Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive341

Main discussion: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 186 § Removing links to portals from the Main Page's top banner

Closure challenge: User talk:The Gnome § Closure challenge

General debriefing with multiple editors: User talk:The Gnome § Main page closure

I am challenging

This was a proposal to remove links to portals from the Main Page’s top banner. It listed on

The Gnome closed the discussion as no consensus. In brief, they noted that some support !votes also discussed the possibility of moving the links to another location on the main page, and that some support !votes revolve[d] around the general worthiness of portals. In their view, this lead to an an adulterated result and, therefore, no consensus.

I disagree, for two main reasons. First, I don’t think the proposal was as unclear as The Gnome makes it in their closing: it revolved around a single issue (portal links in the top banner), a point that was underlined shortly after the discussion began [9]. Second, I don’t think that the discussion of issues that were beside the proposal resulted in such a train wreck that the discussion yielded “no consensus”. People expressed their views on the main proposal, and also had discussions on other questions, and this should not affect the outcome.

My understanding of the consensus is as follows: there was consensus to remove portal links from the main page's top banner, but no consensus on whether they should be moved somewhere else. My suggested course of action is to take no action until this second question is discussed by the community through a second discussion or an RfC. JBchrch talk 15:31, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• Though I 'voted' for the portals to remain on the Main Page, I've no objections to the closure, or any objections to it being challenged. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
• Greetings, all. My preliminary response to the objections to the closure has been posted here. -The Gnome (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
• I made my comments on The Gnome's talk page already. I will just reiterate that I strongly appreciate The Gnome explaining their rationale in detail - that's good and should be praised, despite / especially when it leads to pushback! Anyway, there may be reasons to close the discussion as "No Consensus", but I strongly disagree with The Gnome's claim that the discussion was "adulterated" or otherwise too much of a trainwreck. It really wasn't that complicated: most editors wanted to either remove, cut down, or move the links, all very similar proposals, and the rationales were largely shared among everyone. I recognize that this may not have been The Gnome's intent, but the implications from a close such as this are that future RFCs should be extremely blunt - that a proposal should be laid down and people have to vote it up or down with no changes, no clarifications, no rationales, no extra thoughts. A Wikipedia consensus process that worked that way would be a worse and weaker one than the sometimes messy soup we have now. Maybe the discussion should still be closed No Consensus if there's other problems afoot with a close of "remove" or "move", but I would prefer the stance that the "adulterations" were a problem be explicitly repudiated. SnowFire (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  As someone who commented in the RFC, I agree with Snowfire's take. --Izno (talk) 06:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• Long version on TG's talk page; TLDR: I think it should be reopened, tagged as an RFC, and TG's closure made into a relisting statement to help focus further discussion. Levivich 05:23, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• As I wrote in the talk page discussion: This was a good close as the discussion clearly did not come to any consensus, not even to "do something", let alone anything specific. It cannot be presumed that either those who want rid of the links all together or those who want to keep them would be happy with a move, nor that those who wanted a move (where?) would be happy with complete removal. The only hope of getting a consensus would be to start a new, properly advertised discussion with a much clearer scope. I'd also recommend avoid using page views as an argument as editors cannot agree on whether being viewed by a similar number of people to other links from the main page means they are viewed by many or few readers. Thryduulf (talk) 13:08, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

  You need to disclose that you are

  WP:INVOLVED here, since you !voted in the survey. JBchrch talk

  23:22, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

  I think that, so far, everyone who has responded to this closure challenge has been

  involved in the closed discussion. -The Gnome (talk

  ) 11:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

  Yes but this was the first admin comment. JBchrch talk 13:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

  Fair enough. But in that discussion,

  that rule as disapproving cases where an admin takes part in a discussion or dispute and then acts as an admin in the same dispute. The pertinent text reads as follows: In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. In the present case, I did not see Thryduulf or any other admin "acting as admins". -The Gnome (talk

  ) 16:22, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

  I have no problem with anyone expressing any opinion about anything anywhere. But the point of coming to AN is to get input from neutral admins, so I think it's reasonable to ask admins who have !voted in the original proposal to just disclose it. To quote Bilorv on your talk page: I think a lot of people do not appreciate how deep WP:INVOLVED runs: if you participated in the RfC, it means you are involved, which fundamentally means you are unable to neutrally assess the consensus of the discussion. JBchrch talk 16:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• I have not, and have no intention of, acting in an admin capacity in this matter. I thought I had made it clear that I was involved in the discussion but that must have gotten lost in one of the several rewrites I did (at one point I had about three paragraphs worth of text, whether or not the comment I posted is helpful it's more helpful than that would have been). Thryduulf (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• This is interesting. If I understand you correctly,
  WP:NOBIGDEAL. (I'm not making any reference to opinions offered here by specific admins or how this challenge progresses.) -The Gnome (talk
  ) 13:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

