have to do it now!". There was extreme opposition to this on Meta. SQL^{Query me!} 23:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

How is this going to affect things like looking at all contribs in a range? Natureium (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Natureium, I would assume negatively. The only tool I've seen is the new Special:Investigate tool, and it seems to have some severe issues. They really need to spend a LOT more time and energy on tools before they force this thru. That, or maybe force registration if it's that important. SQL^{Query me!} 23:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

But a regular editor can't add /64 to the end of an IP and see whether there's more vandalism across the range? Natureium (talk) 23:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Could use something like Crypto-PAn I guess. That would preserve ranges. I don't think that's the plan, though. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, then we need to implement a permanent mainspace ban on IPs. Accounts are free. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

JzG, Pretty much. Like ptwiki does. SQL^{Query me!} 23:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

A quick experiment at pt:A suggests that they have an edit filter set to prevent edits to articles by IPs (anyone not logged in). That's from a Google translate of the page notice while in incognito mode (not logged in). While welcoming everyone is great, keeping good editors is essential and no sane person can deal with LTAs on shifting IPs unless articles are strongly protected or wide IP ranges blocked. Johnuniq (talk) 00:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I need to preface this by saying that I don't know if this is still true, but at the time that discussions on the proposal were taking place last year, I distinctly remember that the foundation intended to obscure IP's from CU's, which effectively makes the role completely useless for investigating LTA's with technical evidence. Assuming that my initial impressions of it are still true, I think that this is going to turn into a hilarious clown fiesta very soon, like anything else that the WMF thinks is a good idea. Frankly, I think that Wikimedia projects should let the WMF handle anti-vandalism and LTA issues moving forward without any volunteer assistance whatsoever and see how well that works out. They bought the ticket, so now they get to take the ride. OhKayeSierra (talk) 03:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

OhKayeSierra, obscuring from CUs would be the wet dream of every spammer and LTA. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• To restate what I've said on meta. I think that this could work. 5-10 years from now, with many carefully developed, mature tools. I think that forcing this thru today, with one half-assed, rushed to production tool is a mistake. SQL^{Query me!} 03:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• There are a lot of details missing (both due to the early stage of development and WP:BEANS), but I don't think this is the end of the world. In a "soft" IP-masking, where admins (and editors with an EFH-like permission) can see IPs, almost nothing will change at a substantial benefit to IP editor privacy. In a "hard" IP-masking, there will be significantly more pages semi-protected, additional need for CheckUser resources, and the potential for blocking sensitive IP addresses. However, as long as IPv6 /64s are still evident, I don't think it will make a major difference to abuse-fighting. Most of the vandals who know how to change their IP address know to register accounts for their vandalism anyhow. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • That's wrong. Wikipedia works at all because users are empowered to do stuff. Most days sees someone asking at ANI for a range block because an editor with no special privilege has seen a problem and taken an effort to work out what is needed to resolve it. If an editor sees three masked IPs mucking around in an article, they would have to ask someone with appropriate privilege (if that will be possible) to investigate. That person, presumably, could not see the IPs in any easy way (like viewing article history where all the IPs could be seen and perhaps copied into a range calculator). Instead, the privileged person would need to click buttons and do who knows what. Far easier to semi-protect the affected articles for six months or whatever it takes. Johnuniq (talk) 04:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

This is pretty weird. There was one of those pop-up questionnaires a few weeks ago asking people to say whether they edited regularly from IP addresses. People who said yes were asked to participate in a 1-hour phone interview with WMF staff. I did one of those interviews and discussed the topic at length. Some privacy-related questions came up but that of revealing IP addresses being an issue was barely touched on, though I mentioned that showing one's IP made a bigger disclosure than editing under a made-up username. I still need to follow up by email with the person I spoke with, so I'll mention this thread in my followup. Hmm. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 06:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm somewhat doubtful the legal department cared about that questionnaire or the follow up. They probably haven't even heard of it. It's possible the questionnaire was intended to be used by the team working on the Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation project until legal intervened. (If legal did rely on that questionnaire, probably their main question would have been how well editors understood the privacy implication of IP editing so once it became clear you did, that would be what they wanted to know.) Nil Einne (talk) 07:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, in response to my request for more info Johan (WMF) clarified at the Meta page, at least a little bit, what their plans are. He hasid that the do have in mind some sort of a system which will assign (presumably automatically) internal individualized WP aliases to IP editors. As I understood, those aliases will be displayed in page histories and in talk pages, in leiu of signatures of those IPs, and one should be able to view the contrib history for a specific IP alias. But as far as range blocks, that will certainly become much more difficult, at least for anyone who is not an admin. Similarly, if there is persistent sockpuppetry, block evasion, or similar form of disruption that isn't straightforward vandalism (e.g. IPs participating in an AfD and casting similar !votes), it'd be much harder for non-admins to tell if these edits are likely made by the same editor once the IP address is masked. Nsk92 (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

*sigh* Rushing this is a *bad* idea. We've seen what happened to Special:Investigate, and they worked months on that one. We are all familiar with first releases coming from WMF, and rushing one of them is definitely not going to have a good outcome. While we seem to have less and less tools to help us fight vandalism - see what happened to IPCheck, a WMF staffer told its developer not to develop it any further, and now it sits unmaintained - they are heading towards something that would need more of it, and not supplying us with those. At this point, even if I disagree with the reasons why ptwiki did it (it is my home wiki), making registration mandatory is the way to go.
"Oh but it's a hassle and we don't want to drive people away from the projects by doing it" You don't even need an e-mail to register an account here.
"Oh, I know! Let's use cookies to keep the masking" Really? Really? REALLY?! LTAs are a problem since forever, and IP hopping is not a problem for them. Clearing cookies takes less than a minute, which means that now you're simply wanting to give them freedom to do their thing without even letting us properly fight them.
Anyway, I do hope this is better thought out by the WMF before rushing it. —Thanks for the fish! ^{talk•contribs} 00:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we're just going to find out the hard way. The WMF hasn't unveiled any concrete plans yet, so it's best we save our outrage capital for when this does happen. -FASTILY 04:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• Or we can require they get an account in order to edit and the problem is solved. In no way does that interfere with our long standing tradition of being the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Getting an account is fast, free and easy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

  Enforcing registration for mainspace, while allowing masked IP editors to contribute to talk pages would allow people to participate without registering, while protecting article content. Extensive talkpage vandalism seems unlikely.Dialectric (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

  This solution is simply not worth the trouble. When the IP editors come here at all, it is overwhelmingly with the goal of editing articles, not talk pages. I never really understood why we don't enforce mandatory registration in order to edit on WP, and it seems to me now that the time has finally come to do that. Nsk92 (talk) 20:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

  and the problem is solved along with many other problems. It's past time to retire this obsolete ideology. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

"I never really understood why we don't enforce mandatory registration in order to edit on WP, and it seems to me now that the time has finally come to do that." I have long been against the idea that you should need to register an account for changing "and and" to "and" in an article. However, if a clear change in circumstances means this no longer possible, perhaps we should follow pt-wiki's lead and start the mandatory registration RfC. Can I get a show of hands to see who's interested? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

If the masking makes identifying ranges impossible for any user, I'm going to support mandatory registration. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

