Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

• [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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

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

• 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)[reply]
• (involved, supported) Thanks to GRuban for the thorough the close, and the even more thorough anaysis at
  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)[reply
  ]

  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)[reply]

• how long are we going to drag this out? lettherebedarklight晚安 01:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Common sense prevails, thank god. Good close, finally. Zaathras (talk) 02:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• (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)[reply]
• 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:NOTEVERYTHING The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive. BilledMammal (talk) 02:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply

  ]

  Part of the idea would be to merge all the close review forums together (

  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)[reply

  ]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]
• Overturn - We have already proven that this idea is massively flawed.
  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)[reply
  ]
• 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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]
• (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)[reply
  ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

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

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

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

  The only thing that's laughable is your comprehension of my comment.

  LEPRICAVARK (talk) 05:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

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

  LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

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

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

  LEPRICAVARK (talk) 05:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I don't particularly agree with your tone here Zaathras. One thing I've got to say is that the appropriate response to bullying, if Bradv felt bullied, was to take the issue to

  WP:INVOLVED might seem personal because they hinge on the closer's previous words/actions, but they were not unreasonable even if I personally did not buy the argument. FOARP (talk) 09:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

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

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

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

I should add that I am sorry that BRADv felt hard done by by the response to their close. I also have to say that that a reading of the AN discussion at the time of the decision being vacated shows that overturning of the close was a distinct possibility and that was not based on bullying or unreasonable arguments. If any closer feels they are being bullied, I encourage them to report this to

WP:ANI so that appropriate action can be taken. FOARP (talk) 06:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

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

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

Would another admin please review my revision deletions on

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

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

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

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

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

NB. Although this is perhaps slightly outside the scope of matters of general administrator interest,

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

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

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

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

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

What I did wrong

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

• Performing a check on Athaenara and Lourdes — I didn't follow my own advice^[1] and not only failed to request prior opinions on if this check was warranted, but when such an opinion was given, chose to ignore it.
• (Re-)blocking someone with whom I was angry, which despite the beliefs I had at the time in regard to "how
  WP:INVOLVED
  worked" is an bright line I should have known better than to cross.
• Behaving aggressively during the resultant ArbCom case — my behaviour towards arbitrators prior, during and after this incident was abhorrent, and cannot be excused by claiming I was upset and angry.

What I've learnt

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

• The involvement policy is designed to protect against emotional/etc. compromise — that is, having a bright line should (and normally, does) help administrators know when to step back and ask for someone else to take action.
• In some cases, the concept of apparent involvement (i.e., an administrator appearing to be involved) is more important than actual involvement.
• I got very hung up on the idea that I was being labelled as involved solely because the incident in question related to transphobic remarks, and I am openly queer. I now understand that although this contributed to how strongly affected^[2] I was, this fact was only ever "in addition to", and was never the sole reason.
• Administrators making (actual, or apparent) involved actions undermines the neutral role we've been entrusted by the community to play here on Wikipedia.

On reflection, I understand that had I been more conscious of how the incident had made me feel, identified the likelihood of being

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• A simple revert, as
  WP:BLPNAME, etc. I had not closed the RFC early in the hopes that the discussion would explore the possibility of adequately summarizing and rephrasing the material so that it is policy-compliant. But the discussion so far does not appear to be about that; so I would support an early closure of the RFC. I would ask another admin to review and implement any action since I have already protected and put this article under CTOP restrictions (and I have previously closed a poorly-crafted RFC started by the same editor), and it would be good to have an independent assessment. Abecedare (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

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

(Per the big orange box, I have notified the editor whose actions prompted all this, but they are both retired and indeffed.)

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

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

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

Wow, I hadn't even thought to check for that.

talk) 04:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

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

I

talk) 16:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

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

]

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

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

What gets me is that these are not all obscure pages.

talk) 00:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

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

My personal, non-policy-based opinion is that random stuff in draftspace is usually best left for

WP:G13. Since the user seems to be asking a question in good faith, perhaps you could direct them towards a more appropriate venue? Spicy (talk) 00:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

Hi all,

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

No doubt this is due to some mix-up in

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked for up to 1 year. Administrators placing blocks should take into account an editor's overall conduct and Arbitration history and seriously consider increasing the duration of blocks. Any block 3 months or longer should be reported for automatic review either (1) at

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

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