Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

    You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    information Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

    Open tasks

    [edit]
    XFD backlog
    V Jun Jul Aug Sep Total
    CfD 0 1 38 94 133
    TfD 0 0 11 23 34
    MfD 0 0 0 0 0
    FfD 0 0 4 5 9
    RfD 0 0 6 8 14
    AfD 0 0 0 0 0


    RfC closure review request at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#RfC Regarding MOS:POSTNOM

    [edit]
    Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Post-nominal letters (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RfC closure in question) (Discussion with closer)

    Closer: S Marshall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    User requesting review: The ed17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at 22:29, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Notified: [1]

    Reasoning: In 2023, a RfC found consensus to modify MOS:POSTNOM so that post-nominal letters would be disallowed in lead sentences. This year, another RfC was opened ostensibly as a referendum on the previous RfC. The latter is the closure I'm appealing today.

    The new RfC was closed by S Marshall as having no consensus to proceed with any of the presented options. I agree on that point. However, S Marshall's close found that 'no consensus' in this case meant that the current consensus is invalidated.

    Putting that more simply, the proposal was to change a guideline's status quo wording. It ended in both no consensus and changing the wording.

    S Marshall pointed to WP:BARTENDER as their reasoning for closing the RfC in this way, which HouseBlaster has separately questioned, as well as what he saw as a weak consensus in the 2023 RfC.

    COI note: I have an explicit viewpoint on this topic, as I proposed the 2023 RfC and participated in the new one. Ed [talk] [OMT] 22:29, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Closer (S Marshall)

    [edit]
    • Well of course I hadn't predecided the issue, no matter what Alanscottwalker thinks. The absolute worst thing about closing the contentious stuff, on Wikipedia, is the constant accusations of misconduct and supervoting as soon as people don't get their way. It's not OK.
    Of course, it happens because "I think you're wrong" always fails, but "You're INVOLVED" or "You're in bad faith" sometimes succeeds. We need to find a way to make close reviews better. It's got to be ok to say "Wrong outcome" (which is about the issues) and not ok to say "Wrong closer" (which is ad hominem).
    At issue here is the question of whether the rule currently written in the MOS should stand or fall. I noted that the previous discussion close was marginal, and I noted the number of experienced editors who were saying that the rule isn't working for them or is causing more strife than it prevents, and I noted the relatively low level of support for Option 2.
    We need to decide whether the community really thinks "No postnominals in the first sentence" is the right rule. If the community doesn't think that, then it shouldn't be the rule.—S Marshall T/C 22:53, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    [Much later] And here are my two questions for the closer of this close review.

    1. Across all of the discussions we've had, I see a slight and tepid majority for "no postnominals in the first sentence". Significant and quite impassioned dissent from experienced editors exists (reading Peacemaker67's "overturn" as an "endorse", which seems to be a widespread approach among those who've analyzed this debate). I've taken the view that this slight and tepid majority doesn't amount to a consensus, and after all this debate, I still think it doesn't. Was I wrong? Where is the threshold of consensus?
    2. When closing a RfC, is the closer confined to the one debate they've been invited to close, or should they read around and across other related discussions including historical ones to try to understand the community's view as a whole? I'm really bothered by this question because if it's the former, then everything in User:S Marshall/RfC close log about Israel/Palestine, India/Pakistan, and post-1932 US politics is potentially unsafe, so I'd appreciate the clearest and most specific answer you can formulate.

    Thanks in advance for taking this on.—S Marshall T/C 08:30, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Non-participants (POSTNOM)

    [edit]
    • Overturn Having already reviewed the closers talkpage and the RfC, I feel I can stick my oar in now. I agree with the objectors. I also note, that the closes, "our society can convey" gives the appearance of impropriety, as a thumb on the scale of a partisan who already pre-decided the issue. I also think it is improper to use a close to in effect be a review of the prior close. The closer should have brought personal concerns about the prior close to review. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • In response to the closers new comment, above: No. SMarshall nothing I wrote is ad hominem. Having endorsed your closes before, I can assure you, I reviewed and commented on your close not you, and this is review of your close, so it invites me to say what I think of it, whether you care, what I think, or not. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:05, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • Adding, and whatever you don't like about what I said, see the Dan Leonard comment below[2], it is your close that is the problem, because it chose to view it through some kind of "nationalist" cast, which was completely unfair to serious consideration of the participants statements and analysis. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • My understanding is that Mr. Marshall finds that no possible MOS guideline on postnominals can enjoy community support at this juncture and is therefore scrapping it. This devolves the question of what to do about postnominals to local consensus at individual articles. This is gutsy (one might even say bold), not what I would have done, and will probably exacerbate tensions in the short term, but will (one hopes) push editors to agree on something to get it back in the MOS. Honestly, I like it, but I've not yet decided whether I can endorse it. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:03, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn the quashing of the previous RfC - I became aware of the close last night, when I saw a string of edits citing MOS:POSTNOM in the edit summaries and so I went to read the RFC to see what happened. My view is that the close overstepped the mark when WP:DETCON to determine that no consensus in that discussion overturned consensus in a previous discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 23:11, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn - A finding of no consensus in a new RfC means the status quo ante bellum is maintained. It does not mean that a previous RfC's consensus is overturned or invalidated; to do that you'd need a new consensus, which a finding of no consensus is, explictly in its very definition, not. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:53, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • A bartender argument is theoretically fine: if there's explicitly a consensus against the existence of WP:POSTNOM, even if no agreement on what should replace it, then it's within closer's discretion to say that section of the guideline is vacated as not having community support. IMO that'd be the correct close. I don't know whether that applies to the discussion.
      Respectfully, IMO SM's closes are long but the bulk of them is a summary of what the RfC question was, what policies are relevant to consensus-decision-making on Wikipedia, etc. It makes closes accessible to non-Wikipedians, but there tends to be little detail on how the consensus determination was actually made (which is typically only about two sentences of the multi-paragraph close). So it's hard for me to assess, just reading the close, how SM came to the determination he did. I presume by default that he saw all arguments as equally valid, and that option 1+3+4+5 editors collectively had a consensus. If that's the case, then I'd stay this close is correct and should stand. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hate most close challenges; they have a way of becoming RFC 2.0 with a side of ganging up on the closer. I can recall many vexatious challenges of S Marshall's closes. That is not okay. I am really sad that I find myself on this side of the close review. But in this one instance, overturn the quashing of the previous RfC, keeping the rest of the close intact, per The Bushranger. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:39, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn. The no-consensus close of the most recent RFC seems reasonable enough. That doesn't mean the result of the prior RFC gets quashed; instead the guideline should stay as it was before to the most recent RFC. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 14:35, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse The question of whether or not to retain the the existing wording was clearly implicitly on the table. RFC's with more than two choices are problematic unless you also understand and recognize the common themes of the various options and the input on them. IMO the closer did this and the result was to not keep the current wording. This is also observed by the bartender essay but the essay itself was not the basis, it merely observes & discusses the logical principle. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:44, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reluctantly overturn. I do agree with S Marshall on a theoretical level regarding the contentious 'no consensus overwrites previous weak consensus' (to paraphrase), but this isn't how STATUSQUO works (somewhat unfortunately). Ie I agree that previous weak consensus transforming into no consensus should result in no consensus (as SM described); but this isn't how our policies work, and that would be another discussion to amend STATUSQUO, rather than this close setting a precedent to do so. Had SM elaborated on the consensus to no longer maintain the status quo, per BARTENDER and as ProcrastinatingReader describes, then I would instead likely endorse. But this did not occur, not in the close nor on the talk page (as far as I understood). Therefore I am unable to endorse for that reason alone, but it's a very close call. I otherwise entirely reject accusations of a super vote or otherwise, this close was clearly in good faith with good rationale, but has slightly strayed from policy being the only issue I see. Overall I find SM's closes well structured and complete, have learnt a lot from them, and has inspired me make closes myself. So to !vote overturn here is very much based on putting my positive biases towards the closer aside, similar to others it appears, and I hope this won't discourage them from further closes. CNC (talk) 11:47, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn. No policy-based rationale for unilaterally voiding the previous RfC. Generalrelative (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse If there's no consensus for any of the options, but there is a consensus for "current wording shouldn't stand", you have to make that call. (See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive706#Rename through protection.) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn WP:BARTENDER closes are for when there is a strong majority in favour of making a change, but no consensus on precisely what that change should be. They are not for cases such as this, where there seems to be a large number with a stronger argument based on WP:PAGs arguing for no change, and an overall numerical majority arguing for some change. This didn't come through in the close, because it doesn't appear that the closer analysed the strength of arguments at all. I applaud that the closer had the guts to attempt such a BARTENDER close, but in my judgement, in this situation, a no consensus decision must retain the status quo ante bellum. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn narrowly the section voiding the previous RfC. Status quo means status quo, not a repeal of a prior existing RfC. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse. If we were talking about an article, then the overturns would be correct; the result of a no-consensus outcome in an article is to retain the previous wording. But I believe PAG pages are different. A PAG page isn't an encyclopedia entry, it's a summary of the community's consensus on a topic. When there is no consensus, a PAG should say nothing. Therefore, I've always been of the opinion that a lack of consensus in an RFC on a PAG page should result in removal, unlike on an article - the MOS requires active consensus. The alternative would cause chaos. What happens when someone attempts to implement this recommendation on a talk page where it has not previously been implemented, and another editor objects? The discussion will likely reach no consensus (since there is, in fact, no consensus supporting that entry in the MOS), and their attempt to implement it will fail, leading to inconsistency, frustration, and conflict between people who believe they have a consensus to continue implementing this in articles and people who oppose them and can clearly demonstrate over and over that they don't. For articles, our primary concern after a no-consensus RFC is stability, leading to WP:QUO; but PAGs are different - for the encyclopedia to run smoothly, they need to reflect actual consensus and practice. --Aquillion (talk) 13:28, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Makes sense. This reminds me of WP:NOCON for BLPs which goes against QUO. Ideally this should formally include PAG pages based on the same logic that if it is controversial, it shouldn't be included without consensus. CNC (talk) 13:45, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Sure, this is a valid interpretation of how Wikipedia PAGs should work. But this would imply removing MOS:POSTNOM entirely from the MOS, or perhaps stating that there is no consensus on whether they should be included and it should be decided on an article by article basis. The close effectively introduces a guideline which, as you say, does not have firm consensus. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:18, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      That's the exact opposite of what it does. It deletes a guideline that does not have firm consensus, and replaces it with no guideline.—S Marshall T/C 21:27, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Option 1—that they may be included—has no consensus. The forced-compromise guideline says they can be included if they are used by the subject, which was found to have no consensus in two RfCs. Being silent would entail removing that from the guideline (which would be silly IMO, but being silly is not a reason to supervote). HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse The way this RfC was framed invited the review of the prior RfC by asking whether the language should be overturned, maintained or revised. As there was no consensus there was also no consensus to maintain the text in its initial form. I will note that, had I participated in the RfC, I likely would have !voted to maintain the text as-is since I do think postnominals in the lead sentence do introduce clutter and may have problems with creating arguments from authority on controversial BLPs however I didn't participate and all I can really say is, based on a review of the close, the arguments made in the RfC and the original framing of the RfC, this was a good close, even if I personally disagree with the implications of it. Simonm223 (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse. The RFC was well attended and although the status quo was presented as an option, it failed to get majority support with 55% of participants supporting options that would weaken the current no-exceptions bar to postnominals in the lead sentence. The overwhelming majority of those supported either a total or near-total repudiation or taking it case by case. Both sides made well-reasoned points, but if we did have to weigh arguments, I think the position that there are never any situations that postnominals can be helpful for readers is a weaker position than one that accepts that some such scenarios exist. In any case, there is still guidance warning against adding lesser postnominals and that concision is a guiding principle. I think the close elides the difference a bit between there being a consensus against the status quo and there being no consensus for a specific replacement. It's within acceptable WP:BARTENDER close territory and it's reasonable to choose an option that did have once have consensus (i.e. the pre-2023 version) instead of unilaterally imposing one that never did. However, the best course of action would be discussions and then a new RFC on what uses have consensus as the close suggested. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:59, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn quashing of the 2023 RfC (so in effect, leave the no consensus close intact but with no change to the prior status quo). My thoughts are largely aligned with the comments made by the nominator of this review, The ed17. The substance of the rfc close was reasonable, in particular the finding of no consensus – given the even split of opinions and an absence of concrete policy/guideline arguments that might cause one or other view to be given more weight. But the conclusion from that no-consensus decision that the 2023 RfC should be overturned is IMHO really a case of adding up 2+2 and concluding the answer is 5. To be absolutely clear, the 2023 RfC was the established view of the community before this RfC and, despite some grumbling, there was never a challenge to it and it has now stood for over two years as established guideline. That's the baseline under which the 2025 RfC operated, and revising the 2023 close by the back door was not and should never have been part of the new RfC's remit. Given the absence of consensus, the only option under longstanding Wiki convention is to maintain the prior status quo, which in this case is to keep postnoms outside of lead sentences. So overall, I think there's a concrete case for overturning. Addressing a few of the issues raised elsewhere in this thread, while I have no doubt that the closer here has acted in good faith, and is an experienced and prolific closer of RfCs, I have to say I find some of their conclusions a little strange. Firstly, they appear to have been unduly swayed by comments in the RfC saying the previous consensus was "overreach" or "poorly thought out". No doubt that's how those participants feel, but that shouldn't give them extra weight in their !votes, and it sends a worrying message that you can get your way in future simply by moaning extra hard about the status quo. And secondly, S Marshall had several times said that the prior RfC was closed incorrectly, calling it "marginal" and declaring without evidence that it "wouldn't have survived close review". That is not only rather insulting to the 2023 closer, but also out of process. If you want a close to be reviewed then review it, don't end-around it by WP:SUPERVOTEing a close on a subsequent RfC. As before, this is a comment about the close, not the closer, so I hope it won't be taken as an ad hominem. Anyway, that's probably about all I need to say on this. Anecdotally, as a British person who watches football and cricket and goes to the pub – sometimes even after work – I can honestly say I don't feel strongly about whether letters are included or not included after someone's name, and I concur with the view expressed below that the average British person, even those educated enough to read or edit Wikipedia, would not be too fussed about the issue of letters after someone's name one way or the other. The "transatlantic dispute" angle seems overblown. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      My position is that this is erroneous. My position is that you absolutely can have a RfC to review a RfC. Whether you should depends on how long it's been. If it's been two weeks, then re-running the RfC is likely to be disruptive and you ought to go to close review. But if it's been two years, then holding a close review isn't useful and you ought to run a fresh RfC.—S Marshall T/C 14:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn. The point of an RfC is to come to agreement that enables us to write an encyclopedia. (In fact, the whole point of everything we do outside article space is to enable us to write an encyclopedia.) Sometimes RfCs can't reach that agreement... but they shouldn't make things worse. This took a rule that we could all follow, whether or not we agreed with it, threw it away, and didn't replace it with anything. That strictly made the situation worse. There needs to be strong agreement that the current rule is just completely unbearable before we replace it with chaos. There wasn't that here. There was no consensus - fine, in that case the status quo stays. Not: no consensus, therefore the status quo gets thrown away.--GRuban (talk) 13:25, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I think that's completely mistaken. When you delete a rule that doesn't have consensus, the outcome isn't "chaos". It's the regular Wikipedian way of working. Discuss. Use the talk page. Check what the sources say. Reason it out. Reach consensus on a case-by-case basis. This is not making the situation worse. It is in fact an improvement over an overreaching rule that, quite honestly, never had consensus in the first place.—S Marshall T/C 21:54, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @S Marshall: I wasn't aware you thought POSTNOM was an "overreaching rule". That's an opinion that would have been usefully contributed to the RfC. When it comes from a RfC closer, it does bring an appearance of supervoting.
      We've already disagreed below on your apparent belief that one RfC's closer can unilaterally overturn a second RfC's closure without an affirmative consensus, so I won't rehash that further. Ed [talk] [OMT] 22:21, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I formed the view that the rule was overreach, and never really had consensus in the first place, while analyzing the debate to close it. It was not a preconception. I would not have !voted in that discussion. I do believe that an RFC can overturn a previous RFC and I don't think that's controversial. Just as a "keep" at AFD doesn't immunize the article from deletion at another AFD two years later, an RFC can overturn a previous one. I'm very confident indeed that this was the right close, Ed.—S Marshall T/C 23:27, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, a RfC can overturn a previous RfC. I haven't said otherwise. However, the RfC needs to show consensus to overturn it, and per your own close there was no consensus for that option. Ed [talk] [OMT] 02:33, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Right. If every time we discussed an existing rule without getting consensus meant we had to get rid of the rule, we would very quickly lose most or even all of our rules. I'm surprised anyone who has been here longer than a few months thinks otherwise. It's like herding cats around here: Wikipedia editors prize their individuality, I strongly suspect a number of them will disagree with anyone on principle just to prove it. Getting consensus for anything is hard, getting enough consensus to make a rule is very hard, but getting "no consensus" is easy. --GRuban (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Participants (POSTNOM)

