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. 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	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	Total
CfD	0	0	0	18	18
TfD	0	0	0	0	0
MfD	0	0	0	1	1
FfD	0	0	0	1	1
RfD	0	0	0	43	43
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 19 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 6 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 4 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 7 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 119 sockpuppet investigations
• 25 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 3 Fully protected edit requests
• 0 Candidates for history merging
• 39 requests for RD1 redaction
• 142 elapsed requested moves
• 4 Pages at move review
• 24 requested closures
• 102 requests for unblock
• 2 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 21 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (28 out of 7632 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Cliff Cash 2024-04-29 15:24 2024-06-04 12:22 move Persistent sockpuppetry: extending Ohnoitsjamie Michael D. Aeschliman 2024-04-29 06:44 2024-05-13 06:44 edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy Anachronist Wikipedia:Free encyclopedia 2024-04-29 03:24 indefinite edit,move Drop prot Pppery White Colombians 2024-04-29 03:17 2024-05-20 03:17 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: straight to WP:ECP due to involvement also of several confirmed accounts El C Government of Iran 2024-04-28 20:25 2025-04-28 20:25 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/IRP ToBeFree Everyone Knows That (Ulterior Motives) 2024-04-28 17:30 2024-04-30 15:20 edit Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content: increase requested at WP:RFPP Favonian Draft:The Car Accident Lawyer Group 2024-04-28 08:07 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Jimfbleak Battle of Ajmer 2024-04-28 06:42 2024-05-05 06:42 move Don't move an article being discussed at an AFD discussion Liz Khymani James 2024-04-27 21:35 2025-04-27 21:35 edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Minouche Shafik 2024-04-27 18:35 indefinite edit,move oops, accidentally full-protected Daniel Case User:Travism121212/Privacy law - Group D 2024-04-27 06:36 2024-05-04 06:36 move Stop moving this article around. Submit to WP:AFC for review Liz Travism121212/Privacy law 2024-04-26 22:17 2024-05-03 22:17 create Repeatedly recreated Liz Connecting Humanity 2024-04-26 19:45 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C Mirna El Helbawi 2024-04-26 19:45 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C User:Samory Loukakou/Erin Meyer 2024-04-26 18:29 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP BusterD 24 Oras 2024-04-26 18:25 2024-06-26 18:25 move Persistent vandalism; requested at WP:RfPP BusterD Nasimi Aghayev 2024-04-26 17:17 indefinite edit Community sanctions enforcement: sorry, WP:GS/AA, that is (so many AAs!) El C Atrocity propaganda 2024-04-26 17:09 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:GS/RUSUKR, WP:PIA and others, I'm sure El C Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (1 April 2024 – present) 2024-04-26 16:49 indefinite edit,move and it continues... Robertsky Beit Hanoun 2024-04-26 14:48 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:AELOG/2024#PIA Malinaccier Rangiya Municipal Board 2024-04-26 13:12 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated by sock of Rang HD Dennis Brown Siege of Chernihiv 2024-04-26 12:40 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/RUSUKR Filelakeshoe Bed Bath & Beyond (online retailer) 2024-04-26 03:31 indefinite move Repeated article moves despite recent RM discussion Liz Carlos Handy 2024-04-26 00:14 2025-04-26 00:14 edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/BLP; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses in the United States 2024-04-25 22:17 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Israa University (Palestine) 2024-04-25 17:35 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Blu del Barrio 2024-04-25 17:14 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Daniel Case Gaza Strip mass graves 2024-04-25 17:03 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Red Phoenix

Inappropriate non-admin closure by User:FormalDude

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Overturn The only "issue" that would really stand out to me here is the closer's history in the topic area. I do not, however, believe it was a bad close because of the closer's lack of sysop, nor because it was an "even split" (see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY). I will make the point that while administrators are implied to have the trust of the community by virtue of having passed an RFA, that does not discount the ability of any other uninvolved editor to close a contentious discussion properly, while correctly determining consensus. It may be rare, or it may be common, depending on the venue, but it is not impossible for an uninvolved editor to determine consensus better than some current administrators. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 07:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Process Question About Gabrielhussein03

