Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Wikipedia:Administrative action review.
If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

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

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

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

Open tasks

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
355	356	357	358	359	360	361	362	363	364
365	366	367	368	369	370	371	372	373	374
Incidents (archives, search)
1182	1183	1184	1185	1186	1187	1188	1189	1190	1191
1192	1193	1194	1195	1196	1197	1198	1199	1200	1201
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
480	481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489
490	491	492	493	494	495	496	497	498	499
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
340	341	342	343	344	345	346	347	348	349
350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357	358	359
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

XFD backlog
v
t
e
V	Aug	Sep	Total
CfD	5	37	42
TfD	3	3	6
MfD	0	0	0
FfD	2	13	15
RfD	0	28	28
AfD	0	14	14

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

TLDR: Overturn, the outcome of the 2023 RFC is restored - postnominals are not allowed in the lead sentence. A future RFC may of course change this if consensus is demonstrated.

Summary and rationale:

The main argument in favor of overturning was that a "no consensus" outcome should result in the immediate status quo, not some previous status quo, being restored. This plausible argument was supported 2:1 by uninvolved parties, who I weight more heavily than involved, and this ratio determined the outcome. RFC closures can be reviewed, but some participants objected that the normal procedure for reviewing the previous RFC closure (contacting the original closer) was not followed. (This was not widely discussed.)

The main argument in favor of endorsing is that the outcome here was really "consensus to change but not yet agreed on what to" a.k.a. "bartender's close". Among the participants who considered the merits of a bartender close explicitly, some supported it and some opposed it, but there was a lot of hemming and hawing so it seems it was a difficult decision. Most participants did not mention the bartender argument explicitly, and I'm not sure if that's because they thought it didn't make sense, or they were distracted by the status quo weirdness. (But it's not my place to second-guess their judgment, so I didn't.)

A minor argument for sustaining was that "no consensus" for a policy or guideline should imply its removal, in order to reflect that it is no longer being followed in practice (and this is different than the "no consensus" for articles which means the status quo is kept). This was disputed. Another minor argument for sustaining was that the phrasing of the RFC means that it was a do-over of the previous RFC, not a modification of it.

To answer question 2 from S Marshall, there appears to be a lot of objection to and little if any support for the idea that this RFC close should have been based on the premise that a previous RFC was incorrectly closed. I would not read that as a general prohibition against going back and reading previous discussions, but taking into account much beyond policy and the contents of an RFC can be risky. The community acceptance of that may depend on how much they agree with that conclusion or with the consequences of doing so in a specific case.

To answer question 1 from S Marshall, hardly any participants engaged with the general question of whether a slight majority counts as consensus or if a large margin is needed (if I'm understanding your question correctly).

Personal opinions of the closer:

On question 1...you probably know better than I that different closers have different ideas about the threshold for consensus, absent a clear policy directive. I tend to grant narrow majorities a win if it seems making a decision is more important than which option is chosen, so editors aren't stuck flailing and unproductive. Other closers have a higher bar, and that can be a better approach in situations where there's a longstanding rule at stake, a major risk is being taken, the status quo seems safe, or it would be useful to workshop a complicated proposal and try again. Acceptance depends on how agreeable the participants are and how they consider these factors in a given circumstance. The answer is probably more complicated for bartender outcomes. In this case reasonable people came down on both sides of the question, so it's hard to say either answer is wrong.

Having done a few controversial closes recently, I do agree that participants on the losing side will often make spurious complaints about bias, supervoting, and tallying, or just try to re-litigate the RFC. While I support the right to petition for redress of grievances (and sometimes errors happen), maybe it would help raise the quality of appeals if there was a mandatory 24-hour cooling off period before pestering the closer or demanding a review? Some good advice I got from an elected city official is that often people who disagree with a decision just need to feel heard, and listening to their complaints like a therapist rather than as the decision-maker and acknowledging their disappointment can be satisfying enough for people to quietly tolerate an outcome they disagree with. I can't say I have the emotional bandwidth to do that every day, but fortunately no one can hear me swearing at my computer.

Thank you to S Marshall and everyone who closes discussions; you are performing a vital Wikipedia ecosystem function that vastly improves the quality of our content and makes working together possible. I hope you don't have to put up with too much drama and I impatiently await your declarations. Also thank you to everyone who wrote thoughtful comments for this review. -- Beland (talk) 08:38, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)

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.

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?
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)

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. TarnishedPath^talk 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. House Blaster (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. House Blaster (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). House Blaster (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)

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, House Blaster (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)

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.

SMcCandlish: The exclusion was basically well-meaning but very poorly thought-out and has led to problems and strife...
MWFwiki: Total expungement from the lead [sentence] is not appropriate and is overreach...
Nford24: The previous RFC was a massive over reach...'
Peacemaker67: The existing MOS on this is a significant overreach.
Schwede66: I had missed the previous RfC and was quite aghast when I saw what had been decided...
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]

Comment to stop this from automatically archiving TarnishedPath^talk 10:18, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Another comment to stop this from being archived. It's already listed at WP:Closure requests. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 13:41, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Additional comment for same reason
  — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 22:38, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @TarnishedPath, The ed17, and Ixtal: Off-topic question: Why are we bumping the thread instead of using {{Do not archive until}}? Is there some restriction on its use at AN? --Super Goku V (talk) 08:07, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Super Goku V, I just followed what the others were doing, forgot about that template due to my semi-retirement. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 14:57, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Same, minus the semi-retirement part. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 15:59, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Ah. I was considering adding the template, but got concerned before I did so that I might not have been properly thinking of a possible reason not to use it. (Also, it seems bump might be better for this, which I hadn't considered.) --Super Goku V (talk) 10:57, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I like {{bump}} for this purpose. It leaves visible evidence of the delay. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 07:49, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Gotcha. Given the circumstances: Bumping thread for 14 days. Until closed. -- Super Goku V (talk) 11:08, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

ENDORSED

There is no consensus to overturn the closure of the RfC. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:24, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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: [3]

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)

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)

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]
- On that last sentence, you might want to see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive_202#RfC: Exclusion of a person's name following consensus. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:25, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I wasn't even aware of that RfC. Simonm223 (talk) 22:23, 13 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]
Endorse. It was an accurate reading of the consensus in the discussion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The question for a close challenge is not "Is this exactly what I would have done?" (though in this case, at least for me, I would have closed it pretty much the same way), but "Is the close unreasonable or an abuse of discretion?". The answer here is clearly "no"; the close is a reasonable interpretation of the discussion. It's clear to me that many who argued in the RfC to include did seriously consider not including the name, but given that it is already widely publicized and readily available, they decided that including it in the article would do nothing that hasn't already been done. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:27, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (I didn't participate in this discussion, but I did participate in a previous one). The close is an accurate summation of the discussion, and the consensus found is entirely compatible with policy: No aspect of BLP prohibits inclusion, BLPCRIME requires editors to "seriously consider not including" and there was serious consideration given by almost all of those advocating for inclusion and many of those advocating for exclusion. However more than one editor argued for exclusion on the basis of something the BLP policy does not say, and I cannot in good faith say that, based on their contributions to the RFC, all of those editors did give serious consideration to the matter. Thryduulf (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Participants (Killing of Austin Metcalf)

As an arbitration enforcement action within the American politics contentious topic area, editors in this section are limited to a total of 500 words (excluding quotes, citations, and signatures), or 100 plus their wordcount as of this timestamp, whichever is higher. An exception is made for the closer if asked a direct question. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:20, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. TarnishedPath^talk 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. TarnishedPath^talk 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. TarnishedPath^talk 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. TarnishedPath^talk 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)

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]

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

A request for participation

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]