This is because if only admins can block / find ranges to block, then it adds a further burden to admins to find which range block is appropriate. If its not admins and is instead CUs, then there is even more of a burden. Normal users often use what range an IP address is in as evidence for SPI. I certainly don't want more things to do at SPI with the number of open cases that there usually is. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Add in that there are some disruptive editors that don't register accounts, but just use IP's. Sometimes, the only way to see what articles they've edited is with range searches. Take that away, and it's nigh impossible to find when they've hit a new article. This is going to be a dream for disruptive editors, fringe conspiracy editors. For a couple of regular vandals I watch for, this will make it almost impossible for a non-admin to monitor. Good luck, admins - your workload is going up. Ravensfire (talk) 03:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I asked in the Meta thread for more info about what kind of a system for assigning individualized aliases to masked IP editors they have in mind. The response from Johan (WMF) indicates that they have not yet considered this question substantively. Personally, I think it extremely unlikely that they will be able to come up with an alias system which will allow for any reasonable substitute for range-blocking and identifying ranges. It's just too difficult to devise and implement such a system in technical terms (and to make it safe from de-scrambling). It is much more likely, IMO, that the IP aliases will be either assigned randomly or numerically/consecuitively, in the order IPs make their first edits on a given wiki or across all wikis. Neither option would make identifying ranges possible. Nsk92 (talk) 12:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I have previously supported IP-editing, but I definitely support a ban against masked-edits. Not only do I support an RFC, I created the page Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) because this is one of several current Foundation disasters I was considering personally opening RFCs on. However I'd be delighted if someone else steps up to run this RFC - I am feeling extremely mentally-drained by the prospect of opening four or five RFCs that are all of comparable or greater weight as this one. For what it's worth, I suggest this proposal include a clause authorizing an immediate edit-filter against masked-edits if they are deployed without consensus. Alsee (talk) 09:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Just thinking out loud, how does masking IP addresses work with the GNU Free Documentation Licence? The edit window says "you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." Let's suppose in five years' time, Richard Stallman decides to sue a couple of rip-off publishers making print copies of Wikipedia articles for lack of proper attribution, violating the GFDL. "Aha", says rms, "there is no attribution - the author's identity has been censored! GNU are STRONGLY OPPOSED to CENSORSHIP!". What happens then? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I guess the hyperlink or URL to the masked IP address would be enough? From what I understand the masked IP address would still have a contributions page and a talk page. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Has the Foundation confused Covid-precautions with "how to run a website"? DuncanHill (talk) 13:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment- More idiocy from WMF. Now can we PLEASE require registration to edit? The "any bozo with a computer and an internet connection can edit" idea was already long in the tooth in 2002. Carrite (talk) 01:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Early details / ideas

• WMF rolled out an idea/proposed details today (which can be found at meta:Talk:IP_Editing:_Privacy_Enhancement_and_Abuse_Mitigation#Who_can_access_the_IP_of_an_unregistered_editor?) SQL^{Query me!} 03:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

An idea could be to create three tiers.

1. The vast majority of people who access our wikis would see the IPs fully masked.
2. All admins could see them partially masked (the first three parts of an IP being visible). This could be helpful to see patterns even if they don’t have the new user right. Partially masking them reduces the privacy risk for the unregistered user.
3. The new user right – in addition to checkusers and stewards – would have access to the entire IP.
   — User:Johan (WMF)

If "masked" means "replaced with a unique identifier", this seems borderline reasonable (even 4chan figured out how to do this). If "masked" simply means that every IP address would be made invisible and indistinguishable, I don't see how RC patrol would be remotely possible for non-admins. It would be like trying to keep water out of a boat where only the captain is allowed to plug the holes (although -- don't worry -- everyone is free to suck up the water with a straw and spit it overboard). I would support an RfC to put extreme restrictions on IP mainspace editing if this were the case (disallowing it entirely seems a little cruel, but if it can't be helped, it can't be helped). jp×g 00:58, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

User name redirects not carried through properly?

Users League Octopus (talk · contribs) and Apanuugpak (talk · contribs) were previously called User:Finnish Gas and User:Apanuggpak (notice there are two g:s instead of two u:s in the latter). When clicking on old user contribution links with their previous names they're not properly redirected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Finnish_Gas and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Apanuggpak It would be nice if you could fix that. --Mango från yttre rymden (talk) 23:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

There isn't a way to "redirect" contributions pages like that. ST47 (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I see. Why is it then that the two old user contribution links (the plain links) I posted above give quite different results? The one for Finnish Gas leads somewhere, while the Apanuggpak one says there's nothing. --Mango från yttre rymden (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Because there is a user called Finnish Gas but there is not a user called Apanuggpak. ST47 (talk) 20:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The user page Finnish Gas properly redirects to the new name League Octopus, while the old user page Apanuggpak is not redirecting, but on one hand says it doesn't exist and on the other gives a message that is has been renamed. However the old talk page does redirect: User talk:Apanuggpak

Since this is the first time I have come across something that doesn't get redirected I thought it was an error and wanted to report it, especially since the old links behave differently. I tried my best to find the right place. A regular user cannot possibly know all the possibilities and limitations of the technicalities of Wikipedia. I was acting in good faith. I'm not suggesting a new feature. If you aren't in a helpful mood, then leave it to someone else. I was just trying to understand after you said it doesn't work like that. --Mango från yttre rymden (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The reason why User:Apanuggpak isn't redirecting to User:Apanuugpak is because the former didn't exist when the account was renamed (so there's nothing to redirect). As far as the contributions for Finnish Gas, someone created and started using that account name after the original user was renamed to League Octopus. It doesn't happen often, but that's also why you'll often see people like AmandaNP creating doppleganger accounts for old usernames (e.g. DeltaQuad), which is to prevent impersonation on the old account. Hope this helps. Primefac (talk) 23:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm one example of that. I was originally User:Pharmboy but changed to my real name, and then reregistered the name as an alt, so my real history (including as Pharmboy) is under my current name. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Anti-harassment RfC closed

In a prior case, the Arbitration Committee mandated that a request for comment be held on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future. This request for comment has now been closed with the following summary:

In this RFC the community was asked to weigh in on 8 topics of concern regarding Wikipedia editors ("editors"), the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom), Trust & Safety (T&S), and the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF). There were common themes presented across some of the questions, so if a related question contains similar themes that will be indicated in parentheses (e.g. "Q1"). Please note that while there may be proposals listed that arose during this discussion, any significant/policy changes to ArbCom must go through the standard processes as described in the Overview.

One of the overarching themes of responses to the questions was that ArbCom will always be under some form of scrutiny or displeasure from certain areas of the community. However, since they were elected to be trusted members of the community, they should do their best knowing that a majority of users supported their term when they were elected (Q1). However, that does not mean they should be entirely absent from ArbCom proceedings (Q6) or jump too quickly to conclusions when it comes to the presumption of innocence (Q5).

Q1, on the matter of private evidence impacting sanctions

ArbCom, by its very nature, will occasionally have cases that involve private evidence - be it email correspondence or links to off-wiki websites - that cannot be publicly displayed in the public-facing case evidence. This private evidence is of most concern when it is the sole (or majority) reason for a case being opened and/or sanctions being filed; multiple examples were given where the results of a case were given without one being formally opened on-wiki, or where supposedly "private" information was actually present in diffs on-wiki the entire time.

