Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive332

There is an article about Matt Gaetz created on March 30 that has such an incendiary title that I don't even want to repeat it here because even that could be seen as a BLP violation. It has been submitted for AfD but I don't see any administrator participation there. I strongly suggest the article is exceedingly problematic and needs to be speedily deleted. The section on his BLP is sufficient at this time, IMO. soibangla (talk) 00:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• If it's a BLP violation to link to AFDs for BLP-violating articles, a bunch of admins are in a whole lot of trouble. Here y'all go. (Without comment as to whether the article does in fact merit deletion.) -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 00:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I moved it to
    Matt Gaetz sexual misconduct allegations. I am less sure about the argument for speedy deletion. Fences&Windows
    00:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• The original title was problematic but the current one doesn't qualify for G10 (the only speedy category which applies) as everything is sourced ("libel, legal threats, material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced"). Whether it should be a stand-alone article or part of Gaetz's bio is something for the AfD to determine. I suspect there will be an article about it at some point even if it may be slightly TOOSOON at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oh and FYI the AfD is now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Gaetz sexual misconduct allegations. Black Kite (talk) 01:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Sorry for any confusion while I cleaned up after the article and AfD move. Not a recommended action unless really needed. Fences&Windows 01:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I see that you left the original title as a redirect. Should we keep that, or delete it as a BLP violation? IMO it is a violation; it assumes the truth of serious, currently unproven allegations. Can we speedy it, or should I take it to RfD? -- MelanieN (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC) @Fences and windows: Sorry, forgot to ping you. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
        • For what it is worth: I add support for getting rid of redirect 1, redirect 2, and redirect 3. Editors have gone far beyond what is reasonable and responsible with article titles, here, without reference to article subject. IMA scam was a similarly bad idea. Uncle G (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
          • I deleted redirect 2 and 3 because there were no links to them and they violated BLP. Less clear what to do with redirect 1 as there are between 60-70 pages that link to this page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
            • And I deleted a
              WP:RFD. -- MelanieN (talk
              ) 17:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
            • Redirect 1 is being used and re-inserted by robots in widely-transcluded article alerts. Special:Diff/1015743021. It has no uses from article space. Uncle G (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
              • The RfD discussion is here. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
                • Gah! Would that you had not done that! I've just fixed all of the robot-generated article alerts and quality assessment logs, and now you've gone and got more robots making links because of the RFD discussion. There are right now, until the robots cycle back and undo it, no incoming links to redirect 1 that are not because of the RFD discussion. I wonder whether deleting that redirect right now will stop the robots from re-linking to it. Uncle G (talk) 18:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
                • Now the robots are blaming you. Special:Permalink/1015824504. Uncle G (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
                  • Any day I can annoy a robot is a good day. 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
                  • I've closed the RFD as an IAR speedy, deleted it (and removed the entry from all of the new article analysis lists). That should do it, I think. Black Kite (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
                    • Thank you to all involved for your attention to this. I was so focused on cleaning up after the AfD move (which took an hour) that I didn't think enough about the redirect following the article move. Sorry I left the job incomplete. Fences&Windows 00:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• If a robot has been undoing actions by good-faith human editors then there's surely something wrong with the robot, and it should be stopped from editing until it is sorted out? There seems to be far too much of the attitude that "a bot did it so it must be right" recently.
  Phil Bridger (talk
  ) 19:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • These are the ones that keep all of the article alerts and "for deletion" lists around the place maintained. Having an entire "You blocked the maintenance robots and all of our WikiProject and Portal lists have stopped updating!" brouhaha seemed less preferable to manually fixing the logs and alerts, to follow the page move, and checking that nothing was left and there weren't genuine human-made links to the title. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 13:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

User Engwk engaged in an edit warring in the article Fonblanque, imposing his point of view about a French count title, and using orginal search to support it. He deletes sourced info on the page, including about another subject (the middle name of a Fonblanque family member, Sir John de Fonblanque Pennefather. Administrators help would be useful. Engwk first used the account Newloo. He seems to be the same person as Correcteur21, a banned used who stalked the French wikipedia on pages about French nobility. LuciusAniciusGallus (talk) 15:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Additional Information : - On Talk page I explained to user LuciusAniciusGallus he needs to stop deleting a version which by neutrality indicated that there were no reliable sources for this French title of "count of Fonblanque" given by some English sources to this French family.

- I indicated that an English source cannot be considered as a reliable source for a French title of count in France and that a reliable specialized French source is required to provide this information.

- I indicated that French sources say "sieur de Fonblanque"^[1]) that means lord of the manor and not "comte de Fonblanque".

- I indicated that if the French de Grenier de Fonblanque family had been titled count in France, there would be at least one French source who would give this information : There’s none.

I had asked LuciusAniciusGallus many times to stop using unreliable sources to report false information, but he prefers to ignore my arguments and he choices to create a Edit war.

Contrary to LuciusAniciusGallus’s false accusations, I have no connection with Newloo or a userr Correcteur21 (???) It is a poor defence on his part to try to justify an unacceptable behaviour (vandalism, Edit War and refusal to understand what is explained to him). Such behaviour is no acceptable and raises the question if LuciusAniciusGallus is not in a conflict of interest (member of the family?). --Engwk (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Strange answer from user Engwk, denying to be the user Newloo, even if it's quite obvious, regarding the fact they both made interventions on the same very specific topics.

Furthermore, Engwk, as easily understood if viewing his actions on Fonblanque article, doesn't behave cooperatively, but instead tries to rule what info may or may not be used, refusing text from reliable sources. Could please an Administrator help this case ? I didn't touch this user last revert on the article, to make the problem easier to understand.

LuciusAniciusGallus (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

LuciusAniciusGallus, you must respect Wikipedia:Assume good faith rather than continue your accusations to justify your vandalism and your non respect of the the principle of providing reliable sources.

You intentionally use non reliable sources to report falses information about a title ( conflict of interest?)

We are talking about a French title that would have been awarded in France to a French family : so as I asked you to do : find a French reliable source that provides the information the de Grenier family was granted in France a title of "comte de Fonblanque" and we so we could discuss about that.

French sources say "sieur de Fonblanque" (see : Revue historique, scientifique & littéraire du département du Tarn, 1913, p. 34) that means lord of the manor and not "comte de Fonblanque". It's very different and I have no doubt you know that (avoid family propaganda on Wikipedia) --Engwk (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Well, you both are having a slow-motion edit war at
  De Fonblanque and Fonblanque, and you've both called each other vandals (Special:Diff/1015611154 Special:Diff/1015612376), and now you are having a content dispute in front of a bunch of administrators on the main administrator's noticeboard. Are you seeking that you both get your editing privileges suspended? Uncle G (talk
  ) 20:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Ok, looking at these threads and the talk page, this doesn't seem to be going anywhere positive. So, here's what I did - I reverted the article back to a stable version - prior to these two's re-writes/edit warring. And have protected the page for 2 weeks. Any uninvolved admin is welcome to undo/reset/whatever the protection at their discretion. I chose protection at this point, over blocking these two for constant incivility, slow (and not so slow) motion edit warring, etc. I'll also be dropping a notice on each of their talk pages next. - jc37 03:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Article Fonblanque

User:Engwk, who previously used the name User:Newloo, clearly vandalizes the article Fonblanque.

He systematically reverts changes I made, including style or syntax corrections. And even deleted links to other Wiki articles.

Instead of discussing his point of view, he tries to impose it, removing entire paragraphs. He tried to cover his attitude by including unilaterally the article in the anthroponomy category, which doesn't seem enough to cover this article scope, who covers large parts of British and military history.

Regards, LuciusAniciusGallus (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

As as previously indicated a few days ago LuciusAniciusGallus is engaged in an Edit war and refuse to reach an agreement in Talk page. He prefers to falsely accuse others of vandalism to justify his behaviour. This behaviour is not acceptable and must stop. Regards --Engwk (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Neither of you is vandalizing (stop throwing that word around, LuciusAniciusGallus, you've worn it threadbare), you are having a content dispute. Actually, you are well into the uninhibited bitch-slapping part of one. How about backing up to a version well before the current imbroglio broke out (I'd suggest this one) and then talking everything over before making a single edit? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree with the version suggested, would be a wise move to end this vicious circle.

LuciusAniciusGallus (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree backing up to a version before the "imbroglio"but not this one because this one give a false filiation and a fake title. On this point LuciusAniciusGallus and I agree. The problem is about an irrelevant passage that LuciusAniciusGallus wants to add (see here). I propose backing up to the version of TU-nor 07:40, 3 April 2021‎ : [1] --Engwk (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

To put an end to this Edit war : I agree with the last version of LuciusAniciusGallus (21:32, 6 April 2021‎) who moved the irrelevant passage in notes. For me the disagreement is settled, but I strongly ask LuciusAniciusGallus to go -next time- through a discussion and an agreement in Talk page before any significant changes (not punctuation, spelling etc) rather than choosing to start a new Edit war. Regards --Engwk (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

As explained on the Talk page, the disagreement is not settled. I just put, temporarily, the disputed passage in a note. The reason for this solution I found, was that you kept on deleting it, reverting every attempt to get it back. Even if its relevance is largely understandable in this article, as I explained many times.