    [edit]
    • I was a bit perturbed by the closure implying this was an ENGVAR issue, of Americans not understanding the concept and Commonwealth editors wanting to preserve their national culture. The best arguments expressed in the RfC were not in that style at all: see for instance Celia Homeford's comment comparing the styles of many encyclopedic biographies written in multiple English dialects, or the many arguments based on due weight, original research, and clutter concerns. I actually see very few ENGVAR-related comments at all. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 22:58, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse If something lacks community support and there is no consensus, then it should not be in the MOS. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:17, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • While a detailed close is appreciated, and any closure would attract scrutiny as it's certainly true that there's dissension in every direction, and some informality & humor is good even in closing statements... I will echo what Dan Leonard said. Disclaimer: I was and am in favor of the 2023 version ("Option 2" in the phrasing). But I don't think the "There's a tension between some (predominantly American) editors, who seem astonished that anyone could possibly make sense of a long string of alphabet soup after someone's name." line in the close comes across well. Nobody is surprised that some people can make sense of such alphabet soup. The question is whether this is a good idea to stick in the lead, the most generally accessible part of an article, and the most laser-focused on relevancy. Per Dan Leonard, there was strong evidence provided that the 2023 version was a good idea judging by usage strictly in Commonwealth countries. Not an AmEng issue, in other words. (Maybe the closure should stand for other reasons, but not this one, IMO.) SnowFire (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I am not involved in this RfC in question but in another one that User:S Marshall closed and I am not in one hundred percent agreement with his closing statement. Logoshimpo (talk) 01:03, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn the quashing of the previous RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:19, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with everything HB has said. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:55, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      No consensus means no consensus. You can't find there's no consensus to change the status quo and then revert back to something before the status quo. The close is internally inconsistent. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:17, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • @ProcrastinatingReader: I might gently point out that options 3 and 4 proposed more restrictive wordings than this close enacted. Even if we ignore that, the closer said nothing about 1+3+4+5 making up a consensus; they instead found "no consensus about what to do" (their words). Ed [talk] [OMT] 02:25 and 6:01, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
    • Overturn. The close contradicts itself by saying there's no consensus and then imposing Option 1. DrKay (talk) 05:42, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse The 2025 RfC clearly showed that the community was divided and did not support any one option including maintaining the previous guideline from the 2023 RfC. In that context, I think it was reasonable for the closer to conclude that the earlier consensus no longer stood and overturning the closure decision effectively reinstates a version that no longer enjoys broad support. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 06:26, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The current close effectively reinstates a version which no longer has broad support. Therefore, by Wikipedia convention, we go to the status quo, which in this case was no post nominal in the first sentence. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:00, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Given that the 2023 RfC was contentious from the outset and its outcome was repeatedly challenged, I’d argue the appropriate status quo is the version prior to that RfC. The 2025 RfC showed no clear consensus for any new direction, and while it didn’t explicitly reaffirm the earlier version, it also didn’t endorse the 2023 guideline as a lasting consensus. In such cases, Wikipedia convention leans towards the last stable version with broad acceptance, which would be the pre-2023 wording. Therefore, I believe reinstating that version aligns more closely with both policy and precedent. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 01:25, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      "Repeatedly challenged" is a stretch. Certainly there was expressed unhappiness from some folks who fell on the opposite side of the well-attended 2023 consensus—that happens when people's opinions are strong, divided, and numerous. And yet no one ever filed a formal AN appeal (even when invited to), and no one kicked off a new RfC for two full years. Ed [talk] [OMT] 02:26, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      But it was hardly a resounding consensus in the first place, was it. That was a marginal call that wouldn't have survived close review, and in closing this new discussion, I took note of the experienced editors who called it "overreach" or who said it was causing problems. The community doesn't love the status quo and it isn't working for us. In those circumstances restoring the status quo isn't the best idea.—S Marshall T/C 07:20, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      S Marshall: It's not up to you to decide that it wouldn't have survived close review. When closing a discussion, your job is not to place yourself above the participants but rather to summarize the consensus that they formed –– and if you think a prior close was done poorly, to follow the guidelines for overturning it. If you felt strongly that the status quo ... isn't working for us and that restoring the status quo isn't the best idea, what you should have done was !vote in the discussion and let someone else, someone capable of summarizing rather than deciding, perform the close. Generalrelative (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Of course it's up to me. That follows inevitably and necessarily from the process.
      When you close a discussion, you're assessing the community consensus. That means reading the whole matter under discussion including any previous RfCs referred to. And particularly so when the purpose of a discussion is to confirm or refute a previous consensus. When closing, you have to weigh how strong that previous consensus is.
      Whether that previous discussion was accurately closed or not, it was a pretty marginal call. That's a material fact that a responsible closer of this discussion would absolutely take account of.—S Marshall T/C 15:42, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Your remit as the closer of a 2025 RfC is to determine that RfC's consensus. In the absence of a consensus, there is no leeway given for unilaterally overturning a consensus found in a 2023 RfC. Challenging a RfC closure is done at AN so multiple people can weigh in. You, or literally anyone else, could have filed such a challenge in a couple minutes (just like I've done here with your close), but no one ever has despite the repeated claims of a weak consensus. In a situation like this, our standard practice is to stick with the status quo until a new path forward is agreed upon, and that status quo is the 2023 RfC. Ed [talk] [OMT] 16:09, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      No, it isn't! That's completely wrong and in fact if it was true, it would undermine your whole complaint here.
      When you're closing you're not confined to that one discussion at all, and in fact you need to have a clear grounding in community consensus more broadly. You have to identify all the relevant policies and guidelines, and apply them correctly. You have to understand community custom and practice. Your complaint specifically, Ed, is that you think I didn't follow custom and practice. So, yes, I absolutely do read and reflect on community consensus, and that absolutely does include the previous discussions that are specifically flagged up to the closer.
      I didn't file and wouldn't have filed a close challenge, because I'm disinterested and uninterested in any of this. I don't write or watchlist articles about the kind of person who has nonacademic letters after their name. But I'll look you in the eye and tell you that previous close was a marginal call.—S Marshall T/C 17:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Unfortunately, you're putting words in my mouth that I didn't say. Let me try to be more specific: you found that there was no consensus for options 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, as well as no consensus on any path forward. You then personally decided that the path forward will be option 1, overruling a previous consensus/status quo in the process, because you personally view the never-challenged determination of that consensus as "marginal". That's the problem. Ed [talk] [OMT] 18:13, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      While it’s true no formal AN appeal was filed, there were repeated challenges to the 2023 outcome, both on talk pages and via continued objections from experienced editors on MOS over the two-year period. The absence of a formal process doesn’t erase the consistent pushback that clearly signalled ongoing dissatisfaction. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 21:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse. Unsurprisingly, I see no issues with the close and S Marshall's comprehensive and well-throught-out explanation of it and I entirely agree with Nford24's comment above. I also need to reiterate my big worry, which is that editors have been citing MOS:POSTNOM (as it stood since the previous RfC) to remove postnoms from the lead when there is no infobox. They are therefore deleting information in the name of dogma, which we should never, ever do. I do realise that many Americans don't understand the value we Commonwealth people put on postnoms, but to us it is extremely useful to see an individual's correct style. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I do realise that many Americans don't understand the value we Commonwealth people put on postnoms, but to us it is extremely useful to see an individual's correct style. I highly doubt the average British person who goes to the pub after work to watch some cricket or football cares about the proper style for The Right Honourable Sir John Doe DM FFS BS, or could tell you what their post-nominals mean. I also don't think anyone is seeking to delet[e] information in the name of dogma. I just think we should remove long strings of inscrutable letters that only a very small group of people (with an oddly large number of them on Wikipedia) actually care about. That's a matter of style, readability, and how we convey information, not dogma. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:54, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      To be honest, I think this belies a major flaw in the RFC to begin with: it didn't emphasize the use–mention distinction aspect of this. While it might be useful sometimes to be able to find how someone styles themselves and/or read about the notable honors they received, using that style in wikivoice in the lead is altogether different. The RFC question really didn't go into this at all and just emphasized "LEAD SENTENCE" and infoboxes. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 02:05, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      We have post nominals in articles on Catholic members of religious orders and that's normal for those biographies. Secretlondon (talk) 05:15, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      To side fork your questioning that you don't think anyone is seeking to delet[e] information in the name of dogma- That concern has been raised and discussed elsewhere: By the very user you were replying to (and another experienced editor) here and by two users, including the originator of the 2023 RfC here (search for the bit referencing "gnomes"). ~~ Gecko G (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I highly doubt the average British person who goes to the pub after work to watch some cricket or football gives a monkeys about anything we do on Wikipedia! Not really much of an argument. And certainly not an argument to remove information. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:37, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I was repsonding to your assertion that Commonwealthers writ large care about these things. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:59, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse the closure: there was no consensus for change across the two RfCs, so a return to the previous position is justified. PamD 17:08, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn. HouseBlaster and The Bushranger are correct. Adumbrativus (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps calling it a "Bartender close" was inappropriate (first I had ever heard of that), but I otherwise support the close. There was no consensus, just like in the 2023 predecessor (where I maintain that consensus was inappropriately determined). Wiki Editors have been debating the underlying issue periodically since at least 2008 (the earliest reference I found). The closest to a "Stable Status-Quo" was the pre 2023 version. The controversial 2 year version shouldn't somehow become fait-accompli just because I personally was offline and didn't have time (then or now) to figure out the intricacies of Wikipedia procedures. Gecko G (talk) 11:15, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse — (hesitantly) — allow me to preface by stating that I was the RfC initiator, and I also supported some version of permitting post-nominals in the lead. I believe I supported a total reversal, though in-hindsight, I think a restrictive policy (only permitting 1-3 post-nominal combinations, and consensus should be achieved on a per-article basis if there is any issue... I would also endorse only permitting it on articles of subjects' whose nationality places a strong emphasis on such letters; For the record, I am an American). Regardless, I feel that S Marshall was placed in a precarious and difficult position. I think it's obvious from the RfC(s) that the community is not currently happy with the total exclusion (from the lead) policy and I would hardly call support for such a policy broad. That said, I understand opposers' concerns with this closure. However, I would also take-issue with the reading of the prior RfC (though not necessarily with its closure). This was a relatively long RfC and I believe S Marshall did a fantastic and deep analysis of all of the concerns, and thoroughly explained their position. Given the relatively unique nature of this situation, it's relatively wide-reaching consequences (either way), and the amount of participation, I feel that the closure should be endorsed, and further refinements to the policy should take place via RfC.MWFwiki (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn this is overreach, pure and simple. Discounting the cultural divide and imposing a blanket ban based on that was always a poor decision. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      If I'm reading your comment correctly, I think you may want to "endorse" the closure, then. The closer did indeed reverse the "ban." I apologize if I misread your comment. MWFwiki (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with that assessment of endorse vs. overturn, and I've let Peacemaker know on their talk page. I also moved this to the participants section per their comments in the RfC in question. If anyone has an issue with this (as I obviously started this AN discussion in the first place!), please feel free to revert me. Ed [talk] [OMT] 04:29, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse. Good close. There is a cultural disconnect on this point which affects many people's thoughts on this matter and we should be wary of simple vote counting by way of a decision-making process. Given the split nature of the community and the lack of consensus on the matter over two RfCs, basing a decision on the initial status quo seems to be the right call. - SchroCat (talk) 06:42, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn the quashing of the previous RfC. This 2025 RfC wasn't about the 2023 one; if the consensus of that 2023 RfC was "inappropriately determined", then whoever disagreed with it should've started a closure review, well, two years ago. Also WP:BARTENDER (first time I've heard of this essay) is just that, an essay that has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some1 (talk) 14:54, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      BARTENDER is a long-standing essay that is cited with some regularity in deletion discussions. I've never seen it cited in an RfC to support the overturning of an old RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:03, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      How can you argue that This 2025 RfC wasn't about the 2023 one? Option 1 overturned the 2023 RfC (...Reversal of the Exclusion), Option 2 maintained it, Option 4 effectively overturned it but with the added emphasizing of the limits which were already in the pre-2023 version, Option 5 effectively would of overturned it as well but via deleting all mention whatsoever from the MOS (Option 3 was the only new, unconnected option).
      Your own post in the set-up/background of this RfC asked to ping all the editors involved in the previous one, and in one of the intervening discussions, in response to an editor disagreeing with the 2023 RfC you yourself suggested a new RfC about it.
      (I'm ignoring what appears to be a borderline attack on myself because I had RL issues at the time and wasn't online and wasn't able to follow up, and then didn't because I was advised that too much time had passed) Gecko G (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn the quashing of the 2023 RfC. The close statement was well-articulated, but the result contradicts it. SM is correct in concluding that there was no consensus on what to do, but that means a return to the status quo that the RfC sought to change. I participated, obviously, so I see the arguments on one side as stronger, but even setting aside any weighting the numbers do not shake out in a manner that allows calling consensus for option 1, which is what SM did, even if they didn't state it that way. In fact a clear majority opposed option 1. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Noting that this is not about the Commonwealth versus the US, or some such notion. At most this is a cultural artefact of the far smaller Commonwealth realm, though far from universal even therein, versus common practice everywhere else. Defending postnominals on organizational and informational grounds is perfectly reasonable, even if I disagree, but claiming this is US cultural imperialism is wide of the mark. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn The RfC question was whether to "overturn, maintain, or modify" the POSTNOM language. Concluding "no consensus" but then choosing one of the options to change the language seems contradictory. – notwally (talk) 22:01, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn the quashing of the 2023 RfC. The closing summary seems at first like an expression of no consensus, but looks like it was attempting to re-evaluate the previous discussion as well as consider the current one. The closer seems to have decided to throw out the previous closure without showing that there is a current consensus to do so. I have somewhat vacillated over whether this was a not-so-well-expressed correct closure that found a consensus to overturn the previous consensus declaration or an incorrect closure of a 'no consensus' outcome in the new discussion that reached beyond its mandate, but I've settled on the latter interpretation. (I wasn't sure whether to classify myself as "involved" or not; I made a couple of brief clarifying and questioning comments in the discussion, but didn't express a clear position on the matter. Ultimately, I think I should consider myself involved.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn the quashing of the 2023 RfC. Option 1 in the RfC was to "overturn the [2023] guideline", which is how the RfC has been closed despite everyone (including the closer) agreeing that there was no consensus in the 2025 RfC. Option 1 has been imposed through sophistry and what looks like a supervote. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:34, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse, at least weakly. I've been hesitant to weigh in on this, but there have been a number of claims above that the outcome of the 2023 RFC represents the "status quo", and I have to politely disagree. I have created and edited quite a few articles on the stratum of British gentry who tend to be entitled to a postnominal or two and the bulk of these articles still conform to the pre-2023 standard. I have seen a few removals of postnoms (I think by 10mmsocket) but by and large a new editor creating a new article based on existing practice would be likely to include them. The result of the 2023 RFC is much closer to a failed attempt at prescription than it is a description of our practices. While I can understand why this close is controversial, I do think that "no consensus" more accurately captures the status quo of our articles, if not of our process. (Frankly, I am not convinced that the initiator of the 2023 RFC had a good grasp of the scope of the articles that would be affected.) Choess (talk) 03:56, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion (POSTNOM)

    [edit]
    • I'm unsure about where I'd fit regarding participation so I'm putting my views on the matter in this section until told where they'd be best placed. Just thought I'd drop by and (since I'm semi-retired) let it be known I'm open to clarify any aspect of my 2023 closure if and where pinged — with the note that it's been two years so my memory might be vague. — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 16:43, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I heavily disagree that my closure was in any way "marginal". If I had thought that at the time, I would have included wording to signify the close nature of the arguments. My view of the discussion at the time, from what I gather based on both my closure wording and consequent discussions on my talk page, is that those supporting the use of post-noms in the lead sentence failed to provide strong counter-arguments to the points raised by those advocating for their removal. I did mention that the 2023 proposal divided the community, but as I clarified on my talk page that was (to my eyes) just a numeric division, not one of guideline-based strength of argument. If the latter was the case, I would have said there was weak consensus and not just consensus. — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 16:59, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I would appreciate some further clarification on why finding no consensus results in de facto finding consensus for option 1 rather than keeping the status quo, S Marshall. I think that's where me and some others are a bit confused regarding your closure, particularly since WP:BARTENDER refers to situations where there is a clear consensus to make a change from the status quo but you do not mention finding "clear consensus against option 2". — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 17:39, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      As the creator of WP:BARTENDER, I see nothing wrong with its application here. There are very clearly substantially more participants in the discussion favoring options other than option 2 than there are favoring option 2. BD2412 T 22:19, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because of the sheer quantity of criticism.
    1. SMcCandlish: The exclusion was basically well-meaning but very poorly thought-out and has led to problems and strife...
    2. MWFwiki: Total expungement from the lead [sentence] is not appropriate and is overreach...
    3. Nford24: The previous RFC was a massive over reach...'
    4. Peacemaker67: The existing MOS on this is a significant overreach.
    5. Schwede66: I had missed the previous RfC and was quite aghast when I saw what had been decided...
    6. SchroCat: I missed the original RfC and was horrified to find out about it too late.
    I'm an extremely prolific RfC closer, and please take it from me that this kind of comment, in this kind of numbers, is not normal in RfCs. It's diagnostic of a rule that experienced editors are having a lot of trouble with.
    At that time, Ed was trying to enact a change of rules, and he got it through because you directed yourself that it was for the opposers to provide "strong counterarguments" to the rule he was trying to pass, or else it should pass.—S Marshall T/C 17:54, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    S Marshall, what is the context of these comments? Are they from the 2025 RFC or elsewhere? Thanks for the quick reply btw, hope you're having a nice summer all things considered ^u^ — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 18:02, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't mind me replying to my own comment, I'm confused as to what the issue is with my approach to the proposal. Ed and other supporters of his proposals provided meaningful arguments based on the PAGs that backed his suggested MOS changes, while the PAG-based arguments opposers countered with were not strong enough to balance them. Cultural tradition or whether one nation uses post-nominals prolifically and others do not are not PAG-based arguments, which is why I discounted the American-British cultural divide-based arguments entirely. I imagine, based on the votes from the editors cited in your comment mentioning the Commonwealth, that this is one of the factors in my closure these editors felt was overreaching. I didn't direct myself to anything other than closing based on how I saw the consensus in the discussion based on the balance of arguments. Is there another alternative approach to the closure I should have taken that is rooted in our closing guidelines that I overlooked? — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 18:49, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Calling it an overreach is an incorrect reading of the RFC I closed, by the way, if they feel me determining expungement from the lead sentence is an overreach when the RFC explicitly mentions the lead sentence and uses MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE as the reasoning for why the proposed change (of indeed, expunging the postnoms from the lead sentence) was necessary. — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 18:52, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A small note on the above, Ixtal—I haven't checked the full statements, but as quoted here they are unhappy with the consensus of that 2023 RfC. That's fine; we've all grumbled at one time or another when consensus hasn't gone our way. But these quotes do not assert that your 2023 close was a "marginal" or an incorrect reading of that RfC, as S Marshall is alleging. Ed [talk] [OMT] 18:58, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I was hardly trying to imply the closure was improper. I suppose I could see how one might read that, but instead of simply asserting that is what I meant, perhaps one could ask for clarification. That being said, I do understand why the previous RfC was overturned and would hesitantly support it. MWFwiki (talk) 19:46, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What is PAG is an acronym for? Gecko G (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Gecko G, WP:PAG is a shortcut to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 19:34, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for explaining the acronym.
    I can see the argument in that one specific component (namely ENGVAR arguments) perhaps wasn't "PAG" based, but I disagree that the rest of the oppose arguments & counterarguments from back then weren't (part of what I was trying to get more info from you in-order to understand your viewpoint with my "strength of arguments" mention in point #2 way back in our 2023 discussion on your talk page)- but that's a 2 year old debate, this is not the time nor place for that particular discussion.
    Because the community never sorted out "the can of worms" (which me and Ed, opposing sides both agreeing needing to be done, back in 2023 on your talk page) in the intervening years it led to repeatedly being challenged or decried and finally to a new RfC in 2025, which was unfortunately multi-option and confusing (in small part due to changes to the MoS between the 2023 RfC & the 2025 one). It is the closure of the 2025 RfC by S Marshall which is being RfC closure review'd here and now by Ed (What I would of done with your closure in 2023 had I been online at the time). Speaking for myself, and I think many here, I find that both yourself and S Marshall both acted in complete good faith and I commend you both for willingly stepping into such a long and potentially heated discussions, however you both made some errors. I still believe you didn't WP:DETCON correctly and it seems that S Marshall either directly or indirectly agreed about the DETCON in 2023, but as a technicality perhaps S Marshall shouldn't of labeled it a "Bartender close".
    Wikipedia has been arguing the underlying merits of POSTNOMs and when, how, where, and even if, to include them, since at least 2008- but now we really seem to be drifting close into badgering with policy and procedure minutiae and rules lawyering... Cheers. Gecko G (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the decision to entirely discount arguments based on the American-British cultural divide is a key reason this issue has remained contentious for over two years. Style and naming conventions are inherently tied to cultural context, and excluding those perspectives may have unintentionally introduced systemic bias into the outcome. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 20:56, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Closes should be based on the strength of the argument, not hyperbole. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The dismissal of the cultural divide on this is exactly why there is still a problem here, and with this close. The burgeoning policing of minutiae and US-centric policy creep is driving experienced editors to distraction. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:40, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Peacemaker67, I dismissed the cultural divide in my closure because this is a global encyclopedia and our readership is meant to be all English speakers regardless of culture. The MOS guides us to write articles using straightforward, succinct, and easily understood language. Editors should structure articles with consistent, reader-friendly layouts and formatting [...] (from WP:MOS). The lead sentence, which should be written in Plain English (from MOS:FIRST) is meant to be understood by this global readership, whether it be a British well-educated reader or a villager from Peru or a young girl from Nairobi. The editors in the discussion failed to show why the supposed cultural importance of post-nominals within the UK was, in this context, encyclopedically essential to [telling] the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is (from MOS:FIRST). This was pointed out by editors in the discussion who supported the proposal.
    For what it's worth, I'm not a USAmerican. — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 22:24, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Slight aside- I don't believe the "Plain English" mention in MOS:FIRST was brought up at all back in the 2023 RfC (and I don't find anything using a couple of different search variations). It only got brought up for the first time with this 2025 RfC. So I suspect the recency of reading about it here has colored your memory of back then (very easy to have happened - something similar happened to me trying to recall back to "what was the point of the 2023 RfC? - removing postnomials entirely or only about removing it from the lead/lead sentence"?). Gecko G (talk) 02:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The 2023 version of the MOS that was discussed in the RFC did include that language diff, Gecko G. — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 17:28, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The MOS did, but that point was never brought into the 2023 discussion, nor did you mention it in your closing summation as any sort of additional/outside "PAG" being applied at the time. When it came up in the 2025 discussion I mentally noted that it was a potentially valid minor counterpoint from the other side (albeit tangential/weak). Gecko G (talk) 01:47, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gecko G: I think(?) you've missed that MOS:FIRST and WP:LEADSENTENCE go to the same place. Ixtal used the latter shortcut in their close. And multiple people in the 2023 RfC commented on how post-nominals complexify lead sentences, even if they didn't use the exact phrase "plain English". Ed [talk] [OMT] 02:56, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A) I didn't realize they were the same, however B) Ixtal linked that in reference to the ENGVAR component, not in reference to any "clarity" component(s) (and as an aside to the aside, a quick ctr-F doesn't find either "complex" nor "plain English" anywhere in there, so neither term was used). But we are not supposed to be rehashing (or "relitigating" as you phrased it) the underlying arguments here, here we are supposed to be discussing if the closure was or wasn't proper. I went to lengths to stay out of the merits in the 2025 discussion (beyond my lone !Vote post) unlike the 2023 one which I was heavily involved in. In the 2025 one I limited myself to attempting to clarify what precisely the previous RfC was about to get us all on the same topic. Gecko G (talk) 06:45, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, Gecko G, but ctrl+F doesn't find phrases like "an incomprehensible jumble of letters". Nor, evidently, does it find where Ixtal referenced WP:LEADSENTENCE a second time in their close. But you're right that we aren't relitigating the 2023 consensus in this discussion, which is why I was so surprised to see S Marshall unilaterally overturning it without a consensus for that action. Ed [talk] [OMT] 06:56, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A) That phrase, and "Incomprehensibility" ≠ complexity (maybe borderline connected to "plain english", but even that's a stretch to then use that tenuous connection to retroactively argue that the editor in question° was arguing in the 2023 RfC about "plain english") so I fail to understand what you are arguing nor why, and B) That second pipped reference by Ixtal was in respect to the clutter component, so still not in reference to "plain english" nor "Complexity".
    °= and to preempt something else, that same editors elsewhere linking to LEADSENTENCE was in a separate side component arguing about narrow/specific "PAG" vs. Broad/high-level PAGs, so was also not about "Complexity" nor "Plain English". Gecko G (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Gecko G, I do appreciate you trying to clarify the 2023 RFC and agree on not relitigating it. I am trying to limit my comments on this thread on replying to points where opinions on the 2025 are given based on the editor's thoughts on the 2023 close if I feel they are misunderstanding or representing the wording in that closure. I think this discussion is harder for the fact that it is challenging not to rehash issues from the 2023 closure that were never formally reviewed even if it needed to have been (to improve the wording, since it staying as status quo for over two years suggests community endorsment of its result) when a core aspect of S Marshall's reasoning in his closure relies on interpreting the 2023 closure as inadequate and as having a guaranteed overturning. — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 13:45, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Babyshark2