I am asking this here because it isn't now about an urgent incident or a chronic, intractable problem, but about the handling of an intractable problem that has now been handled successfully. I would have asked this at the bottom of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Gabrielhussein503_creating_hoaxes, but that thread was properly closed as having been handled by User:Courcelles. By the way, thanks to User:Courcelles for use of the mop to clean up the mess left by a fabricator-vandal. Two editors reported that Gabrielhussein03 was creating hoaxes in draft space. User:KylieTastic reported it on 9 May, and a few editors agreed that something should be done. Then three days elapsed. Then I made a report that was similar to that of KylieTastic on 12 May, and then noted that the vandalism had been continuing for three days. At this point the vandal was blocked and the false drafts were deleted. Is there a particular reason why User:KylieTastic's report was not acted on quickly? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Since I’m tangentially involved, I’ll say this, I watchlist ANI, but rarely read it, so your edit summary making the 2nd report just happened to catch my attention. (The reports were combined while I was looking at the drafts). This was an easy problem to solve, any admin would have pressed the same buttons after three minutes of looking at pages, but I see no evidence any admin acknowledged Kylie’s report, which given how obviously problematic it all was makes me think no admin read it. The top of ANI is usually either resolved requests or big time drama, and this was neither. I wonder if more aggressive manually arching on ANI after these “easy” cases are resolved would help, so the noticeboard wouldn’t be so full of sections that need no further admin intervention. Courcelles (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

AC/DS applicable?

I came across Coerced religious conversion in Pakistan via WP:THQ#Starting an RfC and am wondering whether the article should be subject to WP:AC/DS per Wikipedia:Contentious topics/India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and I don’t see it as particularly debatable. Courcelles (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

It certainly is. And for parts of it (eg, material such as this that I removed pending discussion) WP:ARBBLP would also apply. Abecedare (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at this Abecedare and Courcelles. Should the article's talk page be correspondingly marked as such? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Secretlondon (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Done. Abecedare (talk) 01:09, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

User is either a very confused person or some kind of troll

Ghu23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is having a very hard time communicating or doing anything constructive. Can an admin please assess if this person needs help or is just engaging in some kind of performance art? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Hard to say, but either way their editing is disruptive. Have blocked the account for now, and left a message urging them to have a read of en-WP policies and decide if they'd like to contribute encyclopedia content rather than these pointless talkpage questions. Happy to unblock if they're simply new and unaware of what Wikipedia is for. Let's see how or if they respond. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Excess of caution?

Perhaps in an excess of caution, I have deleted this as G10. Would some kind colleague care to review that, and revert if I was wrong? I'd be grateful. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• 50K of often badly-sourced information about an incident that is already mentioned in the subject's own article? Nein danke. Good deletion. Black Kite (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
• I don't think it meets the precise letter of G10, but I think it does meet the spirit of it, and WP:BLPDELETE - an article that excessively expands on an existing BLP, with excessive detail and questionable sourcing should be deleted per the BLP policy. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
• Even if we have to call it IAR, I'd consider it a good deletion within discretion. Deleting draftspace BLP nonsense could almost be a G15 ;) Courcelles (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
• Solid deletion here. Is it verbatim G10? No. Would I delete it anyway based on BLPDELETE? Yup. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, all. It's reassuring to find your assessments fairly close to my own. I brought this here for review because of what it says here: "... delete the entire page as an initial step, followed by discussion" (not sure how grammatical that is, but the message seems clear). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I take "followed by discussion" to be a summary of the subsequent "The deleting administrator should be prepared to explain the action to others, by e-mail if the material is sensitive". Perhaps it should be changed to "to be followed by discussion if necessary". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Pages need moving