I always gave arguments, as shown by the article history. You instead suppressed some content without answering it. You also resorted to personal attacks, at one time even complaining about being insulted, which never was the case.

Regards,

LuciusAniciusGallus (talk) 11:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@LuciusAniciusGallus, I maintain that this passage you wanted to add is totally irrelevant in this article. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthroponymy and gives a list of personalities who bear the name "Fonblanque" and not about this man "François de Grenier, sieur de Fonblanque" (totally unknown) and details of his life. You knew perfectly well that in case of disagreement, you had to go through a consensus in Talk page, but instead you engaged an endless Edit war and you wrongly accused me of "vandalism" to justify a point of view. Your argument "The passage considered, giving sourced details about a Fonblanques' ancestor and giving a good insight of gentlemen glassmakers lifes" is irrelevant (this article is not about Grenier de Fonblanques' ancestor and not about gentlemen glassmakers lifes). I agreed you put details about this unknown François de Grenier and his life in notes only to put an end to your circus and your Edit war. Now I suggest you move on and be more cooperative next time. Regard --Engwk (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear Engwk/Newloo/Correcteur21, I don't think it is of any interest to go ahead on this page with this discussion. The Fonblanque Talkpage would be more relevant. I answered to you there.

Regards,

LuciusAniciusGallus (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@LuciusAniciusGallus : For the last time I ask you to stop calling me "Newloo" or "Correcteur21". I've already made it clear that I do not know these editors. You've been warned, next time I ask you to be blocked for non respect of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith and for Wikipedia:Harassment. A discussion will not be possible with you as long as you do not strictly follow these rules Regard. --Engwk (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Both SPI and AIV seem to be exceptionally slow. So posting here... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• I've blocked the latest incarnation and semi'd the page for a month. But I can't help but wonder why in the world that page exists as anything other than a redirect to safe seat.... --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • WP:NOTDICTIONARY does come to mind a bit. Don't know what was in the mind of the creator, though (and last edited in 2015, so no point asking). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs
    ) 21:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
    • The actual subject, that that is a somewhat odd title for, is United States v. Classic, if that helps. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 19:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

For the Arbitration Committee, GeneralNotability (talk) 02:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Carlossuarez46

• Jonas Tomalty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, I feel like the Jonas Tomalty page is unfairly being flagged for random infractions. Everything is up to code and there have been several legitimate contributors and there are several verified citations and sources yet when you open the page it has a bunch of warnings at the top. Several neutral people have been involved in developing this page and it looks like a bit of bullying is going on at this point. Not sure what else to do at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonastomalty (talk • contribs) 2021-04-07T19:05:53 (UTC)

• I suspect neutral people have not been. I certainly suspect Jtomalty (talk · contribs) of not being neutral, and 24.200.65.185 (talk · contribs) from Canada in Special:Diff/974921379 seems to have knowledge of a minor's full name and date of birth, and not know Wikipedia:Minors and persons judged incompetent#Editing on any other person. Uncle G (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Adding the full name and date of birth seems to be a clear BLP violation, but I wouldn't say there's any reason to suspect a COI from it. (Other details of the IP may however suggest one.) As many celebrities seem to do nowadays, it was posted to Instagram, even the birth weight. Actually this is one reason we have so many problems, a celebrity posts it and some fan tries to add it, we deal with it a lot at
    WP:BLPN. Worse is if the celebrity is famous enough, something close to an RS reports it. Indeed a recently banned editor was often arguing in favour of naming children because they were talked about in entertainment sites. Nil Einne (talk
    ) 02:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
    • "incredible", "eye opening", and "monster" should have gone without saying. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Please adding message to this IPv6 range 2600:6C52:6C7F:F549:4060:542C:8B6:3CF2 because i found that it is more like IP bot, which has not yet be welcomed. 36.77.94.210 (talk) 00:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I posted to this noticeboard last month about this editor, but there was little participation (and I think someone accidentally posted to the wrong thread last time). User:LouiseFeb1974 has continued with their disruptive editing and seems to have a particular vendetta against psychologists who promote the use of medication for ADHD. They have continued to add unsourced information or information cited to primary sources and add excessive or unnecessary quotes to emphasize a negative POV.

Examples here, here, here, and here. They seem to be particularly focused on disruptive edits to these two biographies: Russell Barkley and Edward Hallowell (psychiatrist).

Is there something that can be done to prevent their continued disruptive editing? 68.108.90.212 (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I've issued a

partial indefinite block preventing LouiseFeb1974 from editing either article. Should disruption continue elsewhere, I would recommend extending the block to sitewide. Mjroots (talk

) 08:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure how best to handle this, admin-wise. We've got edit warring, socking, and a seemingly endless battle for Twitter link supremacy. My original inclination was to remove the disputed "official" link(s) altogether and fully protect the article to drive talk page discussion, but I'm concerned that will just bring about more socking and off-wiki canvassing by the various link supporters. My second inclination is to nominate the article for deletion - the sourcing is abysmal and I don't see how it will ever be expanded upon beyond the current sentence. My final inclination, which I've acted on, is to pass the buck on to my fellow admins by posting here.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Page semi-protected, both recent editors (SPAs the lot) indeffed for edit warring, page added to my watch list. I think an AFD may be in order, but I'll leave that in your competent hands. Primefac (talk) 00:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xewemo861. Nardog (talk) 00:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Primefac, you're plenty capable of starting an AfD. My track record is terrible, so I'm not going to do it haha. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

But I am le tired... Primefac (talk) 00:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Fine, I'll do it myself. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh goodness. Yeah, the subject has had to deal with a lot of fake websites, which is why I explicitly mentioned which one was correct with a citation. Sigh. I guess I should've expected this when writing the article. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Your track record of creating Wikipedia:Not every story/event/disaster needs a biography speaks for itself, Drmies. At least I didn't have to search through my own contributions history for a diff from 2007. I am slightly concerned that DyR0t(- -t) (talk · contribs) was blocked, after repeatedly taking the false information out of a Wikipedia biography, but I suspect that the person whose account it is will shrug that off if the problem that xe created an account to combat goes away. Uncle G (talk) 07:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  I was considering a shorter block just for edit warring, but the insult-throwing in edit summaries made me think that there might be an agenda here. They are more than welcome to request an unblock, and if someone wants to downgrade to a shorter length I will not oppose such a move. Primefac (talk) 13:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks to everyone who pitched in here. I was able to go home and make a lovely dinner while you all did the heavy lifting. I love it when a plan comes together!-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 9
• Eurovision Song Contest (AfD discussion)
• /IncidentArchive1063#Page move
• Special:Diff/1016859811
• Special:Diff/1016860126
• Special:Diff/1016864512
• Special:Diff/1016860312
• Special:Diff/1016469317
• Special:Diff/1015730618 (article not edited by this account and has existed for years)

Just in case you were wondering. I've cleaned it up. Knowledgekid87 was right. Uncle G (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• I hate to ask the dumb question, but... why is this being posted here? Primefac (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not completely sure, but my guess is to give us a heads up on this kind of activity, using AFD for vandalism. But I really don't know. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Just so that any Speedy Deletion Patrollers knew what on Earth was going on with an AFD day page in the category. It was there for some time. Uncle G (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the heads up... yeah not everything is connected to April 1st per
      WP:FOOLR "Vandalism, including inappropriate joke edits in article space, should be treated in the usual manner as vandalism on other days of the year." - Knowledgekid87 (talk
      ) 21:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• IrelandCork (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Goddard2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Reiner Gavriel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

16 Mar : IC filed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive331#WP:Ethics & Personal attack by Goddard2000 which petered out.

17 Mar : IC filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Goddard2000 which never got any attention except for IC & G2.

24 Mar : IC filed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive331#WP:Ethics again which concluded when IC agreed "but let's leave it there" - Special:Diff/1014155927

26 Mar : IC filed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1063#Multiple insults and personal attacks which ended 28 Mar when IC agreed to drop the stick - Special:Diff/1014718039

31 Mar : IC picked up the stick again and returned to the SPI report with the "evidence" that one edit by Reiner Gavriel matched another edit also by Reiner Gavriel. This may have been a move in the conflict that resulted in the EW report.