While many agreed that private evidence should stay private, there were a few main suggestions regarding how ArbCom should deal with private information:

• ArbCom should disclose if/when private information is being used to inform the case
• ArbCom should "categorise" any private evidence so interested parties would know the providence of said information
• ArbCom should open a public case report, even if the evidence is 100% private, so that editors are aware that a discussion is taking place
• ArbCom should only use private information when absolutely necessary - if sanctions and/or findings of fact can be based on public/on-wiki evidence, then that should be prioritised (Q2)

Q2, on fear of retaliation

To summarize multiple editors' opinions in this section, "there is no easy solution" to the issue of retaliation as a result of harassment and subsequent case filing. That being said, many of the editors agreed that if the information is public then the case should be handled publicly and not behind closed doors (Q1). Additionally, admins should be more willing to do what is necessarily “lower down” in places like ANI, and bump cases to ArbCom after these interventions are shown to be ineffective (Q7). While there was a suggestion for some form of intermediate location for cases to be handled between ANI and ArbCom, there was no significant agreement on what that should look like; among the ideas were bringing back RFC/U, having some form of formal mediation process between the users (Q8), or having the functionaries act as some form of private investigators vetting private information before it reaches ArbCom.

One supported suggestion was to allow third-party filings to ArbCom in an effort to minimize retaliation on the harassed/concerned editor.

Q3, on responding to allegations

This question follows on rather heavily from Q2, but focused more on the accused rather than the complainant. Many editors agreed that evidence should not be kept secret from the accused, except when it comes down to the safety of the complainant; if there are specific threats and/or information that could be used in retaliation, T&S should be contacted first (Q8). If there is private information, the complainant should be asked what information they would be willing to release publicly.

While the idea that "innocent until proven guilty" (Q5) was used a lot, significantly more people indicated that we (Wikipedia or ArbCom) are not a legal system, and so that should not be assumed; principles, not any specific rule or formulae should be used in relation to the accused. However, it was felt that there is an imbalance between accuser and accused, and that mediation (Q2, Q8) may be helpful to level that imbalance.

Q4, on unsubstantiated claims

This question had a fairly straight-forward consensus; all editors should be treated with respect and politeness, but there is nothing either the community or ArbCom can do to interrupt the "unpleasant dynamic" of unsubstantiated complaints and filings. A certain amount of "tough skin" is needed to edit Wikipedia, but ArbCom should not be used as therapy.

Q5, on plausible deniability

As mentioned in Q3, there is no "right" to a presumption of innocence. That being said, there was expressed a concern that there should not be any sanction unless there is a clear violation of policy; off-wiki links with no verification should be treated carefully. As every case is different, it is difficult if not impossible to write "rules" around this issue; ArbCom should use common sense and deal with limited available evidence on a case-by-case basis

Q6, on the arbitration environment

There was a fairly consistent response to this question advocating for more/better patrolling of ArbCom proceedings, in particular by the clerks. This includes word limits, lack of diffs (especially when accusations are made), and civility/arguing concerns; clerks should also be doing a better job of communicating with those who have "broken" the rules to get clarifications and/or indicate that their edits were removed for technical/procedural reasons rather than any sort of "point of view" suppression.

One supported proposal was to have ArbCom cases written in "c2:DocumentMode", where a case is presented more like an article (with clerks summarizing and updating a single document) and less like a half-threaded discussion between members (which can become heated/unproductive)

Q7, on unblockables

Much like Q2, there is no clear definition or easy solution to "unblockables"; everyone is cantankerous at some point, and we should all be treated equally. Opinions were highly variable, including many that felt there are no changes needed or that everything should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, but the following were some of the most prevalent suggestions among the participants:

• Admonishments and/or final warnings should be much more frequent, and actually enforced
• Blocks should be handed out more frequently, but only as short-term blocks
• Users with multiple (but un-sanctioned) cases at ANI, and/or those with lengthy block logs, should be looked at by ArbCom
• More admin cases should be brought before ArbCom

Q8, on the relationship with T&S

Editors strongly feel that en-wiki issues should be handled "in-house", and only matters that affect the real world (Q2, Q3) should be passed to T&S. A better/improved dialogue between ArbCom and the WMF is also desired, with the Foundation and T&S passing along en-wiki-specific information to ArbCom to handle.

There was a desire from some editors, expressed in this section as well in previous sections, for the WMF to hire/find/create resources and training for mediation and dispute resolution, which would hopefully mitigate some of the most prevalent civility/harassment issues present on Wikipedia.

To reiterate, this close summarizes the opinions and feelings of those who participated, and are not binding; any proposals or suggestions that change policy will still need to go through the formal procedures as outlined in the Overview.

Signed,

• Primefac (talk) 01:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
• Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Anti-harassment RfC closed

Deletion of Elizabeth Brodden

Hi all. I just deleted Elizabeth Brodden per WP:BLPDELETE. The article was created in 2006 (before BLPPROD existed) and the most substantial changes since then have been to various external links and references automatically deleted by bots because they were on a blacklist. This has left us with an unsourced BLP containing personal details, which I think is unacceptable to have on Wikipedia.

As this deletion is not covered by any of the usual reasons in the deletion policy and is being done for the perceived good of the encyclopedia, I believe it could be controversial, so I am mentioning this here. I have no objections to anybody writing a reliably-sourced BLP compliant stub as a replacement. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Ritchie333, good call, IMO. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I do slightly question whether the personal details in the last revision of the article really warranted IAR summary deletion, as it doesn't extend to anything beyond her full name, approximate birth year, and the height she was in 1984. The article would have no chance at AfD as it stands, but equally I'm not sure this was really an example of something that needed to happen right this second. I'm certainly not planning to restore it or anything, but I honestly suspect that IAR + this AN post that two people have responded to has already generated more bureaucracy than just PROD/AFDing it would have! ~ mazca ^talk 17:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I did find this, and this, and mentions in a couple of other books. Personally, I think it would have been better to send to AFD and let the community hash it out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't sure AfD was appropriate; I'm not disputing the notability of this person (I haven't checked myself) so (under normal circumstances) I wouldn't start one. I have asked the good folk at Women in Red to see if somebody's up for rewriting the article - hopefully somebody is and we'll end up with a better article and not have to thrash things through AfD. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Ritchie333, that is a good idea. I'll remember it myself for possible later use. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The beauty of AFD is that there are a lot of people trying to rescue articles there, and if good sources can be found, that is a good place to get them found. Not saying it is the only, or even best answer, but it at least gives the article a chance at continuing life. Dropping it off at WiR was also a good idea. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, the downside is that there are a lot of people who think Wikipedia is a directory of sportspeople. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think summary deletion is appropriate for this kind of thing. BLPDELETE recommends summary deletion if the page contains unsourced negative material or is written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be rewritten or restored to an earlier version of an acceptable standard. There's definitely nothing like that. Although the page did contain personal information, as Mazca noted it isn't anything particularly sensitive and it could easily have been removed without deleting the page. It also isn't correct to say it was unsourced, it did cite this, although that doesn't look reliable at all. I suggest sending it to AfD instead. Hut 8.5 12:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

"references automatically deleted by bots because they were on a blacklist." Since when was that acceptable? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I believe Ritchie misspoke; Cyberbot II tags pages with blacklisted links, per this BRFA. Humans removed all of the offending links in this article. Primefac (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