Consensus was reached to move several Liberal Party and National Party pages. Some need to be moved by an admin because the redirects need to be overwritten. See Talk:New South Wales Liberal Party and Talk:New South Wales National Party. Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 10:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Can you itemize which ones still need to be fixed? I spot checked several, and it looks like they're all done? --Jayron32 17:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Specifically:

• Liberal Party of Australia (Victorian Division) to Victorian Liberal Party
• Liberal Party of Australia (Queensland Division) to Queensland Liberal Party
• Liberal Party of Australia (A.C.T. Division) to Canberra Liberals
• National Party of Australia (SA) to South Australian National Party

Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done. I think those four are now at the correct targets. Let me know if there's anything else you need. --Jayron32 14:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Fyi WP:RMTR is the better forum for this. Galobtter (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Block review: Willbb234

Willbb234 (talk · contribs) was blocked from two articles by DougWeller last June for edit warring. The block was then extended to article space generally in March by NinjaRobotPirate. I reviewed the unblock request, and while that in itself was okay, they also threw a nasty personal attack at NinjaRobotPirate at the same time, so I upgraded the block to site-wide.

Looking at events leading up to the blocks, I think the real problem is Willbb234 has a history of not being able to stay cool when the editing gets hot, and so I am going to ask the community to review this and see if it's acceptable to unblock with the following conditions I've outlined on their user talk page:

• You explain in your own words why I considered the comment towards NinjaRobotPirate to be unacceptable. (note: Willbb234 has now addressed this on their user talk page)
• You agree to a one revert restriction, which means you may only make one revert on any page (article or otherwise) within 24 hours.

Discuss! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Bad block - the personal attack was made in response to NRP's block upgrade on March 11 and in the course of review of that action; we give blocked editors some leeway to vent frustrations (per WP:ADMINACCT generally) and I don't think given the context that "what a load of shit" rises to the level of PA normally meriting a block. Also, that PA was made on March 15, fully two months prior to Ritchie's siteblock. We do sometimes block for an evident pattern of abuse, but there was none here: since the supposed personal attack, Willbb234 made a few good-faith suggestions on a couple of talk pages, completed a GA review, made a comment in a deletion review which was less than ideal, pointed out an error on another talk page, moved a message on their talk page, then reposted their unblock request from March 17 that hadn't been answered and had been archived, then made an "oppose" comment in Ingenuity's ongoing RFA which may have been based on faulty reasoning but was not uncivil. There was no ongoing disruption for this block to solve, and furthermore, the optics of Ritchie's block are bad, having been done immediately after the RFA vote. The timeline gives a sense that Ritchie went looking for a reason to block an editor they disagreed with. I would encourage you to reverse this and apologize. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  I don't agree with every point you raise, but that this was a two month old comment is enough for me to reach the same conclusion about the block's validity. Return this to the status quo ante, at a minimum. Courcelles (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Simply put, upgrading the block based on an un-repeated, 2-month-old comment is unreasonable. It prevents nothing, and blocks are supposed to be preventative. At minimum, I would return the block to status quo ante as Courcelles suggests. --Jayron32 14:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I want to go further than that, and find a way in which Willbb234 can constructively contribute to the encyclopedia, can avoid the disputes that led to the increasingly escalating blocks, and address the concerns of the other blocking administrators. Simply reversing the site-wide block still means they can't actually contribute to several million articles they've never been disruptive on. So I want to review this and propose to unblock completely with a 1RR restriction in place. As that would reverse the actions of other admins, I think a discussion here is the best route to do that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with setting unblock conditions or setting up a return to editing regime, or whatever, but that's unrelated to blocking someone for a comment made 2 months ago. --Jayron32 14:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

That's a laudable goal, and I'm supportive of trying a 1RR restriction, actually. I think the confusion is why we needed a site-wide block rather than just a discussion on the request to lift the namespace block? Courcelles (talk) 14:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I have reversed the site-wide block so it is back to mainspace only, so it doesn't distract us from the unblock + 1RR proposal. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Given that that's out of the way, I think allowing mainspace editing with a 1RR restriction logged at WP:EDR is very reasonable. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