This is no longer (if it ever was) a content issue, it's a behaviour problem. IrelandCork is incapable of

WP:AGF toward Goddard2000, and just as incapable of ignoring them. Over two weeks sparring on the dramaboards is enough. The imposition of a 1 way IBAN on IrelandCork wrt Goddard2000 seems the least that can be done here. Cabayi (talk

) 15:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• That seems like a one-sided account, given that we have Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arsenekoumyk filed against IrelandCork by Goddard2000, and edits like "be a man and stop acting like a baby". Uncle G (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, reported what I saw. Your diff shows it's not all one-way. Quite happy for a 2-way ban, but this drain on resources needs to be curtailed somehow. Cabayi (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Cabayi, Uncle G I added IrelandCork to the investigation report after he updated his report against me with more diffs. I didn't even include him in the original report, you can check the edits. Also the "acting like a baby" comment was long ago, other admins already talked to me and warned me not to talk like that. I apologized for getting too aggressive and from that on i stopped. I did my best to ignore Irelandcork after this despite his accusations against me and reports after he "dropped the stick" in his previous report. Goddard2000 (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Cabayi Two-way ban? Only thing i did after we had a truce was add Irelandcork to the report i made long time ago AFTER he accused me of being Lamberd, Gavriel again and making several new edits despite agreeing to stop in the previous report. Maybe you want to check out these comments made by both Krackduck and Irelandcork? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Uchar-hadji

"Congrats on making a laughing stock out of admins here," -Krackduck

"You may be proud with your mastery in deception of admins here" -Irelandcork

Again this was after they allegedly "stopped" and "dropped the stick", i didn't even report them for these comments because i wanted to be done with them but since you are talking about banning me i feel like i have to say something. Goddard2000 (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I would like to take this chance and show the moderators a compilation of IrelandCork attacking me/other users or accusing me/other users.

• "Will you stop playing this game please? Read WP:OR, please.. It's not funny anymore."
• "Instead I got smashed by looped wording-waterfalls, accusations in idiocy and hypocrisy :-)"
• It's obvious for WP:OR gurus and fantasy compilers
• Nothing of a civilized talk. You're a poor editor, who thinks only of trying to insult with a lie in every edit. You may be proud with your mastery in deception of admins here, who are far from experts in Caucasian history, but your lies will get back to you. You tried this "propaganda", as it's called below, on Russian Wikipedia but guys there at least know where Caucasus is and can read Russian and have some grasp of the question, and admins cut your gibberish at once. So, it's just the lack of knowledge of locals you exploited, be proud of that for now
• "So basically by this request Reiner Gavriel demonstrates that he's is possibly someone's puppet creating this request out of some grudge on me"
• "So, you basically inserted a lie in the article, and it was reverted", "Why conduct an edit warring for a lie and bring me here" and "What's your general problem with "Kumyk" researchers"

Similar attacks and accusations were also thrown by User:KrakDuck, who I believe to be IrelandCorks sockpuppet. I will add these attacks and accusations if needed. ~~Reiner Gavriel (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• If they've managed to cause this many problems with only a couple hundred edits under their belt, maybe neither is capable of working in a collaborative project. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• I gathered names from some recent AN/ANI reports, see the following table. I have evidence suggesting IrelandCork is Arsenekoumyk but I would prefer to email that to anyone doing a CU. Johnuniq (talk) 07:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

User	Created	MostRecent	EditCount	Notes	SPI report
Arsenekoumyk (talk · contribs)	2016-06-11	2020-12-29	507	Indeffed	Arsenekoumyk
Dzjabito (talk · contribs)	2019-09-04	2020-10-06	51	Indeffed
Dzurdzuketi (talk · contribs)	2019-10-22	2020-07-03	12	Indeffed	Dzurdzuketi
Zandxo (talk · contribs)	2019-10-07	2020-12-03	151	Indeffed
Goddard2000 (talk · contribs)	2019-12-07	2021-04-03	318		Goddard2000
Reiner Gavriel (talk · contribs)	2020-06-05	2021-04-03	258	=Zandxo
Einkleinerwissenschaftler (talk · contribs)	2020-08-11	2020-10-07	16	Indeffed
KrakDuck (talk · contribs)	2021-02-24	2021-04-02	72
IrelandCork (talk · contribs)	2021-03-11	2021-04-02	113
Veinakh (talk · contribs)	2021-03-14	2021-03-20	23	Indeffed	Veinakh/Archive

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arsenekoumyk is in progress so am posting to avoid archiving for a while. Johnuniq (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I was under the impression that if any of the aforementioned is violated, they are almost always instantaneously deleted but I have tagged a blatant copyvio on Busola Dakolo for almost an hour and it still appears that no admin wants to review that. What’s seems to be problem here? Celestina007 (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

"Speedy" deletion is not about the time, but about the need (or lack thereof) for discussion. An hour for a copyvio is actually quite low. I also don't think that meets the G12 criteria, as there's enough content there to save. Primefac (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Primefac, oh? My bad then. I could have sworn a 79% match was G12 eligible. I guessed wrong apparently. Celestina007 (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

It very well could be, it's just not a slam-dunk (I've explained a bit further at my talk page). Primefac (talk) 21:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Most of the pages in CSD are inappropriately tagged or are edge cases at best. Reviewing & untagging these takes time, and there is also a high probability that the nominator will throw a tantrum, which unsurprisingly results in fewer administrators taking on this backlog. -FASTILY 22:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

The general impression of "nominator will make an annoying complaint if declined per policy" is confirmed by the creation of an AN thread when deletion doesn't happen fast enough. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I concur with Fastily; I also think that since the desysopping of RHaworth, admins have begun to err on the side of caution a lot more. That said, correct G3 G10 and G12 CSDs in particular should be got rid of ASAP, but the rest of them are not so urgent. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § (Un)paid votes in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rt Rana

 – as suggested (see below) FF-11 (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

According to this edit, users were told that they would be paid for voting "delete" (it looks like "salt", too). However they weren't actually paid. I however don't want to talk about paid editing or scam but wanted to say that the discussion seems to be manipulated. I'm not sure if anything should be done now. FF-11 (talk) 13:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

This seems more suitable for

WP:AN, but I'm not a VPP regular so I'll hold off on moving this. GeneralNotability (talk

) 18:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

There was some disruption during the AfD from canvassed delete votes, but (in my potentially biased opinion as a participant) there was nonetheless a clear consensus for delete among editors in good standing. I think that the outcome can be as is. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the outcome was correct based on the participation of experienced editors. Furthermore, I am skeptical of the claim that delete votes were paid for. This could just as easily be a tactic to try to overturn the outcome by creating a false narrative of shenanigans purported to invalidate it. BD2412 T 20:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Eh, if that were the case I would have expected the article's initial editor to be relitigating it by now. My guess is that Rt Rana probably posted about this on social media and some troll picked up on it, either by telling people that they would pay for delete votes or by showing up themselves and claiming that this was the case. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

This may be of interest:

Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/ Rajuiu. 86.23.109.101 (talk

) 20:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Have moved the page, and left a redirect behind to avoid broken links. (nac) Nightfury 20:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

You mean like

Cryptic

20:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Cryptic, I stand...corrected? Correct? I agree that this is definitely a sock. _signed, Rosguill ^talk

20:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

iam also received small amount of money for deleting content form this article but they did not give full amount money for delete votes so that i wrote afd , and they told me, Rosguill and Dan arndt are helping for deltion and you want write like this author Rajuiu , they think Rajuiu want block by Wikipedia administrator soory iam Paviraj5623 this is my endorse 112.135.47.217 (talk) 23:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• Talk:Proud Boys#Questioning the sourcing on "white nationalist" – the RfC.
• User_talk:S_Marshall#Proud_Boys_RfC – the discussion with closing editor S Marshall.

This is a request to review the non-admin close of an RfC at Proud Boys ("Is the claim labeling the Proud Boys "White nationalist" verifiable and due?"). I briefly discussed the closure with the closing editor here.