    [edit]

    I created a talk page thread (not edit) at the Hamas talk page to address a simple procedural error that shouldn’t be of controversy (a country is improperly colored on a map). This user not only reverted my TALK page thread, immediately insulting me, but has continued to childishly revert what should be an objective situation. A look at his editing history shows that he has a history of inflammatory attacks on other edits and overall appears to be fairly unstable. 41.189.250.10 (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Did you mean User:Babysharkboss2? jellyfish ✉ 22:15, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Notified, as Special:Contributions/41.189.250.10 did not do so. jellyfish ✉ 22:20, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP's edit request which I denied simply read; Hamas is a TERRORIST organization not a political resistance, and I denied it on the grounds of that being a very controversial statement, and per my interpretation of WP:TERROR. They made a second thread stating: Paraguay has designated Hamas as a full terrorist org and should be designated as such without providing a source. I leave it at that (1/3 due to not being fully in-the-know on all the political guidelines, 1/3 due to being in school, and 1/3 because of an ANI rightfully filed against me). Coming back to it, they stated This isn’t arbitration. It’s a miscolored map. I believe that it seems there was a misunderstanding. ☩ (Babysharkboss2) 22:27, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Babysharkboss2, you reverted the IP's talk page comment 3 times (with unhelpful edit summaries) before finally explaining that extended-confirmed status is required to discuss on that CTOP article. If you'd done that on the first revert, that would have been more effective. Schazjmd (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I created {{welcome-arbpia}} for situations like this. That looks like a legitimate edit request as there is a a map that shoes what nations have declared Hamas a terrorist organization. Should have come with a source, but I don't see it falling foul of WP:ECR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:54, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I should note that the article itself, in that very same section of a edit-protected article, with sources, states verbatim that In April 2025, Paraguay expanded its designation of Hamas as a terrorist organisation.” My request doesn’t need sources. It’s something any second grader can read and comprehend since it’s only sentences away from the map. In fact it’s the only reason I knew that the map was wrong. 41.189.247.4 (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that you know the rules, what is your excuse for violating the ECR restriction (here of all places)? M.Bitton (talk) 18:22, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Meh. I'm with SFR. Its a simple fact with easy sourcing (already in the article as pointed out by the IP) that could have been handled at the map page but we're blowing it up into a five alarm fire just because its an IP (not everything has to be a battle). The IP doesn't seem to have a history of this and they now aware of CTOP. I've made the request at the map talk page for a color change since I have no clue how to edit a SVG file. If it doesn't happen in a few days, I'll figure it out. I think this can be dropped at this point unless we want to make it a bigger deal than it needs to be and spend more time on this. spryde | talk 20:41, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    One more thing, unless Verizon Business has a point of presense in Djbouti, I don't think those two IPs are the same (ALL CAPS TERRORIST IP vs Paraguay Map IP). spryde | talk 20:45, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    1. There is no edit restriction on this page, so I’m not sure what you’re implying. I’m not breaking any rules “(here of all places).”
    2. Even after going back and reading the template that I literally couldn’t see because I’m clearly on a mobile device, I was still well within my rights to do what I did. “You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive).” My edit request can’t be disruptive, as it is literally a restatement of sourced material that I didn’t put on the page and had no say in. 41.189.250.10 (talk) 10:20, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Posting here, on AN, is not making an edit request, and thus the ECR restriction, which applies to all edits...related to the topic area, broadly construed, applies, and thus you did, in fact, break it by posting about it here. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:07, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BANEX permits banned users to engage in dispute resolution at appropriate noticeboards. On what grounds should we impose a stiffer standard on IPs in this topic area? In this situation, the point of ECR is to prevent people from doing disruptive things; it's absurd to use ECR-as-applied-to-Israel-Palestinians to object to someone engaging in good-faith dispute resolution at this noticeboard. Nyttend (talk) 07:48, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, as far as I can see 41.189.250.10 has done nothing wrong here. User:Babysharkboss2, on the other hand, deserves at least a WP:TROUT. WaggersTALK 10:11, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Troutwise, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1199 § Disrespectful language in reference to a murder victim, from the same day as this thread. I think my close there applies here as well. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 11:15, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I missed that part and stand corrected - have struck my earlier comment. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:19, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Side note, the map has been updated. spryde | talk 13:43, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedian Liberation Front

    [edit]
    I DIDN'T WANT TO SELL THIS STUFF, IT'S ONLY A JOB
    The blockings will continue until socks are lost in the dryer. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:16, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Came across this User:WLF Ever/sandbox at AfC, deleted it, and blocked the user as !HERE. Other than that, I don't know if it's worth flagging this to our colleagues at fr.wiki, or just assume it's purely a hoax? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a splinter group of the User:Popular Front for the Liberation of Wikipedia. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:07, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Splitters! DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:12, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not understand. Wikipedia is already free. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is WP:NOTFREESPEECH. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Monty Python's Life of Brian. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:59, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @DoubleGrazing, they are indeed prolific LTAs on frwiki (see fr:WP:Faux-nez/FLW). Thanks for flagging this! quebecguy ⚜️ (talk | contribs) 11:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Requested global locks for all of them since they're causing trouble here and in eswiki as well. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 16:59, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We are not the popular front, but a french association as Quebecbuy said @CambridgeBayWeather and @DoubleGrazing
    Viva el FLW (talk) Viva el FLW (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you ping me because you want to be blocked, or? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked. For being a sockpuppet and not having a sense of humour. Their username should have been "Vive le Wikipedia libre". How Gaulleing to mention Quebec and get that wrong! CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:18, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @DoubleGrazing
    Yeah that's true !
    You know, we are an association of quite 150 people from 7 different countries, we can do everything on Wikipedia.
    But if french admins unblock Ma Dacia Logan, we will stop vandalizing of course.
    Ma Dacia Logan was opressed while he was just a good man, it's unfair. That's why we are beating for him.
    PS : you have the honour to see a message from the vice-president of the WLF ! ChatGPTlover44 (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You should not vandalise regardless of if that person is unblocked or not. GothicGolem29 (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked ChatGPTlover44. PhilKnight (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    TBAN appeal and request to re-open Close Challenge

    [edit]
    TBan appeal unsuccessful, close challenge remains closed, no consensus for a CBAN. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:45, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I posted a close challenge (with full support and encouragement of the closing admin) only to be subjected to an immediate flooding of opposing users demanding I be topic banned.

    1. Arguments made in the close challenge are citations of the previous appeal efforts with the closing admin, who acknowledged numerous valid points in the arguments, encouraged me to file a close challenge, and offered to co-author it. To characterize the initiating incident here as a “further example” of my inappropriate behavior in the topic space is unsupported and was pushed through by a group of users.
    2. The close challenge was only discussed and adjudicated by those who rushed to the page, not participants of the previous RFC and moratorium discussions, who had not yet even been made aware of the filing.
    3. I was banned almost immediately by a "consensus" of a uniform group of editors, including one who has camped out on the Zionism talk page, and others showing up within a few hours of my post (despite it only appearing on AN and the closer’s talk page).
    4. I do my very best to abide by all expected rules and procedures, and learn/improve as I go. I am committed to receiving criticism and advice to ensure I am improving as an editor. I was tbanned based upon supposed “transgressions” that were not adjudicated in a thoughtful manner. I believe a proper assessment by impartial admins is warranted.

    Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 23:22, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose the topic ban was an appropriate response to battleground behavior and reopening that appeal again would be disruptive on its face. I would suggest Allthemilescombined1 find some other topic to edit on. Simonm223 (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: moved from ANI. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:31, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm I agree that the topic ban thread was closed too hastily. In my !vote, which was the last before the discussion was closed, I put forward a cogent argument for editing restrictions for Allthemilescombined1 beyond the Arab-Israeli conflict, as another thread open at ANI at the time initiated by Allthemilescombined1, now archived following the tban, displayed Allthemilescombined1 doubling down on some rather absurd personal attacks against Cdjp1 in the context of work on antisemitism topics. Discussion should have been allowed to continue in order to consider my suggestion of broader sanctions. signed, Rosguill talk 23:41, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      If the topic ban is too narrow I wouldn't be opposed to examining whether additional scope is required. But I don't think readmitting this editor to IP pages would be a net positive. Simonm223 (talk) 23:44, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm looking for a fair hearing from an uninvolved admin who has perspective on the situation. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 00:16, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I am not WP:INVOLVED with respect to this topic as an admin, as I have only commented in an admin capacity at ANI and have not participated in editing or discussing Zionism, although you are of course able to solicit further admins' opinions. signed, Rosguill talk 02:21, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to request a mentor, someone uninvolved in the I/P space, to advise me on how I can improve in compliance with expectations. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In your topic ban, you were advised note that in most cases editing productively and without controversy for at least six months on other topics is considered best practice before appealing. Yet, here you are a little over a month later (with minimal editing activity since then) appealing your ban. I'm not sure a mentor is going to help here. EvansHallBear (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to add, this appeal seems unlikely to succeed for many reasons including that mentioned by EvansHallBear. After 6 months from now perhaps you can appeal while seeking a mentor but there's no point worrying about one now when you will remain topic banned from the area. Nil Einne (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A balanced editing restriction would be a more fitting response to my actions than a topic ban, and providing a mentor would help me improve. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors seem to think a more fitting restriction might be an site ban and the more you try to argue against your topic ban the more likely editors are to agree. Generally the time to argue for a weaker sanction is either before it's imposed or well after when you've demonstrated maybe we can trust you. Not in the immediateish aftermath where you try to say we were wrong for what we just did. Note I didn't participate in the original discussion AFAIK but still say "we". Nil Einne (talk) 00:37, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You ceasing your forum shopping and aspersion casting would be more fitting. TarnishedPathtalk 00:54, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - I would like to know why Allthemilescombined1 is choosing to once again misrepresent what @Chetsford: said to them regarding challenging the closure of a discussion? This misrepresentation is continually repeated despite Chetsford having previously clarified it. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:54, 15 September 2025, (UTC)

    Indef ban proposal

    [edit]

    For failing to WP:DROPTHESTICK when given plenty of input from the community that they should do so, and for continuing to cast WP:ASPERSIONS, I propose that Allthemilescombined1 be indefinitely banned. TarnishedPathtalk 03:46, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support as proposer. Enough is enough. Allthemilescombined1 has failed to get a clue and continues with their disruptive behaviour after the community has made them aware that the behaviour is not welcome. TarnishedPathtalk 03:46, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors please also see Special:Permalink/1303734914 where they launched this same appeal as a request for arbitration. I think the community is well over the forum shopping from this editor. TarnishedPathtalk 03:56, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support but I might reconsider if they withdraw the request and review WP:NOTTHEM.Simonm223 (talk) 10:44, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Simonm223 just to point out that they filed at ARC on 1 August, and it was closed the same day. Mind you, I guess that means they didn't withdraw their request. A good point about reviewing NOTTHEM; perhaps that should be a condition of their unblock appeal in six months? (Thinking SO.) —Fortuna, imperatrix 11:19, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks FIM. I'm aware the ARC request was closed very quickly. I more meant that they withdraw this appeal of their topic ban. I thought the topic ban was an appropriate outcome of the ARC request considering their past history of the page. I understand they also tried to get it overturned at AE? My principal concern is that Allthemilescombined1 seem unwilling to abide by their topic ban and edit something unrelated to Israel/Palestine. If they withdraw this request and accept that they were topic banned I would be less likely to be concerned that enhanced measures are necessary to prevent disruption and as we should not be punitive, if I have confidence they'll abide by their topic ban, I don't see as much reason for a block. Simonm223 (talk) 11:24, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had floated further sanctions in the section above, but to be honest I was thinking something more along the lines of an added topic-ban from antisemitism per the issues with AGF and Cdjp1 that I highlighted. I am not certain that there's been enough disruption to justify a site ban. signed, Rosguill talk 14:09, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. This proposal is excessive and troubling. I find it politically driven and biased. Every editor has the right to argue their case, and it is particularly important, also from a gender perspective, to ensure that women (in this case, someone from Women in Red who works to promote women’s biographies) are able to speak out without being silenced. This suggestion strikes me as extremely disproportionate and harmful to the principles of open debate. שלומית ליר (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      No, people do not have a right on this platform to endlessly cast aspersions and WP:FORUMSHOP when they don't get their way, as has happened the first time they came here, at WP:ARC and now here again. TarnishedPathtalk 12:00, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Per WP:NOTFREESPEECH, the "principles of open debate" do not take precedence over productively building an encyclopedia. EvansHallBear (talk) 19:49, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I would not hinge my argument on their participation in Women in Red Shlomit, as most of their contributions in the area are of dubious quality and relevance, as has been highlighted to them on their talk page and in previous discussions of their conduct. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:07, 15 September 2025, (UTC)
    • Support. Editors have the right to argue their case, but not to continuously re-litigate their case forever, especially not on spurious grounds like these; beyond a certain point, when consensus is steadifastly against them, editors need to be able to WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on if they're going to be able to edit collaboratively. Allthemilescombined1 has continuously refused to do that; the fact that they felt it necessary to not just appeal their topic-ban but to try and continue the underlying dispute again (after the RFC was closed, after a moratorium was placed on the subject, after the close-review was closed and after the editor has already been topic-banned due to their endless intransigence on this topic) shows a level of unyielding tendentious behavior that leaves us with no real room for anything but a ban. Beyond a certain point editors need to be able to accept decisions they disagree with in order to edit on Wikipedia; Allthemilescombined1 has made it abundantly clear that they have no interest in doing so and will continue to attempt to bludgeon our processes via every angle available to them on this so long as they have access to Wikipedia. Editorial time, energy, and focus is a limited resources and editors are not allowed to endlessly strive to consume it simply because they are dissatisfied with the outcome of our dispute-resolution mechanisms. --Aquillion (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per WP:ROPE, they make good contributions elsewhere. They got what they asked for, two admins weighed in, a warning to drop this now (where raising it again within 6 months would result in an indef) should be sufficient. Kowal2701 (talk) 08:30, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - I am in concurrence with Rosguill, that while this is a rather silly filing, there's not enough disruption in my opinion to consider an indef ban. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:03, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cdjp1, repeatedly misrepresenting editors, repeatedly casting aspersions and forum shopping isn't enough? TarnishedPathtalk 11:27, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While serious conduct matters that probably warrant some sanction, I do not like Indef bans generally, and in this case do not consider what we've seen to be serious enough, or in areas, that I would cross to supporting an indef. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:41, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    • Oppose It certainly is reasonable to request a review of a tban, especially if one feels that it was a pile on rather than a careful review of issues. Saying as much isn't disruptive. Moving to an indef is well beyond any sort of protection of Wikipedia. If the editor is tbanned and not violating that tban and not causing any issue in other topic areas then not only is a indef not justified, calling could be viewed as punnitive or simply trying to remove a viewpoint one disagrees with - note: I'm not saying that is the case here, only that such actions have been used this way in the past and should be avoided. Springee (talk) 11:45, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    NoonIcarus

    [edit]

    I believe this request by NoonIcarus (fka Jamez42*) on Callanecc’s talk page for a Sockpuppet investigation of editors of political economist Francisco Rodríguez’s page is a violation of NoonIcarus’s topic ban on Latin American politics. At his recent failed attempt to lift that topic ban filed in this venue, I pointed out several times he has skirted or violated the topic ban.

    Francisco Rodríguez is an economist that is of high political significance and NoonIcarus (as I show below) has long been aware of his significance in the politics of Venezuela. In reviewing Rodriguez's "The Collapse of Venezuela: Scorched Earth Politics and Economic Decline, 2012–2020", Richard Feinberg identifies Rodriguez as a “political economist”, who challenged the talking points of critics of Chavez and Maduro by identifying other causes for the Crisis in Venezuela:

    the country’s excessively powerful executive branch (and winner-take-all politics) and the maximalist economic sanctions imposed by the first Trump administration. Rodríguez is particularly critical of radical elements within the Venezuelan opposition and diaspora for drawing the United States into “scorched earth” sanctions against Venezuela’s oil exports, which impoverished the country but failed to trigger regime change. [1]

    NoonIcarus has been well aware of Rodriguez’s political importance. On 8 June 2020, he added wikilinks to a sentence of a reference to a book co-authored by Rodriguez, Venezuela Before Chávez: Anatomy of an Economic Collapse. On 10 June 2018 he changed to the heading of the section whose first line was “Rodríguez was an early supporter of the Chávez administration.” On 20 November 2023 NoonIcarus revised “he served as the head of the economic and financial advisory of the National Assembly of Venezuela.” There are numerous other edits like these to the article and other articles that make it clear that NoonIcarus has known of Rodriguez’s significance for Venezuelan politics, and that he wanted Rodriguez’s opinion removed.[3]

    The request for an SPI investigation follows a pattern of NoonIcarus challenging editors of the Rodriguez page of a COI.[4] This included a reporter who interviewed Rodriguez who repeatedly insisted he had no COI. [5] [6][7] Because of NoonIcarus’s steadfast insistence there was a COI, the reporter left Wikipedia in disgust on 1 October 2021, with the last words , “SO, I sincerely do not care anymore. Congratulations, you sucked the joy of editing some things due to your…approach on Wikipedia editing. It is a shame, Venezuelan articles need better editors. FAR BETTER.”

    NoonIcarus refused to remove the COI tag when asked on 17 August 2022. The COI tag was still on the article in October 2023—a full two years later when NoonIcarus edited the article.

    In August 2023, NoonIcarus followed his pattern of removing material attributed to Rodriguez that challenges the legitimacy of U.S. sanctions on Venezuela with the claim in the edit summary of a COI.[8]

    NoonIcarus’s previous skirting of the topic ban; his continued preoccupation with Rodriguez and the editors of the Rodriguez page and other Rodriguez material--to the point of making multiple COI accusations over the years, even accusing a reporter of a COI who vehemently denied it and was thus driven away; and, now requesting a sock puppet investigation on the Rodriguez page on a single admin's talk page—rather than at WP:SPI…It all makes one question whether NoonIcarus is really willing to abide by community sanctions placed on him or whether he thinks they are simply at his discretion to ignore.

    References

    1. ^ Feinberg, Richard (2025-08-19). "The Collapse of Venezuela: Scorched Earth Politics and Economic Decline, 2012–2020". Foreign Affairs. Vol. 104, no. 5. ISSN 0015-7120. Retrieved 2025-09-08.