A non-related article in need of a similar solution

Martin Ingram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), looking at the history of the article, has for fourteen years contained serious unreferenced or poorly referenced extremely serious allegations relating to named and unnamed third parties. Martin Ingram is a whistleblower has written a book (Stakeknife: Britain's Secret Agents in Ireland. O'Brien Press. ISBN 978-0862788438) and various articles (for example this) about his allegations, which are covered to various extents at Force Research Unit, Stakeknife and Brian Nelson (Northern Irish loyalist) and to a lesser, much more minor extent in some other articles. It is difficult to know whether a neutral article can be written at the title "Martin Ingram", as any biography of him instantly involves extremely serious allegations about third parties. I would love to be proven wrong on this, but I do not have the time or the energy to deal with the article myself at present. FDW777 (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Web mining

Block requested for 78.147.84.35 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Falsely accusing me of vandalism for trying to clean up the article and demanding that I be banned for doing so. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked you and the IP from Web mining for 24 hours - I'm doing this because I can't see an appropriate exemption, and edit warring is still edit warring. I've dropped a note on IP's talk page requesting they assume good faith or they'll be blocked more. In your case, hopefully you realise the block is not punitive, but simply that I feel if you're right, another editor will restore your version soon enough. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

TIL that page-specific blocks are a thing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

How to close an AFD started by a sock operator?

Hey all, is there a preferred method for closing/deleting an AfD that was started by a sockpuppet? I'm looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sundari Neeyum Sundaran Naanum (TV series) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kadaikutty Singam (TV series) and the sockmaster is Daaask. Would appreciate an education. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, I would start by opening an WP:SPI so whether they're actually a sock can be investigated. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@RoySmith: I did open an SPI. It was determined to be Daaask, which I linked to above. And now I need instruction on what admin-ly steps I should take to deal with the remaining AfDs. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I've IAR closed both as procedural closes. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If they're confirmed socks, G5 the nomination (assuming no one else has commented yet). If there have been comments, and they're not delete, then just speedy keep as an improper nomination. Primefac (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, I'd agree with that - though even with !votes you could still G5 it, without prejudice to renomination by an editor in good standing. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

This is definitely not correct. Once someone has !voted, the page has a substantial edit by another editor, and is not eligible for G5 speedy deletion. WilyD 06:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Wily is correct - in the same vein as an article Nosebagbear (talk) 07:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Editor with long-term POV push

I'm here at the advice of Ymblanter, concerning the edits by Kovanja. Kovanja has been making dubious and ideologically driven edits to topics regarding Rus'/Ukrainian/Russian history for years, generally to deny the existence of Ukraine or Belarus before the twentieth century.

• Most recently he's added material on the "foundation of Russian statehood" to Rurikid dynasty and edit warred about it [9], [10]. The edits were notably supported by two tourism websites and other sources that did not support his edits. In talk he explicitly says Ukraine and Belarus were founded only as Soviet Republic with no historical context [11]. A similar edit was made at Kievan Rus', including mis-transliterating Ῥωσία (Rosia) as Rossija, the transliteration of the Russian name for Russia (Россия) [12].
• In September he also edit warred over the origin of borscht, saying Ukraine didn't exist, only little Russians: [13], [14], [15], [16]. This is actually something he's been at for years, see [17], [18], [19], [20].
• If you follow his edits back in time it just goes on and on like this, such as adding completing irrelevant information about Russia and the Rurikids were the same to Ruthenians [21]. He's also tried to add questionable information to Holodomor, arguing it wasn't a genocide [22], [23], [24], saying genocide is a mere presumption and fabrication.
• He's also tried to claim that Russians invented shashlik [25].

It strikes me that this user is probably wp:NOTHERE. I'd appreciate an admin looking into it.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

He's still at it at Rurik dynasty [26]. Also personal attacks [27].--Ermenrich (talk) 23:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Probably worth noting he's been repeatedly blocked from Czech Wikipedia for inserting misleading information, including edit warring on their article on Stalin on the Holomor [28], for which he is currently partially blocked there.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The user indeed does not look competent in editing at least Eastern European topics.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I would support an indefinite block, after review. A TBAN restricted to those topics is just going to end in one anyway. --Izno (talk) 15:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Temporary checkuser privileges for scrutineers

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

On recommendation of the Electoral Commission, temporary English Wikipedia checkuser privileges are granted to stewards Mardetanha, Martin Urbanec, and Tks4Fish solely for the purpose of their acting as scrutineers in the 2020 Arbitration Committee election.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Temporary checkuser privileges for scrutineers

"The" at start of a school's name

• Recently I was asked to move page Astley Cooper School to The Astley Cooper School on the grounds that adding the "The" was official school usage. Should such requests be obeyed? Or should the "The" be treated as an advertisory stylization and be ignored? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Taking a look at WP:THE, convention states that if it meets at least one of two requirements:

1. Definite article would change the meaning, and
2. Definite article is capitalised in running prose

then "The" should (in most cases) appear in the title. #1 definitely isn't the case, and #2 is debatable. At this point I believe we're supposed to fall on WP:COMMONNAME, as this subsection implies:

When a proper name is almost always used with "The", especially if it is included by unaffiliated sources, the article "The" should be used in the name of the corresponding Wikipedia article as well.

Emphasis mine. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 11:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Note Ohio State University; they're a prominent example of insisting on the definite article and it's in the lead, but not the article title. Mackensen (talk) 12:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

This seems like a "case-by-case consensus" issue. Hold a discussion/RFC on whether or not "if it is included by unaffiliated sources" or not, and see where that goes. This doesn't appear like much of an admin issue; admins don't have special power to decide style issues, and this should be decided by a discussion among the interested. --Jayron32 12:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

(ec) This makes me think of "The" Ohio State University. I did go to the site of the school itself and the while school does formally call itself The Astley Cooper School, however local news coverage here does not do so. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• And see this Google search: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=%22Astley+Cooper+School%22+-%22The+Astley+Cooper+School%22 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Issue with Speedy Deletion criteria G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion

Hi all

I'm sorry if this is not the correct place to post this, it includes the work of admins so it seemed a sensible place. I've recently been involved in a speedy deletion discussion as the creator of the article under criteria G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion and I've noticed an issue with the process that seems like it stops people making a decision based on evidence. The criteria states that it includes sufficiently identical copies and excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version. However people like me who do not have the rights to see deleted articles have no way of making an assessment whether a previously deleted article is identical or not. As an example, in this nomination 50%+ of the references were not available at the time of deletion so I assume that it is not identical but have no way to tell.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 12:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there are a lot of G4 requests where the inability to see the page is an issue (though, you can sometimes find the page through mirrors, and could ask, rather than taking the liable to be hostile to new editors act of noming for speedy deletion). However, if some of the references post-date the discussion, and deletion was on notability grounds, it should be obvious G4 doesn't apply. If you think a slight rewording might make it clearer, WT:CSD is the place to suggest it. WilyD 12:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