My contention is that the closure violates

• WP:CLOSECHALLENGE directly to AN without comment rather than try to address it on your talk page first. I've already cautioned you against doing that the last time around (which, granted, was a while ago, but still). Secondly, your closure isn't really a proper closure as far as its statement is concerned. You've simply reiterated the RFC question and announced the result being an impasse. That is not good enough. You're actually expected to at least touch on some of the salient arguments from both sides (if only briefly), even if they are evenly matched (or close to). El_C
  05:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• • El C, I apologize for falling short of your expectations in this case. I humbly point out that what I'm supposed to do as a closer is to read what people say and address the issue they raise. This user agreed with my "no consensus" finding, so there was nothing to explain (and indeed, I put it to you that "no consensus" was the only close available). The complainant offered me a simple, binary choice: either I change the outcome to his preferred one at once, or he was bringing the matter directly to AN. To be quite honest I should have been free to bring the matter to AN myself, rather than having to make the complainant jump through the hoops for me.
    As the complainant correctly identifies above, we need to restore the status quo, and at issue here is the question of whether the status quo is the article with or without the disputed wording. This is not obvious at all, and after I deal with your other points I'll discuss it at more length.
    I agree that my closing statement made no effort to summarize the arguments, but the arguments were extremely simple. While I do take what you say seriously, I would remind you that RfC is a community function, not an administrative one, and individual sysops have no special authority over RfC. In other words, you are not the RfC manager. It's not your role to "caution" me about RfC closes, El C.
    What's actually at issue here is a point the community has never decided. When we're dealing with disputed wording, after the disputed wording has been placed in the article, how much time elapses before it becomes the stable version? I feel that if the disputed wording was introduced a week before the RfC, then the stable version is the version without it. I also feel that if the disputed wording was introduced three months before, then the stable version is the version with it. In this case the gap is several weeks. You could make a good case for either outcome. In this case the article history contains edits such as this one, which to me, does strongly imply that the status quo includes the disputed wording.—S Marshall T/C 09:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
    • S Marshall, it is absolutely my role to caution you against sending challenges directly to AN without even at least an attempt to try to respond on your talk page first. In the past, you did this so often, it became a problem. So, yes, I cautioned you then (which you seemed amenable to at the time), and I am doing so again now, so as to prevent backwards sliding. Now, as for the closing statement: it strikes me that a condensed (or even a full) version of what you've written above here would actually serve as a decent closing summary for that DRR (i.e. beyond just stating the outcome was X). El_C 11:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
      • "I've already cautioned you" is the tone an authority figure takes with an underling. Do not take that tone with me again.—S Marshall T/C 11:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
        • S Marshall, but I did caution you about it in the past, so how else would you like me to express that fact? I'm not sure how you read it as me viewing you as an "underling," which is not the case. In any case, I'll choose the tone and tenor of my comments, to you or to anyone, as I see fit. El_C 11:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
          • I've come to expect considerably more respect and consideration from this community than you're displaying, El C, so I'm surprised and upset about the tone you took with me above. It's overreach for individual sysops on their own authority to issue "cautions" about how RfCs are closed: this is a content decision and you're not in charge of it.—S Marshall T/C 12:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
            • S Marshall, again, you're sidestepping the point: I cautioned you in the past against sending CLOSECHALLENGEs directly to AN without even trying to address pertinent concerns on your talk page first. How is that a content matter? How is that disrespectful? El_C 12:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
              • From my point of view, it's exactly the opposite way around. I already discussed "trying to address pertinent concerns" above; I said what I'm supposed to do as a closer is to read what people say and address the issue they raise. This user agreed with my "no consensus" finding, so there was nothing to explain (and indeed, I put it to you that "no consensus" was the only close available). The complainant offered me a simple, binary choice: either I change the outcome to his preferred one at once, or he was bringing the matter directly to AN. I think that it is in fact you who are failing to acknowledge my point, which is that you're arrogating to yourself an authority you don't have. You've got the authority to block obvious vandals, and to block other editors with community consensus; you've also got the authority to delete pages that meet CSD criteria, and to delete other pages with community consensus, and to view deleted edits. But that's it, El C. The community has never given you any supervisory powers over RfCs or to issue "cautions" to closers.—S Marshall T/C 12:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
                • S Marshall, the caution was about misusing AN for CLOSECHALLENGEs that you could have put a bit of work into on your talk page first. But it was last year, so maybe I should have dropped you a quiet note on your talk page rather than hammer you about it here. Probably would have been better. I don't think I've exceeded my authority, and in any case, nothing you've done here is sanctionable, anyway. Like I said last year, I'm actually a fan of your closes (still am), but that does not mean that there isn't room for improvement. As I've just noted below, there's nothing further that I feel I need to press (probably well over-pressed at this point), so am disengaging and will let other admins handle it. I hope this will make my points resonate further and much more effectively than anything adversarial in nature. El_C 13:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• I completely disagree with the EL C's assertion that you must touch on certain points in contention in all closes, that simply is not true. If the outcome is very obvious to all observers, there is no need. Often times, an explanation of how you weighed arguments is needed, particularly when closing an somewhat evenly split discussion and you DO find a consensus. The actual question before us is simply whether there is a "status quo" of it being included or not. All this discussion of how much verbiage S Marshall should have included is irrelevant. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• For a discussion of that nature, simply announcing the outcome without additional comment is not a proper closing summary. Even an extra sentence or two would something. But just saying (basically) the result was X — that's a bad closing practice. I don't like seeing it, and I often give closers a hard time over it as a matter of course. El_C 11:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• "I often give closers a hard time over it as a matter of course" and folks wonder why other editors don't do more closures... if this sort of thing is common, of course folks won't volunteer to be given a hard time for not conforming to some unwritten rule. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you, Ealdgyth.—S Marshall T/C 12:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• "I often give closers a hard time over it as a matter of course" is...unnecessarily aggressive to say the least. ——Serial 13:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Well, I still don't think a minimum summary for contentious RFCs is out of step with expected closing practices. If you wish to put closures' backlog on that approach, well, I suppose that is your prerogative. But I don't think it makes much sense. El_C 12:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• (ec)El C, you know that I have supported your good faith use of Admin discretion even in cases where I've explicitly disagreed with your actions and conlcusions. But here I completely agree with Dennis Brown and others, your conduct is grossly inappropriate and unfortunately not the only example of words and actions that overstep our importatant expectations for Admin conduct. Worse, it feels like your replies sound dug in, empty, and defensive. Again, thanks for your overall volunteer efforts. SPECIFICO talk 12:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• SPECIFICO, if you can substantiate in what way you deem this to be so, I'm happy to consider your points. But to reiterate: answering a CLOSECHALLENGE on one's talk page first, rather than sending it straight to AN without comment, can either: a. resolve the matter; or, b. in case of an impasse, bring the matter back to AN in a more developed form. As for simply announcing the outcome for contentious RFCs: it's been my view that this is generally a poor closing practice, which is not anything new for me and for which I have never been challenged on before (example from this board). Not sure about why my tone is being questioned, but guessing I'm coming across too firm...? Maybe I'm just being a bit tone deaf today...? (Possible) Anyway, there's plenty of quality admins looking into this right now, so I don't really feel the need to engage this further, but I do feel that my points are valid in their own right, all impressions aside. El_C 12:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

There's a difference between saying "here's something that is usually a good idea to do" and implying / speaking as if failure do that idea on this case means that the person is doing something wrong. IMHO the answer to your question might be that you are inadvertently doing a bit of the latter. North8000 (talk) 13:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

EL C, I do think your hard line on all this out of step with the community's perspective. N8K explains it well. All this spanking over the verbosity has served only to distract from the actual reason for the review request, which thankfully, is being handled below. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Irrespectively of the current case, I agree that the best practice is to motivate a close by something more than just ""keep" or "delete". It is indeed not a policy, and in some trivial cases (for example 10 well-motivated supports and 0 opposes) not really needed, but in many cases anything beyond a simple close helps everybody to understand what is going on.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - it seems like the correct outcome of a "no consensus" should have been to remove the disputed comment, both because of the OP's point that it was the long-standing status quo until January 2021 not to have that line, and also because of
  WP:ONUS takes precedence could be a matter for debate, if a piece of contested text had been in the article for a very long time... but that isn't the case here. I also second El C's assertion that a more thorough summary of the debate would be warranted in a controversial case like this, rather than the banal "The community fails to reach a consensus". At least some indication that you've looked at the main points raised, and concluded that neither viewpoint is more valid in policy than the other. Of course, some AFDs/RFCs/RMs do are in fact open and shut cases that don't need further explanation, but as a closer it's part of your job to determine whether that applies. And following that, if you do opt go for a short close summary, then be prepared to clarify further and engage with someone if they dispute the close, rather than simply batting it straight to WP:AN. That's a sensible and collegiate approach to take.  — Amakuru (talk
  ) 15:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• What Levivich and Amakuru said. Per
  WP:ONUS a no consensus outcome on content questions should generally default to exclusion. That we're seriously debating what "long-standing" content is suggests there's no compelling reason to go against ONUS. Another RfC would probably be best at this point regardless. — Wug·a·po·des
  ​ 22:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• I completely fail to see how that diff on the article "strongly implies" the existence of consensus on the talk page. Could you explain to me why you think it does? ‑‑Volteer1 (talk)

  I've moved this comment of Volteer1's to its own section because this is the substantive issue here. The diff referred to is this one.—S Marshall T/C 12:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  OK, so, I do not think it strongly implies the existence of consensus on the talk page. Consensus can emerge via the

  WP:SILENCE.—S Marshall T/C

  13:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding

consensus

for disputed content.