    --David Tornheim (talk) 10:02, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    * Below, NoonIcarus expressed legitimate concerns about my referring to the old account name which he says caused online harassment. I understand the concern and am sorry that putting the old name in this post could cause future problems, and I will avoid it in the future. Years ago when the new name showed up, I mistakenly thought it was a different editor with similar behavior--It took a while for me to connect the two accounts. So for a while I included the fka for others who might be similarly confused. That may have been inappropriate then, and I'm sorry if I should not have done it. Indeed, enough time has passed that it is generally no longer helpful, so I did not include it in my posts about NoonIcarus in August.
    In this filing, I included the fka, because the old name showed up in this diff and the current talk page of the reporter I mention above, and I again wanted to avoid confusion.
    I believe the best solution to avoid any future reference to the old name is to fix this diff and any others, if they exist, that still have the old name. If an admin wants to strike the name from this post, I'm fine with that. I am also happy to review every time I used the old name like this, so it can be stricken from the record, if an admin. would find that helpful to protect NoonIcarus. Please let me know if that is the case and where I should submit those diffs to help address the potential problem.
    Again, I apologize to NoonIcarus and am sorry that referencing the old name could be a problem. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:26, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm reading NI's post at Callanecc's talk page as a question about whether it would be a TBAN violation to file an SPI (hence the "I want to be careful about the current topic restrictions"). Having never heard back from C, NI never did file at SPI. We generally encourage editors to ask an admin if they're not sure if a given edit will or won't violate a ban. For the record, NoonIcarus, you can't file such an SPI, and I would recommend unwatchlisting the Rodriguez article. If you have any further TBAN questions, be more conservative in how much information you include. This one would have been better as "Am I allowed to file an SPI related to accounts active at Francisco Rodríguez (economist), or would that be a violation of my TBAN?". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw edits about Rodriguez before I saw this AN (since I created the Rodriguez article in 2010, I receive notifications when links are made to it, and that is what I check first when logging on).
    Rodriguez's article has a recent history of puffery and original research. In the last round, it was cleaned up by Scope creep, but the article was edited after that by the same editors blocked on the es.wikipedia. Rodriguez is now with Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR); for context (possibly related to interns editing), please see Talk:Mark Weisbrot and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scalabrineformvp/Archive for a history of connected and paid activity.
    I had not seen the August post to Callanecc's page until reading this, but had already independently noticed the problem (and more) at Rodriguez when I got a notification to his article this morning. Had I known about the socks on es.Wikipedia, I could have saved myself a lot of editing time.
    Re the (old) post to Callanecc, I agree with Firefangledfeathers; NoonIcarus asked appropriately, and FFF's advice is sound. It is unfortunate that socks can continue at en.Wikipedia because the rest of us don't notice or aren't aware, and fortunate that NoonIcarus doesn't email others about these things, rather asks transparently on Wikipedia. But he can ask more briefly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    PS, I am out of time today, so unless an admin looks into blocking the socks already identified on es.Wikipedia, and examines other recent editors at Rodriguez, I'll file the SPI tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In starting to look at accounts for the SPI, I found that this account seems to be claiming it belongs to Rodriguez himself, so there's more work to be done here. It seems he's saying he got information removed from a source after NoonIcarus used the source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:24, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And there is another problematic one, difficult to discuss per risk of OUTING. So I'm stalled on the SPI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Update, that is, two more problematic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That was another fact that I mentioned at the Spanish SPI request, so just the fact that the COI tag was removed is troublesome enough. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    NoonIcarus: there are still matters here that require attention from admins, but we don't need any more participation from you. If an admin pings you, please respond directly. Otherwise, leave it to others. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:51, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with FFF. I have started to work on this, and NoonIcarus, it is better that less involved editors are looking at it and coming to their own conclusions. I have found several issues of concern, but need to take them private until I understand if OUTING applies. I will be delayed here as we are having a rough day; it would certainly be faster if I could just ask you, but it's better that you aren't involved. I hope to be able to work on this later today, unless things continue to fall apart at home. The problems seem to be bigger than those presented so far, but I could be wrong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Continued below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Firefangledfeathers: Hi! Many thanks for the advice. I already have the article unlisted, which is the reason why I found out about the socks activity only a couple of months after I filed the CU request in the Spanish Wikipedia. I'll bear these words in mind in the future, best wishes, --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:49, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Separately, David Tornheim has not adequately reflected his own COI wrt Venezuela on his user page,[9] and yet has been a driver in every dispute resolution discussion about NoonIcarus (sample of most recent, where I did not opine). I suggest Tornheim be cautioned about his attention to NoonIcarus' editing, as he appears overly focused on removing views that oppose his own from Venezuelan topics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, I'd like to ask David to stop using my old username, it's not the first time that he does. I asked for the change for a reason. It's not something that I hide or deny, even with my own concerns (instead of, say, starting editing with a different account). The redirect to the user page is still up in old comment for anyone to learn about the relation. By repeatedly using it, he's putting me in more harm's way that I already have been through so far.
    I asked Callanecc as the closing admin of the decision precisely out of respect for the topic restrictions (and I have previously done so when in doubt for as little as a 19th century boat). I wanted to file a SPI request for Juanpablo1415 and Ysa4532 because a CheckUser at eswiki already confirmed that both accounts are related to each other and blocked, and the other alternative was waiting for the accounts to get stale, but I didn't take any action since I didn't get a response.
    David was canvassed to the discussion preceding by TBAN and has admitted to following my edits for months now. Him ignoring or omitting the CU at the Spanish Wikipedia, particularly at a time when I have done my best to stay away from Latin American politics for over a year, suggests that this complaint is not made in good faith, that he wants to see me banned at all costs, and speaks volumes more of his own behavior than my own. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I address your concern about the old name here. No, I do not want you "banned at all costs" and have never recommended it. I haven't noticed any problems with your edits outside of Latin American politics. The two responses from Firefangledfeathers here are sufficient to address what I was getting at. I thought you should have known better not to make the request for the SPI, which included detailed facts justifying the request, to an admin. with CU privileges who could conduct the SPI. Admittedly, Callanecc was the admin. who imposed the TB and would be an appropriate admin to ask about potential edits that might violate the TB. The question about whether it was appropriate felt more like a CYA after the request and justification for the SPI that introduced the request, i.e. the post focused on "I want to request the SPI" and here is why, rather than "Is it okay for me to..." as explained by FFF. And again, I felt you should have known that it was inappropriate for you to request such an SPI on a clearly political article of Venezuela. So FFF gets at what I saw. I would just like you to be more respectful of the TB rather than your need to edit that topic area which you have been instructed to lay off of. I hope that makes sense.--David Tornheim (talk) 11:05, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I've hit a dead-end on this, and there's little more I can do.

    A. Checkusers can't do anything with stale accounts and blocking the accounts already identified on es.Wikipedia will accomplish little. New accounts can easily be created, and an SPI would likely be closed as stale and create more problems than it solves, so I've decided not to pursue that avenue. We can only hope for more eyes on articles related to CEPR, where there's a long history of SPAs (possibly related to well-paid, well-advertised internships) that disappear in short order, and need education in Wikipedia P&G.
    B. The COI dialogue on both en.Wikipedia and es.Wikipedia initially revolved around this image, uploaded by Naldox as "own work". I am not familiar enough with how Commons works to comment.
    C. But there were content COI red flags as well. WP:COI, applies to any close association (external role or relationship) that "could reasonably be said to undermine [a Wikipedia editor's] primary role "to further the interests of the encyclopedia" ... whose "mission is to provide the public with articles that summarize accepted knowledge, written neutrally ..."
    1. April 2 2019 Naldox inserts uncited text at Francisco Rodriguez (economist):

      "He is the first Venezuelan to obtain a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University", and original research, puffery, editorializing "one of the foremost experts on the Venezuelan economy. An important strand of his research" ...

      The "first to obtain" bit is personal information not based on any source I'm aware of, and the kind of content that sends up COI red flags.
    2. October 1, 2021 Naldox writes at COI noticeboard:

      "I met Francisco in September 2017 in Caracas, but didn't have a chance to interview the guy. But he left mark. I believe he is one of the most intelligent people I have met."

      "Most intelligent people I have met" reinforces the question of whether this person can write neutrally about the subject.
    3. October 1, 2021 Naldox writes on user talk:

      "Not a family connection nor a business relatoinship (sic). My career resumé is public at Linkedin and my media career is public in the several different news outlets I have worked for."

      and

      "... as I discussed with Wikimedia Venezuela on Twitter a few days ago ..."

      So many questions. A COI is not only a "family or business" connection. Naldox indicates he spoke with Wikimedia Venezuela on Twitter and references their public information on Linkedin. We don't have access to what was disclosed in that Twitter conversation (nor should we, probably), and any assumptions seem imprudent.

    Timeline

    Could admins do their adminly thing to sort these two accounts re account name and whether one or both of them are Francisco Rodriguez himself:

    Frrodriguezc [10]
    Tny2023 [11]

    That leaves the matter of what looks like David Tornheim's over focus on NoonIcarus. And repetitively using his previous account name, in spite of the dangers known; could we have the same respect that so many of us have accorded to other banned users with respect to issues of personal safety in Venezuela?

    Tornheim hasn't sufficiently disclosed his own activism and COI in the Venezuelan realm, and yet has been a driving participant in assuring NoonIcarus stays topic banned. I ask that David Tornheim rethink most of what was written above, consider re-evaluating unwarranted allegations, and stop hounding NoonIcarus's edits. Bringing something this old to AN serves what purpose? Why not just inquire of Callanecc, the admin who imposed the topic ban?

    We've missed the opportunity to identify socks, that were blocked months ago on other Wikipedias, and more, but I won't digress. An article that no one was watching was puffed up on en.Wikipedia by users blocked on es.Wikipedia, and no one noticed. The article was considerably edited by someone whose likely COI was not noticed or dealt with on en.Wikipedia, until it was called to attention here. And IMO NoonIcarus was right to leave the COI tags in place, right to remove an opinion article as it was used, etc.

    I have unwatched most Venezuelan content since the arbcase, and CEPR-related articles as of years before that (futile with so many new accounts constantly appearing), but when I check back on a few articles, I find the POV, SYNTH and puffery growing, with no one left to address that. Please ask yourself whether the Project is being well served with respect to Venezuelan content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Found the page: WP:REALNAME re Frrodriguezc and Tny2023 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I supported NoonIcarus' topic ban last year, but decided to abstain from the appeal earlier this year and let other members of the community discusss it out. I'm commenting here because there's a lot comment above which misses the point. I'm not suggesting any further action, but the community's decision not to remove the topic ban appears correct. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:24, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC closure review request at Talk:Killing of Austin Metcalf#RfC: Should the name of the indicted suspect be included in the article?

    [edit]
    Killing of Austin_Metcalf (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RfC closure in question) (Discussion with closer)

    Closer: Beland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    User requesting review: Symphony Regalia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at 00:06, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Notified: [12]

    Reasoning: I'd like to thank Beland for closing this discussion however I would like to raise some points and supervote concerns. I do not see how the close is an accurate summarization of the discussion or even an appropriate application of WP:BLP policy.

    • Beland didn't give any policy based rationale besides saying that editors considered it (which is circular reasoning). Naturally every BLP dispute has consideration but that doesn't change the burden being on concretely demonstrating the value gained by including the name, which was not demonstrated.
    • Beland did vaguely mention the suspect's privacy not being necessary due to the name being in sources, however this is not how WP:BLP policy works. For suspects not convicted of crimes, WP:BLPCRIME already assumes the name is in sources and defaults to exclusion. (Not to mention that Wikipedia is not news, and has significantly higher standards than American news media, which is why WP:BLP policy exists for these cases).
    • Beland did not seem to consider WP:BLPNAME which also say that news sources should not be factored into the decision to include the name of a non-notable individual.
    • Even aside from these points, after reading the discussion it is not clear that there was a consensus at all.

    A few other editors and myself raised these points (among others) with Beland on his talkpage, and Beland made an appeal to the principles of event based journalism as justification, however Wikipedia is not news.

    Closer (Beland)

    [edit]

    I have already responded to most of the substance of the complaints above at User talk:Beland#Close Challenge; I will not repeat all that here but just respond to what is new. Yes, this article is not news journalism, but that hardly seems like a good reason for assuming that the "who?" part of the Five Ws is inherently uninteresting and unencyclopedic. This was one aspect where I did consider the strength of the arguments made: the idea that the identity of the perpetrator or credibly alleged and indicted perpetrator of a crime is unencyclopic in an article about that crime was successfully debunked. In this case the accused is also at the center of subsequent events - online criticism, swatting, doxxing, crowdfunding, and misinformation.

    The complaint here seems to be that any reasonable application of BLP policy would demand exclusion, and that any editor who didn't explicitly mention BLP policy must not have taken it into consideration despite it having been mentioned in the discussion. But many editors did apply BLP policy, whether they mentioned it or not, and found the facts met the threshold for inclusion. I found the arguments for both inclusion and exclusion to be reasonable, and that outcome needed to balance a bunch of complex fact-specific factors. That is not the same as failing to take relevant policies into consideration. If I were to decide the outcome by making up my own mind as to whether the facts meet the threshold for inclusion, especially given this is a close call, I feel that would indeed be supervoting (which I am already being accused of doing). So, I relied on the majority opinion to decide whether the threshold has been met. -- Beland (talk) 03:23, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Non-participants (Killing of Austin Metcalf)

    [edit]
    • Overturn: Much of the arguments for inclusion rested on the fact that the accused has been mentioned in sources, but BLPCRIME already assumes that's the case. I don't think there was serious consideration of the privacy interests of the accused, who was a minor at the time of the offense, and even if there was, there were strong arguments in opposition that got short shrift from the close. A local consensus appears to have developed in BLPCRIME discussions, particularly related to killings that cause agita in the right-wing press, where large groups of editors (including canvassed ones) routinely show up to name and shame and advance a spurious interpretation of BLPCRIME that would have the exception swallow the rule. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:27, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I think it should be noted that you un-involved in this discussion, but are very lively about this exact same issue at Killing of Iryna Zarutska R. G. Checkers talk 00:41, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes. These are completely unrelated cases. If you read my comments there, you'd know I'm not uniformly opposed to including the names of accuseds in articles. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:47, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn per Berchanhimez: "An RfC where a significant minority (if not majority) of "include" !votes were based solely or primarily on "well the sources name him so we should too" - an argument that's been soundly rejected by the community multiple times - is by definition not "strong consideration". —Fortuna, imperatrix 11:46, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn The closer's rationale showed a poor grasp of BLP policy and was non-compliant. BLPNAME and LOWPROFILE don't go into abeyance just because some headlines of news publications include a detail. If anything we might want to consider avoiding the use of news articles whose headlines might lead to a BLP violation. Simonm223 (talk) 11:50, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse accurate reading of consensus to include the widely publicized name of the suspect in the article. This is the correct interpretation of BLPCRIME which does not prohibit using Mr. Anthony's name in the article, but advises only that users seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, suspected of, is a person of interest, or is accused of having committed a crime. Serious consideration was given to not use his name, and ultimately consensus was to reject this consideration. Frank Anchor 14:34, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Can you point me to a single include !vote that seriously considered not including the content? voorts (talk/contributions) 17:26, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not Frank, but I'm making a similar argument immediately below. Starting from the top, the "yes include" !votes by FrodoMarsh, Penguino35, Nemov all show engagement with what BLPNAME/CRIME say, and to me seem to explicitly therefore meet that bar. (I stopped my explicit search for names in response to your question after those 3.) In addition, the discussion *as a whole* amounts to serious consideration: while I can't speak for individuals, I AGF that many of people who participated later in the discussion, on both sides, did so after familiarizing themselves with the points made by others, and therefore will have given consideration to their arguments before chiming in that (in their view) the stronger argument went one specific way. Doubtless, of course, there were some - again on both sides - who will have made up their mind based on gut feel and not seriously considered any contradictory view. Martinp (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      None of those !votes seriously considered not including. They largely just argued that being in RSes means we ought to include. That's creating a new rule, not grappling with the competing considerations. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:10, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      FrodoMarsh says satisfies the "potential harm vs encyclopedic value" concerns indicating awareness of and engagement with the fact that there is a real tradeoff here. Subsequent extensive discussion by them and with them explicitly has others mentioning BLPCRIME, so it seems reasonable to suppose they will have (re)read it at that point if not earlier. Penguino35 says due to extensive discussions on the Talk Page regarding WP:BLPCRIME which altered the way I viewed the previous RFC on this page (where I previously voted no) which implies he most definitely seriously considered not including, to the extent that he previously felt that way but has now changed his mind. Nemov also engages directly, head-on, and not unreasonably with the strength of the guidance provided by BLPCRIME, i.e. seriously considered. (As I wrote above, this is not an exhaustive list, just responding to your request to "a single !vote that seriously considered" with the first 3 I saw that engaged on a level which to me absolutely meets that bar. One can disagree with their conclusion, but not deny that they engaged with the tradeoff meaningfully and seriously. Martinp (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Given FrodoMarsh's other comments in that thread, I don't think they did really consider it other than paying lip service. Penguino's rationale makes little sense to me. I don't think Nemov has a good reading of BLPCRIME given the broader RfC (which they started) about amending BLPCRIME that other editors have mentioned here. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:51, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      And I think Nemov's reading of BLPCRIME effectively eliminates "seriously consider" whenever enough sources cover a suspect/accused. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:01, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm afraid that to me, your response comes across as "I don't agree with their conclusion, so I can't imagine they considered it seriously". As Ed says below, "seriously consider" is rather vague. I think we need to assume good faith that articulate contributors to a discussion, who indicate awareness of a tradeoff, have seriously considered that tradeoff. And that a collective discussion which centres on that policy tradeoff, making repeated references to the policy tenets underpinning it, and which gives reasonable indications that people are reading and responding to each other, consititutes "serious consideration". I'm not familiar with the origin of the "seriously consider" wording, but it feels like it indicates precisely that at the time it was drafted, people were uncomfortable with blanket answer and wanted judgment to be used. And a reasonable discussion where points of view are clearly articulated and a (putative) consensus is reached is exacty how we as a community make judgment calls.
      (I think I'll disengage now; I don't think we quite agree with each other, but we've both made our points for the benefit of others as much as is reasonable). Martinp (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse. Admittedly, I don't live in the US, so I'm blissfully largely ignorant of the political (and racial) overtones of this specific case. I don't edit in this area, didn't participate in the discussion, but have read it today. This was a debate on how to reconcile when two fundamental policy constructs of Wikipedia are at odds in this instance (report what is notable/in RS vs BLP/privacy/do-no-harm). While opinions were strong, the discussion was reasonable with serious consideration of the policy issues by the participants. The closer parsed the discussion as ultimately reaching consensus of "yes, put the name in". I think this is a plausible conclusion; I also feel "no consensus" would have been plausible as well, but see no reason to challenge the closer's judgement in that regard. The arguments for overturning it seem to centre on a conviction that BLP considerations were not given enough weight. But, as Frank Anchor writes above, our policy in BLPNAME and BLPCRIME ends up advising caution should be applied and seriously considering not including a name in these circumstances, not prohibiting it. That serious consideration was made here....and (plausibly) reached a conclusion to include it. I think some commentators there and here would *like* BLPNAME and BLPCRIME to be stricter than it is, which is a policy discussion worth having, but shouldn't translate into overturning a close of a (largely) policy-compliant but tradeoff-aware discussion. Martinp (talk) 17:03, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Not only was the consensus not clear, but the bulk of the include arguments were "well it's in the sources". The mere presence of the name in sources being some special mitigating factor was overwhelmingly rejected by the community, as evidenced by the failed proposal to add editors must carefully weigh factors such as the extent and quality of reliable sourcing to WP:BLPCRIME. It was thoroughly rejected, so the rejected arguments based around sources had no basis in policy (WP:DETCON). Symphony Regalia (talk) 00:15, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The main opposition in that RFC was not to the "extent and quality of reliable sourcing" part; some Oppose editors actually supported that part. What sunk it was mostly the "assess the stage of proceedings as a spectrum" part. -- Beland (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Only 2 out of 21 Oppose votes indicate any degree of lenience toward the rejected sourcing consideration proposal. Symphony Regalia (talk) 00:55, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, I only count 3 or 4 in support, but few Oppose editors cited the sourcing provision as a reason, certainly not enough to be "overwhelming". -- Beland (talk) 01:48, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse: BLPCRIME says editors should "seriously consider" omitting a name from the article. It does not tell us what to consider, which is a vagueness we might want to remedy so future discussions have guardrails (and admins can better weigh !votes). Participants in this RfC seriously considered including whether to include the name despite the open-ended policy, and on that point I appreciated Chaste Krassley's and Nemov's !votes in particular. With reasoning very similar to Martinp above, to me Beland made a reasonable determination of a narrow consensus. Ed [talk] [OMT] 19:25, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Participants in this RfC seriously considered including the name They're supposed to seriously consider not including the name. The first two sentences of BLPCRIME explain what the motivating considerations are, and the reference to the non-public figure section of the BLP policy clarifies it. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:26, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Apologies for mistyping; what I meant to say was "considered whether to include the name". It doesn't change the plain meaning of what I wrote, but I edited it above. Thank you for starting a discussion over at WT:BLP#Let's put this to rest to clear up the vagueness in this policy and improve future similar RfCs. Ed [talk] [OMT] 22:05, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a RfC close appeal, so of course, the closer gets accused of supervoting. This almost always happens and it's not okay. It needs to stop. We need to make it a rule that you have to play the ball and not the man. Show what's wrong with the close, not what's wrong with the closer.
      In this case we're dealing with a simple matter of core content policy. From WP:ONUS: "the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those who seek to include disputed content". I do not see a consensus to include it so I would overturn.—S Marshall T/C 07:48, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse. I don't like the idea that we're trying to parse whether an editor "seriously considered" something by the phrasing they used in their comments. They offered a valid for including the name, widespread media coverage, which is a good enough reason. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 14:02, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse. I think this close is reasonable. WP:BLPCRIME says that editors must seriously consider not naming people under such circumstances, but serious consideration evidently was given to that possibility via the RfC, and a significant though not overwhelming majority of editors felt that other considerations ought to prevail. Dionysodorus (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse consideration was seriously given by the participants and voters, as required. Close is reasonable. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:20, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse. It was reasonable to up-weigh !votes that mentioned not just the use of the name in sources, but its widespread use. It was reasonable to down-weigh !votes that simply cited BLPCRIME as though it were more restrictive than it is. The close seems a reasonable judgement of policy-weighted consensus. Closers shouldn't have to take so much heat for their efforts. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Participants (Killing of Austin Metcalf)