  Clearly there's a misunderstanding here. All I'm saying is that admins who have taken part to a discussion should disclose that they have done so when they choose to express their views on a closure challenge at AN. JBchrch talk 14:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

• I have boldly added
  WP:CLOSECHALLENGE about this. Levivich
  17:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• The title of the section was "Removing links to portals from the Main Page's top banner", which seems pretty clear to me. Multiple editors said they would find moving the links an acceptable second choice, but this is irrelevant if there is sufficient support for removal that the "compromise" option was not needed. Only a single editor (Skdb) indicated they only supported a move. The close was, probably unintentionally, "punishing" editors for merely mentioning a second choice had the consensus not been as strong as it was. See also the vacated close at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 179#RFC:_Citation_Style 1 parameter naming convention, where there was a good faith attempt by the original closer to pick a "compromise" option that turned out not necessary because there was sufficient support for one of the main proposals. SnowFire (talk) 05:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• The difference between this discussion and the citation style RFC is that there was not consensus here for the main option (or indeed any other option). Thryduulf (talk) 08:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• If another RFC is opened on the matter, we might want to use the Clarity Act as a guide, for the new RFC's question. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse the RfC close. In the discussion on the closer's talk page, I advised @
  WP:CONSENSUS as is the way on Wikipedia. Needless to say, I approve The Gnome's close which was well-explained and really the only viable conclusion from the discussion given the disparate proposals made. I hope we can end this and get to work on a way forward sooner rather than later.  — Amakuru (talk
  ) 09:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• It's not fair to characterize a close challenge as "attempting to relitigate", especially when half a dozen editors are disagreeing with the close on the closer's talk page. You wouldn't be disappointed if you disagreed with the close. Levivich 13:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• @Amakuru I'm not going to do anything of the sort, actually. You see, this process has been somewhat stressful and, given how my life looks right now, I've been questioning whether I should continue to shepherd it after this discussion (irrespective of its outcome). This disgraceful comment of yours is all I needed to make a decision. So I'm sorry to inform you that if you want to "work on a way forward", you're gonna have to find someone else. JBchrch talk 13:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• From what I've seen, the discussion being discussed here was never an actual
  WP:RFC. No RfC template was present, and the discussion was never added to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia proposals. The proposition of such a major change to Main page should actually go through the RfC process, to encourage more users and readers to contribute and to receive input from a variety of such people. Also, as the proposal was worded, it came across as a survey, rather than an actionable matter. This is in part per where it states, "Survey (Portal links)" at the very top of the discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰
  15:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, it's what I said above and what @Levivich also addressed in more detail. I should note that, to the best of my knowledge, RfCs are not supposed to be launched without prior discussion, and I was certainly not going to launch a VPR RfC about the Main page out of the blue myself. My VPR proposal was supposed to simply launch an informal discussion about my idea. Then, it was WP:CENT-listed and attracted project-wide !votes. As for the "survey", it has become some sort of standard format for RfCs, so I'm not sure why it would affect the actionability of this discussion. In any case, I have no strong views on how the non-RfC-isation of the VPR discussion should affect the outcome hereof. JBchrch talk 15:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

  Also, I will just note that you are not neutral in this matter since you !voted in the discussion. This is not meant to push aside your comment, just to point it out for the purposes of this AN closure review. JBchrch talk 15:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

  Is an RFC going to be opened? If none hadn't actually occurred. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

  Is this a question for me? I personally have no strong views on this, but there have been suggestions of that kind at User talk:The Gnome § Main page closure. JBchrch talk 16:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

  Since you're the main challenger to a discussion that was closed which wasn't an RFC. Yes, I'm asking you. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• Request closure I've unarchived this request and evaluated the discussion above. This comment is my summary of the discussion. I want to thank The Gnome for their good work and responses to many inquiries. First, there is a consensus here that the messy underlying discussion was still valid, and that "adulterated" is not the best way to describe it. We should respect the time committed by the 47 editors who commented. Second, the original discussion appears to have determined that the portal links are little used and don't belong at the top of the page, at least not all of them. This was the strongest reason given because it respects what's best for our readers—not cluttering the UI with infrequently selected links. The discussion was not ideal because some of the RfC formalities were not followed. Nevertheless, that imperfection is not so bad that it cannot be corrected. The result should be to remove the portal links from the home page banner. There can be a follow up discussion, preferably with all the RfC formalities followed, to determine if some or all of the portal links should be placed somewhere else on the home page, such as lower down on the page. I recommend having a discussion to work out the most popular options and then hold an RfC to choose among them. Would an admin please close this discussion and implement the result? Jehochman ^Talk 13:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Call for uninvolved admins