If your contention is instead that editors were choosing to follow

WP:BRD by reverting reverts of the disputed material and leaving it up despite ignored challenges on the talk page, that would trivially be exactly the opposite of correct. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk

) 14:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

This discussion does not appear, to me, to be unanswered.—S Marshall T/C 15:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• The no consensus result means the disputed content stays out, per
  WP:ONUS. That's global policy. Nobody, not a closer, not an admin, not an editor, can override that global consensus. Personally I think the focus is off here. Does anyone disagree with the "no consensus" result? If not, then ignore the defects in the closing statement. Sure, it should have included a summary, but who cares. (Also who cares about the appeal procedure.) Just go remove the content per the RFC. Anyone reinstating it would be editing against consensus, i.e. violating ONUS. You don't need a closer's permission, or an admin's, to follow global consensus. We editors should police ourselves, not outsource it to closers and admins. Levivich ^harass/_hound
  15:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  There is no disputed content here, only disputed wording. The article says in the lede that the Proud Boys are neo-fascist. It then rather tautologically goes on to say that they're far right, as if that were separate from neo-fascism. As of right now it also says they're white nationalist. In fact the whole first sentence whiffs more of a thesaurus than an encyclopaedia. This matter is not about content (whether they're neo-fascist), but about phrasing (how to describe their neo-fascism), so ONUS isn't strongly applicable. I would advise against removing the disputed wording until this AN discussion is closed.—S Marshall T/C 15:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  If that's your take then overturn close because the closing statement says "The community fails to reach a consensus, so by our rules, the status quo ante is restored for the time being.", which is a flat incorrect statement of policy. (There is, in fact, no "status quo ante" rule. The rule is

  WP:ONUS, and it's the opposite of status quo ante.) "The outcome of this RfC is not to change the article" is also an overreach, as the question was whether there was consensus for inclusion (verifiable and due), not whether there was consensus for a change. There being no consensus that it's verifiable and due means it stays out. The closer shouldn't be putting down rules. Honestly, S Marshall, you and that closing statement is the same exact thing as El C's tone with you here. In both cases, you're both overreaching your respective roles. Levivich ^harass/_hound

  15:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  @

  WP:ONUS, so it's not immediately clear which takes precedence. However, as I said above, both rules appear to be in alignment here, as the status quo ante was until recently to omit the disputed line. CHeers  — Amakuru (talk

  ) 16:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  Point well taken, and I agree in this case the two are in alignment. NOCON says "prior to the proposal or bold edit", and that is a form of status quo ante, but key words being "or bold edit". Here, the close suggests that the status quo ante is just prior to the proposal, but after the bold edit. But bottom line for me is if someone adds something to an article boldly, and someone else challenges that addition with an RFC, and the RFC comes back no consensus, then the content should be removed. We don't keep the content based on an argument that the bold edit enjoyed consensus by silence and that this consensus needs to be affirmatively overturned by RFC or else the bold edit stays. (And boy could our PAGs use some clarity on that.) Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

No consensus for inclusion of this material means it should be removed. WP:NOCONSENSUS says no consensus "commonly results" in retention. The wording of the policy implies that the results will be based on a case by case basis. For example, in contentious BLP claims, the material will be removed. In this case, there is no consensus among Wikipedia editors that the Proud Boys should be called white nationalist, although there is no opposition to citing sources that call them that. It seems to me that the claim is so significant, that we should not make it unless there is consensus to do so. If we do, we are saying that Wikipedia editors cannot agree whether or not they are white nationalists, but we'll say they are because we cannot agree. TFD (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Two questions, to those of you who take this view. First: how long must an edit stand before it's the consensus text? And second: In this edit, was Cullen328 mistaken?—S Marshall T/C 16:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  1. There is no community consensus on this perennial question, AFAIK. IMO, there is no duration after which consensus is required to remove rather than include, although that should be applied with some common sense. It's disruptive, for example, for someone to gut an article and demand that every portion be subjected to an RFC. Generally speaking, though,
     WP:SILENCE
     is broken as soon as someone complains.
  2. Yes, it shouldn't have been reinstated without consensus. Compare: here the word "terrorist" is removed with the edit summary "No consensus for "terrorist" in the lead sentence" (correct), and here the words "white nationalist" are reinstated after removal with the edit summary "Please gain consensus on the talk page for this change." (incorrect). In both cases, it should be consensus to include, per
     WP:ONUS ("The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."). In both cases, the removal makes the bold edits disputed, requiring consensus to reinstate. Levivich ^harass/_hound
     17:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  Levivich, you're misapplying ONUS. ONUS is about content -- it's about the substance of what we say. You're trying to apply it at the level of individual word choices and that's not correct. Here, the longstanding consensus text, supported by reliable sources, says the Proud Boys is a neo-fascist organisation. When we've decided they're neo-fascists, that necessarily means that they're white nationalists, you see. To contend that they're neo-fascist but not white nationalist isn't logically tenable. If we allow ONUS to apply to individual word choices, then we're creating a whitewasher's charter where anyone can remove a word choice that disfavours their own POV.—S Marshall T/C 17:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  No, I'm afraid I don't see that. I see everything that you're talking about as being a content issue, and not a conduct issue. I don't perceive a difference between your uses of the word "content" and the words "individual word choices". To me, individual word choices are content (as opposed to conduct; I'm familiar with content vs. conduct; I'm not familiar with content vs. individual word choices). I think the distinction you're drawing is between a fact and how to describe that fact, and you're saying that the fact of white nationalism has consensus because there's consensus for "neo-fascist", and neo-fascist = white nationalist, and so what's in dispute is how to describe the fact, e.g. "neo-fascist" or "white nationalist", and not whether to include the fact. If that is, indeed, the point you're making, that's not a distinction that I see as having the consensus of the participants in the discussion you closed. In other words, that it's "how to include and not whether to include" is, well, not supported by that RFC. The RFC question was whether it was verifiable and due: that's a question about whether to include, not how to include. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  Well, let's think it through. Let's try applying content policies to individual words with a real-world example. In January 2015, there was an RfC about who won the Battle of Chawinda, which I closed here. My close was disputed on the Administrator's Noticeboard here, and a key part of the disputer's complaint was that I shouldn't be allowed to say that Pakistan won the battle, because what the sources actually said was that India lost it. Did his complaint have merit? Or do content policies apply to concepts, as opposed to phrases?—S Marshall T/C 01:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I do not see how reverting once and politely asking an editor to gain consensus on the talk page is an error, but if my colleagues disagree, I will certainly take that to heart, S Marshall. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it should be on a case by case basis as implied by the wording of the policy, which says that existing text is "commonly" retained. The policy is asking us to use our common sense and consider other policies and guidelines. Common sense tells us we should not present opinions as facts when editors disagree whether they have consensus support in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: partially endorse and partially reverse the close

• I propose that we partially endorse and partially reverse the close.
  WP:SUPERVOTE
  behavior due to some ulterior motive. However, I do think that there was a consensus in the discussion that was not included in the close if we consider separately the questions of whether we should include the term in the lead and in the remainder of the article.

It looks like there was nearly unanimous consensus to include the Proud Boys as being "associated with" white nationalism, at minimum. Regarding the lead, it the discussion appears to have achieved a rough consensus to omit "white nationalist" from it in Wikivoice. Regarding the remainder of the article, I endorse the closer's finding of no consensus, seeing as the arguments provided by the community are themselves are fairly even in that scope. —

talk

) 16:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• This is a problem, in that the "white nationalist" title is at least adequately sourced, even if not heavily, and it has been there at least 2 months prior (from my quick check), which is on the boarder as to whether that is "status quo". What is probably the best solution is another RFC that draws in more participation, as the last one was a bit thin in participation. And yes, I would probably remove "white nationalist" until the end of the RFC. I don't think WP:ONUS applies in any way shape or form, but I also think the name being "status quo" isn't quite convincing enough to be beyond questioning in good faith. Stuck in the middle, we take the course of action that is the least negative, while we seek a larger consensus. I think the finding of "no consensus" was correct, but I won't spank S Marshall for thinking adding it was status quo, as it is on the cusp. I simply disagree with him on that point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The point of this was to propose a change to the finding of consensus, rather than to contribute to the debate about whether the term should be kept throughout the article in the case that no consensus exists. I see this as separate from the review as it pertains to whether or not the resulting no consensus results in the removal of the term "white nationalist" in the body or if the term should remain. The "there was nearly unanimous consensus to include the Proud Boys as being "associated with" white nationalism, at minimum" part indicates that the association with White Nationalism should be kept regardless, even if the term is removed. I tried to convey through "at minimum" that this does not prohibit keeping additional information, though I understand that this may have caused ambiguity. —
    talk
    ) 21:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Does BLP apply to Proud Boys?