    [edit]
    • Endorse WP:BLPCRIME says to "seriously consider not including material"-- the "seriously consider" part is the RfC in this particular case. Beland provided a good and accurate summarization of that RfC. Some1 (talk) 00:33, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse - This close was well within discretion. A majority of editors agreed that the name should be included and they were basing this off analysis of the reliable sources and their interpretations of BLPCRIME, which is a painfully vague and disputed policy to begin with. The minority was an argument based purely on a rigid policy interpretation of BLPCRIME only. As far as I can tell, there is no amount of sourcing or arguments that would make the opposition turn nor did they adequalty address the affirmation arguments regarding how the readibility and quality of the article was greatly diminished by excluding the name. OP's points are fair but this is not a court with strict interpretation (see this and that). R. G. Checkers talk 00:38, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    of BLPCRIME, which is a painfully vague and disputed policy to begin with.
    This is problematic in that site-wide WP:BLP policy should never be dismissed as disputed. It is also untrue given that participants recently attempted to change WP:BLPCRIME with the goal of lowering the bar to name suspects not convicted of crimes, and it was overwhelmingly rejected. Symphony Regalia (talk) 01:16, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The goal at that RfC was to create a rigid tier system, which is unrelated to this issue at hand and I'd probably have opposed it to. Also I'm not "dismissing it," I am pointing out the grammatical fact that this policy is vague. It is perfectly fair for this community-- and a majority of the Metfalf discussion--to interpret this policy within the framework of reflecting reliable sources and a host of other things I mentioned in my first comment. And it is perfectly fair for a neutral closer to accept that as legitimate consensus. R. G. Checkers talk 01:30, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is the close was not neutral nor did it reflect consensus, as highlighted here. Symphony Regalia (talk) 01:41, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Overturn. Symphony Regalia has linked to my longer form explanation, and I wasn't originally planning to comment here as involved comments are less helpful than uninvolved ones. But I feel a need to respond to the idea that "having an RfC is what is meant by strongly consider". That's absolutely untrue. The guideline is not saying "if you get a bunch of people to think that it should be included in an RfC, then it should be included". It's saying that there should be a strong consideration of the encyclopedic value of the name of someone. An RfC where a significant minority (if not majority) of "include" !votes were based solely or primarily on "well the sources name him so we should too" - an argument that's been soundly rejected by the community multiple times - is by definition not "strong consideration".
    I am not saying that a closer cannot still find a consensus keeping that in mind. But the close needs to account for the fact that at least a significant portion of the "include" !votes were based on arguments that have been rejected in wider discussions. The closer says they "inferred" that people who !voted for "include" considered it as the guideline requires. That is not how it works - people are expected to show they considered it through their !vote - whether by expanding on their reasoning themselves or by referencing another !vote that has done so that they agree with. The closer doubled down on their close being appropriate when this was specifically brought up by 3 users on their talkpage - and as they're unwilling to correct that problem their close should be vacated and someone else who is willing to take the time to properly and completely consider things, including discounting !votes that are contrary to wider consensus and explaining their reasoning in more detail, should be allowed to re-close. Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:02, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Berchanhimez: Please provide evidence (RfC links, etc.) that the wide dissemination of name in reliable sources has been "soundly rejected by the community mulitiple times" as a factor in inclusion of a name in a BLPCRIME context. In my reading, BLPNAME--a different but related policy--suggests that a wide dissemnation would weaken the case for exclusion (read the whole second sentence of BLPNAME). R. G. Checkers talk 03:04, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The purpose of WP:BLPNAME seems to be to exclude the names of "living private individuals who are not directly involved" and "family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons". The accused person in this article is not loosely involved; they are a core participant in all the events described and indisputably the subject of at least half the article which covers post-stabbing events. It appears it is not even disputed that they performed a stabbing, but merely whether it was murder or self-defense.
    If the BLPNAME-based argument is that the accused's name only appears in primary and not in secondary sources, that can be countered by finding a secondary source that uses the name. In fact, I found a book which not only mentions the name but includes it in the title of the book: https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Case_of_Karmelo_Anthony/XsFC0QEACAAJ?hl=en
    Going by BLPNAME instead of BLPCRIME (which may be wrong because BLPCRIME is more specific in scope) seems to set a lower threshold for inclusion, and the facts of this article would to my reading easily meet that threshold.
    -- Beland (talk) 03:46, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's arguments you were free to make by !voting in the discussion. Not as the closer as justification for your closure. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:24, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Beland is responding to R. G. Checkers and pointing out that BLPNAME has a lower standard than BLPCRIME and that this article would meet the lower BLPNAME standard. None of that is relevant to the close and I don't think Beland is stating otherwise. I'll note, however, that I'm concerned that Beland is citing what purports to be a self-published book on Amazon that throws an error when you click on the link to Amazon. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:27, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I still think that this sort of reply is heavily based on Beland's somewhat strongly held personal opinions - and I generally prefer closers not have such a strong opinion on things they close (as it reduces the risk of a supervote, whether intentional or not). But I appreciate that this isn't as inappropriate a place to speak those views as part of the discussion as I made it sound. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:37, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not say that it is not a factor. But there's a significant minority (if not majority) of !votes to include that were solely based on that factor. Which has been rejected as a sole/primary reason - that's the whole reason we have BLPCRIME/BLPNAME/BLP in general in the first place. Is that we do not have to name someone just because their name is in reliable sources.
    Failing to discount the many !votes that were based solely on it being in reliable sources as contrary to policy makes this a supervote. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:28, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So you admit to overstating the community consensus on this matter. How much weight to give to any factor -- in the case the factor is every reliable source mentions and discusses the accused in significant detail -- is up to the community, and in this case (just like many others) a majority of particants thought it weighed toward inclusion. Also if consensus is not a vote, which it isn't, why can't the solely source-based (which are very legitimate) votes be weighed alongside other reasons that were brought up by other inclusion supporters? Of which there were many.
    Overturning must establish this close was grossly outside the realm of reason, and so far the overturn side has been upheld by largely unevidenced claims of some massive site-wide community consensus against using reliable sources as the sole factor that apparently doesn't exist. You can't decree ex nihilo that the community must consider more than one or two or however many factors. That is just your interpretation of the policy. But in this discussion the majority viewed it otherwise. The only grounds you had to demonstrate otherwise was if it violated some larger community consensus, which you admitted to be unable to scatch up. R. G. Checkers talk 04:51, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not overstate the consensus. You are reading things that I did not say. The community has clearly stated that being named in reliable sources is not sufficient and is not a major factor. This is why we have BLPNAME in the first place. This is why BLPCRIME talks about when to name people. This is what the RfC about whether sources using the name is acceptable came to the consensus that sources not using the name should be preferred.
    That is why solely "it's used in sources" !votes cannot be used. Because they are contrary to longstanding policy/guideline and prior site-wide consensuses. If you wish to change those consensuses, the proper way to do so is through another sitewide discussion or RfC. Not by acting like a local consensus can go against it just because people are tired of countering your view to point it out repeatedly to you. I did not admit I'm unable to do so - in fact, I referred you to the three policies that explicitly state it should not be the only or most significant factor. You refusing to accept that does not mean it doesn't exist, and ultimately, living persons is a contentious topic because of people like you who refuse to accept consensuses you disagree with and act like they don't exist.
    Bluntly, it does not matter what a majority of people here viewed it as. That's why WP:CONLEVEL exists. A local consensus based on ignoring a site-wide consensus, as reflected in policies and guidelines, and without explicitly stating based on good reasoning that the site wide consensus shouldn't apply in this instance, is not a valid local consensus in the first place - period. Your dislike of the wider consensus does not mean it doesn't still exist. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:03, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't the site-wide consensus in WP:BLPCRIME compatible with choosing inclusion in some cases? If it meant to require exclusion in all cases, I would expect it to say "editors should not include material" rather than "editors must seriously consider not including material". -- Beland (talk) 05:10, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's compatible with choosing inclusion in some cases, with good reason. A significant minority, if not a majority, of "include" !votes in this discussion were based on flimsy (at best) reasons, and some based on reasons specifically against the sitewide consensus (ex: the reason "it's there in sources so we should name too"). A valid close would have taken into account any argument that provides such a "reason" and discounted it entirely. Yours did not do so. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:36, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLPCRIME does not say "no matter how widespread coverage of the person's name is", so I would not reject "coverage of this event is so extensive that the person's name is widely known and thus they are a public figure now and there is no remaining harm to be done" as an argument incompatible with policy. -- Beland (talk) 05:41, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't overstated. The mere presence of the name in sources being some special mitigating factor was indeed overwhelmingly rejected by the community. The purpose of that tier system proposal was so "suspect, but mentioned widely in sources" would bias toward inclusion was opposed to defaulting to exclusion as it currently does, as evidenced by the failed proposal to add editors must carefully weigh factors such as the extent and quality of reliable sourcing to WP:BLPCRIME. It was thoroughly rejected. Symphony Regalia (talk) 07:35, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see at least two Opposed editors supporting that wording; most opposition was to "editors should assess the stage of proceedings as a spectrum: person of interest < arrested < charged < on trial < convicted". -- Beland (talk) 13:27, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is literally just a lie. Go read it yourself for anyone interested to see the bad faith straw grasping of the overturn side to uphold their policy decree ex nihilo. This is an unclosed RfC with many nuanced, diverging views, less participants than the Metcalf discussion, and some opposed participants pointed out that they explicitly supported reliable sources being in the analysis. At no point was the specific matter of reliable sources being the only/primary factor considered. R. G. Checkers talk 14:52, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't accuse other editors of lying. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:01, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If one persons says "A" and another says "A because policy X" and a third person says "B", I think it would be a little too much of a "Simon says" game to exclude the first opinion from consideration, given that opinion 2 shows that A is a conclusion supported by policy.
    Looking back at the discussion, supporters of inclusion were not merely arguing that the name appeared in some reliable sources. The most common logic was that "extensive national coverage" undermined the need to reduce harm, as any harm of disclosure had already been done by widespread distribution. As evidence, one editor gave a list of 8 national non-tabloid sources, and more were found in the article's citations. A secondary argument was that the accused has become more of a public figure, both due to the extensive coverage and due to events involving and actions of the accused and the family, including public fundraising. Not everyone connected all the dots, but they are all pointing to the same factual justification for their preferred outcome.
    Another argument not made in the discussion is that many of the news organizations listed as examples have similar policies against invading the privacy of a non-public figure and treat minors accused of crimes with special care. Those organizations have done a similar balancing of harm vs. utility, and decided that balance favors inclusion. -- Beland (talk) 05:04, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Another argument not made in the discussion is that many of the news organizations listed as examples have similar policies against invading the privacy of a non-public figure and treat minors accused of crimes with special care. Those organizations have done a similar balancing of harm vs. utility, and decided that balance favors inclusion."
    This is looking more and more like you inserted your view into the discussion and WP:SUPERVOTEd. TarnishedPathtalk 05:10, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The only reason I thought of this argument is that the closure was challenged and complaints were made that I didn't analyze the strengths of the arguments deeply enough. I did predict that doing so would result in more accusations of supervoting, and so it has happened yet again. It seems there is no closure that would have been accepted as fair by everyone involved. -- Beland (talk) 05:33, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is correct that there are some RFC closes, which given the underlying dispute, will invariably end up being challanged here. Whether that particular RFC is one of them, I'm not sure. TarnishedPathtalk 05:38, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 - everything being said as a justification for the close makes it more and more clear this was a supervote. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:37, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So much for assuming good faith. -- Beland (talk) 05:43, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    AGF is not a suicide pact. I assumed good faith at first - hence why I posted on your talk page encouraging you to explain further, and then once you did and it was insufficient, I encouraged you to self-revert it to avoid this. But you doubled down on your talk page and are doubling down here repeatedly. It gets more and more difficult to assume good faith when you continue ignoring now half a dozen editors - many of them more experienced than me even - saying that you're wrong here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:52, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not ignoring you; I've spent way too much time carefully reading your arguments and responding. It's not unexpected that a crowd of people on the losing side of a debate would come to the appeal of the outcome and try to get a second bite at the apple. And it's not like people on the winning side haven't shown up and argued the outcome was correct. Most of the procedural objections have been poor; I've investigated the policy objections and that has actually increased my confidence in the outcome. The one procedural objection I think is worth a second opinion is whether headcount was a good way to decide whether the threshold for inclusion was reached, whether 4:3 is enough of a ratio, and whether discounting this would change the outcome. I hope someone who does not already have an opinion on BLPCRIME issues will show up and look at that and anything else they find askew. I fear no matter what they say, they will be accused of supervoting or ignoring policy, and people will just make the same arguments again that they made in the original discussion. Which will make it unpleasant for them and thus take longer to find a volunteer willing to do that. -- Beland (talk) 06:16, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In the interest of fairness, scouring the discussion does turn up one editor making the opposite argument: that news organizations use different standards for deciding whether to include names. And that's also true - instantaneous news value is not the same as long-term encyclopedic value. A second editor echoed this point, and said not all news organizations chose to include the name.
    If we're looking for reasons to dismiss !votes, many editors advocated exclusion on the grounds that adding the name of the accused added nothing to the article. I evaluate that is a very weak argument, based on the counterarguments given.
    Many editors advocated exclusion based on the fact that the accused was a minor. If we are only looking to Wikipedia policy, that is not mentioned as a factor in WP:BLPCRIME, so could be dismissed entirely. I would not do so, though; I think it is one of the factors envisioned by "serious consideration", and it is an important one when considering the harm that could be done to a living person. Other editors point out that this person was charged as an adult, which I know means the charges go on their public record, and the proceedings are fully public. This will show up on a criminal background check if they ever apply for a job, and the massive number of media stories will show up if anyone ever does a web search on their name. So what would normally be a quite strong factor is somewhat weakened. What remaining harm are we trying to protect this person from? According to the article they have admitted to stabbing another person; that is another factor which undermines the need to wait until after conviction - normally the fact of performing bodily harm is still in dispute.
    Another argument that just came to mind - when someone in the future is doing a web search on this person, for example as a potential employee or first date, they have an extremely strong interest in knowing the person they are looking up has admitted to stabbing someone. Arguably what harm Wikipedia would add (to answer my own question) is keeping this event prominent in web results long after the trial has ended and media reports get less prominent. But that is also the service it provides to readers who might be concerned about their personal safety. We will report, in fairness to the accused, whether the jury decided this was in self-defense, and readers can take that into account.
    I'm bringing up new arguments here because I think it's worth exploring them to make sure that overturning this wouldn't result in the same outcome with the same or stronger level of support, or a no-consensus outcome resulting in article instability for not much real-world benefit. -- Beland (talk) 06:06, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your final paragraph makes clear you don't understand it. The ends do not justify the means, if the means were wrong. Even if it results in the same outcome, the community of editors and our readers deserve a close that is well thought out and articulated. And not one that is saying that just because the outcome may be the same, a poor close is acceptable. This attempt to justify the close is probably the most clear you've been that it's a SUPERVOTE. You closed it because you felt it was the correct outcome, and you're justifying it based on your own opinions. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 06:12, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, when this sort of thing happens with a criminal case, a US appeals court that finds a problem in a trial doesn't automatically declare a mistrial and order a new one. Yes, everyone deserves a fair trial, but if the appeals court finds the error or misbehavior was very unlikely to have changed the outcome, it may admonish lawyers but will dismiss the appeal and let the verdict stand. Often appeals are limited to verifying that the law was correctly applied to the facts established by the original trial, but sometimes new facts are also considered if they were unknown at the time - for example, major new physical evidence. Asking "will new legal analysis or new facts change the outcome of this conviction" is not evidence that the appeals court judges are biased and just trying to preserve their favored outcome. Nor would the district court judge saying "I learned more about this case during the appeals process and what I learned made me more confidence in the verdict" be evidence of bias. That could be a legitimate result in a specific case, but if the judge never became less confident in their verdicts, that would be an indication of confirmation bias.
    Also not saying I'm free of confirmation bias! That's one of the reasons I'm open to closure review. -- Beland (talk) 06:32, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn - Very much per voorts' comments on this. A lot of the arguments for inclusion were merely that RS stated who the accused is. This as WP:ONUS makes clear is not a reason by itself for inclusion. We still need to take policy considerations into account and it doesn't appear that Beland sufficiently discharged that duty in line with WP:DETCON when they closed the RFC. TarnishedPathtalk 02:18, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Beland states above that inclusion v no inclusion was a "close call", indicating a WP:NOCON close in which we would generally default to exclusion in a BLP, but then goes on to state that to get around that "I relied on the majority opinion to decide whether the threshold has been met". To me this runs contrary to WP:DETCON which states that "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." If when weighing up the arguments on vaious sides, they found that the policy arguments were of similar weight, the analysis should have ceased and no consensus determined. Determining consensus is not merely a WP:HEADCOUNT. TarnishedPathtalk 04:00, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I mean, if a discussion was whether policy X or policy Y was more important in a given case, and reasonable arguments could be made either way but 90% of editors favor policy X being given priority, wouldn't we go with the outcome determined by policy X? There wasn't a 90% margin in this discussion, but with this example I mean to say that headcount should not be ignored. -- Beland (talk) 04:11, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn per voorts' comments; the overwhelming majority of comments arguing for inclusion presented no policy-based reason for inclusion. The entire point of WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPNAME is that the simple mention of a name in news sources is not, in and of itself, sufficient for inclusion; arguments that solely point to the fact that such sources exist, and nothing else, are therefore not based in policy and must be disregarded. The interpretation Beland presents above (that BLPCRIME sets a lower standard than BLPNAME for inclusion of a name) is not one that was presented in the RFC and is therefore clear evidence that Beland's closure was a WP:SUPERVOTE. And, of course, as an interpretation it is also obviously absurd to suggest that BLPCRIME could lower the standard of BLPNAME in a context that is plainly more BLP sensitive than normal. To seriously consider something means to consider it in light of the broader policies, including BLPNAME. Beland's interpretation of it would mean that any time any dispute over BLPCRIME occurs, the people in the dispute could immediately point to that dispute itself as seriously considering not including it the name, even if (as in the discussion at hand) they then plainly ignore BLPCRIME and present no arguments beyond the bare fact that it passes WP:V. also note that Beland's response above immediately leaped to arguing the underlying facts (The purpose of WP:BLPNAME seems to be to exclude the names of "living private individuals who are not directly involved" and "family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons". The accused person in this article is not loosely involved; they are a core participant in all the events described and indisputably the subject of at least half the article which covers post-stabbing events. It appears it is not even disputed that they performed a stabbing, but merely whether it was murder or self-defense.), further underlining the SUPERVOTE nature of their close - if Beland feels so strongly about both their idiosyncratic interpretation of BLPCRIME and the specific facts of this case, they should have weighed in with a !vote, not imposed that opinion via a closure. --Aquillion (talk) 04:10, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      This is what I mean about being accused of a supervote if I deeply consider the merits of arguments, and being accused of improperly not taking policy into account if I don't. -- Beland (talk) 04:13, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I did not argue that BLPCRIME sets a lower threshold for inclusion that BLPNAME; I argue the reverse, that BLPNAME sets a lower threshold. I would also agree that BLPCRIME's higher threshold should be what controls, because it's more specific in scope.
      One objection to my closure was that I did not consider BLPNAME, but no one mentioned BLPNAME in the discussion. If BLPNAME set a higher threshold for inclusion, then it would be worth considering whether it is more strongly controlling and if applying it would have changed the outcome. But if we agree BLPNAME sets a lower threshold for inclusion and that the discussion relied on BLPCRIME, then the discovery of BLPNAME after closure is not a reason to re-open. -- Beland (talk) 04:21, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Endorse per R. G. Checkers.
    Additionally, a link to this closure review at the RfC may be appropriate. 85.238.68.143 (talk) 12:56, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That the name should be included because it is reported in relation to a single event, which has not been sought by the named individual, seems at odds with being a low profile individual. WP:Who is a low-profile individual says A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:30, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      To clarify if they do not seek to be reported on, but RS report on them and that reporting is all BLP1E, then they remain a low profile individual. So a close that says an individual should be named based on unsought BLP1E reporting doesn't seem right. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:02, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      There could well be other arguments for inclusion, it's just that I don't see how this one is a valid. To say they should be included just because there has been reporting is the same, per the essay, as saying they should be included because they are a low profile individual. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:04, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse as I think it is the correct representation, but the reasoning was shockingly sparse. I was kindof surprised. This issue needs to be resolved at BLPCRIME more definitively, as I have already seen several debates over this on assorted, but obviously contentious topics, just in the past few months. Metallurgist (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse per WP:SENSE. Name is covered 20+ times in references, the vast majority of which are RS. Since the name is covered in the WP:ARTICLE (as "an article" includes its constituent references), the quibble is only about whether it can be mentioned in the prose of the article--in other words, hair splitting. The cost/benefit equation is clearly in favor of inclusion because every single RS website covering the killing already mentions the name in question, often in the titles of their articles which is why it is in our references, so our inclusion does not change the exposure of the suspect's name. The arguments that I'm incorrect about the risk/benefit ratio are themselves incorrect, but assertions that this assessment somehow doesn't amount to "Serious consideration" are simply ABF and should be entirely discarded themselves bad faith. Jclemens (talk) 23:55, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      This is a close review, not a place to raise new IAR arguments. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:56, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm specifically rebutting your above query Can you point me to a single include !vote that seriously considered not including the content?. Just because you don't recognize serious consideration doesn't mean it wasn't. And if you think WP:SENSE is an IAR argument, rather than an approach to balance of harms, you've yet again missed the point. Jclemens (talk) 07:47, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:BLPCRIME already assumes the name is in sources. "it's in the machine generated ref list" isn't a valid argument; it's circular reasoning. Even further than that, you're referring to news references which WP:BLPNAME already rules out. Symphony Regalia (talk) 10:00, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse - WP:BLPCRIME has already been seriously considered across two RfCs. Many of the exclude !votes simply cited the policy repeatedly, as if it categorically prohibits including a name. That’s not the case, and it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what the policy actually says. Nemov (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse – considering some of the chief bludgeoners have been banned at ArbCom over similar culture-war topics, this was quite unsurprising. Nothing has changed since I !voted to include Karmelo Anthony's name, and I stand by every word I wrote. Most "exclude" !votes just cite the policy without bothering to read what it actually says. Meanwhile the "include" !votes point out the fact that we follow sources. Opposers failed to rebut the inclusion arguments, while the exclusion arguments were easily rebutted by quoting what BLPNAME and BLPCRIME actually say. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 22:24, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion (Killing of Austin Metcalf)

    [edit]

    Thank you Tamzin for pointing out the word limits. Apologies for what I've done to violate it myself or encourage violating it by other people. I will not be responding any further to this discussion in any way, shape, or form unless someone asks me a direct question about my views. In such case please ping me and I will still try to keep any such response to as short as possible. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 06:23, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Berchanhimez: To clarify, WP:CT/AP, unlike a few other CTOPs, doesn't have a general word limit; this is a discretionary sanction, specific to this discussion, per ArbCom's recent change to WP:STANDARDSET. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 06:30, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the clarification on it (not) being default. I still agree with it and will abide by what I said above - no longer replying unless I’m specifically pinged with a specific question. Thanks for all you do to try and keep things on track :) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 06:40, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've started an RFCBEFORE on BLPCRIME here: Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Let's put this to rest. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:23, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrator Elections | RFC phase

    [edit]

    The RFC phase of the July 2025 administrator elections has started. There are 10 RFCs for consideration. You can participate in the RFC phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/RFCs.

    Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

    You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

    MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Redirect creation

    [edit]
    Done. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:42, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Wanted to create the Satyabhamakkoru Premalekhanam redirect as an alternative spelling for Sathyabhamakkoru Premalekhanam. But it is apparently blocked due to some previous socking blacklist for Prem Khan. Would appreciate if an rd can be created here (or the blacklist removed?). Thanks.

    PS: Would also like to rd Satyabhamakoru Premalekhanam and Sathyabhamakoru Premalekhanam to the same target. Gotitbro (talk) 16:07, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. Curbon7 (talk) 04:25, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    A request for participation

    [edit]

    WP:AFD is in need of more participation. In recent weeks the number of discussions that have languished for lack of attention from !voters is considerably larger than usual in my experience as an AfD closer. Indicators of this include the number of discussions admins have allowed to remain in the "old" section in the hopes of attracting !voters; the number of discussions in which regular closers have chosen to participate instead of closing; and the proportion of discussions being relisted. I have theories as to why this is happening, but those are besides the point: the solution is clearly more engagement. I imagine other regular closers would agree with me. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I've been spending quite a bit of time in AfD over the last week or two (because I have been participating in the NPP backlog drive), although I'm not usually a regular. I've been struck by the need for more participation too. But also, couldn't the admins and other closers potentially make AfD a little bit more efficient just by taking a slightly more hardline approach?
    What I mean is this:
    • If an article is nominated and nobody comments on the listing, it should always be soft-deleted as though it were an expired PROD (rather than being relisted, as sometimes happens at present: e.g. here, to take a random example).
    • If an article is nominated and attracts one comment in support and no objections, this consensus of two should usually be treated as consensus for a hard deletion (rather than the item being relisted or soft deleted).
    • If an article that has previously been tagged for PROD but has had the tag removed, or that has been soft deleted or deleted through PROD and then restored on request, is nominated by someone other than the person who nominated or tagged it before, and if nobody comments on the nomination, this should usually be treated as consensus for a hard deletion (rather than the item being relisted as ineligible for soft deletion), since this situation implies that at least two people have considered the deletion justified and no-one has set out any rationale against it.
    • If an article is nominated and attracts one comment in support and one in opposition, the closer should give serious consideration to treating this as consensus for deletion (rather than relisting), if on the face of it the arguments against deletion do not seem to have much weight or are not based on policy (as sometimes seems to happen, especially when the opposing editor is the page creator).
    If participants in AfD knew that articles would usually be deleted under the circumstances outlined above (albeit not invariably, since of course the closer must still ultimately use their judgement!), this would not only reduce the number of relistings, but would also mean that AfD participants would not feel the need to spend time commenting on proposals that are unlikely to be opposed or that have been looked at by two editors already (as e.g. here, to take a random example), and could instead spend their limited time looking at listings where a rough consensus of two or three editors hasn't been reached yet.
    Probably someone will now say that I'm not very experienced at AfD and therefore don't know what I'm talking about. But still, it seems to me that AfD is operating as though maximum participation and consensus were the priority, which would be great if there were loads of participants, but I think perhaps it would be better to consider operating slightly more in the interests of efficiency and saving editors' time, along the above lines. Dionysodorus (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dionysodorus: Thoughtful comments on the process are welcome. I would at least agree that in discussions with low participation, looking at the weight comments should get can sometimes show a consensus where raw numbers might suggest a relist. However, a bare minimum of participation is necessary for the process to be meaningful. I usually require participation from three editors to find a consensus for anything. Expanding the soft deletion process as you propose may be a way around that. It would require a community consensus to implement, but you could propose such an implementation. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that a policy change ought necessarily to be needed for closers to treat unopposed nominations as soft deletes, since an unopposed nomination meets exactly the same threshold as a successful PROD (which is in itself nothing more than an unopposed tagging): indeed closers sometimes do this already, just not consistently (e.g. here and here). And is there actually anything in existing policy to prevent closers treating 2 vs 0 or 2 vs 1 as a consensus in cases where the prima facie case for deletion is strong and arguments against deletion are not expressed or transparently weak? I think that would be entirely in the spirit of WP:CLOSEAFD and WP:NHC.
    So all I really meant to suggest was that you closers could be a bit bolder in closing discussions, not necessarily that we need a policy change. If you think there's any merit in what I'm saying, perhaps the ideal starting point would be for you closers to discuss it relatively informally (which could then either lead to an informal change of approach or to the proposing of more formal guidelines to the community), rather than me trying to create policy saying that you should proceed in a certain way, especially if such a change of policy might not be needed to do some of this. (If it would be useful, we could even ping the regular closers and have such a discussion here.) Dionysodorus (talk) 07:23, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd argue that if people are closing 'no participation' AfDs (after one or two relists, natch) as 'no consensus' then that is arguably inappropriate. There is absolutely no need to change any policy to close an undiscussed, uncontested AfD as a softdelete. Just relist it twice, and if nobody discusses it, hit 'close'. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:27, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But what I'm saying is that uncontested nominations should always be closed as soft delete after one week without any relisting (as only occasionally seems to happen at present). When an article is PRODded it gets deleted after a week without delay, so there's no reason why uncontested AfD nominations shouldn't be soft-deleted after a week too. In my view, the unnecessary relisting of nominations should be avoided, because commenting on these unnecessary relistings takes up the limited time of the relatively small number of AfD participants and distracts them from commenting on cases that actually require discussion, which in turn contributes to the problem that Vanamonde raised at the start of the thread. Dionysodorus (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would tend to agree. If you look at the various processes we need more folks to help, marginal notable articles are not the most essential part of Wikipedia. More soft deletes will lead to a higher share of 'mistakes', but they're easily reversible. Editor time is precious. That seems to be in line with current policy, where closers have this discretion: WP:NOQUORUM: Closing an unopposed XfD nomination under this procedure does not require the discussion to have been relisted any particular number of times. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:22, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    At it happens I disagree with this. @Dionysodorus and Femke: There's a considerable potential distinction between soft deletion and regular AfD deletion: the former is reversible by any editor requesting it in good faith, whereas the latter mandates at the very least recreation that is substantially different from the deleted version, and in practice usually requires additional sourcing in order to not face the same outcome at AfD. We softdelete articles after an AfD with no participation because it is functionally equal to a PROD. An AfD with 2 or 3 editors opining "delete" has received additional scrutiny from 1 or 2 editors, and a SOFTDELETE closure negates their participation.
    That said, that's a theoretical problem. If someone could show that SOFTDELETEd topics are not subject to recreation significantly often - or no more than regular AfD outcomes - that would negate the issue, and if we had such data I imagine adjusting our practice much more palatable. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If things are working as intended, there should be a higher recreation rate for softdeleted articles. The more interesting question is to look at the rates of recreation in either category, and estimate the amount of editor time saved / spent if we were to change practice here. I should probably start a list of 'research questions' for Wikipedia.
    It seems like there is almost one request at WP:REFUND a day to restore a soft deleted article. No idea how many articles get soft deleted daily and what the time commitment is at REFUND. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:25, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    re: "If things are working as intended, there should be a higher recreation rate for softdeleted articles", that's precisely why expanding the scope of soft deletion to include topics that editors besides the nominator have declared to be non-notable is potentially a problem. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you may have slightly misunderstood what I am suggesting, Vanamonde93. My problem is with the fact that at present nominations that attract no participation commonly aren't being soft deleted after a week (as the equivalence with PRODs would suggest, and as your comment at 18:47 seems to suggest you agree they should be), but rather are being relisted. I'm not saying that soft deletion should be expanded to cover anything that is currently hard deleted: on the contrary, I suggested in my initial comment above that nominations that attract even only one supporting !vote (which tend to get soft deleted at present) should be hard deleted. Dionysodorus (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dionysodorus: I don't believe I misunderstood: I focused on your idea of expanding SOFTDELETE because that felt like a substantive proposal, whereas AFAIK we do regularly handle nominations with no participation as we should. I know I do. Are you aware of a considerable volume of SOFTDELETE-eligible articles that aren't being so deleted? Remember that PRODs and previous AfDs preclude soft deletion. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vanamonde93: But I didn't propose any expansion of soft deletion in the first place, except inasmuch as I suggested that any nominations with no participation should be soft deleted rather than relisted (as I think does sometimes happen: I cited this example above, but I'll have a look for others).
    Apart from that, all my suggestions were about reducing relisting in favour of hard deletion: that is to say, I think that nominations that result in 2 vs. 0, 2 vs. 1 where the opposing arguments are obviously weak, or even unopposed nominations that are ineligible for soft deletion because they have been soft deleted or PRODded before, should all be hard deleted after a week without relisting (not soft deleted!). Dionysodorus (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. @Vanamonde93: In today's log so far, there are three relistings of nominations with no participation:
    None of these articles appears to have been previously soft-deleted or PRODded. I think perhaps you would be able to get the same result by looking at the log for most other days. Dionysodorus (talk) 21:33, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, three of those four relists are by Cavarrone, who is not an admin and therefore cannot delete those pages. Perhaps I will leave them a note. Borderless selling has a declined PROD in the history, btw. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:53, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am one of the admins who generally relists AFDs with no participation rather than soft deleting the article. I do that for two reasons, one more philosophical and one more practical.
    The more philosophical one is that policy ordinarily requires a consensus to delete an article and while it's true that policy also recognises PRODs and soft deletions – which are exceptions to that rule –, I find it more in keeping with the spirit of the deletion policy to relist a discussion with no participation, in hopes of attracting more attention to it, so that a consensus can form – which does indeed happen, such as here.
    After all, we are deleting someone's work, I think it only fair to have a full discussion before doing it, unless there is something in the article requiring urgent attention.
    The more practical reason is that soft deletion can end up creating more work. Anyone can contest it at any time and, then, the article has to be recreated and, if truly unnotable, has to be nominated again. So, trying to see if a more thorough discussion can be had now, in my opinion, can save time later.
    However, if it turns out that the general feeling of the community is that relisting a discussion instead of simply soft deleting it is a waste of resources, I have no problem soft deleting articles. But I'm not sure AN is the best place for this discussion... —  Salvio giuliano 08:57, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it just has to come down to admin discretion. I have no trouble soft-deleting when the situation calls for it, but sometimes it's not what makes the most sense: for instance, I just finished relisting this one (where the article was brand-new and any soft deletion would very likely be challenged) and this one (where the nominator wanted other viewpoints and had specifically chosen not to use PROD). I don't have an issue with nudging things a little closer to the soft-deletion end of the spectrum, but a bright-line rule wouldn't be a good idea. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree that we can't close an AfD as soft delete if the article has previously been PRODed or brought to AfD. WP:NOQUORUM says that "the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgement". It also says that "[c]ommon options include, but are not limited to" relisting, closing as no consensus, "closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal" (e.g., hard deletion), or "soft deleting the article". voorts (talk/contributions) 22:23, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Star Mississippi and I have been talking about a decline in participation in AFDs that we've noticed over the past 2 1/2 years now. I don't think there is just one reason why the decline has happened but I know we have lost a lot of subject matter experts, unfortunately. And I think, this is a guesstimate, that we've lost a lof of inclusionists. It's hard when you tend to argue "Keep" to bust your butt looking all over for sources and the consensus STILL being to delete an article. I think those folks, after a while, just thought that their energy would be better spent elsewhere and left after months of frustration. I do know that it's a whole lot easier to be a deletionist as they usually don't have to provide a justification for their arguments. If you scan down the daily log, it's easy to come across a lot of discussions that are just a straight list of "Delete", "Delete", etc. My own perspective is in the middle, working in AFDLand for five years now has exposed me to a lot of junk articles that have been written over the past 24 years and it's good to clean this clutter out. But I can't help but notice a high burnout ratio for participants who tend towards the "Keep" end of the spectrum.
    Looking at the participants has always been my approach when discussing the situation at AFDLand which has been a problem since about 2022-23. I have never thought of approaching this problem by changing our threshold of what qualifies as a Delete, or Soft delete. I disagree with some of the opinions brought up but it's great for us to be having this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:59, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is all very interesting, and I am grateful to Salvio Giuliano and Liz for explaining their approaches. At the expense of possibly testing everyone's patience, it does occur to me that there are also other more radical ways in which deletion processes could be reformed to reduce the number of listings that required discussion, if low participation were felt to make this desirable (although perhaps the problem isn't so severe as to require this at all).
    For instance, what if we got rid of PROD and replaced the two-tier system of PROD and AfD with a two-stage process? It could be the case that all nominations for deletion (except for speedy deletion) took the form of AfD-style listings in a "Preliminary AfD": unopposed nominations, or nominations opposed only on clearly insubstantial grounds, would generally be soft deleted after a week; but any listing that any editor on reasonable grounds opposes (or thinks needs discussing more fully: this could include the nominator) would immediately be moved to regular AfD for fuller discussion; and any listing that the deleting admin doesn't think should be deleted (or thinks requires fuller discussion) could also be moved by them to regular AfD at the end of the week. Also, requests to undelete soft-deleted articles could be reformed in such a way that they would require a reasoned response to the original nomination, and in such a way that the original nomination and the objection would then immediately be posted at regular AfD for discussion, where consensus could then emerge to keep the article permanently or to delete it permanently.
    If we had a system like that, uncontroversial listings wouldn't end up in regular AfD at all, and participants there would spend their time looking at actually controversial cases rather than just adding a third, fourth or fifth "delete" !vote to an article on a subject that clearly doesn't satisfy notability. Also, it would become impossible to contest a PROD or to undelete soft-deleted articles without reasoned grounds, which would eliminate the problem that Salvio Giuliano mentioned of people reviving articles that have been just deleted and thereby necessitating a whole new nomination: everything would be streamlined, because the discussion would always be kept in one place rather than sometimes being spread across a PROD tag, an undeletion request, and sometimes more than one AfD thread. Obviously anything of this kind would require community consensus in a more suitable venue than AN, and I put forward this suggestion simply for the sake of throwing ideas around and in case anyone finds it interesting.
    I do agree with Extraordinary Writ that it is essential that any approach should allow for the closer to use their discretion: when I said "always", I should have said "always except if there is a good reason why not". I also kind of agree with Salvio Giuliano, in that ideally everything should be discussed in detail and on the basis of consensus: but nothing I'm suggesting would prevent even a single reasonable objection from prompting a fuller discussion. Dionysodorus (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    but any listing that any editor on reasonable grounds opposes (or thinks needs discussing more fully: this could include the nominator) would immediately be moved to regular AfD for fuller discussion This would increase the number of AfD discussions. I've made PRODs that have been declined that I didn't bother taking to AfD after because I was satisfied with the dePRODing editors' response. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:27, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, requests to undelete soft-deleted articles could be reformed in such a way that they would require a reasoned response to the original nomination, and in such a way that the original nomination and the objection would then immediately be posted at regular AfD for discussion, where consensus could then emerge to keep the article permanently or to delete it permanently. I'm not opposed to this. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:28, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Voorts: I would have thought the two things (requiring justification for contesting any proposed deletion, and requiring justification for requesting any undeletion) logically ought to go together. Also, I'm sure editors do occasionally PROD an article and then find themselves convinced by the rationale of the person who removes the tag, but surely that can't happen so often as to make a significant difference to the numbers that would end up in AfD? I would have thought any such increase would be more than offset by the fact that many pages currently end up in AfD because a PROD tag has been removed without sufficient justification, whereas on my scheme only pages where the objector can provide a justification would ever end up in AfD.
    In any case, the nominator could easily withdraw the nomination if convinced by the objection (as sometimes happens at AfD as it is), and so such cases need not actually take up AfD participants' time to speak of. Dionysodorus (talk) 07:39, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Request to close the POSTNOM RfC closure review

    [edit]

    Is any admin willing to close #RfC closure review request at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#RfC Regarding MOS:POSTNOM? It's been on this page for a month and has had one substantive comment in the last 21 days. It's been listed at WP:Closure requests for 14 of those.