As do I. Courcelles (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I concur. --Jayron32 15:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

This user name caught my attention. I immediately thought of long-time and formerly prominent User:Will Beback.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

If you're going to accuse an editor of abusing multiple accounts, you're going to need better evidence than username similarity to an account that hasn't edited in nearly ten years. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Likely unrelated. Will Beback is not currently under a ban or a block (they had been, but that has been removed). Seems highly unlikely that a user that hasn't edited in 9 years would show up out of the blue, edit none of the articles they used to, have an entirely different set of interests, otherwise act like a complete newb, but do so under a similar username. --Jayron32 16:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Accusation? Impersonation? Coincidence? Comic relief? I’m not sure my thinking ever really advanced beyond noticing a partial alliterative similarity. “That’s odd.”

Some minds are like that.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Unblock proposal

• I think we're close to a consensus. So, formally proposed:

Willbb234 is unblocked, and is permitted to edit in all namespaces. They are subject to a 1RR restriction, specifically defined as being prohibited from "making any more than one revert to any page, except Willbb234's own user space, in any 24-hour period", that will be formally logged at WP:EDR, and is subject to the same usual exceptions, though Willbb234 is cautioned to be very careful should they make reverts relying on those exceptions. Willbb234 may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator for a length at their discretion for any violations, and they may appeal this restriction to WP:AN six months from enactment, or six months from the most recent block under this restriction, whichever is later.

• Support as proposer. Courcelles (talk) 16:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support - though while many people familiar with my body of work on Wikipedia have noted my propensity for needless verbosity, I actually prefer sanctions to be short and to the point. "Willbb234 is unblocked, upon agreement to a one-revert restriction which may be appealed in the usual manner after six months" is sufficient to cover all these bases, I think. I don't disagree with any part of the proposal, but it's not necessary to specify that all of the conditions that normally apply to editing restrictions also apply to this specific restriction. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support Though I'd like to see more voices than the three of us that have already commented several times on this matter. --Jayron32 17:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  Of course. That's why I decided to make it a formal proposal rather than pressing buttons, we need a little less of an echo chamber than the four of us. Courcelles (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support I will stress, though, that Willbb's actions are a complete violation of WP:CIVILITY, and I very much would expect that the user would be mindful of any comments they make towards another editor going forward. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 18:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support Seems sensible. Lectonar (talk) 09:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Change to the Checkuser team

Following a request to the Committee, the CheckUser permissions of Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) have been restored. For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Change to the Checkuser team

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

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

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

TL;DR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Without comment to the rest of it - after Bradv was bullied into undoing the close as no consensus, there really was no other likely outcome of this RFC, and any subsequent re-close had a predestined outcome. That seems incredibly flawed to me. --Rschen7754 00:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

(involved, supported) Thanks to GRuban for the thorough the close, and the even more thorough anaysis at User:GRuban/Lugnuts Olympic microstubs, which made writing this involved endorse easy. A WP:CENT-listed RFC at the Village Pump open for over two months with 113 editors participating is the highest WP:CONLEVEL possible: it's global, not local, consensus. Of the 113 editors who participated, only 32 thought these articles should remain in mainspace, while 81 thought they should be removed from mainspace. 81/113 = 72%. That's overwhelming global consensus to move these out of mainspace. Of the 81 editors who agreed these articles should be moved out of mainspace, 2 thought they should be outright deleted, 11 thought they should be redirected and not draftified, and the remaining 68 supported the proposal (5-year draftification with the option of redirection, expansion and restoration, or deletion). 68/81 = 83% - so the vast majority of participants agreed they should be moved out of mainspace (72%), with the proposal being by far the preferred method among those who thought they should be moved out of mainspace (83%). A lot of time and effort went into this proposal, over a hundred editors reviewed it, and there was broad agreement that the articles should be removed from mainspace and that it should be done using the method that was proposed. Yes, this RFC could only have been closed one way: with consensus for the proposal. There really is no grounds for ignoring or setting aside 81 !votes. Levivich (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