In the above discussion, it's been said that the rules would be different if

• I can choose to be a Proud Boy (assuming I meet the criteria) or to not be one, it is my choice. I have no option but to be Dennis Brown. The person you are is not a voluntary association. Just as we don't extend BLP coverage to Republicans, Freemasons, or cheerleaders, or other groups you can join. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  I wanted to raise the question of whether BLP rules should apply, not whether they currently do. The question is whether we should be describing groups of people using sources that we couldn't use for the same descriptions of the individuals in those groups. This is probably only a concern for new, smaller, member organizations (like Proud Boys), as opposed to centuries-old institutions (Freemasons, GOP) or general groups of people (cheerleader). Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  I get that, I was explaining why they shouldn't. Kind of like the same reasons corporations shouldn't enjoy the same rights and privileges as humans, although that isn't always the case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  The question is whether we should be describing groups of people using sources that we couldn't use for the same descriptions of the individuals in those groups. Is this just a hypothetical? The sources being used for "white nationalist" are all

  generally reliable (NYT, NBC News, NPR, and The Independent) and would be perfectly usable in a BLP. GorillaWarfare (talk)

  18:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  For me it's a hypothetical because of the point you make. But I note, e.g., Amakuru's comment above, "Per WP:NOCONSENSUS, unless the issue relates to a BLP, the 'status quo ante' rule does apply", which raised the question for me of whether this is an issue that "relates to a BLP". I agree with Amakuru's point that the "status quo ante" rules are different for BLPs and non-BLPs (per NOCON), and so the question is, is Proud Boys a BLP? Or is "Proud Boys are white nationalist" a BLP issue?

  The principle affects many articles. Is calling Proud Boys white nationalist the same as calling the members or at least the founders white nationalist? (I think so?) But then what about a group like the

  NRA: the NRA might take a position in its platform but that doesn't mean every NRA member agrees with that particular position. On the other hand, what about Never Again MSD, an organization formed by 20 teenagers: it seems like any descriptions of that organization should comply with BLP (meaning "status quo ante" would not apply to that article), because describing the group is functionally the same as describing its members or at least its founders. For me, there's something about a large, long-standing institution like the NRA, and smaller, newer organizations like Never Again or Proud Boys. Levivich ^harass/_hound

  18:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you for clarifying. Personally I disagree that calling an organization X means that all of its members (or its founders, or its leaders, etc.) are all necessarily [X]. We should follow the sources; if reliable sources call the Proud Boys white nationalist, we should say that, and we can also say things like "John Doe founded the Proud Boys, a white nationalist organization". But to call John Doe himself a white nationalist, we would need sources that do so. Organizations are the sum of their parts, and not every member of a group is a reflection of the whole. I imagine this becomes more the case as time passes; many organizations evolve dramatically from how they were founded.

  As a practical example, the article on Enrique Tarrio (PB chairman) says he is the chairman of the Proud Boys, and describes the PB as they are described at the article about the group, but does not describe Tarrio personally as a white nationalist, because sources don't regularly do so. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Obviously, the problem is that we cannot assume that if John, Joe and Jim belong to a group, and that group is considered a white nationalist group, they themselves are white nationalists, unless separately that implication is made directly by RSes. This is part of the problem when ideological labels are used for characterizing a group because it does not reflect on true membership requirements (in contrast to, say, Girl Scouts being a group for teenaged and young women). We can't make the assumption that a person that has joined PB has a white nationalism streak, though it seems unlikely that you would not join PB without one - but that's still a bad assumption under BLP. So we need to make sure we do not all imply that all members of PBs are white nationalists as a matter of BLP and NPOV. Argubly, if the BLP involved are named individuals but those named individuals fail WP:PUBLICFIGURE, that could be a problem, though a solution, if possible, would be to remove the names of the individuals so that the labels are only being applied to the group and not specific persons. If the individuals are public figures (as the case would be for McInnis and PB) that becomes less of an issue though we still have to be careful of what those individuals have said on their own personal aspects. --Masem (t) 17:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  In your view, does the current lead sentence of

  BLP-satisfying sourcing.) (I am not suggesting that there isn't BLP-satisfying sourcing for this particular lead sentence.) Levivich ^harass/_hound

  17:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  Yes it does, particularly with the placement of "white nationalist" after "male", as it is propagating that as a characteristic to all members of its group, as well as the other terms. I've spoke well at length elsewhere about lede sections for alt/far right groups being way out of line in terms of neutrality and other facets and that's one example since it is loading up the characterization of the group before talking objectively about the group. "Proud Boys is a exclusively male organization founded by McInnis. It is considered to be far-right, neo-facist, chauvinist, and white nationalist, and promotes and engages in political violence." is far more neutral (could be better though) covers the same information and distances associating those labels to its membership and more as a function of the group as a whole. --Masem (t) 18:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Looking at

WP:BLPGROUP covers cases of very small groups, where "it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group." If I said for example that a rock band killed someone, it would imply that each and every member was responsible. If I said the CIA killed someone, it would not necessarily reflect on each and every member of the CIA. So I don't think it applies. Also, saying it is a white nationalist group does not necessarily imply that each and every member is a white nationalist. TFD (talk

) 18:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

That is actually my point. If I re-word it to say it is a group of white nationalists, that would imply that each member is a white nationalist. Which would be a violation per BLP Group. While it is more difficult to differentiate smaller groups from their membership, it doesn't mean differentiation between the group and its membership is automatic for larger groups. So, again, it matters if we can distinguish the group from it's membership. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Which is partially my point on the tone/language issue (regardless if white nationalism should be added). As it is phrased now per Levivich's green text above, it reads and implies that being a white nationalist is a membership requirement, and thus any person that we would factually identify in the PBs would be implied to be a white nationalist. Flipping a few words around to assign white nationalism as a common characterization of the group would remove that issue. --Masem (t) 19:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: A rock band is a group. The CIA is an organization. A rock band is not an organization. The Ashamed/Proud Boys are an organization. A white nationalist organization. Saying "Philip Morris International is responsible for millions of deaths" is not saying Jane from accounting is responsible for millions of deaths. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The Cambridge Dictionary defines an organization as "a group of people who work together in an organized way for a shared purpose."[4] TFD (talk) 13:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: And still I wouldn't call a rock band an organization. It could be argued that rock bands don't "work together in an organized way" as they may work together more in a chaotic way. Merriam-Webster defines it as "an administrative and functional structure (such as a business or a political party)" which is better. Wiktionary seems to have the best definition: A group of people or other legal entities with an explicit purpose and written rules. The CIA has written rules, Phillip Morris has written rules, a rock band typically does not. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 16:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

It's moot, because BLPGROUP is about groups, not organizations specifically. I said that rock groups can be considered "very small groups," and hence are subject to BLPGROUP. TFD (talk) 17:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh!

WP:BLPGROUPS addresses this; I didn't even notice/remember that section. Thank you! Levivich ^harass/_hound

19:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Is it fair to say that this section has moved away from reviewing the close and into relitigating the RfC?—S Marshall T/C 20:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Indeed it has. Unintentionally, I assume. But after all,

deflection is the best defense. ——Serial

20:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can see, and the RFC is not that long, there are multiple RS that describe the PB as white nationalist, but the highest quality RS do not make the association routinely, rather making claims of association and ties of the PB with white nationalism and white supremacism (e.g. the SPLC).

This could have been stated in the close, and this would have made the path forward much more straightforward. Since RS do make the connection, but perhaps do not rise to LABEL territory, a reasonable thing to do is to remove the LABEL from the lead sentence, but follow it up (in the lead) with an explanatory sentence, e.g.: Proposal - The Proud Boys is a far-right, neo-fascist and exclusively male organization that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States and Canada. The group also has been associated with and members routinely maintain ties to white nationalist and white supremacist extremists.