    I don't think this is a difficult close—even if I set my own viewpoints on the issue aside, to my eye there's a clear consensus particularly among people who did not participate in the original RfC. But it's a closure review, so someone ought to do a formal assessment of consensus. Ed [talk] [OMT] 18:40, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Bignay National High School XfD

    [edit]
    All sorted. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 06:06, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    It’s been a while since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bignay National High School was closed, but it was a WP:NACD and WP:INVOLVED. I think it should be reclosed and G6’ed accordingly. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:25, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I've deleted the article and advised the closer against such closures. If there's a procedural reason why the discussion should be reopened and reclosed, I'm sure someone will tell me; for now, lazy as I am, I've left it as it was. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:41, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone ahead and reclosed for the formality. I's crossed, t's dotted, and all that. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:41, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Draft:Ethan Brunton and Ethan Brunton

    [edit]

    I'm not sure what to do with respect to Draft:Ethan Brunton and Ethan Brunton. It looks like the created first started working on the draft back in June and might've felt they weren't getting anywhere; so, they decide to create the article themselves in the mainspace instead earlier today. I don't know if it they did a copy-paste move or started anew, but the subject almost certainly doesn't meet WP:NBIO or WP:NPOL, given the sources cited. I was just going to draftify the article, but then noticed the draft. What's the best thing to do here? FWIW, I only came across these pages while checking on the licensing for some files uploaded by the creator. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:39, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    If you are using the moveToDraft script, you can change the draft target if it's already occupied. I moved it to Draft:Ethan Brunton 2. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 12:51, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for doing that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    BLP article on the husband of the new/current interim Prime Minister of Nepal

    [edit]
    Discussion is underway at the redirect's talk page. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:37, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Article is mostly about his involvement in a hijacking in the 70s. Seems very negative. It'd be good if someone experienced with BLPs could take a look. Related BLP/N thread. TurboSuperA+[talk] 12:47, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not saying the editor who created the article did anything wrong. It's a political hot topic (in Nepal, and perhaps other places), so the article should get some more eyes on it. I could be completely wrong and the article could be 100% OK. TurboSuperA+[talk] 12:50, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Justification regarding the article. The plane hijack is not a negative event in history of contemporary Nepal when it was to fund the movement. Having been member of the then youth organization, he was party of democratic movement. In the same process he was jailed while other details are not much known. His own auto biography speaks the facts as written. His own biography written by Mr. Subedi himself is mentioned even in bibliography section. Hope it will be reviewed and refined more with more contents available on media regarding him. For the same, i'd better keep update tag on the article. Franked2004 (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've started a dicussion on the (now redirect's) talkpage. More eyes are always appreciated, but I'm not seeing any behavioural issues that need addressed, and I do agree with the article creator that the hijacking isn't quite as negative as it first appears. It is falling pretty nicely in that "is this guy a freedom fighter or a terrorist" topic area, though, but I think we can keep discussion at talkpage and (maybe) the BLP/N thread. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 19:32, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Elmidae engaging in edit warring, "I can't hear you" and possibly WP:OWN at Antechinus

    [edit]
    CONTENT DISPUTE
    If there was a concern here, it would be a job for ANI, not AN. But there isn't - this is a content dispute, and the place to discuss it is at Talk:Antechinus. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:38, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Elmidae has dug in their heels on the notion that an article should not be intelligible to the reader without consulting the article's sources. I think this is a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is trying to achieve, but they do not seem to be open to constructive dialogue. 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:6F0F (talk) 14:05, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a content dispute. The IP has already been warned not to continue reverting or they might be blocked from editing the article. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 14:10, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "The IP" is neither here nor there. Please look at the behavioural issues with the logged-in user as well. Thank you. 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:6F0F (talk) 14:11, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Either there is no behavioural issue or it's with 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:6F0F (is it ok to call you that?), who has misrepresented Elmidae's position (I don't know whether wilfully or accidentally). I can see none on the part of Elmidae. The article has been protected to prevent you both from edit-warring. Just talk civilly on the article talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:39, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Full protection

    [edit]
    AT LEAST IT WASN'T A MASTERLOCK
    Image reverted and discussion underway at File talk:Full-protection-shackle.svg#Changed color to gold. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:23, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hi, I noticed File:Full-protection-shackle.svg has been overwritten and replaced with a new design that really stands out from the other locks. This should probably be discussed. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:45, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed: given the current design was agreed upon in a RfC I don't think it should be unilaterally changed like this. CoconutOctopus talk 09:49, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:BRD I restored the original design for now; I think such a change should require some form of consensus. CoconutOctopus talk 09:57, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) The user who made the change started a discussion about it at File talk:Full-protection-shackle.svg#Changed color to gold; so, that's probably where (at least for now) any concerns about it should be expressed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:58, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Administrator Anachronist who made the change said If there's any objection, my upload can always be reverted. This issue is probably better worked out at the file talk thread they started at File talk:Full-protection-shackle.svg#Changed color to gold. Left guide (talk) 09:59, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I already notified them of this discussion. This is not the first time I've posted to AN. And I do think it was appropriate for me to bring this up here, as this is an issue of "general interest to administrators" and very few people watch that page in comparison to this one. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:03, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like interface didn't give "there's a new comment" it usually does while I was writing the reply above, which was somewhat reliant on the text changed in this revision. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:09, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Reporting of administrator

    [edit]
    Already being discussed at WP:ANI#Disruptive user. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 13:59, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hi I've been trying to make meaninful contributions to a certain wiki page, however the administrator is making unfound accusations to undo these changes. The language used was disrespectful and harsh, how can I report an administrator? J05n99 (talk) 13:51, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    You can describe your grievance here(after you formally notify Hammersoft of this discussion as instructed at the top of this page). Be aware that your own actions will be examined as well. 331dot (talk) 13:56, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Clarification on my TOPICBAN

    [edit]
    OP has now been blocked indefinitely by Yamla for disruptive edits and not dropping the stick. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 12:14, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I appreciate that I was given a topic ban. I would like guidance on how it applies going forward. The topic ban was on "discussing whether or not any Pokémon characters are main characters". I understood that it could extend to discussion on supporting or background Pokémon characters and so on, as it might go around the essence of the topic ban and relates to the core issue.

    But recently, I received a warning from the admin when I brought up a suggestion of keeping to characters that have English Wikipedia pages. I made the suggestion since it came to me, I felt it did not violate the topic ban and I thought the other editor might agree with it. I believed this did not violate the topic ban, but the admin indicated it did because the thread involved Pokémon main characters. I was like oh, I guess that makes sense, if I am continuing a discussion that brought it up, it could mean I am continuing in a discussion about main Pokémon characters. So I asked whether I could start a new discussion with the suggestion, but the admin advised against it, stating it involves which characters to include. But as I understood it, the topic ban applies to discussion of main Pokémon characters, not necessarily to discussions about inclusion criteria or notable characters.

    Could I have clear guidelines on this topic ban? Master106 (talk) 19:57, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Master106 Topic bans are "broadly constructed", the essay WP:BROADLY tries to explain what this means. As a rule of thumb - if you genuinely cannot tell if an edit is covered by a topic ban it probably is.
    It seems that instead of trying to argue which characters should be included based on which ones are "main characters", you are now trying to argue which of these characters should be included based on which ones are "notable characters". Even if this is not a 100% clear cut violation of the topic ban I imagine a lot of admins reviewing those edits would see them as a continuation of the disruption you were topic banned for, and would impose sanctions accordingly. I would advise you to stop editing those lists of characters completely and find something else to do, before you end up with a broader topic ban or block. 86.23.87.130 (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure why this topic ban was imposed rather than a topic ban on Pokemon entirely, but I think you should just avoid Pokemon entirely. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:31, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Concern Regarding Unverified Claim About Akan Language Speakers in Ghana

    [edit]
    You are free to edit the article yourself. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:32, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I hope this message finds you well. I recently came across a Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akan_language) claiming that about 80% of Ghanaians speak the Akan language. The page cited a website ( "Akan (Twi) at Rutgers". www.amesall.rutgers.edu.) as its source, but when I checked, the website does not exist (https://www.amesall.rutgers.edu/languages/128-akan-twi). I could also not find any statistics from the Ghana Statistical Service or any research-based organization to support this claim.

    It is important that Wikipedia entries be backed by reliable sources. I respectfully suggest that the author of this page either provide an authentic and verifiable source for this information or remove the statement entirely. Presenting unverified information misleads readers and undermines the credibility of the platform.

    Thank you very much for your attention to this matter 128.194.2.58 (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Block request

    [edit]
    Withdrawn by OP. Hopefully the stick has been dropped. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 01:02, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Note: This invovles this ANI


    To keep things short I was permanently blocked from the Template:Russia–United States relations and when I requested unblock the admin decided not to.


    Am I allowed to request the permanent ban be applied to both parties then (WikiCleanerMan) since both parties were involved with this ANI.


    This will allow other editors to take the lead from now on for the edits?


    I think its only fair both parties be held accountable and not allowed to make edits anymore, if its just one party (myself) then the other party (WikiCleanerMan) can go back and continue editing.

    I was not aware the other ANI had gotten archived, sorry for the late notice on this, I had intedned to append it to that ANI. -4vryng talk 22:27, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Withdraw, can close case now -4vryng talk 00:44, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Allowed to ask, yes. Willing to risk getting completely blocked instead of blocked from 1 page, that's another question. You should evaluate your options and see if you want to withdraw this question. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:12, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Sarek, I understand what your saying. However, I dont believe this should resort in a permanent block for me from wikipedia, it seems just and fair both parties should be held equally accountable if one looks at the history of events that unfolded so that is all I was requesting. I was permanently blocked when I said I was concerned both parties would continue reverting each other, as had happened in the past but that should have resulted in a permanent ban of both parties not just one since I tried my best for 4 months to resolve the situation if one looks at the history. Outside of that I am doing my regular edits on other articles, life goes on as usual for me on wikipedia. I just wanted to bring this up to see if there was agreement with what I explained, if not I will move on. -4vryng talk 23:21, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The ability to WALK AWAY is one of the most vital for a successful editing career here. I forgot how to do it, and almost lost my admin bit. I resigned it instead, and when I first tried to get it back, the community didn't think I was ready. So, basically, if you don't go edit something else and pretend WCM doesn't exist, then... well, I tried. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay understood, feel free to delete/close this request then -4vryng talk 00:29, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you get blocked for edit warring regardless of any alleged unfairness with how the other party/ies are treated best solution is still to concentrate on what you always needed to do and come to consensus on the talk page. If your preferred version is clearly superior shouldn't be too hard. That way you really "win" in the only way that matters. Who really gives a damn about the other party/ies not being blocked when you "won" the actual dispute? Only reason to care about blocks is if you think you can't "win" the actual dispute. Nil Einne (talk) 00:29, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood, thank you Nil and Sarek. Feel free to delete/close the request. I will move on to other articles -4vryng talk 00:33, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Requesting partial block to 2806:2a0:1516:8eea:8000::/48

    [edit]

    The IP range 2806:2a0:1516:8eea:8000::/48 (talk · contribs) has been edit-warring for months at the page Morena (political party). The user adds information that alleges the party is colluded with drug dealers, something I personally don't doubt. The issue is that sources cannot conclude such collusions since no one from the party has been on trial as such or the party has been determined to be a narco-political party internally or internationally. The IP adds multiple sources supposedly backing up these claims, but the sources themselves don't actually mention the claims, rather, they are the typical "if A and B then C" type of sources. The user has been asked multiple times, by several users,[13][14][15] to discuss the changes, which the IP has openly declined, as the user thinks that the WP:TRUTH shouldn't be censored or discussed.[16][17]

    I'd explain the issues but they sometimes fall into BLP issue as the commentary added by the IP is simply not backed by the sources example 1, example 2

    I'm asking for a partial block from that page, although the range has edited other Morena-related articles with similar issue (Here, for example, the user uses the brother's page as a coatrack), or a partial block from the article's space. (CC) Tbhotch™ 06:09, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Reliable source review

    [edit]

    This is not really an "incident" or dispute, more of a general inquiry, so I am posting it here. Please let me know if this query should be posted elsewhere. Please see the discussion: Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled#User:Sswonk. User:TechnoSquirrel69 is unsure about the reliability of Chapter 16. Can an administrator please check and respond? Thank you. Sswonk (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (No need for the talk page message, I'm aware of this.) The autopatrolled requests page is currently fairly backlogged, so I would expect there'll be some time before someone's able to respond to your request, Sswonk. That being said, if any administrator here would like to help out with the backlog, that would be appreciated. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:24, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any way non-admins can help with the WP:RFPERM backlog? I feel as though this is one area where non-admins might not be able to help as much without getting in the way of admins. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 00:47, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sswonk: The best venue to ask a source reliability question and find consensus for it would be the reliable sources noticeboard. Left guide (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC Close - Gaza genocide

    [edit]
    AN is not the place to request closes. WP:CR already lists this discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:04, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I’d like to request that an administrator or experienced editor close this RfC about whether Wikipedia should declare, in its own voice, that a genocide is ongoing in Gaza.

    I was going to make a request at WP:ANRFC and saw one is already active. I’m making a note here since Gaza genocide is classified as “top importance” for several of our projects.

    The RfC has run for 47 days. Over 90 editors have commented. Approximately 55 favor the proposed change, and c. 35 oppose it (I include, in that group, arguments for a procedural close). There is extensive commentary and data analysis from editors.

    Since the RfC started, several additional actors have weighed in, including the International Association of Genocide Scholars, the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem, and Physicians for Human Rights–Israel.

    Thanks for your time. -Darouet (talk) 17:36, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Greece men's national basketball team - Depth chart - Unreferenced edits

    [edit]

    I would like to ask for the administrator’s attention to the section “Depth chart” in the article Greece men's national basketball team. This section used to include in a depth chart table all the players of the national team who were recently called to the team and participated in various recent tournaments (friendly, qualification and major tournament games). Those players were placed in the table according to their positions as they were referenced in the official page of the “Hellenic Basketball Federation”. In addition, there were further references from the Greek media indicating the coach’s selections among those players over the past months, in order to justify the team’s depth per position, as it was presented in the table.

    However, at some point in time that table was changed by a user to something that is totally unsourced, while all previous citations were removed. The table now only includes the roster players of the last tournament (EuroBasket 2025), while some of them are put in different positions from what it was referenced, not only via the official page of the Hellenic Basketball Federation, but also via the FIBA EuroBasket webpage. I tried many times to revert the table to a state supported by citations, but that user kept changing it until we were both blocked from further edits and the page remained since then to that state. His argument is that there is no specific reference needed for that table, as those are the only players included in the EuroBasket team roster. You can see more details for that in the talk page of the article and what he wrote to my personal talk page, as well as you can see his aggressive approach and the personal attacks WP:PA towards myself ([18], [19], [20]). Apparently the positions are now assigned according to how those players were used in some EuroBasket games and not how they are referenced in reliable sources based on their natural position.

    Regarding to all this, I would like to point out 2 things:

    1. A national team consists of more than the 12 players used in a roster for a specific tournament each time. A team roster is filled out by a selection from a reserve pool of players according to various factors, such as type of tournament, player availability etc. For each tournament the roster can be different. The depth chart does not aim to show the tournament roster which is presented separately in a different section in the article or in other articles. It aims to show the reserve pool of the team. Otherwise it doesn't add any useful information to the article.

    2. Depending on the game, a coach may use a player differently in various positions, even if those are not the player’s natural position. However, this is not what the team’s depth chart is meant to show. It shows the depth in options and the reserves per natural position. This is a usual misunderstanding for many editors and as a result I often see people changing the table after every game, especially in regards to the starting lineup, based on how the coach used the players in that particular last game. Even if a player is going to be used in a team differently from his/hers natural position for the most part, in any case this has to be referenced by reliable citations, and I do not think there is a more reliable source from the team’s federation.

    Regardless how this table is going to be finally structured, it must be supported by reliable sources. Please take all the required actions for this issue including WP:RV and if needed WP:RFP. Thank you in advance. Clicklander (talk) 08:06, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a content dispute; since you’ve already opened discussion on the talk page, you should consider the options at WP:DR, starting with WP:3O. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 10:26, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No I didn't open a discussion, I commented in the discussion and the dispute is for another reason: Whether or not this table is original research. To me it is not WP:OR, it is information presented in a table, but this is another topic. What I am saying here is that if such a table has place in the article, it should always be supported by reliable references as per WP:REF. Clicklander (talk) 12:17, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well if you're not willing to discuss your content dispute you could voluntarily refrain from editing so we don't have to block you. Nil Einne (talk) 12:29, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think my point is clear. Please remove first unsourced content and then anyone is free to express his/hers opinion how this table should be structured and if it is really needed. Clicklander (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes and our point is clear. If you make demands and edit war and refuse to discuss your content dispute, you are part of the problem and likely to be blocked for it. Your refusal to discuss is fairly ridiculous, verifiability is fundamental here so if the problem is really so simple as you allege, it should not be hard to convince a third party of the problem even if not those you are in dispute with. Nil Einne (talk) 15:27, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether I want or not to discuss my content is not your business. Your responsibility as an administrator is to check if the edits made in Wikipedia articles are according to Wikipedia regulations, and that's what I request here, your attention to those edits. As for if I am willing to discuss that dispute, I think if you look at the talk pages you can very well see who was the one who wrote first there regarding this dispute, who asked the other party to contribute to the talk page with his arguments and who was the one who clearly refused to get into that discussion, made personal attacks from the beginning and wrote by word "This is crystal clear, with no room for dispute...". Clicklander (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Clicklander, re: "Your responsibility as an administrator is to check if the edits made in Wikipedia articles are according to Wikipedia regulations" That isn't the role of administrators on Wikipedia. Please see dispute resolution for further steps to take if discussion on the article talk page fails to resolve the disagreement. Schazjmd (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Clicklander: as Schazjmd points out, content is not our responsibility as administrators. Conduct, however, is; Whether I want or not to discuss my content is absolutely our business, as communication is not optional. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:12, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Possibly undoing or enabling account creation on one of my old blocks

    [edit]
    Block lifted. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:06, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    So in March last year, I blocked 41.75.160.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for three years to deal with disruption in economy articles, but the earliest edit I can find meeting that description is about a month beforehand (therefore, it seems to me now that three years was a very much disproportionate amount of time for which to block this range ). I would therefore ask that the block be lifted ... except this database query shows a very large number of blocks of open proxies by the no-longer-active ST47ProxyBot on this range (see for instance these block log links [21], [22], and [23]), which are common with Carrier-grade NAT systems in Africa like Uganda where this range is from, which give me pause about the idea of unblocking it, even if I could (but perhaps enabling account creation on the range might work out too). Coincidentally (or not), the last IP whose block log I linked added some spam just before their block in March 2024 that I've only just reverted. I can't remember if the open proxy threat factored in to my calculation of the block length in this case. I opened this thread in response to this message on my talk page. I'd be OK with any decision that's made here. Graham87 (talk) 11:51, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I lifted the block. African IPs (among others) tend to almost always show up as proxies. There aren't assigned a whole lot of IP addresses and many IP addresses have many users on them. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:02, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, works for me. No open proxies/Unfair blocking on Meta is worth reading too. I just wasn't sure how the proxies should factor in to figuring out what to do here; it sounds like in this case the answer is "not at all". Graham87 (talk) 12:11, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Misuse of categories

    [edit]

    Could someone please urgently have a look at User contributions for 209.93.85.118. Have reported at WP:AIV but shows no signs of stopping. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:03, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Despite the multiple warnings on the IP's Talk page, WP:AIV has replied that the edits are not vandalism. I'm very surprised to hear that. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:13, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you considered making an attempt to articulate what actually is wrong with the IP edits? It doesn't seem that you've done that either here or at AIV. 128.164.177.55 (talk) 13:59, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I came here to request an independent assessment by an Administrator. I expect you've looked at the examples, given by other editors, in the warning templates they have placed on the IP's Talk page. I would have thought that edits such as this one would be pretty self explanatory. Furthermore, in the meantime, I see that User: Criticize seems to have rolled back the majority of the IP's edits. But if everyone else thinks there is no problem with edits like this, and no further action is required, I don't intend to waste any more of anyone's time on this. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess that's a "no" then. Let me suggest that, in the future, if you want someone to do something about a problem, it is helpful if you explain what the problem is instead of expecting people to agree with your unarticulated views. Lots of people know nothing about Jimmy Saville and whether his sexual abuse scandal would merit categories like Category:Royal scandals in the United Kingdom and Category:Margaret Thatcher; two or three sentences of context and explanation would vastly increase the clarity and potential audience of your message. 128.164.177.55 (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    By all means, you could suggest that. It doesn't diminish my surprise. Perhaps an Admin would now care to close this thread. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I glanced at a few edits — adding Category:Jimmy Savile to articles about shows and events in which he participated — and I'm tempted to agree with the IP's action. The only potential ground for disagreeing with them, in my mind, is whether his involvement were significant enough to warrant the category; it's definitely not a matter of vandalism. Nyttend (talk) 20:12, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for glancing. So you think that adding {{Margaret Thatcher}} to Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal and adding Category:Jeffrey Epstein to Category:Prince Andrew, Duke of York, is wholly appropriate, yes? To me that looks like "misuse of categories". As an interested Admin, you are of course at liberty to go ahead and reverse my reverts in those cases. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't look at those ones; my comment was limited to the ones I glanced at, which were shows and events in which Savile participated. Putting the Thatcher template on the Savile scandal article goes against the idea (sorry, no link; I can't find it) that you shouldn't generally put navboxes on pages that aren't linked by the navbox, but such an edit isn't vandalism if nothing else happens. Nyttend (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It may well be misuse of categories, and a navbox on a page that it does not link to is inappropriate, but neither of these are vandalism, as they are both plausible good-faith contributions. Please see WP:NOTVAND. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:29, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The link I couldn't find earlier is WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. Nyttend (talk) 02:11, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps User:Xexerss, User:SnowyRiver28, User:Izno or User:Criticize, who all also posted warnings on the IP's Talk page, wish to offer their views. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:53, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    On the basis of the Admin advice above, I have now removed the level 4 warning for vandalism that I posted to the IP's Talk page. It seems that all of the warnings have had completely no effect anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The user shows no interest in heeding the warnings given to them, has not responded in any way, nor even left any comments in their edit summaries, and is therefore clearly being disruptive. Xexerss (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitration motion regarding Eastern Europe

    [edit]

    The Arbitration Committee received a report relating to off-wiki coordinated editing in the Eastern European contentious topic area. Following the completion of an investigation into the report and the private evidence provided, the Committee has passed the following motion:

    For long-term off-wiki coordinated editing, Sadko (talk · contribs) and Боки (talk · contribs) are indefinitely banned from participating in the same community discussions as one another, or supporting each other in any sort of dispute. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

    Support: Aoidh, Cabayi, Daniel, Primefac, ScottishFinnishRadish, theleekycauldron, ToBeFree, Worm That Turned

    For the Committee, theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:53, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Killing of Charlie Kirk requested move panel closure request

    [edit]
    Page moved by BD2412. Nyttend (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Killing of Charlie Kirk requested move panel closure request
     – —Locke Cole • t • c 23:11, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]