(ec)@John Cummings: I have declined the G4 tag. Much of the old version of the article contained quotes criticising the ABD; this version doesn't. The usual procedure for non-admins who can't see the previous version to cross compare is to contest the speedy on the talk page, which you did. If the article is deleted per G4 regardless, and you're not satisfied with the deleting admin's response, then the matter can be raised at deletion review, at which point the old article will usually be restored for evaluation purposes. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much both, I wonder if something like (apologies for poor grammar) this criteria should only be used if you have access to the previously deleted version of the article and can make it available on the talk page' would help make it clearer? John Cummings (talk) 13:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I would say that's a bad idea - only admins can see the deleted versions, and as the folks deleting the page itself that's all that is necessary; preventing someone from even nominating an article because they cannot see the text is just bad idea, because then you'd only have a few hundred active admins capable of nominating pages. Primefac (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In addition, if you want to write an article but find that an article under that title was previously deleted (you will see a deletion log message before you can create the page), many admins will be pleased to send you a copy of the deleted article, as long as it hasn't been deleted because of copyright violations or other reasons we're not allowed to. You can ask the administrator who deleted the page, or anyone listed in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: thanks very much. John Cummings (talk) 13:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I have to say that the deletion debate was pretty poor, with two !voters saying "Just not notable" and one saying "never heard of them". (By contrast, I have heard of them, because I know that they won't be sending George Monbiot a Christmas card any time soon.) Indeed, I'd almost treat that AfD like a PROD, since no reasonable arguments were made for the old article, which cited The Times, BBC News and the Daily Telegraph even then. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Ritchie333, agree - they are fringe loons, but probably notable fringe loons. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

As someone who knows an editor who nominates a lot of pages for G4, I would much rather have them nominate a page and decline it for being different than have garbage in the article space (and no, I'm not referring to this article). A speedy deletion nomination isn't some scarlet letter; it just means that someone (likely who didn't participate in the previous discussion) was concerned that it might be a duplicate. Primefac (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

A speedy deletion nomination is the kind of hostile welcome that drives a lot of new good faith editors off the project. In an era when declining participation is making some stuff more burdensome, recklessly driving away people for no benefit is not a good idea. WilyD 05:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• I was shocked - shocked! - to see that the article was full of self-serving bullshit drawn from their own websites, with all the criticism missing. I restored the deleted history. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Error message when trying to click "page views"

the "page views" button seems to be having problems today. I got an error message "502 bad gateway" when I tried to utilize this. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• Happens to me too, but this is really an issue for WP:VPT than for here. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Applying more than one block at a time

I've indeffed Crystal3003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from editing the Jacqueline Jossa page following a complaint raised at ANI. I was also minded to give a 1 week site block for edit warring, but am concerned that doing so would mean the indef PBAN will be lost when the block expires. Is this the case, or does the block revert to an indef PBAN once the sitewide block expires? Mjroots (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, there is no "default state" other than "unblocked", so if you partial block and then full block for a shorter length of time, when the full block expires it will revert back to unblocked. I was thinking it might be worth putting a phab ticket in, but I just thought of a case where an indef siteblock is imposed, followed by a shorter "time served" block, which would then default back to an indef siteblock after the expiry of the second block. Primefac (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah, so my intuition was correct then. I'm not au fait with phab though. Mjroots (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Having multiple separate but overlapping blocks (and protections) is a perennial ask on VPT and Phab. There's been a bit of refactoring in the blocks area for the past few months so that might be a thing being made possible. Blocks is phab:T202673 (inspired by the creation of partial blocks) and others in the related tree; multiple protection is phab:T41038 and related tasks. --Izno (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Logan Williams

The Logan Williams bio created by User:HistoricRelic looks suspect. I've just moved it to the common name, done a history merge and added the old AfD. I have a busy few days ahead and can't look into it further, but note that the original page was created by an SPA and was a suspected paid job. The new version is also created by a new account. Schwede66 18:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• Looking at the current version, and the deleted version (admin only) [29], I'm thinking that it qualifies for speedy delete as recreating a substantially identical article that was deleted at AFD (CSD:G4). I'm off to bed, so I will leave to someone else to second and mop up, or say otherwise. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• There was also a more recent AfD from this year, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logan Williams (entrepreneur), at which it was again resoundingly deleted. I have applied G4. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Backlog at ITN

There are several outstanding items ready to be posted at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates that require attention. 2020 Bolivian general election in particular has been marked as "Ready" for nearly 24 hours with no action. Morgan695 (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Azuredivay reported by User:Vincentvikram

• Azuredivay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive418#User:Azuredivay_reported_by_User:Prolix_(Result:_Warned)

@EdJohnston:, I would like to point to this link [[30]] wherein @Azuredivay: continues to violate with impunity the 3RR rule. A perusal of the User talk:Azuredivay shows that there are helpful suggestions and multiple warnings by editors. It appears that the warnings have had no effect. Vikram Vincent 08:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I just realised that I posted on the wrong page. Let me move this to the Edit_warring page Vikram Vincent 14:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Never mind, I'll look at it here. It seems that this edit at Jio is a new violation of MOS:DIGITS so I'll be issuing a block per my prior warning to Azuredivay. EdJohnston (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Move Request Needs to be Closed on Extended Protected Page

I opened up a move discussion at the Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict#Proposal:_Rename_to_2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_War. As WP:RM states that the WP:RM page is only for controversial moves, and aS prior move discussion made in relation to a different name seemed to have a consensus to rename the page to 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War, it did not seem to be a controversial move but opened an informal move discussion on the talk page to confirm that that was the case. As I predicted, there is overwhelming support for the proposed name change, but since I opened up the discussion the page has been extended-protected and an administrator is now needed to move the page. If someone could close the discussion and move the page, as there is clearly a consensus for the change, I would appreciate it.XavierGreen (talk) 13:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

XavierGreen, While there does seem to be consensus to rename, what to rename to is still up in the air because some advocate "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War", and others advocate "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War", and there seems to be disagreement over whether it is the second or third war, given the Four-Day War, or if its a continuation of the first war. (Imo, we're having this debate because we're ignoring RS and making our own original research...but whatever). Regardless, discussion is ongoing and I think a close premature. There is no need to rush to rename the page. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I would just note that virtually all of the editors agree that the title should be changed to include the term "war", of which there are plenty of cited sources to rely on provided in the talk page discussion. Furthermore, if you look at the number of editors advocating for "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War" They are a small minority of the responding editors, 20% or so, where as the overwhelming majority favor a move to "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War."XavierGreen (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Request for review of non-admin close at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic#RfC: Misinformation visual

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

---

I would like to request a review of the non-admin close made at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic#RfC: Misinformation visual, a discussion about whether to remove the video clip of Donald Trump suggesting that disinfectant injections might help treat COVID-19, which had been used as the visual element of the article's misinformation section. The closer, The Gnome, found consensus for removing the video; following close challenges on the talk page, they suggested earlier today that the matter be brought here for review. Copying my objection from the talk page:

Given that there was already discussion at the bottom from a potential closer (Usedtobecool) who observed weak consensus for keeping the video but for one outstanding issue, this is very much not the expected result, and the closer's extended rationale comes across in large part as a WP:SUPERVOTE. If the closer is going to weight arguments, it is necessary to do so using guidelines and policies (MOS:IMAGEREL, presumably), but instead, the closer brings up only the essay WP:NOTYOUTUBE (which was not once mentioned in the discussion itself) and does a bunch of math about how much room the visual takes up that was also not part of the discussion. Further, per the closer's own rationale, the arguments made by some remove !voters that Trump was not spreading misinformation were completely unsupported ([It] is accepted, per overwhelming consensus of sources, that what President Trump is suggesting or supporting in the video clip constitutes misinformation), but they did not discount them at all in their count, so the tally is actually a numerical superiority for keeping, not a tie. To find from that not just no consensus but consensus for removal is an implausible reading.