We can then, in a further step, discuss whether (1) the LABEL does apply after all (re-opening the same RFC), or (2) discuss whether some association sentence is DUE for the lead, (3) tweak the details, positioning, etc. --Mvbaron (talk) 08:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

EDIT: To discuss the content of this proposal, I copied it to the Talk Page. Mvbaron (talk) 08:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• WP:AN is not an appropriate venue for hashing out content disputes and working out content proposals. If the RfC close was procedurally incorrect, as appears to be the case here in view of
  WP:ONUS arguments made above, then the correct thing to do now is simply to reverse the close and reopen the RfC. Somebody else can re-close it, or the discussion at the talk page can continue for a bit longer, perhaps with some extra input. Nsk92 (talk
  ) 12:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  "The RfC close was procedurally incorrect" is a poor way to summarize the current state of this discussion. Where we're at right now is: The community endorses the finding of "no consensus". There's a widespread feeling that the ideal closing statement would have given a summary of the arguments on both sides, but also, there's a widespread feeling that it's inappropriate to give discussion closers a hard time on this point. The community agrees that a "no consensus" outcome means restoring the status quo. Currently at issue is the question of whether restoring the status quo means the article should, or should not, contain the disputed wording. As of right now, a majority of respondents feel that the status quo is the article without the disputed wording, so if there's no further discussion on this point, then the right close for this review would be to endorse the "no consensus" finding and the decision to restore the status quo, reverse the decision that the status quo is to include the disputed wording, and insert a summary of the arguments into my closing statement. I have asked for more guidance about how long it takes for an edit to become the stable wording, but there has not been any substantive discussion about this. It would be very premature to make any such close right now.—S Marshall T/C 13:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  That's a tough question: How long does an edit need to be live to be "status quo"? I don't think there is a simple answer. I think at 3 months, it is easy to argue that it is, although not absolute. Maybe it takes longer? Or less? Each situation is a bit different, so it is difficult to generalize, which is why sometimes you just have to ask the community and get a consensus. I don't think the procedure was wrong, I just disagree with the read of "status quo", which was obviously made in good faith but doesn't hold up to a larger consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  It obviously depends on how much traffic the article gets. For an article like Kamala Harris I would say if an edit survived for a couple of days it is probably consensual, for Kuropatnyky, Ternopil Oblast it could easily be years before anybody would even notice the edit.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  That is very true. My 3 month comment was for "average" articles with moderate traffic. Not sure that a few days is enough to confidently declare it "status quo" in all cases, even on heavily trafficed articles, but that is the problem. It is impossible to make a rule or formula that can be applied to articles. That's why I didn't bust S Marshall's chops over this. Since it had been 2+ months, I can see why they might have concluded it was the status quo. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  That we are even discussing this point here also shows that the RfC close was premature and should be reversed. In unclear situations the closer should not supervote the discussion on an important issue like this one but leave it open for more input. My own opinion is that in general controversial content that had not been present in the article for very long (where what "very long" means does depend on the article, although I don't think it can ever mean just a few days) and for which there had not been expressly discussed consensus established for its inclusion earlier at the talk page, should not be considered a part of the status quo. In any case I believe that this RfC would benefit from being reopened and from receiving some extra input (which, I am sure, it would get now, if the close was reversed). Nsk92 (talk) 14:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  That's totally wrong, please retract it. The close can't possibly have been premature: The discussion had been open for considerably more than the requisite length of time, and it had been listed unclosed at Requests for Closure, by a neutral party. The close can't possibly have been a supervote: It was a finding of "no consensus" in a debate without a consensus.—S Marshall T/C 14:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The close was premature because an important issue of which version of the wording to use after the close of the RfC remained unsettled, and had not even been substantively discussed. That somebody requested a close and that RfC run longer than the requisite amount of time doesn't change that fact. The closer doesn't get to unilaterally decide on the issue of prior consensus and the status quo without a specific discussion of that issue. The "no consensus" finding was indeed supported by the RfC discussion, but the decision that the article had to retain the disputed wording was a clear supervote by the closer. Moreover, Hobit makes it clear below that the addition of the disputed wording on January 26 was immediately challenged, on the same day, at the article's talk page, and the RfC started about 3 weeks later. Under these circumstances one can't argue that a consensus to include the wording in the article ever existed. Nsk92 (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• endorse no consensus finding, disagree about status quo. I !voted to have the label and I think it's justified. But I believe "white nationalist" was disputed on the talk page in the same day it was added (January 26th I believe). The RFC started about 3 weeks later. I think it fair to say that including the term never made it to status quo--it was boldly added and immediately disputed. Ideally it would have been reverted right away (per
  WP:BRD) but I think we shouldn't penalize someone for taking it to the talk page rather than just immediately reverting--especially in a contentious area like this. That said, I think we'll be back here again as I expect that label will see even more use in the media over time... Hobit (talk
  ) 14:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• I'm strongly opposed to any attempts to require reversion to establish a change is disputed. While
  WP:BRD may encourage it, it can also lead to dumb edit wars and we should never penalise an editor for not reverting a disputed change if they make it clear there is a dispute. It also encourages a defeatist mindset IMO i.e. where edits feel they must establish the status quo early on because there may be no consensus. I'd much rather editors concentrate on achieving consensus and then if there really is no consensus it's perfectly fine for argue afterwards what the status quo actually is. So definitely I do not agree we can take any time from once the RfC had started as helping establish a new status quo. So the only question is whether those ~3 weeks from the change until the RfC is enough to establish a new status quo. IMO given the early dispute combined with some limited ongoing discussion, was enough to prevent a new status quo from being established. Obviously there needs to be some genuine attempt to establish consensus, so an editor can't simply say I disagree with this change when it happens, then repeat that every month and then a year later say there isn't a new status quo. Nil Einne (talk
  ) 13:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Note that it is not 3 weeks, it is same day. See the thread Talk:Proud Boys/Archive 6#White Nationalist?, opened on January 26, the same day that the material in question was added to the article, that challenged the addition of that material and the usage of "white nationalist" term. The editor who opened the talk page thread chose not to revert the addition and instead proceeded to dispute it at the talk page, but indeed that's not a good reason to penalize them now. Nsk92 (talk) 00:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Reading this thread, there seems to be broad community agreement with the no consensus element of the close, and broad community disagreement that there is a status quo ante that the article should be retaining. Can we move to close this thread and amend the RfC closure? The thread has gone stale and it is now holding up discussion on Talk:Proud Boys. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 07:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. I can't close this AN discussion, but I can amend my own RfC close, and I'll do so with my next edit. I do think this AN discussion would benefit from a formal close, because there's guidance for future RfC closers here that could very usefully be brought to
  WT:RFC for possible inclusion in our formal processes.—S Marshall T/C
  09:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

User:103.73.183.38 spammed a number of people and boards today. I saw an old proxy block although I don't know that this is a proxy. In any case I blocked for 3 months. Looking at 103.73.183.0/17 (talk · contribs) I see a large number of reverted edits and one similar to todays' for User:Cullen328 - this does look like either a proxy or a school. Is action wise or necessary here? Doug Weller talk 14:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I range blocked Special:Contributions/103.73.180.0/22, which will hopefully be enough to stop this logged out harassment or whatever it is. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: - thanks. Doug Weller talk 14:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

A pornographic image has been placed on the Duke of Edinburgh page, possibly in the knowledge many people are visiting the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:7122:9100:B1F5:DF45:E05F:7D6E (talk) 21:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

It's someone replacing the image on Commons with the infamous goatse, and edit warring to keep the replacement. The image has been temporarily removed from the article. If I was more Commons-savvy, I'd suggest protect that image. I imagine it is in much-viewed articles on many language wiki's. As a wrok around, we could make a local copy and protect that here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• File:Duke of Edinburgh 33 Allan Warren.jpg has been locked now, and I think it was a compromised account that was doing it, glocked. I think this is the image that was being toggled. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  So why were folks so keen to remove the house in Corfu? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  Images of Mon Repos and Gordonstoun were also targeted at commons. Now protected[5][6]. DrKay (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Dennis Brown: It wasn't File:Duke of Edinburgh 33 Allan Warren.jpg, it was File:Corfu Mon Repos R01.jpg which was vandalized by a compromised account, User:Supercopter. (already globally locked) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  Ah, well the one I spoke of is full protected (admin only), but the image you are referring to hasn't isn't protected. They do things differently over there, I suppose. I didn't check the date of protection, it may have been locked some time ago. Seems under control for now at least. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Dennis Brown: File:Duke of Edinburgh 33 Allan Warren.jpg is automatically protected by Wikipedia:Protection policy#Cascading protection, not a decision by a Commons admin to protect that particular image. File:Corfu Mon Repos R01.jpg was vandalized by a single compromised account, blocking the account makes more sense than protecting whatever they have vandalized. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  I feel I should add a further clarification for future reference. There's been several compromised accounts, and these are relatively abundant for this vandal, who has been doing this same performance for years. These compromised accounts are the reason that Prince Philip is EC protected. Blocking is great, global locks are better, but protection can be of equal importance (on Commons or not). Understatement of the week - compromised accounts never come alone. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

  They've been glocked, but they'll soon be back, and in greater numbers Nosebagbear (talk)

  Am I the only one that inadvertently associate "glocked" with the firearm? (As opposed to, say, g-locked?) El_C 14:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

  El C, no, you are not. — Ched (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

  El C, no, you are not. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

  El C, no, you are not. Hog Farm _Talk 00:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

  I have protected the file on Commons as well--Ymblanter (talk) 10:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• This brings back memories of the death of Doris Day, where someone did exactly the same thing with Goatse.[7]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello,

I am contacting you regarding the deletion of external link placed on the rover800series page. The link was put there to help people find support for the vehicle type model and was not an advertisement just a link to a members site where people can join, ask questions about the vehicles and to provide technical information on maintaining and restoring their vehicles.