Comment - I have been participating in AfD in recent weeks, I'm not hugely experienced. But I do see there is a problem here. There are just too many deletes and not enough regular participants. What I'm seeing is one or two deletionist editors getting into a somewhat one-sided debate with a new editor, and the cards get stacked in favour of delete. The danger here is that this process is supposed to give due diligence, and yet that isn't happening, almost the opposite. My vote of sympathy to those who do Closing, it must be dispiriting to see the same nomination on a revolving door. I certainly agree with the point that if you start with an ATD mindset then it can be pretty soul destroying, as Liz has said, and indeed you think "why waste my time on this?" Yes we need more participants, but in the absence of that there is a logical necessity: reduce the number of delete nominations to ensure due diligence actually happens.
Incidentally there is a critical difference between BLP and historical articles. If a BLP gets scrubbed there is a very good chance it will be (correctly) reinstated if GNG eventually comes in place. TOOSOON duly sorts itself out. But deletions on historic items are much. uuch more troubling in my view. The chances are the material will be permanently lost, off the back of changing emphasis on sourcing. ChrysGalley (talk) 09:49, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of categories

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]

And now a slew of Category:Ghislaine Maxwell additions. But not vandalism, of course. So who cares. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

247K edits, how many of them are whining like a baby on AN instead of making one grown-up report? 173.79.19.248 (talk) 23:33, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Viceskeeni2

AA TOPIC BANNED INDEF, BLOCKED ONE MONTH

Recidivism within days of AA topic ban lifted. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:52, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 [4]. 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. [5]
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 [6]. 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 [7].
"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 [8] + 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]

Also I wanted to add to the POV-pushing accusations that I just checked the Azerbaijani page for Sisian again and removed another false information about an alleged "Albanian church" there.[9] Viceskeeni2 (talk) 17:24, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Focus on the matter at hand. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:27, 19 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]

I wanted to go point by point because there is rebuttal to the claims the user made, but it’ll just encourage the long wall of texts. I’ll keep it very brief: the most objectively wrong edits are adding the Wagner Group as a belligerent on Second Nagorno-Karabakh War (which has been thoroughly debunked and was never supported by reliable sources) and linking to the "Bashlibel massacre" on the Azeri Wiki (half the sources are YouTube videos) after the English article was deleted for being a hoax. Granted the user has self reverted these, I don’t think self-reverting is some get out of jail free card especially considering that they were given a short WP:ROPE at AE.

Their blatant denial of obvious things here such as the hounding is another issue that raises eyebrows. I can elaborate if asked, but I’ll keep it brief now as requested. Vanezi (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Viceskeeni2, I'm interested in particular in your response about the Wagner issue. Your explanation above, "I think I might've mixed 2 pages up or similar, as I don't recall the page not referencing Wagner", does not make sense to me. What circumstances led you to add Wagner and the associated sources? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:06, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that I have either mixed up a page, where Wagner was referenced, with this page, which is why I inserted them in the infobox, OR that the page used to reference the Wagner Group, but that it was removed at some time, which is why I now also removed Wagner from the infobox after being informed that the page doesn't even reference them at all. What led me to adding them is that when I went through translations of the page, some had Wagner in the infobox, which is why I wondered "why doesn't English?" and, after looking further into sources referencing Wagner, added them with good faith that I was adding information about Wagner, not knowing that it wasn't even in the article. I apologize for making the mistake of adding Wagner and promsie to look further and double check sources and/or the page I'm editing in the future, so that I don't repeat this kind of mistake. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is from yesterday, so it's odd to me that you aren't able to recall. Can you use your browser history? Which other language version did you take from? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:17, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I remember that before either this page or a page related to the second war referenced the Wagner Group, including the Wagner Group article itself where it mentioned Nagorno-Karabakh in their infobox, but I'm not exactly sure which one it was. The translations I had looked at was specifically the German one, where it referenced Wagner in an infobox, which is why I afterwards looked deeper into the material, especially from this page. Looking at my browser history on my phone (which is where I made the edits) the pages I took informations from was the page with the allegations (referenced before), Battle of Shusha, Wagner Group itself, some Russians translations and the specific German translation. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to add that at the start I mean with page or page related to the war were German articles mostly, not English, which is probably where the confusion comes from. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When we unbanned Viceskeeni2 just two days ago, we said "conduct that would otherwise raise an eyebrow will probably cause the topic ban to return". My eyebrow is raised. I'm not buying the explanation about the hounding edits. I really don't like that Viceskeeni2 took sources from an "Allegations" page and—without independently verifying what is in the sources—used them for a wikivoice statement in the main war article. The other diffs show a pattern of unsourced edits and changes that are either POV-pushing or careless. Either way, we were expecting Viceskeeni2's best behavior, and this isn't good enough. I've indefinitely topic banned Viceskeeni2 from Armenia/Azerbaijan topics and site-blocked them for a month, both as arbitration enforcement actions. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:46, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Massive RFPP backlog

This has been dealt with and the page is readable now. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:59, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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]

@ScottishFinnishRadish Hmm, I guess I had misinterpreted the arbitration. I will remove the RFPP entries that I had added which have not been disrupted in the past. Thanks for clarifying it for me. But I do personally think that CT/SA arbitration should be expanded so that all articles that fall under GSCASTE have to be, by default, indef EC. There's just way too much disruptive editing, ideological canvassed editing, vandalism, sock puppetry, etc., over there. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 14:17, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very limited amount of admin labor available and using it to protect articles that haven't been disrupted and will likely never be disrupted isn't a good use of it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so as I said, I will be removing entries that have not been disrupted in the past. I don't think it will make that big a difference though considering that the majority of the requests I had filed were of CT/SA GSCASTE articles that have been disrupted in the past. I just personally believe that the restrictions set in place for Indian military history related topics, broadly construed, wherein all articles have to be, by default indef EC. Ideally such restrictions should also be put in place for GSCASTE. The issue of protecting articles that will never be disrupted is far less so than the current issue of hundreds of articles that are indeed regularly disrupted but where no protection or mitigation takes place. For instance, what prompted me to file all these requests was the realization that the article on the Aam Aadmi Party, one of India's biggest political parties, was vandalized with severe POV and UNDUE additions. The vandalized version stayed in place for several days. When I looked into it further, the absolute vast majority of Indian political party articles had been regularly disrupted but had no protection or action. I simply don't think preemptive protection is enough for this topic. Anyhow, I will be staying within the bounds of the current arbitration. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 14:36, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EarthDude, the idea isn't just "has been disrupted in the past". That's true of a great many articles. Is there reason to believe an article will be disrupted imminently? That is, an upcoming election, an ongoing slow-motion edit war, a recent visit from a vandal who will probably return, etc. Then, by all means, report. But if there isn't actually anything currently going wrong, admin time is better spent doing something else that's actually on fire. -- asilvering (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: So, was the intent of PIA5 not to preemptively protect all those pages by default? Because I thought that was the intent of the measure. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was, I believe. IPA and PIA have different wordings, and I think that using admin time to protect hundreds of articles that don't need it isn't a wise use of the effort. I think allowing for preemptive protection is sufficient. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:26, 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]

There is not. Which is why it's so annoying when someone clogs up RFPP with dozens or hundreds at a time. -- asilvering (talk) 14:41, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RFPP needs a single click responder, rather than the response tool that requires opening the editing window and selecting from a huge dropdown, a-la User:Terasail/Edit Request Tool. That, combined with not having to log AE protections, should cut a lot of the needless work out of that process. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish I misread that as "RFPP has a single click responder", and the thousand-yard stare I just stared...