How do you all read consensus at the discussion? Regards, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• Weak endorse as I think the outcome is correct. However, I think The Gnome's rationale doesn't adequately address the arguments brought up in the discussion and should be revised or clarified. To Sdkb's point, I appreciate Usedtobecool's perspective--and I admit they've likely read the discussion more thoroughly than I have--but it looks like a no consensus outcome at best. Proponents of option 3 (no illustration) raised serious NPOV concerns along with concerns about whether we should present any illustration of misinformation since it could still mislead despite our best efforts. Proponents of option 1 note that it's an accurate and verifiable example of misinformation, but seem to neglect those two major points brought up by option 3 proponents. Participants never came to a consensus on how to weigh those competing concerns which leads to no consensus. While I don't think it was explained correctly, I do agree that there may be merit in weighing the option 3 opinions more: WP:NPOV has strong consensus behind it while no policy or guideline requires illustrations be used in articles. I don't think that's the right call--I'd prefer to call it no consensus and punt the issue to a later discussion--but it's reasonable. I don't see these as substantially different outcomes though, because given the discussion comments, especially by Barkeep, I think the status quo was no illustration and no consensus should default to option 3 anyway. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC) Edit: Strike bolded !vote. While I stand by my rationale, I think my choice of bolded text misrepresents my stance especially given subsequent comments in the thread. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

  Wugapodes, Barkeep's judgement about the status quo was based on the assertion that The May discussion which justifies its inclusion was inconclusive, and that the nearly four months in which the video was present should therefore not count as establishing a status quo. Looking at that May discussion, it never received a formal close since this was long before the issue escalated to the point of having an RfC etc., but I don't think it was at all improper to read it as a perfectly solid consensus for adding given the context at the time. I count 5 editors in support of adding (Moxy, Doc James, Acalycine, myself, and -sche), compared to only one opposed (David A) and Iluvalar suggesting caution in writing the caption but not otherwise weighing in. A 5-1 discussion on a talk page seems a perfectly valid justification for adding a video to a page, and when the video then remains for months in one of the most heavily watched pages on Wikipedia (with upwards of 100,000 views per day), it becomes the status quo by any reasonable definition of "status quo".

  Are we really going to say that, because a 5-1 discussion was never formally closed as "support" way back in May, everything after is tainted and we should therefore take a highly atypical approach to defining the status quo now in October? That just seems rather absurd. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

  @Sdkb: The May discussion to add the video was an informal discussion that lasted a few hours, so it is not on its own robust consensus per WP:CONLEVEL. As Hzh pointed out in the discussion, the caption RfC was about the caption, not the inclusion of the video like was discussed here. While longevity gives the presumption of consensus, the article has been semi-protected since March and the vast majority of those 100,000 daily readers cannot challenge your claim through WP:BRD no matter how much they disagree with it, and this presents a danger of false consensus. Even for those who can edit the page, discretionary sanctions have been in effect for months, and it's obvious that discretionary sanctions are meant to intimidate editors into being more careful by placing a sword of Damocles over their head. Certainly some editors would not want to risk reverting an edit no matter how much they disagreed with inclusion.

  Following the May discussion, it was completely reasonable to add the video given the comments, but with time and context it's not clear whether it ever truly had consensus or was accidentally a fait accompli. The best way to test this is through sustained discussion with widespread participation, and we got that in this RfC. Not only was it the most robust discussion of include/exclude, participants explicitly discussed whether the status quo was include or exclude and that ended with the modification of the RfC statement to strike out "status quo". Even the policy at WP:NOCON suggests that when a discussion is explicitly about whether to include or exclude material, the WP:ONUS to develop consensus is on editors seeking to include disputed material. Given the discussion in the RfC and our policy at WP:ONUS, I simply don't think there is sufficient consensus that a no consensus result should end with inclusion. — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

  So here I am having largely been inactive and as I read AN, I see my name with no ping in this discussion. After having refreshed myself on this situation, let me try to underline something. It's not just that the article was semi-protected as Wugapodes points out making it hard for the caption to be challenged. It's that the short inconclusive May discussion was then used to insert the following comment into the article INCLUSION OF THIS VIDEO HAS BEEN AFFIRMED AS CURRENT CONSENSUS (ITEM 13). DO NOT REMOVE OR ALTER CAPTION WITHOUT ATTAINING CONSENSUS AT TALK. Given that the article is/was under GS, if consensus had truly been reached an attempt to do BRD could have been disruptive and might have resulted in sanctions for the editor who attempted to remove it. I recognize the value that such lists of consensus can provide in preventing repeated discussions especially in fast moving controversial topics. However, such consensus should be robust - which doesn't have to mean an RfC but does have to mean more than a few editors, out of many participating in editing/discussing the topic, in agreement and ideally over enough time that those who were busy for a few days (like I've been) don't miss out on the chance to form that consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn - Closer stated the !votes were a numerical tie, and that they were weighing based on strength of arguments. However, weighing "strength of arguments" simply means identifying and rationalizing in your closing statement that one side is more in line with policy than the other side. Reading the close, I see no such rationalization as to why the side they found a consensus for was notably backed by policy whereas the opposing side was not. There's a lot of irrelevant personal assessment which seems inappropriate and little to no discussion of any policy implications that back or disagree with either side. Concerningly, the only real policy invocation was this bizarre assessment of "meta-arithmetic", where the closer came to the conclusion that the image was "without a doubt" undue weight based on the the percentage of article text discussing it. Due weight means including content relative to the extent it's discussed in reliable sources. It has nothing to do with arbitrary percentages of article text. I mean, that doesn't even make sense. So to see a closer make a personal assessment that something is unequivocally undue weight, when their rationale isn't even rooted in the policy, that's just not a legit close. When a closer purports to be weighing strength of arguments to give one side the consensus, and doesn't even rationalize how that side is rooted in policy where the other side is not, that's just not a legit close. I will usually err on the side of endorsing a justifiable close, even if it's debatable. But this one seems to have given additional weight to one side without providing any real policy-based justification rationalizations for doing so. That makes it a textbook supervote, even if it was not intended to be. Let someone else have a go at it. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn. The closing rationale explains why the clip should be included, then decides that it shouldn't. At best it's no consensus, but the policy arguments in the close actually favour inclusion. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn if you're going to close a discussion on strength of argument, as the closer did here, then either one of the sides in the discussion should have been more policy-based than the other, or there should be something flawed in the arguments of one side (being logically fallacious, convincingly rebutted, etc). I don't see that here, the points made by the closer are more the sorts of things which should be brought up by a participant rather than a closer. The supporters of option #3 feel that including the video constitutes undue weight and that the video doesn't add much to the section, whereas the supporters of option #1 don't think it's undue weight, do think it adds value and note that Trump is arguably the most prominent purveyor of coronavirus misinformation. Those are both reasonable positions which were evenly balanced in the discussion, so I don't see a consensus for either alternative. Hut 8.5 15:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
• FYI I have not gone back to look at the exact details but as far as I remember, Option 3 arguers raised concern wrto. WP:NPOV and it was addressed in the Option 1 !votes that followed. The Option 3 !votes afterwards asserted NPOV but did not address previous rebuttals. Rest of the reasons given against inclusion were weak (there must be better options (Nirvana fallacy, more or less), this doesn't add much but will cause disruption (more about maintaining the peace), gives platform to misinformation and might harm readers (self-censorship), etc.). Those favouring inclusion, represented by Sdkb for the most part, made a strong case addressing all policy-based concerns that were raised, I thought, and the numbers, I felt, were balanced enough to decide on the strength of arguments. However, I noticed an issue that put the degree of informedness of all Option 1 !voters in question. So, I raised it, that another more-experienced closer may have better explanations or discussions to help them. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn because it was no consensus, clearly, and the closer was a WP:SUPERVOTE --Investigatory (talk) 07:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• This account has just been indeffed, FWIW. Hut 8.5 17:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn - At best, a poorly executed and worded close that only tangentially interprets the consensus. At worst, a supervote. In neither case a good close.--WaltCip-(talk) 11:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
• Consider, please - wasn't that clip more about relative to uv light and light treatment and making layman suggestions directed to whoever was off-camera on his right. Where's the misinformation? The disinfectant terminology has received widespread mention for COVID. For example, this article states: Thus continuous airborne disinfection with far-UVC light at the currently regulatory limit would provide a major reduction in the ambient level of airborne virus in occupied indoor environments. In this article there are instances of new UV disinfection system, and a sign that reads “Coronavirus Disinfected Here!” According to the FDA: For more information see "Q: Where can I read more about UV radiation and disinfection?". The headline reads: UV Lights and Lamps: Ultraviolet-C Radiation, Disinfection, and Coronavirus What is the context of that video relative to what's in the article? Can anyone iVote here or is it just for admins? If it's open, then I endorse the close.) ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