    Can we get, ideally, a group of willing and experienced uninvolved admins (2-3) to perform the close on this requested move tomorrow (when it's due to hit the end of its seventh day)? —Locke Cole • t • c 22:54, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This belongs at WP:AN, not here. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 23:04, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that WP:AN is a better forum for these kinds of requests and I think WP:ASSASSINATION should be required reading for all admins volunteering for this duty (and participants should read it as well). Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noting for the record that WP:ASSASSINATION is an essay, not a policy or guideline. For what it's worth, I think the guidance there is reasonable. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 04:22, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree, but WP:COMMONNAME is a policy. Therefore, establishing a WP:COMMONNAME is enough to justify a move. guninvalid (talk) 04:58, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The subtle difference in that essays section is "a single commonly recognized common name" vs. policy of "the name that is most commonly used". That section is otherwise just waffle with inaccurate/misleading examples of failed RMs. The rest of the essay is good, but I wouldn't give that part much weight personally. CNC (talk) 09:08, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @CommunityNotesContributor Actually, the definition of the WP:COMMONNAME is single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic, not the name that is most commonly used. Both of these fragments are present in the policy section, but the first, stricter one is the actual standard that is applied, and "prefers the name that is the most commonly used" is the lead-in to the actual standard which sets criteria for "most commonly". —Alalch E. 16:58, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, [...]", as expressed by the additional four words before your quote, is about naming articles when COMMONNAME doesn't exist (per the extended version of the quote). It has nothing to do with defining a common name, it's an example of a topic not having an obvious one. CNC (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, your understanding is just wrong, I'm afraid. The definition of this Wikipedia term of art is precisely "single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by independent, reliable, English-language sources". If it isn't the "single most frequently used" name it isn't the COMMONNAME. "Single" meaning: If there are three options, and option 1 is used 40% of the time (the most common name), option 2 is used 40% of the time (equally the most common name), and option 3 is used 20% of the time, the COMMONNAME does not and can not exist. If if is ostensibly the single most frequently used name, but it is not "obviously" the most frequently used, again, the COMMONAME as defined for our internal purposes does not exist. In the above example, if the distribution had been 42% (the single most common name)—38% (second most common, but the margin is small)—20%, again: option 1 is technically the single most common name, but it is not the single most common name obviously, and it is therefore not the COMMONNAME. —Alalch E. 18:11, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That was my understanding as well, until this RM was closed as successful anyways. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:45, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It was closed correctly, as, a little surprisingly, it appears that the use of "assassination" is so widespread in sources currently, contrarily to previous practice that we're more used to, that "Assassination of" is, in fact (truly suprisingly so), legitimately the real, Wikipedia-grade, COMMONNAME. —Alalch E. 18:50, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, even the most generous values don't hit the threshold you're describing unless I misunderstood your earlier comment. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:55, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw that earlier. They do hit: A COMMONNAME only needs to be the single most frequently used and obviously so, in relative terms, which means that in a 30%, 20%, 15%, 15%, 10% distribution, option 1 is technically is the single most common name and it is so sufficiently obviously, because the margin is pretty big. (It's not like WP:PT1, which has "more likely than all the other topics combined") —Alalch E. 18:58, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aydoh8, @Liz, moved. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:12, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Locke Cole. This is a more appropriate location. Liz Read! Talk! 00:18, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, someone do it. To whatever end, that RFC is becoming a public headache. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 23:41, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I don't know the protocol for this, but given there are already some collapsed sockpuppet !votes, would it be appropriate for a checkuser to do some checks to make sure multiple accounts aren't being abused? I see a lot of accounts with sub-200 edits who just showed up conveniently for this WP:RM... —Locke Cole • t • c 03:15, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would imperative for a variety of admins and CUs to scour that discussion given the optics, but I don't know how it would work or when. Or if. It just seems like a good idea.
    The consensus is more rename every day. If you look at it day over day, it seems to accelerate in normalization of the term in media and in there for support.
    I suggest someone immediately protect the page afterward from moves, indefinitely.
    Good luck. I need a break from that page after this weekend. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 03:28, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Jesus christ. Can one of you please ban from me just that page/assassination naming for a week? Three? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 03:31, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. Details on your talk. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 08:34, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tamzin, pinging you since you're the one who collapsed some of the !votes of sockpuppets in that discussion. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:31, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That was one account that had been reported to SPI as an LTA. I don't think special anti-socking intervention is needed here. Closers on high-profile discussions know to apply NOTAVOTE particularly strongly. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 03:54, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is unusual for sure, but this happens a lot with breaking news events. A lot of fairly new editors come out of the woodwork to post their thoughts. I've done it too. I do think a checkuser could be useful, but only if you have reason to believe any particular editors are socks. Use WP:SPA for that. guninvalid (talk) 03:34, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Scrolling through and skimming, I'm working from the assumption that based on WP:ASSASSINATION and WP:KILLINGOFTITLE (a shortcut I just created), this should be called an assassination if and only if that is the WP:COMMONNAME. Scrolling through and skimming through the sources being brought up, it almost looks like a WP:SNOWBALL argument that "assassination" is the preferred term. So far the only linked articles I've seen that don't use the term is one from The Verge and one from WP:DAILYMAIL. guninvalid (talk) 04:01, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the tricky part is the WP:SUSPECT (BLP) concerns with naming it an assassination without having even secured a conviction. Plus I know some editors consider newspapers and news channels to be primary sources, which makes using them a bit more problematic. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:10, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing is I've clicked through probably 2 or 3 dozen articles, including some that were originally labeled as non-"assassination of", where the wording or other context has been changed to include assassination. Hilariously, this CNN article brought up by MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫 originally called it a shooting, but that's just below a video labeled "Who is the suspect in the Charlie Kirk assassination?" There were also a couple other sources from The Independent, The Guardian, and the BBC that I did not find "assas" using ctrl+f, which tells a pretty clear story that sources outside the USA are somewhat behind on the terminology. USA sources have pretty quickly coagulated on calling it an assassination. guninvalid (talk) 04:17, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting. I didn't realize that wording was changed, although I am not surprised. This was a challenge while looking for sources to begin with, as many were part of "live update" pages with frequent content changes. Regarding WP:ASSASSINATION, just noting again that this is part of an essay, not a policy or guideline. I read it as a fairly strong caution against using "assassination" unless there is a high degree of agreement in sources; I'll let an uninvolved admin evaluate this. The absence of guidance on this in P&G has been raised several times in the thread. Anyway, I agree it would be helpful to have this closed. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 04:34, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Going through all the links I could find while skimming revision 1312003447, out of the 60-70 links given, almost all include "assassination" either in the URL, the title, or somewhere in the article. I did not explicitly look for "shooting" or "killing" since I was mostly trying to rule-out "assassination" as opposed to supporting another title. Of these articles, I was only able to find The Verge, The Guardian, and The Independent not using the term. I also found this this NYT article that I can't currently access and can't confirm its wording, even with ctrl+f. The Guardian calls it a shooting and The Verge calls it a killing, and the Independent has referred to it as an assassination in several other articles. All three of these articles were from September 12. With all this, and the fact that AP News has "CHARLIE KIRK ASSASSINATION" as one broad category along the top of the page, I think it's fair that the WP:COMMONNAME cannot exclude "assassination". The jury is out on whether "assassination" or "shooting" could be "co-COMMONNAME" or something along those lines, but if I were closing this, I would close it in favor of assassination without prejudice for a future "shooting of" RM. guninvalid (talk) 04:53, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, my personal preference would be to keep it as "Killing of". But it seems that WP:COMMONNAME disagrees with me. :( guninvalid (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also FWIW, the close is currently underway by BD2412. Why the summary wasn't applied before closing the discussion, and moving the pages, I will never understand. But I hope the summary will be a good one. CNC (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The move was probably a good one to at least close the discussion ahead of a proper closing, since it's very unlikely anyone could seriously challenge this close this late into the cycle. But I can and will still whinge about the result. Grumble grumble... guninvalid (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll complain if the close doesn't summarise the discussion though. CNC (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be funny if I had just closed as something like "per consensus", then. BD2412 T 16:39, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If the basic idea is that it needs to be moved, can't we just move the damn thing now and have people write the collaborative essay later? jp×g🗯️ 05:26, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We can wait 6 more hours so that it's been a week. O.N.R. (talk) 07:13, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While I agree editors can collaborate and write a postmortem style essay about it later, also agree with O.N.R. to give it a few hours. And to note what guninvalid said, I also see pretty clear consensus and the sourcing to support these policy-driven !votes, as roughly 2:1 3:2 even with some down-weighting (I didn't vote in the RM as am neutral, but am otherwise involved in the topic btw). That's not to say it doesn't need an experienced closer with a decent summary, just not convinced this is panel-worthy as being a tight call. If it were, we wouldn't talking about closing it already, but instead waiting a bit longer for consensus. CNC (talk) 09:31, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on my past experience and my estimate of the current political situation, I would only recommend users deal with the issue if they are perfectly anonymized (one can not guess the connection to their real name, and the connection has never been provided in the past). We know that even this is unfortunately insufficient but at least puts higher barriers for real-life harassment.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:29, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I have closed the discussion as moved. Based on the above, it appears that the consensus in this discussion was that a panel close was not necessary for the RM. BD2412 T 16:37, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Viceskeeni2

    [edit]

    In the brief period of time since Viceskeeni2's topic ban has been revoked, this user has already made some very eyebrow raising edits that I wanted to bring to your attention.


    Baku Victory Parade of 2020 - Viceskeeni2 removed this background information from the lead, which may have had an argument (though one not discussed), but instead of moving it to the body Viceskeeni2 completely erased this information.

    Second Nagorno-Karabakh War - IN addition to adding Wagner Group with dubious sources and no discussion, this violates MOS:IBP because Wagner is not mentioned anywhere in the article outside the infobox.

    Azerbaijanis - Several POV pushing additions, including a massacre linked to the Azerbaijani Wikipedia that was deleted here for having no reliable sources.

    Military Trophy Park (Baku) - removing mannequin photos which most of the article's notability and text is referring to.

    Qarabağ Khankendi - Adds the club being forced to leave during the war without any source.

    First Nagorno-Karabakh War - Another IBP violation, apparently felt Soviet Armenia should be included if Soviet Azerbaijan is, despite the latter being supported by the article while the former is not.

    Sisian - Adding an Azerbaijani name without discussion, something that has been reverted many times since 2007 for lack of notability. And assuming Viceskeeni2 is the same person as Viceskeeni, this would be continued edit warring from a previously reverted edit back in February 2024.

    There are also some incidents of WP:HOUNDING me personally:

    Aşağı Çaylı - Restoring the changes of a non-extended confirmed user that I previously reverted, on a small article that Viceskeeni2 has never edited before.

    Vitaly Balasanyan - Another example of restoring changes of a non-extended confirmed user that I previously reverted. Was Viceskeeni2 planning to revert these changes as soon as getting unbanned? Vanezi (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This looks like it belongs at WP:AE per WP:ARBAA. guninvalid (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m on mobile right now because of travels and it was inconvenient to post in AE. Is it really necessary? I can ping all the admins who commented in the recent AE appeal of the user, if this works. Vanezi (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rosguill @Voorts @Firefangledfeathers @Johnuniq @Guerillero. Vanezi (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am preparing my defense to these allegations. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you would both do well to discuss things on talk pages rather than edit articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read the AE appeal [24]. This user was given another chance at editing a contentious topic area with the condition that disruptive editing will likely reinstate the topic ban, per admin discussion. And some obvious bad faith editing like just plain and simple hounding of months old edits the same day one was unbanned isn’t supposed to be reasoned with on talk, even if we ignore the context of their appeal. Vanezi (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said, I am preparing my response right now. I have already respinded to one of the 2 allegations, now I'm working on responding to you so I'm asking you to please not take things out of context and try to convince admins to swiftly ban me again. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have my defense ready against these allegations, however it is almost 8,000 characters long and I do not really have any way to shorten the text due to the vast amount of information it contains, that I have prepared to really defend myself from this, so I don't know whether to send it in or wait, especially because this is the Adminstrators board. I'll wait for the adminstrators response first. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 20:30, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No valid defence takes anything like 8,000 characters. Several hundred, maybe 1,000 at the most. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:06, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I referenced every single thing Vanezi has noted and gave extra examples, which is why it's so long. If you want to, I can send it here or somewhere else where you or someone else can review it and please correct my mistakes. Thank you for your feedback. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'm certainly not going to review it if it's almost 8,000 characters long. Maybe you'll find some mug volunteer who will. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:29, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Right now, Vanezi's analysis is sitting on this page uncontested. Your overlong response at your own talk page is probably not going to be reviewed. Please respond with brevity here, Viceskeeni2. There's no word limit here (hence our preference for AE), but hiding your points in impenetrably long text is unwise. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:59, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm right now trying to shorten my text. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • The parade: Vanezi said it, I did: Removing the references had an argument. I clearly stated that Statements that have almost nothing to do with the parade & don't belong in the introduction, especially when one of them was recorded almost one year later. The statements in the parade that led Pashinyan to criticize it are enough. What I removed followed Aliyev saying something controversial about Armenia, with Pashinyan criticizing it. That part is fine & absolutely fits in there because it is part of the military parade proper. But what followed that belongs in e.g. Azerbaijani irredentism, but NOT the INTRODUCTION of a parade, where the part about the statements was longer than about the parade itself. Ironically, one reference by Aliyev is from August 2021, 9 months after the parade. These would fit into a part that focuses on the controversy, but not the introduction as they have minimally something to do with the parade.
    • Second war: I think I might've mixed 2 pages up or similar, as I don't recall the page not referencing Wagner. My edit was of WP:GOODFAITH, as I added further info to the page, but when I noticed now that it doesn't reference Wagner, I thank Vanezi for the feedback & immediately removed Wagner from the infobox. [25]
    • Template:Azerbaijanis: I didn't POV-push here as I only added info to the page e.g. diaspora/lamguage, but also to persecution. The added articles, besides Bashlibel which I removed now as I didn't know it'd been deleted before, are all sourced English pages & I seriously do not know what Vanezi means by saying I apparently POV-pushed, as I only expanded the category (not in any way at all forbidden, besides ofc Bashlibel). They also conveniently left out me editing Template:Armenians, adding info & events of persecution, showing I only expanded pages but didn't POV-push.
    • Military Trophy Park: Vanezi again conveniently left out my reasoning for the pics to be removed with Removed 2 of 3 pictures of wax mannequins that were very obviously the focus here instead of the park itself. I removed 2 of 3 pics, letting one there & respectfully explaining that I believe it should absolutely be there with but left one because it is important to keep it there. I also replaced a pic of trenches in the part focusing on mannequins with a pic of the mannequins [26]. If anyone doesn't get it: I ABSOLUTELY CONDEMN Azerbaijan showcasing the figures, that were later removed when it realized it's dumb. Besides, I did good contribs. to the page, adding 8 pics, with an image collage about a seize vehicle.
    • Khankendi FK: It's common sense that the club was expelled from the town they founded their club in, as they play in another city right now, due to a war where people of that country were expelled from that region. If the edit's original research, which I don't get how, I'll immediately remove it.
    • First war: That edit was later reverted with a proper explanation, unlike what AntonSamuel did. I double-checked the page & realized that ArmSSR was already referenced, which's why I didn't resist the revert but accepted doing a mistake.
    • Sisian: The old edit Vanezi referenced was removed due to there not being a SINGLE SOURCE for the edit, understandably. But here, I took 3 sources referencing the name & change in 1935/40, with one even being Armenian. I also didn't randomly add it at the top, but properly added it in Etymology, where it belongs as Garakilsa is the Azerbaijani name for Sisian & was the official name until 1940 (sourced btw). Had I done POV-pushing/disruptive editing, I would've e.g. not added fbaf fhe city was renamed to Sisian, recognizing that the original name's Sisian + on AzWiki, I removed the name Garakilsa, portrayed there as the official name, & fixed the mistake [27].
    • "Hounding": I didn't harass Vanezi or explicitly edited pages they edited. The 2 articles came in my way, like Aşağı Çaylı, I noticed it had info missing/wrong info & added new/removed old info. Had I harassed them I would've done more than this, looking at their contribs having removed a lot of sourced info due to GS/AA, understandably, & instead reverted their edits, which I didn't. The fact that him & me have edited the same page or that it's a small page I have "never edited" doesn't make sense, as we have edited a lot of same pages + there are tons of small pages I'll be editing in the future, so I don't get how this makes sense + Aşağı Çaylı is a small page too.
    • WP:HOUNDING against me: Vanezi & AntonSamuel randomly immediately reporting me at the same time, with the same expectation & reasoning + both being interested in Armenia/Artsakh + that Vanezi tried multiple reports to get me blocked [28] + when they hadn't edited in one month, then randomly appeared for their 3rd edit to be complaining about me, to prevent my unblocking, then disappearing & now AGAIN appearing only to complain & try to get me blocked (literally: isn’t supposed to be reasoned with on talk, saying that there is no need for any talk) after failed attempts, adds to the suspicion that they're trying to get me blocked again as they immediately complain when I edit. Thank you for reading this, name me my mistakes pls so I fix them. My edits were WP:GOODFAITH. I tried to shorten the response as much as I could. @Rosguill @Voorts @Firefangledfeathers @Johnuniq @Guerillero
    Viceskeeni2 (talk) 22:09, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Firefangledfeathers will you or any other admin be reviewing this comment? May I respond if so? Vanezi (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I do plan on reviewing soon. There are no special rules about participation here, so respond as you like. Briefer is better. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:57, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Vanezi: Before taking the time to assess whether certain edits are overdone or hounding and so on, could we please first focus on any edits which are wrong in some sense. For example, are any edits adding verifiably incorrect information, or adding clear WP:NPOV or WP:RS violations? If any wrong edits have occurred since 18:07, 17 September 2025 when the "TBAN revoked" message was delivered, please select the most egregious and briefly explain that. That would be more digestible. Johnuniq (talk) 10:02, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Massive RFPP backlog

    [edit]

    There's 146 requests at WP:RFPP right now so that could probably benefit from greater admin attention. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:25, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    110 of those are requests by a single user regarding WP:ECRCASTE. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:38, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    EarthDude (et al.), it is easier for everyone involved if you just make a list in a user subpage instead of individual nominations for such a high volume. Curbon7 (talk) 04:29, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also add that WP:CT/SA stipulates that pre-emptive protection of caste articles may be implemented when there is a reasonable belief that they will be the target of disruption. So major political parties? Sure, reasonable belief exists. Minor defunct parties which receive no edits like Sarb Hind Shiromani Akali Dal? Not so much. Curbon7 (talk) 04:53, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Curbon7 The 3rd point simply states "WP:GSCASTE[a] is placed under the extended-confirmed restriction." It is a separate 5th point which states "Administrators are permitted to preemptively protect articles covered by WP:GSCASTE[a] when there is a reasonable belief that they will be the target of disruption." From the way I see it, and the way it is framed, all GSCASTE articles have to be indef extended confirmed protected, and in addition to that, if admins feel so, they can temporarily full protect an article as a pre-emptive measure against disruption. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 13:11, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    GSCASTE articles don't have to be protected EC, but the 'can be if there is a reasonable belief that they will be the target of disruption. Currently ARBPIA articles are protected by default, but once my current motion wraps up unifying the language to the ARBIPA language is on my docket. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This reminds me of right after WP:ARBPIA5 closed near the end of January, there were some admins doing mass protections in that topic area as illustrated in the January and February AE logs. Is there some tool or trick that allows these types of actions to happen easily? Left guide (talk) 06:33, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Left guide Maybe we could make lists or categories of articles that fall under this arbitration protection, so that RFPP doesn't get so cluttered? EarthDude (wanna talk?) 13:14, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Twinkle for protection, and we're working on making the logging less shitty. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:54, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    IP's block evasion

    [edit]

    Hello, @Johannnes89 recently blocked IP 187.36.171.230 on 16 Aug 2025, however IP evading this block with same pattern of behavior using open proxy. These are latest block evasions by:

    following are from last couple of hours (also note how they use edit-summary with "Rv vandalism" explanation):

    On editing article Gospel of St. Nicholas of Rošci they used both IP addresses: 1 and 2

    On Hval's Codex they edited from 191.57.19.112, 2804:388:80A2:A4FE:1866:4B9B:2D5C:E95, 179.241.241.72, and 187.36.171.230

    They used different IP in recent weeks to make same or related reverts and unrefed contributions, which were at times undone by others but reverted by IP again, etc. If necessary, I will produce additional links with different earlier IP edits. Thanks. ౪ Santa ౪99° 04:16, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Political smearing

    [edit]

    Hello, I would like to report a WIKE article that contains a lot of deliberate smearing of communist countries and China, deliberately belittling China, insulting China's intelligence, and revealing a strong political consciousness that the United States is above all countries. This article with a strong smearing of communist countries is uncomfortable and I hope it can be taken down https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism 151.243.22.36 (talk) 07:03, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:AIV isn't even an article... 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:2034:5A78:91C5:608A (talk) 07:31, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Accusation of Conflict of Interest

    [edit]

    I was accused by Onel5969 of having a Conflict of Interest regarding an article I wrote entitled Drex Lee. I photographed the subject Drex Lee with his permission at the 2025 Bild Expo Presented by B&H Photo after his talk along with 177 other photos I contributed to wikimedia. I noticed that there was no article regarding the subject Drex Lee. I wrote the article using sources from the internet and following the style of other notable influencer wikipedia pages. I do not personally know Drex Lee nor do I understand the Accusation of Conflict of Interest with the subject. Please Advise? Tzim78 (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1312239265"