Hey @Daniel Quinlan I hear you're bored after optimizing the shit out of wikiblame - time to write a script for yourself for once? -- asilvering (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleared the requests (except the declined ones) from RFPPI. We're discussing at User talk:EarthDude#Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase and any AE protection actions will be logged. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:29, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

A related question

Related to the above (thus a subsection) - when ECPing a page that is within a CT that is under mandatory, ARBCOM-imposed ECR, is it still a requirement (right now, at least) to note the protection in the log, given it is (functionally) a pro forma action? Because a number of Indian military history related pages have been ECP'd (I've done a few) and it just occured to me that I don't think they were logged. Should I go back and note them there? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:23, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ping ScottishFinnishRadish because they're much more likely to know how to answer this than I am. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:49, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have to log. Yes, this is very annoying. Hence the current motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. -- asilvering (talk) 02:28, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta log, dawg. Embrace the slog. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:32, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Amusingly, looking back, it turns out I hadn't ECP'd any articles - just created editnotices mentioning the CT ECR. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:30, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unban request from Aleyamma38

REQUEST DECLINED

While respondents were fully supportive of Aleyamma's recovery and future as an editor, discovery of recent socking made subsequent !voters decline the request. Aleyamma is reminded of the standard offer and is encouraged to avoid socking and reapply after an appropriate period (at least six months of no violations). — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:47, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Posting request carried over from user talk:

It's been almost five years and at that time I was facing mental health issues (I am a schizophrenia patient and lot of the WP:BATTLE happened because of my tendency to doubt on people) which is why I caused all the nuisance. Please unblock me now because now I have been cured thanks to medications. I admit I had evaded block twice but that was because I thought this account will not be unblocked and I will not be able to edit wikipedia but recently one of my friends in wikipedia said that this account can be unblocked and I can start using Wikipedia once again. So can you please unblock me, if you check my edit history other than WP:BATTLE/WP:IDHT, I have mostly done constructive edits.carred over by --  Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:47, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support giving them another chance, as they're taken steps that should mitigate the behavior they were CBANned for. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a health issue @SarekOfVulcan, it seem a bit callous to call it a behaviour, to me. Nfitz (talk) 01:28, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Irrespective of the cause, it was behavior that led to the initial ban. The editor is promising better behavior now to get unbanned. It isn't callous, it is factual. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:25, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Dennis. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:32, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Sarek of Vulcan. Time has passed to allow personal growth and recovery.---- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2025 (UTC) saddened. post close. meh---- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:53, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm glad that you are doing well. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:17, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support You have taken steps to prevent that happening again and enough time has passed. Glad to hear you are doing better. GothicGolem29 (talk) 01:23, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Wikipedia needs to improve the way it deals with health issues. Nfitz (talk) 01:28, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support The incident they were banned for was five years ago, and the circumstances that led to the ban are unlikely to recur, so let's give them a second chance. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:46, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm disappointed about the socking. Aleyamma, please come back in six months to a year without doing any more socking, and I'll be happy to support unbanning. Until then, I must give a reluctant oppose. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. We need to give a second chance. Hope they come out from difficult health issues. Fade258 (talk) 02:34, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now as per CU concerns below. Wait at least six months without sockpuppetry or block evasion. Fade258 (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, it was a long time ago and evidently much has changed since, for the better. On a personal note, I empathise hugely, and wish them well now and in the future. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:40, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, given the user's response to my question on their talk page. They note they aren't actually cured, but their mental health crisis is under long-term control. --Yamla (talk) 10:47, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Switch to Oppose, given the CU concerns below. --Yamla (talk) 10:58, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a CheckUser block. Has any CheckUser actually done the honors? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:57, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Yamla's comment at UTRS appeal #106359 Perhaps now would be a good time for a recheck. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:07, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
{{checkuser needed}} I'm unsure here. I cannot immediately clear this from a CU perspective and have some concerns. I'd like another CU to take a look. I'll also note Aleyamma38 has not yet answered the question, "Please list your other accounts and when you must recently evaded your block." --Yamla (talk) 16:36, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A general note that socking in Asian television is unfortunately normal.

My specific notes regarding the user's IP:
I can see why Yamla is being cautious.

At the same time in late July as there were multiple attempts to login to Aleyamma38's account, there was also an attempt to login to Commonedits (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). The controller of one is possibly-tending-likely to be the controller of the other. The reason for blocking Commonedits tracks with this user, and so does the topic area. The relevant SPI is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Creativitylove, where there has been activity since/including 2024.

There is a UA match to the user from late June in the topic area that I can't discuss further.

Here are additional blocked names on that IP that have been editing in the topic area that Aleyamma38 is associated with:
Uylhm (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Flurysteabags (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Split banana sundae (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Flury and Split are confirmed to each other. Flurys' denial of being Jha could make that editor this one instead, and it would be consistent with this story from Aleyamma38.

There are two unrelated accounts and two unlikely accounts associated with this IP. The rest are noted above.

All in all, I tend toward the belief that the Aleyamma38 has been socking at least these past 3 months. I'd put it at Likely personally. My general note above still stands as a point of caution.

I've deactivated the request for CU. @Yamla: please feel free to reactivate if something in what I've said doesn't jive to you and you can get a 3O on it. Izno (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've also pulled some of this data onto CU wiki. Izno (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, Izno. You are definitely seeing what I'm seeing. Frankly, for those without CU glasses, Izno is being somewhat kind in his write-up above. Given the likelihood of recent block evasion and given Aleyamma38's refusal to answer my question about their list of accounts, I have sadly changed my vote, above, to oppose unblocking. I do not believe their answer that they last evaded in July, 2024, is accurate. --Yamla (talk) 10:58, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disappointing. I guess that blows this request out of the water, then? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:52, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And with a tiny bit more research, the relation between Creativitylove and Aleyammarockz was established in February and nobody retagged the relevant accounts. Izno (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Having read their unblock requests and their responses, I see no reason not to give another chance. Lynch 44 23:49, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Oppose. Lynch 44 16:28, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support giving one more chance. Lorstaking (talk) 04:53, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. My initial instinct was to support per all the above supports. I have first-hand experience of what it is like editing with a mental illness, but believe that everyone should be held to the same behavioral standards. CU evidence strongly suggests recent block evasion and failure to be open with us, so I have to oppose. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:23, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose apparent ongoing socking. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 14:45, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose concur with other CU findings. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:05, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I concur with the CU findings above. I have no doubt that the same person who eventually logged into the Aleyamma38 account was the same person who attempted to log into the Commonedits account. That means that either (a) they are that same person, and have not disclosed as much, or (b) they have attempted to hack someone else's account. I find the former much more likely (why would a third party attempt to hack a blocked account?), but either way, I can't support an unblock in these circumstances. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:51, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, sympathetic to mental health and glad they've found relief. However socking and lying about it is disruptive and grounds for not lifting the block. Star Mississippi 16:01, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request deletion of multiple empty redirect talk pages

Consensus is that neither deletion nor admin action is needed Star Mississippi 16:05, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per Wikipedia:Help desk/Archive 72#How to request deletion of multiple empty redirect talk pages? I am taking this to WP:AN.

IP 88.251.82.151 (Special:Contributions/88.251.82.151) created 19 blank talk pages of redirects, stopping when told that this was pointless. They no doubt thought that they were being helpful and should not be sanctioned. I would like to request deletion of these pages.

Please let me know if there was a way I could have requested a speedy deletion using the normal procedure. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:47, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In CSD circles, we regularly delete orphaned talk pages as CSD G8. Frequently editors who are not autoconfirmed or who are IP accounts create new articles on orphaned Talk pages since they are not able to create pages in main space. If they are an actual draft article, they are moved to Draft space, but if it's gibberish, which is much of the time, they are just deleted. If these are talk pages for existing redirect pages, no, they are not needed but I don't see any reason to delete them either. I mean, we have tens of thousands of unused Category talk pages that will never be used for any discussions but we just let them be. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mass delete? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:56, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My best guess is that deleting them is worse than keeping them. We still have to have the histories, etc, even if deleted, so it seems just as pointless to delete them as to create them. They aren't likely to get used, and creating redirects out of them seems pointless as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:34, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Dennis Brown. No benefit was achieved by creating them, but no benefit would be achieved by deleting them either. On balance it's marginally better to just leave them, to avoid unnecessarily complicating the editing history. JBW (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Potential WP:OWN / WP:SOAP issues on articles related to Mikron

IP RANGE BLOCKED 3 YEARS

Long-term spam/SEO manipulation. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:50, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mikron Group appears to be a russian semiconductor manufacturer. Various IP editors were making large to very large (1000 - 5000 Bytes) changes to its page and related pages (Semiconductor device fabrication~~, and somehow Avionics~~)

IPs:

2001:318:E011:C3:70AD:BE80:E388:B9A ⋅ 2001:318:e011:c3:5196:c895:9efc:616 ⋅ 2001:318:e011:c3:d80b:98c6:80ff:10ee ⋅ 2001:318:E011:C3:DC51:A909:D20:47D8 ⋅ ~~2601:58c:4303:16e0:75b8:82cc:dddd:12a0~~

Diffs: (Partial)

1 2 3 4 5 6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Extra note: from some of these IPs' edit warring summary is "please contact us at zeroseo@gmail.com", seemed like some sort of SEO service providers. Might be worth an IP range block.