  It's open but I don't think it's about rehashing the original disagreement to determine what's right. Rather, it's only about what the correct closure is for the discussion we already got, whether the closer got the close obviously wrong, and if they did not, whether their closing statement reflects that they walked the eightfold path to the correct close (there's always a one-in-three chance that a closure would be correct without being correct). Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• If I'd closed that, I would have given additional weight to the NPOV concerns, as the closer did. I think that extra weight is sufficient to tip the balance in favour of option 3, so I would endorse that close. I also really appreciate the full closing statement in which the closer shows his working in a lot of detail.—S Marshall T/C 12:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
• SNOW overturn immediately and a trout for Gnome; patiently obvious supervote. That's a no-consensus outcome if I ever saw it and there's absolutely no valid argument that the people pushing for removal have any stronger argument in policy (by my reading Gnome does not even attempt to state that; they simply say they personally support option number 3 as a matter of subjective opinion.) I am especially shocked by The invocation of WP:STATUSQUO is thinner than Francis Rossi's hairline. The length of this discussion and the passion herein exhibited cannot be easily dismissed - a flat dismissal of a policy-based argument based on nothing more than Gnome's gut feelings - and by the entire paragraph starting with The meta-arithmetic..., where Gnome patiently obviously presents their own personal argument and opinions, which should have been made as a participant in the RFC, as a justification for falsely representing a no-consensus outcome as their own preferred result. I strenuously urge Gnome not to close further RFCs until they understand how badly-handled this one was - it's honestly a bit shocking. I would urge someone to review Gnome's other recent RFC closures, since this is a sufficiently clear-cut abuse of policy as to raise WP:COMPETENCE issues when it comes to closing RFCs. There is absolutely no way anyone with a reasonable understanding of policy could look at that RFC and see it as anything but a no-consensus outcome. --Aquillion (talk) 18:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comments from the closer. The main complaints and accusations raised against the closure concern (A) a violation of WP:SUPERVOTE and (B) a general disregard for WP:POLICY, i.e. the RfC was closed without references to policy, something even worse, as I read above, when the closer is not abiding by the number of suggestions.

A. SUPERVOTE: The relevant essay points out the specific types of a supervote. Let's take them on quickly, one by one.

A discussion has concluded for a particular action, based on solid policy reasoning, but a minority takes a different view that has less backing. It is supervoting to close in favor of the dissenters. Also, a discussion has an emotive majority in favor of an outcome, but it is clearly against policy. It is a supervote to close the discussion in favor of the majority as such. Since we all agree that the numerical count of suggestions was a tie, neither criterion applies

A discussion has drawn to a close, with or without a clear outcome. It is supervoting to close in favor of an undiscussed or unfavored compromise idea, which may satisfy no one. Also a discussion has drawn to a close, with or without a clear outcome. It is a supervote to close in favor of a solution no one even mentioned, or which was mentioned only in passing but not supported. The decision was, as it happens, favored by one of the two sides. As such, it did not amount to a violation of either of these criteria.

The remaining criterion in this case is the only legitimate one we should examine, i.e. A discussion has drawn to a close, with or without a clear outcome. A closer makes an editorial, rather than administrative decision, and it moots the discussion. (Italics in the original.) We have to examine whether the closure was made with a rationale that the close is an "editorial decision" and [the closer] states what the actual consensus is or whether the closer gave a reasoning based on policy. So, this brings us squarely into the complaints about "ignoring policy."

B. POLICY: The policy that is of paramount importance in this RfC is WP:WEIGHT, as invoked by participants, and quite logically too. This was the policy on which the participants' arguments were assessed, as clearly set out in the eponymous section. And it was the participants' input that was offered as the basis for the assessment and not some "editorial" offering a personal opinion. It'd be instructive to recall part of that section: Ggehrlich stated that the "use of an image is a representation of this section and the content it embodies" while using "an image of a polarized figure diminishes the information being disseminated throughout." Gerald stated that the pic "can be placed at the misinformation main page, not here" since, in his opinion, "it contributes...nothing [to it]." Bakkster Man, Hzh, HollerithPunchCard ("if this [was] an article about Trump failure in propagating accurate information about the virus, then the video insertion would be suitable"), Adoring nanny and others argued that the insertion of clip gives its content more prominence than it deserves. All in all, the cumulative input of both sides was assessed as follows: The arguments offered by editors supporting #3 come out the strongest, in this context.

I will, of course, accept the outcome of this challenge whichever way it goes. This endeavor here, too, is part of the learning process of contributing to Wikipedia. Or, so it's supposed to be. Still, I honestly fail to see where the closure went so wrong as to merit suggestions such as the one tabled by Aquillion to stop me from doing any more closures (I may do one every wolfman moon, more likely, in any case) and catapulting trouts to my anorak. Take care, all. -The Gnome (talk) 22:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@The Gnome: I didn't mean that you should completely stop forever, but to me, reading your statements there and here, it seems as if you are not arguing that the version you support enjoys consensus (because it plainly does not), but instead are saying that a closer can choose either side in a no-consensus RFC and declare it to have consensus without making it WP:SUPERVOTE as long as both options are supported by policy; that is completely antithetical to WP:CLOSE. Based on that, it very much looks like you saw an unambiguously no-consensus RFC, had a strong opinion on its outcome, disliked the fact that such a no-consensus RFC would default to the status quo, and, as a result, presented your new argument... then overrode the outcome and opinion of everyone present by using the argument you had presented as a justification to ignore the consensus. Outright expressing disagreement with WP:STATUSQUO and devoting an entire paragraph to an argument that had not been presented in the RFC as a justification for your vote was completely inappropriate in a closure, and you need to acknowledge that; likewise, the arguments in favor of option 1 are not, by any stretch of the imagination, ones that contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. You cannot simply override the community consensus with a closure based on your own personal logic or opinions - yet you based your conclusion, in part, on an argument that had not been raised in the discussion; everything starting with the Wikipedia main article dedicated to and titled Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic contains some 2,200 words... presents a rationale that has nothing to do with assessing consensus, and in the paragraph above you raise numerous nit-picking disagreements with the interpretation and analysis of people who supported the version you voted against, mostly without referring to actual policy. All of that reads like a particularly ornery !vote in an RFC, not something appropriate to a closure (my shock, on reading it, that someone would close an RFC with such an inappropriate statement is part of what brought me here.) You plainly disagreed with one side, but if so you should have participated in the RFC as a participant rather than attempting to force your will on it with an inappropriate closure.