I am aware that I'm being a PITA right now, but I think it would really be valuable if at least one admin who has not participated to the VPR discussion accepted to express their views on the closure. I think the community would appreciate it. JBchrch talk 10:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

We can see three topics below this one how the community appreciates work of uninvolved admins willing to perform difficult closures. Good luck with finding one.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:14, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Don’t archive until it’s closed

I plan keep this thread open until somebody deals with it. It would be disrespectful to ignore the input of 47 editors and let this go away without a decision. Jehochman ^Talk 15:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Need someone to take a look at it. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 13:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Would an admin please take a look at the actions of KyleLover69. I believe this editor is NOTHERE as their only actions are to add a song by what would be a redlink band to the Big Iron article page. Attempts to engage have gone nowhere [10]. Springee (talk) 13:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The edit: * AR on a Sling (2020) by Kyle Rittenhouse Tribute Band. The user name: KyleLover69. The action: {{uw-nothereblock}}. El_C 14:08, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Shraddhasrivastava1590 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Possible undisclosed paid editing. Unwilling to communicate and repeatedly attempting to create the same page in mainspace. 1 2 3. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 08:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Page creations match those of Bikrookanpurgangster, blocked for cross-wiki abuse. Hemantha (talk) 11:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

•  Confirmed by checkuser and blocked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

JsfasdF252 has a community imposed partial block from most of the project. As a courtesy I am copying their unblock appeal to this page. I make no endorsement in doing so. 331dot (talk) 00:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• I knew what I did wrong on Wikipedia, such as creating hybrid templates, messing with red links, simulating article subpages, and creating confusing redirects, all in an attempt to reduce the wikicode size of articles. Even though I made these bad edits before being blocked, I also made plenty of good edits, and I submitted some successful edit requests while I was blocked. I have been editing other wikis during the block, including other Wikimedia wikis, and I think I know enough to avoid doing any of the things that led me to the block. Since the block, I have caught dozens, if not hundreds of errors on the English Wikipedia, but I haven't been able to fix them. I made some edit requests to address the issues, but it takes time for these edit requests to be fulfilled, and they only represent a slim minority of the mistakes I noticed. I also used to engage in Word Association before the block. The block has been active for 8 months now, and a lot has changed since I first received a block. JsfasdF252 (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• I'd support an unblock from article-space. This user was pretty disruptive in templates and other Wikipedia processes, and I don't see much benefit to them participating there for now given what they've listed in their unblock request, so I think limiting them to articles makes sense. If they can edit articles without disruption, then I'd support looking at the other blocks too, upon request. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
• Link of sanction: [11] This is really needed in an appeal, to provide background... Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  I see a typo in my closing statement; "I will not" must be "I will now" (and this is what I have actually done).--Ymblanter (talk) 09:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• Given Elli's familiarity with the case and excellent suggestion, I would agree. Everyone deserves a second chance, and this is likely the best way to go about it. Article space only, no Templates, no meta space except for normal exceptions (reporting or being reported at AN/ANI/AE/ARB). We can look at lifting everything in 6 months if all goes well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support modification of the partial block to allow editing of articles. The editor has acknowledged their errors quite frankly, and presumably now understands that their efforts "to reduce the wikicode size of articles" was disruptive and unwelcome. I encourage the editor to focus on improving article content for the benefit of our readers rather than editing articles to try to make the wikicode leaner. Cullen328 (talk) 01:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support modification Was this restriction genuinely not enforced by the pban mechanism? If so, that's another tick in the column along with Elli's reasoning the appeal. I'd support Elli's proposed modification, with the user able to make additional appeals after six months. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  It was enforced, see above.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  Ah, thanks, although while it would have further supported the case, I still think ROPE applies sufficiently to go with the proposal Nosebagbear (talk) 09:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• Preventing automatic archivation--Ymblanter (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) I've unarchived this discussion as still needing a proper close. Isabelle ^🔔 03:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support modification to allow mainspace edits. If problematic behaviour re-appears this can be easily reinstated, so it's worth giving a second chance of sorts. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• It looks like there's a strong consensus. Could an admin please close this? Jehochman ^Talk 14:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to file a formal request to lift my AA2 topic ban. I was sanctioned more than a year ago, based on this report. Following the initial imposing of the TBAN, I have also violated it due to a lack of understanding of

• As an
  talk
  ) 20:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  • WP:UNBAN states that it should be at ANI, which is why I came here. I could move it if it's wrong. --► Sincerely: Solavirum
    20:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
    • The UNBAN section you indicated applies to community-applied bans, not AE bans.
      talk
      ) 20:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Doesn't
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeals by sanctioned editors indicate that appeals can take place at either AE or AN? DanCherek (talk
    ) 20:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  • (
    Beeblebrox, they're in the right place (one of the right places). WP:AN is an acceptable alternative for appealing this ban, per these instructions. There is a link to them in the topic ban notification that the user received. Bishonen | tålk
    20:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC).