Edit 13:09: Strike through Avionics; not related to the subject (Mikron).

Edit 13:19: Added 5th IP

Edit 15:22: I did a global contribution search for this IP range and the pattern goes back to December 2024. All their contributions to English- and Simple-WP uses the same style of edit summary, (by starting with "※",) and most of them are external link / see-also spams, links are often a video on rutube. Diffs were merged into the main thread and labelled 7-13.

Their edits to SimpleWiki in December 2024 also got reverted immediately - A B

We might want to IP block the 2001:318:E011:C3/64 range.

海盐沙冰 _{/ irisChronomia / Talk} 15:40, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't post this to AN/I because it seemed quite under control and so far almost all added pufferies were reverted quite swiftly. This is more of just a nuisance than an incident. 海盐沙冰 _{/ irisChronomia / Talk} 12:49, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I reverted all of the aforementioned edits (if they haven't been reverted yet). 海盐沙冰 _{/ irisChronomia / Talk} 15:45, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually a much bigger problem than the account above suggests. I've blocked 2001:318:e011:c3::/64, but looking further into the history I found that this is a long-term spammer, who has been active since at least as far back as 2017, when they were using the range 2001:318:E011:F:0:0:0:0/64, which has been blocked 5 times. Over the years they have spammed on numerous subjects, of which Mikron Group just happens to be the latest. This will need a good deal more checking, to see whether larger range blocks would be appropriate. It may also be worth looking for further spam to revert, but my guess is that there will be a huge amount of it, much of it buried in editing history over many years and many articles, so it may be impracticable to remove most of it.
The spammer's focus is heavily on Russian topics, but the IP addresses are from a Japanese company, so I don't know what that's about. I see they have also edited Japanese, Russian, and Simple Wikipedias. JBW (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have now blocked 2001:318:E011:0:0:0:0:0/56, which covers both of the ranges I mentioned. I haven't found any edits ever in that range which look as though they weren't by this person, so there is virtually no risk of collateral damage. I also haven't seen any edits outside that range which look as though they were by this person, but of course I may have missed some. 2601:58C:4303:16E0:75B8:82CC:DDDD:12A0, also mentioned above, doesn't seem related at all. JBW (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JBW, thanks for spending the time diving into this mess. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Arbitration committee 2025 election

Nominations for the 2025 arbitration committee election will start in just over a month. Given the significant commitment required to be an arbitrator, it's a good time to start thinking about candidates and the skills needed for the committee to be effective. If there is someone you'd like to see run, or if you want to know someone else's plans before making your own decision, I encourage you to get in touch with them now! For more information about the work involved with serving on the committee, see the arbitrator experiences page. isaacl (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal of partial block on IP address 2409:4091:903c:3c0d:e136:b9a4:cccb:1c99

"Hello,

I am writing to appeal the partial block on my IP address, which is 2409:4091:903c:3c0d:e136:b9a4:cccb:1c99. I understand that the block was put in place due to 'persistent addition of unsourced content' from my IP range.

I was not the user who was adding the unsourced information. I am a different user who appears to be affected by this broad block on the IP range. I would like to make good-faith edits to Wikipedia, and I am not associated with the previous disruptive behavior.

I am aware of Wikipedia's policy on citing reliable sources and I intend to follow it for all my contributions. Could my IP please be unblocked so that I can make constructive edits?

Thank you for your consideration." 2409:4091:903C:3C0D:E136:B9A4:CCCB:1C99 (talk) 08:21, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A /22 seems like a very large IPV6 range to be blocking. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:32, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you were able to post a message here means that you are not totally blocked. What page do you want to edit? What did you want to do there? Have you tried adding a comment to the article talk page? Johnuniq (talk) 08:44, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a partial block from, by my count, five articles. There are over 7 million other articles that this IP range can still edit that are not affected by this block. 88.97.192.42 (talk) 09:19, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Original poster, that range is only blocked from five articles, out of millions. What edits do you want to make to those articles? 331dot (talk) 09:22, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The range is blocked from 14 pages. That still leaves 7 million, but I suspect a key factor in this thread is that account creation has also been blocked. Ping Oshwah who added the ACB block, and HJ Mitchell who extended it for a year. I think we probably need some better guidelines for modifying partial blocks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:38, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allowing account creation is probably the easiest fix but there's no denying there's a lot of junk coming from there. The extent of my involvement is this thread where it appeared the target of this block was using an IPv4 I'd previously blocked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:23, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; allowing account creation would be the easiest way to resolve this. My involvement with this IP range is that multiple IP addresses from within it were adding disruption to the Jimmy Sheirgill article, and this is the CIDR that I determined that should be blocked in order to stop the issue. I didn't have a problem with applying this block to such a huge range, since I only partially blocked it from editing that one article. I didn't take account creation being blocked into account when I applied it. For the record, I have no issues with the block being modified in order to allow for account creation to be performed. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:46, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the block on account creation. Note that I have seen cases in the past where rangeblocks with account creation blocked on IPv6 ranges have somehow managed to prevent account creation from addresses outside the block, so it may overall be a good idea to disable blocking account creation on pblocks in general. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:17, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article created in file namespace

DELETED

And this thread is certainly now closed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:28, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is the first time I've come across something like File:Michael Aidoo portrait.jpg. It looks like someone tried to create a Wikipedia article in the file namespace. I'm not sure how to tag this since the file that was also uploaded could be tagged for speedy deletion with {{nsdnld}} or WP:F4 or even possibly with {{db-f9}} per WP:F9. It looks like the uploader of the files is also trying to create an article on their user page at User:Chairman Big Aidoo. Should the article content just be removed from the file's page, and the file tagged for speedy deletion per F4? -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:37, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both would fall under G11. I'm in the middle of something and on a mobile with poor connectivity and low battery or I'd just do it myself. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:21, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at this Ivanvector. I didn't think of G11 at all. Anyway, another admin also saw the pages in question and deleted them as such. Apparently (another thing I didn't notice), they had been deleted before for similar reasons and were recreations. Given that the creator is now blocked as a "promotional only" account, this thread can probably be closed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:42, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Block challenge from Slacker13

Block resoundingly endorsed

Salvio giuliano

07:27, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Slacker13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user who I blocked and later revoked talk access has emailed me challenging my actions. I'm posting here for review.

Slacker13 has been at the centre of a large thread at ANI recently over their disruption of articles related to Zak Smith, who is some kind of popular gamer or something with a following of meatpuppets (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Slacker13 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FixerFixerFixer). The ANI led to Slacker13 being banned from the topic. They posted a clearly retaliatory Arbcom case request against many of the editors who supported that action, which is where I became aware of them, and I blocked them as NOTHERE on the basis of escalating harassment of opponents in a topic they'd already been banned from. I've been away on vacation for a couple weeks so wasn't watching, but a few days ago Slacker13 pinged me on their talk page in a post about continuing to monitor editors in the same topic and demanding sanctions. Since they were still only using their talk page to interfere in the topic, I revoked access.

Their email I received this morning indicates they've opened an appeal at UTRS (I haven't checked) but they've also pointed out a note on my user page about my association with Simonm223, one of the editors they named in their case request. Neither of us make any secret here that we know each other in real life; the note refers to an edit Simonm223 made on my laptop while my account was logged in one time he was visiting my apartment while apartment-hunting himself. It was also sixteen years ago, and the note has been on my user page since 2014, but don't worry, Slacker13 has taken a screenshot in case I delete the incriminating evidence along with nine years of my page's history to hide it. You see, Slacker13 believes that everyone who opposes them are part of a widespread conspiracy of role-playing enthusiasts out to publish misinformation about Zak Smith (I haven't played an RPG in 30 years, and still don't know who Zak Smith is). The email reads very much like more of the same "everyone is out to get me" conspiracy mindset.