Likewise, if you don't believe in WP:STATUSQUO (as you stated with The invocation of WP:STATUSQUO is thinner than Francis Rossi's hairline. The length of this discussion and the passion herein exhibited cannot be easily dismissed, implying that you believe that an RFC closer is not just entitled to but required to substitute their own opinion for the community's when a no-consensus RFC has a lot of passion and discussion), and refuse to acknowledge its importance, then I stand by my statement that you absolutely should not be closing RFCs - that is a shocking rejection of standard practice when dealing with clear no-consensus RFCs like this one, and particularly shocking in that you seem to be arguing that as a closer you were particularly entitled to decide for the community in the face of a clear lack of community consensus precisely because discussions were so contentious. Such contentious discussions ought to have engendered caution, not this reckless disregard for what the discussion actually concluded. I know that this might seem overly-heated for a single RFC closure, but the willingness to accept a no-consensus result and go back to the drawing board is an extremely important part of keeping Wikipedia running smoothly - otherwise we could run into situations where people rush in to slap their opinion on no-consensus RFCs like this, as you did, by prioritizing their argument over everyone else's, only for the inevitable challenge to no-consensus when everyone in the RFC shows up to weigh in on it. If that happened, it would break our consensus-building mechanisms entirely. I have edited Wikipedia for some seventeen years and this is one of the most shockingly wrong closures I have ever seen; I am sure that you, when you participate properly in RFCs, would not appreciate presenting a valid, sound, policy-based argument that gets disregarded simply because it goes against the opinions of the RFC's closer. For that reason, I beg of you to recognize your mistake and reverse your closure voluntarily - it looks like this RFC is going to reach the obvious conclusion (thankfully), but it would be healthier for everyone involved if you acknowledged the severity of your mistake and simply backed down without insisting on another layer of process for such an obviously bad call. --Aquillion (talk) 23:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• From WP:CLOSE, see WP:NHC: Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but neither is it determined by the closer's own views about what is the most appropriate policy. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy. That was precisely the path followed in closing the RfC. -The Gnome (talk) 23:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• I think the key point in the above post is This was the policy on which the participants' arguments were assessed. It isn't the closer's job to read the arguments, read the policy, and decide which argument you think best fits the policy. If you do that then you are doing the same thing as one of the participants in the discussion and then declaring your opinion to be consensus - supervoting. A closer can certainly close one way because the arguments on the other side are inconsistent with policy or some wide consensus, but in most cases which fundamentally boil down to editorial judgement they are supposed to defer to the participants. This discussion, like many others, was about how to apply general principles articulated in policy to a specific case, and that invariably involves a large degree of judgement. I'm certainly not going to support banning the closer from doing any more closures, but I think they should take this discussion as an indicator that their approach for closing this one was misguided. Hut 8.5 09:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• Again, I must refer to the text of WP:NHC, which is part of WP:CLOSE, as quoted above to Aquillion. I'd have precisely zero problems accepting I have been "misguided" as to Wikipedia policy, but the cited essay reads quite clear to me: The closer can read the arguments, examine the policy (in this case, WP:WEIGHT), and decide which arguments best fit the policy. Imagine a case whereby the majority of the RfC participants endorse a position entirely unsupported by policy. Imagine also a case where one half of the participants endorses such a position. Closing the RfC as, respectively, a consensus for the majority or a non-consensus outcome would be an error. In fact, it would be a supervote! (WP:NHC reads: A discussion has an emotive majority in favor of an outcome, but it is clearly against policy. It is a supervote to close the discussion in favor of the majority as such.) -The Gnome (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Not going to offer a vote on this one as I have zero experience with discussions to overturn or not overturn an RFC close. Will say that in an article about X, including a section on "misinformation about X" is something that I believe harms ordinary readers, who likely came to the article seeking information, not misinformation. This is triply true when X is a deadly global pandemic. By having a section on misinformation, we are increasing the reach of that misinformation. Therefore, the less we discuss "misinformation" the better, with the optimal level being zero. All of that said, I recognize that the above is not Wiki policy on whether or not a closure should be overturned. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse. It's an unnecessarily long close (what we're seeing is not a supervote, but a running log of the closer's analysis of the arguments presented and the policy/source bases for them). The result is correct on the policy merits, as RfCs are not a numeric vote. The central issue was WP:UNDUE, and the closer (like the commenters) focused on it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Help wanted

Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory is a hot mess. Can a couple of uninvolved admins please come along and hat / close / archive some of the repetitive requests so that we stand some chance of focusing on the substantive (and valid) questions of exactly how to represent the developing narrative without giving undue weight to speculative claims. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

(non-admin) Fully agreed. I have been answering and removing edit requests for the last week. Asartea ^{Trick | Treat} 13:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I archived a few that seemed off-topic or repetitive. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Appeal of a copyright problem

An editor has filed a request at DRN in which User:AvThomson disagrees with User:Diannaa and wants to discuss. I assume that DRN is not the place for discussion of a copyright issue. I know most of the dispute resolution forums that are not DRN to send editors to. Where should this dispute be discussed? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:MCQ? --Jayron32 15:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

That's for images, not text. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 16:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyright problems then. --Jayron32 17:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, This is not a matter appropriate for DRN. From my understanding, DRN is for content disputes, not questioning copyright issues. This would probably best be discussed at AN/ANI/CP (where it is already listed), although AvThomson is in the wrong, as there is clear close paraphrasing on the effected article. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 17:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Moneytrees - Sort of thank you. DRN is for content disputes. Conduct disputes go to WP:ANI or AE. I knew that. I knew that I should tell the filer to go somewhere else; I just wanted to know where else. To tell an editor, "I can't help you, and I don't know who can," is a way of biting a user, and the rule says not to do that. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

IP block exempt

Dear administrators, can you please give my user name an IP block exempt? When I was on holiday in my country it appeared I could not edit EN: Wikipedia due to block of this IP range: 185.252.0.0/16. I was editing from a private home. Can you please help by giving me an IP exempt. I hope this is the good place to ask. I tried at meta for a global exempt, but was told to ask for a local exempt. I tried Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System, but this did not work, my request was closed and I was not able to recover it. Ellywa (talk) 22:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Ellywa, The instructions for requesting IPBE in these circumstances can be found at WP:IPECPROXY. SQL^{Query me!} 22:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Whathever... I tried now on 3 places. Please help. This is Kafkaesk.... Ellywa (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done TonyBallioni (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you TonyBallioni. Ellywa (talk) 22:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

ST47, for erasing true facts on this article. IPBE in these circumstances can be found at China Virus/Chinese Virus

What 45th US president Donald Trump calls coronavirus to promote his own racist agenda against Asian-Americans. Because of Trump hate crime has now increased towards Asian-Americans because of how Trump supporters now think they are all carriers of a contagious virus.
Chink list of ethnic racial slurs.