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

how long are we going to drag this out? lettherebedarklight晚安 01:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• Common sense prevails, thank god. Good close, finally. Zaathras (talk) 02:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

(involved, supported) I believe the close is an accurate reading of consensus, as there was broad agreement to address the group of articles in the manner described. This was an RfC with substantial participation, and as I noted in my comments the highly unusual pattern of Lugnuts' article creation justifies a rather unusual approach to dealing with these articles. Jogurney (talk) 02:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• Involved, supported. Good close; there are a few arguments made by BeanieFan11 that I want to push back on. First, they say that older articles shouldn't be draftified except at AfD, but there is no good reason not to permit, and a policy based reason (WP:NOTBURO) to permit, the draftification of such articles at a more visible forum. Second, they say that WP:NOTDB doesn't apply as this situation doesn't match the examples; it matches the general criteria, and per WP:NOTEVERYTHING The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive. BilledMammal (talk) 02:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• Weak endorse involved. A 60-40 margin with a large number of contributors is a solid consensus in any forum, absent appeals to policy. Weak because a no-consensus close was also within the discretion of the closers. I would hope that future closers also take into account the comments in discussion sections and alternative proposals to get a better sense of where consensus (if any land). Sometimes, I feel that closers in multi-part discussions look narrowly at one question and may miss important insights in other places as some people may not participate in all questions (this is especially true in discussions where additional questions or options are added over time). --Enos733 (talk) 04:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse, involved - No closer had an easy job on this, Gruban got the job done.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Overturn: I think bradv had it right. There was definitely not consensus and the concerns that those who opposed the action had are valid. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn - We have already proven that this idea is massively flawed. Alfred Keene, Alexander Duncan, Addin Tyldesley, Fred Narganes, Garnett Wikoff and Herbert Gidney were all able to be improved. How many other examples are there in a list that amounts to hundreds of articles? This is the danger of grouping articles together. I agree with BeanieFan11 that it sets a bad standard that is already going to be used against more articles. I object to Olympedia being called a database and being tossed out as a source. Pages like https://www.olympedia.org/athletes/47426 and https://www.olympedia.org/athletes/22156 are full on biographies, which is not what a database is. I reject any "hasn't this gone on long enough" arguments due to WP:DEADLINE. I agree with Beanie that this situation sets up a bad precedent and I think it's really asking a lot of people to be able to follow rules that do not exist yet like in this situation. I also agree with Beanie and I don't think anyone should pay any attention to various things Lugnuts have said. All of these articles were looked at by multiple people and many had more than one editor involved. How do we know various errors were indeed purposely put in articles and how do we know they weren't fixed if they were? People could go through and look, but people not wanting to go through these articles one by one and look is how we got here in the first place.KatoKungLee (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn and instead I'll flip a coin—heads we draftify, tails we don't—and everybody has to promise not to challenge it this time. – Joe (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse (uninvolved). The final closure on this makes the most sense. In general, I'm a "keep everything" kind of guy but the vast majority of these are so ridiculously void of notability or content that they do not meet the standard for inclusion. Should more information become available, they should be re-added. This should not mean that all should face the same fate necessarily and I think a few would survive an attempt to make them an article again...but only by the slimmest margins. As for the !vote, 60-40 is a 3-2 ratio and a reasonable standard for a consensus. It isn't a just over the line of a simple majority and the opinions expressed are well-founded. Buffs (talk) 14:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• (involved) Two closes and two challenges, each of which likely took more time to create than the nearly 1,000 procedurally generated items under discussion. A smoother process for handling poor WP:MASSCREATE situations would be beneficial. CMD (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Request for double check

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