Anyway, they have challenged my actions solely on the basis of this connection, not that their edits were not disruptive or not violations of their topic ban, nor that they intend to edit constructively in any other topic. I request a review of my actions by uninvolved administrators. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:06, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I'm tempted to suggest we just blanket WP:CBAN Slacker13 and all associated sockpuppets and meatpuppets, with no unban request considered for at least six months. This has been a massive time sink, though reasonable people may think my suggestion is overkill. I also wonder if anyone has looked at the claimed bluesky thread that brought all these sockpuppet accounts to Wikipedia, while being mindful of WP:OUTING. --Yamla (talk) 13:11, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The funny thing is that I've been trying to distance myself from the Zak Smith dispute and the main complaint I've had with the meat puppetry going on there is that it's taken a relatively routine RfC and made it into a three-ring circus. I'm just kind of tired of this dispute and would very much like to not have to think about Slacker13 again. Simonm223 (talk) 13:14, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not overkill at all. In fact I wrote basically this exact proposal a week or so ago in one of the SPIs, but my edit would not save. Turns out being in the woods in Newfoundland does not lend itself well to editing Wikipedia. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:37, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This may not be entirely necessary but I think it bears mentioning: the main impact of Ivanvector and myself knowing each other in the context of all this is that I found their argument (among those of others) against a cban in the AN/I thread persuasive and actually changed my !vote, striking a previous support for a cban, and noting that I hoped they could return to regular editing on other articles with a tban. It's unfortunate that Slacker13 seems to have constructed this idea in their head of some sort of monolithic opposition to their position in light of this. Simonm223 (talk) 14:59, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Even assuming your friendship with Simon makes you involved (I don't think it does), I think any reasonable admin would have revoked TPA here. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:12, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also think any reasonable admin would also have indef'd for continuing to violate the TBAN. This was a straightforward case. Slacker13, if you're reading this, please stay away from en-wiki for at least six months if you want to take the SO. During that time, reflect on what went wrong and work on writing an unblock request that accounts for that, doesn't blame other editors, and shows that you will edit productively going forward. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:14, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, Arbcom made it clear that Slacker13's attempts to disqualify people from the discussion were not particularly valid. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, belief in conspiracies stems from a need for understanding in uncertain times, as well as as a desire to belong to a superior group. Lectonar (talk) 13:22, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, and investigate any connections they may have to User:FixerFixerFixer (who is Zak Smith.) Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 14:28, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See this, has already been investigated. Daniel (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

86 them - I'd also suggest requiring appeals-to-ArbCom-only, but I don't think that's feasible. The only reason I'd want that in any event is to throttle spurious/NOTTHEM unblock requests and keep from wasting UTRS' time on a pointless axe-grinding contest. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:29, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean this to apply only to Slacker13 or to all sockpuppets/meatpuppets? I'm pretty sure the former, just making sure it's clear. --Yamla (talk) 18:34, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to the appeals-to-ArbCom-only thing, you read it right. Appeals by socks~~/meats~~ generally get summarily rejected on the grounds it's not the sockmaster's main account. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:44, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no private information at play, and this isn't an arbitration-related sanction (ie. placed by the Committee or by AE etc.), so appeals to ArbCom are not only not necessary, but also would be declined as out of our scope — per the banning policy, bans applied by the community can only be appealed to the Arbitration Committee if there are serious questions about the validity of the ban discussion or its closure. We have already declined to hear an appeal from Slacker13 that was instigated under this clause once, last month. Daniel (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Slacker13's only activity on the project in the last month has been to right perceived great wrongs in this topic (wow, has it really only been one month?). Both the block and subsequent TPA revocation are appropriate and necessary to prevent the continuation of what any reasonable editor would consider to be ongoing violations of their topic ban. --tony 19:53, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see UTRS appeal #106514-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Slacker13 also incorrectly claimed that I was involved in the Zak Smith topic area in one of their UTRS messages, so I'll put my response here. The fact that I helped process the two sockpuppet investigations at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FixerFixerFixer/Archive § 30 January 2020 and 01 February 2020 does not make me involved in the Zak Smith topic area, as I participated "purely in an administrative role". My interactions with an IP editor at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 280 § pornhub.com/insights and Talk:Sasha Grey/Archive 2 § PH/insights/2018-year-in-review do not make me involved in the Zak Smith topic area, as these are about unrelated topics. My collapsing of apparently LLM-generated comments on Talk:Zak Smith does not make me involved in the Zak Smith topic area, as it was a straightforward application of the WP:AITALK guideline to address a conduct issue and was performed purely as an administrative action.
And finally, I am happy to answer any questions from anyone about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Slacker13 § 06 September 2025 and 26 August 2025, but the fact that Slacker13 is displeased with the findings does not make me involved in the Zak Smith topic area, either. — Newslinger talk 21:26, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Newslinger, and further to this, Slacker13's attempted argument that a whole raft of individuals are "involved" (a point they have been pushing since early last month) is errenous in the extreme. Daniel (talk) 22:04, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Newslinger, you clearly put a ton of time and care into the investigation into possible sockpuppets of Slacker13 and it is impressive but I found the report just about incomprehensible. It seemed that, at most, there was a set of common interests among editors. Did any Checkusers look into this case and use their tools? I can see that not all editors who had edited the Zak Smith article were found "guilty" of being meatpuppets but wouldn't you find some of these coincidences among people who share a common affection for any artist? I'm not going to go over the case for each editor named because, like I said, I found the results confusing, I just wanted to know more about the process that was used. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:39, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The CU checks are documented on the SPI page. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:43, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I spent the time digesting the results in detail when they were first posted, as they overlapped with existing arbitrator business. By contrast, I found the report totally comprehensible and a very efficient way of presenting the information, to which I commended Newslinger on their talk page at the time. Daniel (talk) 01:19, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I checked on what was happening at the talk page almost every day and I assure you that it is not because they share a common affection for [that] artist. This is clearly a sophisticated and well-orchestrated campaign to sway consensus and disrupt our processes. And it worked, as the page was protected with the sexual harassment info removed. I know it is important to assume good faith but this has gone for too long and the blocks were warranted.

Oh, and if Slacker13 or anyone else is reading this right now, no, I don't have a COI and I'm not part of the RPG community. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 01:20, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, I understand that the 26 August Slacker13 SPI case can be hard to follow because it involves many users and a large amount of data. After asking editors for input and examining the available evidence, I presented the findings in two subsections: the Analysis section concluded that the activity on Talk:Zak Smith on 20 August was the result of an off-wiki coordination campaign that specifically directed users to the talk page, and the Account review section individually reviewed the behavioral history of each listed editor to determine whether they should be blocked or warned for apparent meatpuppetry.
Here is a simplified timeline of the events:
11 August: The court judgment for Smith v. Nagy was published on CanLII.

18 August: Slacker13 obtained the URL for the court document on CanLII on this date, according to the timestamp in the URL. Slacker13 also regained their IP block exemption permission on this date, after requesting it by email.

19 August: Slacker13 returned to editing, having made no edits since 12 April. Per the pageview statistics, Talk:Zak Smith received 7 pageviews on this date, while the Zak Smith article received 43.

20 August: Involved editors claim that, on this date, Zak Smith (who is said to have about 4,000 Instagram followers) posted an Instagram story that vaguely referenced Smith v. Nagy without mentioning Wikipedia. Slacker13 deleted the "Sexual abuse allegations" section of the Zak Smith article, the first non-bot edit to the article in 14 months, which marked the beginning of the current content dispute. At 20:49, Slacker13 posted a comment on Talk:Zak Smith supporting the removal of the disputed content; the comment contained the URL of the court document that Slacker13 obtained on 18 August, and was the first non-bot edit to the talk page in about 2.5 years. Eight users that were not extended confirmed posted messages in support of Slacker13 within two hours; all of these users had been inactive for 5–14 months and had never edited in the Zak Smith topic area before. Talk:Zak Smith received 595 pageviews on this date (about 15% of Smith's follower count), exceeding the 398 pageviews on the Zak Smith article.