Can someone please edit the page and include the rover800.club link please. I am one of the administrators of this site and parts secretary for this club. it is not profit making but just there for its members.

thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rover800club (talk • contribs) 19:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• I see you're blocked now for the user name, but I will answer you hoping you see it anyway. All of those links (not just yours) have been deleted now with the rationale of it violating
  WP:EL, which I tend to agree with. Wikipedia isn't a depository of links to external sites, and having a long list of fan sites is a bit much for an encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢
  20:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Pretty clear promotional username w/ promotional edits block. Wikipedia is not a place for SEO. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I've boldly promoted this to a level 2 header, on the grounds that the article-creator-related part, above, is going to live forever on this noticeboard and never get archived otherwise at this rate, as we keep finding more and more groups to mass-address. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

232 other articles that need mass deletion as well

It got a bit buried in the above long discussion, but there are also 200+ articles about "towns" in Azerbaijan and Artsakh, created by CarlosSuarez, with the text"suspected that this village has undergone a name change"[8]. Basically, the article itself makes it clear that these are probably Geonet errors, but they have been created anyway: "It is suspected that this village has undergone a name change or no longer exists, as no Azerbaijani website mentions it under this name."(

• Indeed these are in my experience not salvageable--Ymblanter (talk) 08:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support deleting these articles, too For the same reason as the Iranian village deletionsJackattack1597 (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support What a mess! 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support per above and the Iranian mess, they can be recreated with actual significant content if desired. Hog Farm _Talk 16:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Do we have an actual list page? Uncle G (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • No--Ymblanter (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Then we should, given that what articles we are actually dealing with in the first place is shifting around below, to include Haran, Azerbaijan which is not what is talked about at the head of this discussion. Uncle G (talk) 01:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support There was a recent difficult AfD where a former Azeri village in Armenia - not with this pattern - was deleted even though the Azeri government had it listed in their government encyclopaedia as a "former town." I have absolutely no problem with the mass deletion of these as long as it doesn't prevent them from being recreated if more sourcing is ever found (I know this is probably obvious, but wanted to put it on the record.) SportingFlyer T·C 17:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• It's important to read
  Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. Reliable information about current conditions there is lacking. Uncle G (talk
  ) 20:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• GEOnet Names Server (the only source in the article) includes Dondar-Azaply only as an unverified name; its status as unverified is only mentioned on the search results page and not on the name page and was possibly changed to unverified in 2016 as that was when the entry was last updated. There are no names in other languages at the source. It's possibly the same as Dondar Quşçu or Azaflı, which are nearby, or a combination of the two. Peter James (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • It doesn't look like an error; az:Dondar Quşçu mentions Dondar-Azaply as existing somewhere in the area in 1968 but not enough about it for an article. Peter James (talk) 22:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support - I am so done with this. GEOnet is run by the same people who run GNIS, under the same methodology as far as I know, and is unreliable for the same reasons - probably more so given at least GNIS is only related to US features and more easily corrected. FOARP (talk) 18:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support' - The consensus is clear, the necessity is obvious. doktorb _words^deeds 18:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - A search for the the phrase "at GEOnet names serves" returns 51,155 results, many of them by C46 . . . Many of those articles are OK, but maybe a better measure of C46 Azerbaijan articles is this search which returns 9,970 hits. A random sampling of 5 from this search:
  • Korlar
  • Haran, Azerbaijan
  • Əspərəsti (you know it's bad when the non-Roman script hasn't been transliterated)
  • Göytəpə, Agdam
  • Novlu
  Yeah, this doesn't look good. Possibly 9000+ bad Azerbaijan articles? FOARP (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Əspərəsti is in Latin script, it just contains a letter (Ə) that isn't used in most languages. We don't need to transliterate it, just as we don't transliterate Icelandic names such as Ísafjörður. Peter James (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    • It signals a lack of effort, which clicking through to read the one-sentence article confirms. These appear to be overwhelmingly one-sentence, unreliable referenced articles. Personally, I’m long past the point where I have any time for Carlos’s work - I’ve saved a very few of them (eg
      WP:TNT? FOARP (talk
      ) 22:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Korlar seems to be a small hamlet (Tatlar, Jalilabad is either the same place or a farm nearby). The next two have Azerbaijani sources in the article. With the exception of Korlar, which possibly fails the notability guidelines, all have more content in the Azerbaijani Wikipedia. Peter James (talk) 22:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Because, for one thing, at the moment we only have your and Fram's vague handwaves with Special:Search in the direction of a shifting and inconsistent list of articles instead of a proper list like Hog Farm made, and we don't know what list people are even agreeing on; and because, for another thing, whilst Haran, Azerbaijan is sourced to GEOnet, az:Haran is sourced to the 2009 Azerbaijan census, so one obvious thing to do is to filter for the GEOnet places that the Azerbaijani census does not have and look at deleting only them. Another thing to do is filter for the Carlossuarez64 creations that originally used {{AZnote}} and again eliminate everything that's on the Azerbaijani census and focus on the Nagorno-Karabakh ones that aren't even on a census. This involves creating the lists that I asked about. az:Azərbaycan əhalisinin siyahıyaalınması (2009) appears to hyperlink to a spreadsheet that you can use. Uncle G (talk) 01:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
        • Uncle G - FYI this is the same kind of searching we used to build the first pass of the Iranian “village” list. Got to start somewhere, right? FOARP (talk) 05:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
          • We shouldn't be leaping straight from start to the finish. Think of the poor administrator who will get to do this. Xe needs a nailed-down list that people actually agreed on. Uncle G (talk) 08:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
            • No-one is proposing simply leaping. The first draft of the Iranian village list was a search exactly like the one I’ve just performed (I know, because I was involved in it). FOARP (talk) 10:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
              • On the contrary, we have six people in this very discussion leaping straight to the deletion. Uncle G (talk) 11:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
                • Uncle G, instead of accusing me of "vague handwaving", is there any artice in the original batch of 232 that is worth keeping in your view? If not, then what is the problem?
                  Fram (talk
                  ) 13:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
                  • I've explained the problem above. Honestly, Fram, think! You are about to step on the area of Azerbaijan places and their articles that is on this very noticeboard at #Suspicious activity on ARBAA2 articles with only a vague handwave at Special:Search, and a mass deletion instead of just moving articles around, and potentially get embroiled in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. Put the effort in to make a proper list page for what you want, instead of a vague handwave at a shifting and inconsistent list of articles, that the poor administrator who has to enact this can use. Get people to agree on that specific list, or on a larger list if FOARP can come up with more than "possibly", with a laid out rationale that shows that this isn't taking sides but a concern over source database misuse. And stop rushing to the end. Hog Farm did it right, and FOARP has just mentioned that this is the point where one makes the list first. You are not doing it right. Think about the toes that you are about to tread upon. We need to approach this in a methodical and neutral way that won't get people's backs up. Uncle G (talk) 11:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
                    • That sounds like a lot of fearmongering and little actual substance. I have no idea why you think I would be dragged to ArbCom or put into AE for the above, but don't run that risk when I put the exact same query through AWB and generate a list. Whatever makes you happy, I guess, but next time you want some cooperation, don't start accusing people of "vague handwaving" (and repeating it after being asked to stop this), not making any effort, not providing a rationale (oh yes, a list of articles created by CarlosSuarez about villages that don't exist is "taking sides", obviously), and "rushing" (how long has this been going on?). Oh, and lack of neutrality, stepping on toes, anything else? What a bloody brilliant method you have to get someone to provide you with a list you could have created in 2 minutes as well, if you are so desperate to get it. "You are not doing it right", indeed. Let me know when I am dragged to AE or ArbCom, it has been a while, and rarely for something this petty.
                      Fram (talk
                      ) 13:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
                      • @
                        Fram: I had a look through roughly 100 of those articles on your list. The vast majority look like uncontroversial deletions to me. There are two subsections I'm concerned about. The first is articles related to Nagorno-Karabakh (as all of these articles I've seen so far have been edited by editors involved in that conflict area since creation, and a number (if not all) seem to have been mass-created on the Azeri wiki in March 2010 by a single editor). I support deletion of these but they should be handled with care, possibly case-by-case? The second group is articles created on the Azeri wiki outside of NK. So far I've only seen one, Namekyash, but this could suggest they have some notability if they've been manually created. Jr8825 • Talk
                        18:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Support Mass Deletion. He has created so many articles about this area, most of them very insignificant and poorly referenced, so we should mass delete all articles about Iran, Turkey, Azerbaijan and Armenia. We should also consider stopping him from creating such articles. Cupcake547^{Let's chat!} 02:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC).

I forgot the password of my bot account

Maybe

H:LOGIN or WP:USURP could be useful; if granted, the latter would allow a new account to have the old name, after renaming this one. —PaleoNeonate

– 08:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Resolved

 – After 2 weeks, there is no objection to the mass deletion of the curated list. With thanks for the users below for their inclusion efforts, I will shortly delete the

prevailing guideline. –xeno^talk

23:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)