• The two other users
  talk
  ) 18:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  Think they should be restored, if they asked at

  WP:PERM we'd put a call out to the removing admin, but barring some good explanation would re-grant. — xaosflux ^Talk

  18:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  I'm seriously tempted to restore them. Darcourse has edited as recently as today. BC1278 hasn't edited yet in February, but was active on January 31. There seems to be no reason for them not to have user groups that are supposed to be automatic. ~

  problem solving

  21:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  In fact, I did just restore them. ~

  problem solving

  21:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  @ONUnicorn: That restoration of rights seems completely justified. Jonathunder appears to have removed Darcourse's EC rights solely because Darcourse restored an Oxford comma (diff) several hours after Jonathunder removed it at Paul Allen (diff). Jonathunder removed the Oxford comma again (diff) and EC rights (log) without comment. Based on the Interaction Analyzer, this is their only direct interaction. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• It might be worth adding to this conversation, that not all editors that got the mop long ago and don't edit much make 'weird choices'. Jeepday (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• As a longstanding PERM admin, to my knowledge, reversal of automatic EC is not something that I have ever seen done. I can't find any policy guidance on it one way or another. Regardless, just with any sanction, there needs to be clear violations, a clear explanation, and a clear demonstrable preventative aspect to the action, and I'm not seeing any of that here. The user was not even editing ECP articles when their EC flag was revoked, in essence partially blocking them from all 7642 ECP articles. Could you imagine if an admin just partially blocked someone from editing a list of over 3,000 articles, randomly spread across various subject areas, without any log entry or any explanation? There'd be an emergency desysop in a heartbeat, so please let's keep the gravity of this action in mind here. Also I note a clear pattern of out-of-touch permissions changes, including stripping others of EC (one without any log entry or explanation, one because he thought they "didn't need it", not because they did anything wrong), granting ECP to an account with one edit, and granting Confirmed to non-autoconfirmed accounts without good reason (he confirmed MeganKalene31 after unblocking her for copyvios (which a second admin disagreed with), and he confirmed Lanelsen "per request", an account that had only insignificantly edited in a sandbox and had never communicated on-wiki.) Not good. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  No comment on this situation, but I do know that ECP has been removed from people who are clearly gaming the system, often for PAID or DS reasons. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  I have not looked too much into this specific situation, but I know I have seen editors get EC revoked following a community discussion on AN/I or the like. –

  ☖

  21:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Swarm: removal of ECP is rare, and when it was more tied to an arbcom remedy was even rarer, as @Barkeep49: mentioned it is normally only routinely done when someone has obviously gamed the threshold, normally with an AN(/I) thread about them, and generally with a direction of something like "once you have made 500 new non-trivial edits, you may ask for restoration at PERM, or on "my talkpage"). — xaosflux ^Talk 23:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• There is a series of disturbing actions noted above. Is it too early to discuss desysopping? We all make mistakes, but there's a real issue here. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's too early to discuss desysopping. Jesus. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
    • No, not Jesus... but thanks for the compliment. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
      • All of this is arguing in circles until Jonathunder responds to the above thread. It was only posted a day ago. Let's all simmer down. --WaltCip-(talk) 16:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
        • Absolutely. Agree with you and Flo. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Why is it too early to talk about desysopping? We have seen proof that this is not a case of a legacy admin "a little out-of-touch with current norms", but of someone who obviously should never have been let anywhere near adminship. No response can change that. We are here to produce an encyclopedia, not to be nice to someone who has less ability to be a good admin than my two-year-old grandson.
      Phil Bridger (talk
      ) 20:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
      • Posts that register over 5.0 on the hyperbolemeter belong at ANI, not AN. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
• It has now been a week since Righanred's request for accountability from Jonathunder. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

  True, but it has also been 5 days since Jonathunder has edited. Primefac (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

  I'm primarily making sure that this doesn't get archived. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• My own two cents is that someone who edits as infrequently as Jonathunder does right now shouldn't be using the tools because there's no possibility of accountability. If they became more active that would be a different matter. Mackensen (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think there's necessarily an issue with an admin editing sporadically, but when they are alerted to a complaint about their admin actions and do not respond promptly, that is a problem.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Wandering in kinda late, noting for the record that I've revoked the use rights granted to MamaTeeth as obviously out-of-process.
  talk
  ) 20:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
• On the Andrew redirect referred to earlier,its origins seem to be this post, which I admittedly found funny. But I was bit surprised to subsequently see the RfD and more surprised to see that the redirect was created by him. Now, us mere mortals might get up to that sort of malarkey but it does seem odd that an admin does that. DeCausa (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

  I have deleted the redirect. Jay (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)