21 August: Three more users that were not extended confirmed posted comments in support of Slacker13 on Talk:Zak Smith. At 16:56, the content dispute was reported to the WP:BLPN noticeboard.

Based on this information, I concluded that there is no plausible explanation for the activity on Talk:Zak Smith on 20 August that does not involve an off-wiki coordination campaign that directed the involved users straight to the talk page, because Smith's vague Instagram story by itself could not have plausibly generated such activity on this talk page within such a short timeframe. As Slacker13 had already been indefinitely blocked, I applied the policy on meatpuppetry to block the users who were likely to have been participating in this campaign, based on their individual behavior patterns, and sent them messages stating that an unblock request would be more likely to succeed if they accept a topic ban from Zak Smith as an unblock condition.
This investigation was based on behavioral evidence only. Two checkuser scans showed the accounts in the 26 August case to be technically unrelated, which suggests that they were operated by different individuals, but the behavioral findings support the conclusion that these different individuals engaged in off-wiki coordination to influence the outcome of the content dispute on Talk:Zak Smith, which is still prohibited by the policy on meatpuppetry.
My comment here is a broad overview of the 26 August case, hopefully presented in a way that is more understandable. There are many additional details in the case itself. If you or anyone else has a more specific question about any aspect of the case, I am also happy to answer it. — Newslinger talk 13:04, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Declined. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:34, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsed, and support a formal community ban as not just WP:NOTHERE but a thorough WP:TIMEWASTE since WP:WASTEOFTIME actually exists! for the project's volunteers. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:27, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a rule, I don't like talk page access being removed except for cases of persistent vandalism and harassment. I think that Slacker13 could be a valid editor if they could ever get over their single-mindedness on Zak Smith but I don't foresee that happening any time in the near future and I recognize that the community is out of patience with their arguments of there being a plot to damage Smith's article and reputation from the online RPG community. But I say this now so that when enough time has passed, Slacker13 should get the access to their talk page back and be able to submit a regular unblock request. I'm not sure that six months will be long enough as Slacker13 does see this still as a "righting great wrongs", life vs. death scenario and most people do not let go of that attitude very easily or quickly. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:01, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I feel Slacker's obsession with seeing things which clearly aren't there was already amply demonstrated when they accused someone of having a connection to the RPG community because their name appeared in one of those books taken from Wikipedia content which attempted CC or GFDL compliance by putting all the names of contributors somewhere. In other words they probably edited some Wikipedia article which was RPG related at some stage. It's a fairly ridiculous connection to make since as anyone experienced with the world knows, the MeToo movement has meant significant focus on such accusations by people totally unrelated to the community the person is from. From a Wikipedia PoV, sometimes perhaps even crossing a bit too far into the activist threshold when it comes to BLPs as we experience at BLPN. There is absolutely no reason to assume everyone has some connection to the RPG community just from some basic understanding of the modern world without needing to know anything about Wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 10:32, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per everyone else has already said what needs to be stated. It's disappointing that Slacker13 still doesn't understand what was wrong with their behavior, and is still wasting our time about this. FYI, the RfC on the talk page has run its course, and is ready to be closed, if someone wants to tackle that. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:45, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Brainstorming

Admins may be interested in Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#AfDs on current event articles. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:06, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page removed by mistake

A COMMONS MISTAKE

Affairs on Commons are not a concern of English Wikipedia, even when the page being requested to be restored on Commons was, in fact, vandalism. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:20, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi, would it be possible to restore the following article? I believe it was mistakenly removed due to vandalism. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_islands 130.25.89.207 (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not on Wikipedia proper; that link points to Wikimedia Commons, which is a different breed of dog from Wikipedia. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:23, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that the image at Commons was vandalism in itself, so let's thank the IP for ensuring that more people keep an eye on it. Black Kite (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request to block

Self-requested block applied. Rusalkii (talk) 06:39, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please block my account until the end of 27 September. I have personal matters to attend to and am spending too much time here editing. It is urgent. Marina redaktor (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Brigading at Advance UK its Talk page

Somebody is clearly sending meatpuppets to Advance UK and Talk:Advance UK. I don't think that many of them have experience with Wikipedia, or even know what a meatpuppet is, so I don't want to be too hard on them individually. Some of them have declared their COIs, although not in the standard way, so I don't want to accuse them of being deceptive. Nonetheless it is becoming disruptive and it has been going on for a while without blowing over. Clearly somebody is organising this and I was wondering if there was anything we can do to curtail it? DanielRigal (talk) 21:43, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand there is a forum for registered members on their website. For what I would hope are obvious reasons, I'm not associating or contributing to such websites. Knitsey (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been semi-protected for a few months by Pppery and I have added a note to the talk page, with a pointer to the reliable sources guideline. That should hopefully curb the worst of it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:17, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus for TAIV exception

No consensus to support an exemption given other factors in play Star Mississippi 13:24, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, I would like to request consensus for an exemption to the criteria for temporary account IP viewer.
The exception is to clause 2: 6 months of editing experience. The current requirement is 6 months of editing, but I have only been editing for 4 months and a week.
I currently have over 2700 edits, local rollback permissions, and my account is mainly focused on Anti-Vandalism work, so having this permission will greatly aid my anti-vandalism work when temporary accounts are introduced.
I have read many pages concerning temporary accounts, TAIV, and IP viewing in general on different projects.

I know that local sysops cannot grant this exception, this is why I am asking for consensus on this instead of asking for a exception at WP:PERM/TAIV.
--pro-anti-air _{ping me for template replies} 03:25, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear here procedurally, am I correct in understanding that you're seeking a local consensus so that you can then request access from a steward through their extraordinary authority under WP:TAIVGRANT? If so, that sounds reasonable procedurally (no comment on substantively), similar to how we do other local matters that need to ultimately be actioned by a steward, but just want to be clear. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:29, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The WMF policy only allows stewards to grant an exemption where an editor is requesting the userright "for a purpose that cannot be reasonably addressed by users who already have this access". Fighting vandalism using TAIV can "be reasonably addressed" by – as of now – 969 editors on en-wiki. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:35, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree with that reading. I could see supporting an exception for, say, a sister-wiki admin with specialized knowledge in dealing with a specific LTA, or someone who needs access to develop a user script; but routine anti-vandalism doesn't seem to meet the threshold you quote. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:39, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't that mean that any exception for large Wikimedia projects can be denied, as there are always many admins/TAIV who can reasonably address vandalism? --pro-anti-air _{ping me for template replies} 03:47, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. As I read the policy, exceptions to the WMF requirements cannot be granted on WMF projects that have a sufficient number of admins, functs, and other editors who can use the tool for any valid purpose. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:50, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I somewhat disagree per the two hypotheticals I gave above, both involving a purpose that the corps of enwiki admins+TAIVs wouldn't necessarily be competent at addressing. But it works out the same either way in pro-anti-air's case. And ultimately will be up to the stewards to decide, if someone does argue they have some atypical reason for needing access in the future. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:55, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your hypotheticals, but I think those cases will be extremely rare. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:56, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I've updated WP:TAIVGRANT to make clear this isn't purely plenary on the stewards' part. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:25, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is correct. I am requesting in advance before temporary accounts are added to enwiki. --pro-anti-air _{ping me for template replies} 03:41, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Since I don't see any reason why you're fundamentally special and deserve an exception to the normal rules. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:13, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, I would echo Pppery's sentiment. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:41, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point of making an exception for someone who can ask for that right in under two months anyway. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:51, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request for Review: Fabricated Article "Brahuistan" Lacks Historical and Academic Basis

I would like to respectfully bring to the attention of administrators a serious concern regarding the article Brahuistan. The article appears to promote a politically motivated and historically inaccurate concept that lacks verifiable sources, academic legitimacy, and cultural recognition.

There is no credible historical, ethnographic, or political record that supports the existence of a region or national identity called "Brahuistan." The Brahui-speaking population of Balochistan has always been an integral part of the broader Baloch identity. The Khanate of Kalat, often referred to as the "Brahui Confederacy" due to the Brahui language of its ruling Ahmedzai dynasty, never used the term "Brahuistan." The region was historically divided into two administrative zones: Jhalawan and Sarawan. No sub-region or autonomous entity named "Brahuistan" has ever existed.

Even British colonial ethnographers rejected the term. As cited in Fred Scholz’s *Nomadism and Colonialism: A Hundred Years of Baluchistan, 1872–1972* (Oxford University Press, 2002, p. 21), the British deliberately chose to name the region "Baluchistan" and not "Brahuiistan," despite the presence of Brahui-speaking tribes. Scholz writes: > “When the British came to the southern region of the Brahui Confederacy, they called the newly conquered land not Brahuiistan, but 'Baluchistan.'”

Furthermore, the Khans of Kalat consistently identified themselves as Baloch. In official portraits and historical records, the word "Baloch" appears in their titles. While their native language was Brahui, they never claimed a separate Brahui national identity. The concept of "Brahuistan" is not supported by any historical map, administrative division, or scholarly source.

Prominent nationalist figures such as Dr. Mehrang Baloch—born in Kalat, from the Langov tribe, and a native Brahui speaker—have never advocated for a separate Brahui region or identity. In fact, the modern Baloch nationalist movement includes Brahui speakers at its core. The unity of Baloch identity transcends linguistic differences and is rooted in shared history, struggle, and cultural consciousness.

Balochistan is historically and culturally defined by its regions: Makran, Kalat (Jhalawan and Sarawan), Lasbela, Rakhshan, Kharan, Koh-e-Suleiman, Quetta, and others. No region named "Brahuistan" exists in any official, academic, or local record.

Given the lack of reliable sources, the absence of historical precedent, and the potential for this article to promote divisive and fabricated narratives, I respectfully request that administrators review the article and consider its deletion in accordance with Wikipedia’s standards for verifiability, neutrality, and notability.

Thank you. Moshtank (talk) 18:29, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Moshtank, you have already nominated this article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brahuistan and it was already kept. If you have issues with the article's content, you can discuss that on the talk page of the relevant article, but no one's going to be deleting it. Please also be aware that the article is in a contentious topic. I've left a note on your talk page about that. -- asilvering (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moshtank, on reading your report I was going to tell you that deletion is handled at AFD, not here, but I see you've already tried that. You have two possibilities now:

If you think that there was an error in the way the AfD discussion was handled (such as consensus being misread) you can start a deletion review discussion.
You can wait a few more months and start another AfD.

Either way it would be best to consult the closer of the original AfD first, in your own words. She doesn't bite.Phil Bridger (talk) 20:00, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As someone uninvolved in this whole area, I do have my concerns about the quality of the discussion at the AFD. Keep arguments referred to notability of the Brahui people and language (not disputed by the nominator), but did not address the nominator's argument that "Brahuistan" is not an accepted term or concept. Most of the sourcing provided is offline only and so hard to cursorily verify; the sources available online discuss Brahui people and language but not Brahuistan per se. I've tried to do a (admittedly very cursory) search, but apart from Wikipedia itself, the only mention of "Brahuistan" I can find is at [10], which does not seem like an impartial source. So, while I may be off the mark, I fear we may be elevating a controversial nationalistic aspiration (possibly with a few passing historical mentions) without having actually engaged with whether this is warranted. I'm not quite sure of the optimal process in such a situation (for instance, is a DRV warranted?), but I'm not convinced the AFD engaged with the right issues. I may be wrong. Martinp (talk) 21:02, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinp, my advice would be to take this to the talk page for further discussion and see if you can gain a consensus for whether the content of the article is reliable and verifiable or not in an environment where editors feel less pressure than an AfD. A clear, damning AfD nomination goes a long way; this didn't have one. -- asilvering (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This thread has clearly been AI generated - you can tell from the style of writing, the em dashes and the attempts at using markdown for formatting (e.g. * for emphasis, > for quotes). 86.23.87.130 (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That would be why @Phil Bridger specified "in your own words". -- asilvering (talk) 21:22, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the wording of the comments at the AFD, it seems both Moshtank and other participants there are perhaps not native English speakers. So I don't fault them for trying to use AI to make themselves more understandable - especially since no-one really seemed to engage with the point Moshtank was trying to make at the AFD. I dropped a note on Liz' (closing admin's) page myself to avoid needless bureaucracy. I may follow up with more discussion elsewhere (e.g. talk page as suggested above) but first want to give a chance for already involved parties to comment. Martinp (talk) 10:19, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moshtank also added more textwalling on the closed nomination page (now reverted). Nathannah • 📮 18:35, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moshtank has now started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brahuistan (2nd nomination). --Finngall ^talk 16:41, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Following up to note that our policy on LLM-generated and -assisted discussion contributions dates back to the consensus determined at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_199#LLM/chatbot_comments_in_discussions. Moshtank's (likely) use of AI to help craft his message here is explicitly permitted by that consensus: The reasoning is (presumably) Moshtank's own, which they articulated without the use of LLMs at the AFD #1 and their points were ignored. They may have used an LLM here, but it seems directly covered by the caveat at the close that the LLM prohibition does not apply to comments where the reasoning is the editor's own, but an LLM has been used to refine their meaning. Editors who are non-fluent speakers, or have developmental or learning disabilities, are welcome to edit here as long as they can follow our policies and guidelines; this consensus should not be taken to deny them the option of using assistive technologies to improve their comments. Martinp (talk) 22:31, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AAlertBot crash

Edits have been cleaned up Star Mississippi 13:28, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

AAlertBot crashed today, making all sorts of nonsense edits. Could someone mass rollback all its edits from today (September 24), starting with this one? Thanks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:39, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:22, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Headbomb, rollback would revert all of the bot's consecutive edits to each page, going back to whenever the last edit by another user was. I don't think there's an automated way to undo only the latest edit. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:45, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, that sucks... Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:47, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it turns out there is a way: Wikipedia:Kill-It-With-Fire. Now done. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:59, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's also good old-fashioned parallel-tabbing + repetitive motions! I got a bunch of them that way. But gosh I wish I'd known about that script on the day of the Buffalo stampede. I had to do evil things to JWB to sort that one out. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:06, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Extraordinary Writ: Many thanks! RE good old-fashioned parallel-tabbing that's what I was trying to avoid, with 102 pages do deal with multiple clicks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:24, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's an art to it, all about getting the right sequence of hand movements, almost like playing the piano. I learned that a long time ago as a Wikidata admin before there were good mass-deletion scripts there. What I was doing here is load 30 tabs, then on each: click Twinkle "restore", wait for popup, ↵ Enter, ctrl+Tab ↹, repeat. So that goes right index, right pinkie, rest, left thumb and middle finger—get lost in the ⁴
₄ time rhythm. ;) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:32, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well aware it's piano-like. I often trigger Citation bot that way (I've got it shortcutted to CTRL+A), but some articles need a bit of hammering first, so it's a game of search (CTRL+F) and find (CTRL+G) and replace (CTRL+V) follow by saving (CTRL+S), bot trigger (CTRL+A), and close window (CTRL+W), repeat for many many articles etc.. Just unfamiliar with which tools are needed for this specific piano piece. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:00, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Semi-protection request of Uruguay

NOT DONE

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies to page protection too. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:13, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Uruguay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As per title. 2800:AC:4010:2D5F:1:0:F304:63A6 (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done You've provided no reason to believe it's necessary and there have only been six edits to that article in the past week. WP:AIV is probably a better place if you spot ongoing vandalism. --Yamla (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all country pages are protected. Why not this one? 2800:AC:4010:2D5F:1:0:F304:63A6 (talk) 21:43, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's the wrong question to ask. Please thoroughly read WP:PROTECT. We don't protect pages unless they need the protection. --Yamla (talk) 21:45, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please restrict edits to this page

PAGE PROTECTED

For future reference, WP:RFPP is thataway →. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:36, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bahlil Lahadalia - Wikipedia

This page has been vandalised multiple times due to the divisive nature of being an Indonesian politician at this time (or any time). Please consider locking or protecting it to avoid vandalisms. You can see that the page has been vandalised numerous times for a short period of time. Thank you. Mtlh01p (talk) 06:01, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mtlh01p: I've given it a couple of weeks of semi-protection. In the future you can make straightforward protection requests like this at WP:RFPP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:17, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Where to report a user ignoring a contentious topic restriction?

A user (@OneAgentBoi) who have I have previously warned about Wikipedia:Contentious topics/South Asia and the requierment to have ECP status, is continuing to edit in this topic area and has even blanked their talk page to resume editing: [11].

Is there is specific area where I can report this or am I able to do so here?

Thanks. Ixudi (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking one's own user talk page is allowed (it is an indication that it has been read), and ECP status only applies to two subtopics. Which has OneAgentBoi been editing? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:46, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit added "Punjabi-origin" to "Sayyid dynasty", which seems to me to place it squarely under social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This will do, or WP:AE. Blocked 31 hours. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration of permissions (NPR)

In accordance with my previous voluntary relinquishment of permissions and then the partial restoration of permissions, I request to complete the restoration at this time with the restoration of my new page reviewer flag. Now that I've been back at this Wikipedia thing for a month I'll try to help out around NPP and AFC again. Don't think I'll be super active with it or tackling the complex cases, but will lend a hand for at least the simple things. Thanks. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Odd user pages

In the last few days I keep seeing user pages being created that purport to be for early education. They vary in the wording and appear unrelated to any specific Wikimedia initiative (here's an example and here's another). The latter of the two user pages had some fairly blatant promotional text that was deleted before being replaced with the "educational platform" version. Has anyone else come across these? -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:53, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We've seen stuff like this before, usually from classrooms that have not been involved in a registered wiki-education program of any sort. This has a similar feel to it. They know enough not to put this in mainspace, but not enough to know this is not the kind of editing that Wikipedia is looking for. I'd suggest a conversation on the talk page of these users, to ferret out why they have created the pages and why they all seem to be focused on education. I don't think these are bad faith or promotional content; they're not promoting anything. Risker (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that was a possibility as well, though this by one of the editors in question is problematic.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:28, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And yet another. I've asked whether this is a coordinated project or such, but note that I haven't had much luck getting responses from participants in projects working outside of Wikipedia:Education program or edit-a-thons run by experienced Wikipedians.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:55, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can we whom can't see the linked edits have a summary of that? Iv seen these things, but haven't seen anything outright problematic. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 17:59, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm personally one of those users, we are actually doing some educational tasks that involve creating a Wiki platform and add some educational stuff to it that we are going to be marked for. We don't mean no harm. Please bear with us Jesco S Ipumbu (talk) 22:48, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jesco S Ipumbu: The pages your group is creating are unrelated to the improvement of Wikipedia, which is why many of them are being deleted in short order. Is there an individual who is running this project?-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:53, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Renewal of page restrictions and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Renewal of page restrictions are modified as follows:

If an uninvolved administrator (including the original enforcing administrator) decides that a page restriction is still necessary after one year, the administrator may renew the restriction by re-imposing it under this procedure and ~~logging the renewal~~ noting the CTOP invoked in the protection reason. The administrator renewing a page restriction then becomes the enforcing administrator. Page protections must clearly note in the protection reason that the protection action is an arbitration enforcement action and link to the applicable contentious topic page (e.g., WP:CT/BLP), which will cause the action to be automatically logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/Protections. This does not apply to page restrictions imposed by consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Logging and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Logging 2 are modified as follows:

Contentious topic restrictions, excepting page protections, must be recorded in the arbitration enforcement log by the administrator who takes the action. Page protections must clearly note in the protection reason that the protection action is an arbitration enforcement action and link to the applicable contentious topic page (e.g., WP:CT/BLP), which will cause the action to be automatically logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/Protections.

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Logging is modified as follows:

All sanctions and page restrictions, except page protections, must be logged by the administrator who applied the sanction or page restriction at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log. Page protections must clearly note in the protection reason that the protection action is an arbitration enforcement action and link to the applicable contentious topic page (e.g., WP:CT/BLP), which will cause the action to be automatically logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/Protections.

A central log of all page restrictions and sanctions (including blocks, bans, page protections or other restrictions) placed as arbitration enforcement (including contentious topic restrictions) is to be maintained by the Committee and its clerks at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log and Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/Protections.

For the Arbitration Committee, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 21:01, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please unblock Battle for Dream Island.

Please unblock Battle For Dream Island.

BFDI and Object Shows have been blocked on Wikipedia for a long time, due to BFDI not having "correct sources or something like that." Battle For Dream Island and many other Object Shows have been on news sources, and BFDI is also getting an episode in theaters.

Best regards,

Vin Double

@Vinthepro7vv Vinthepro7v (talk) 00:13, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Until those news sources are provided and clearly demonstrate that the subject meets WP:GNG, it is highly unlikely that the article will be unblocked. I recommend you review WP:BFDI, as this has been a surprisingly contentious topic. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 00:19, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ToonHive on X, Fox 59, Fox 40, KTLA 5, Bubbleblabber, Fox 8, KLAS 8 News Now, Business Insider, WLNS 6. Vinthepro7v (talk) 11:28, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vinthepro7v "X" is ambiguous, did you mean twitter? 🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 12:38, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter, Yes Twitter. Vinthepro7v (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there are reliable sources to establish notability, provide them, don't vaguely wave that they exist. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:58, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing preventing you from writing a draft, if you believe that the sources exist to make the subject now. The fact that people have gone to the troule of writing WP:BFDI should give you pause, and you should read that first, but if you genuinely think that the sourcing has improved then go for it - write a draft and submit it to AfC. Just be aware that you might be wasting your time, and other people's, if you haven't first established that there are sources that are independent, secondary, reliable and which give the subject significant depth of coverage. Girth Summit _(blether) 04:13, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: There actually is something preventing them from creating a draft. Personally I think it was a horrible idea to delete and then salt Draft:Battle for Dream Island—in draftspace that really should be reserved only for blatant spam and BLP violations, and see generally WP:NOSALT—but that's been the community's consensus so far at MfD. Sigh. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:24, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wow - sorry, I didn't realise that even the draft was salted. I guess that someone could draft something in a sandbox, but absent any new and significantly improved sources they might be better advised to spend their time... well, doing anything at all. Girth Summit _(blether) 04:30, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's blacklisted too; talk about overkill.

Mostly folks get pointed at either WT:BFDI or WP:Source assessment/Battle for Dream Island to propose new sources before going to the effort of writing a draft that can't get accepted. —Cryptic 04:50, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It really does baffle me. One of those cases of everyone just pressing the bigger, scarier button each time the previous button doesn't work, without any consideration of whether that still accomplishes our goals. What exactly happens if we let people write the draft? A crappy draft exists? Most drafts are crappy. Most have a lower chance of becoming notable than BFDI. Most have a higher risk of hosting spam or BLP violations. Versus the status quo of constantly having to field questions from people who, reasonably, want to know why they can't even do the initial step toward creating an article. We could always have a big notice at the top saying like, "Current consensus is that BFDI is not notable. This draft may not be submitted to AfC without a consensus on the talk page that that has changed" or something like that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:59, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That seems an uncharitable assessment of previous admin actions. Looking through the history, what seems to have happened was that the draft existing led to disruption elsewhere, amid wider regular BFDI-related issues which if I recall at one point included admin conduct issues. Looking into it, apparently salting can be temporary like other protections, which could be another tool in the box, but the concept is rare enough that I can't recall ever seeing it discussed anywhere. CMD (talk) 05:30, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to criticize the admin actions in themselves. The deletion and salting were reasonable implementations of community consensus, and other things stemmed from there. It's the community consensus that I think has been wrong and should change. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:34, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not actually sure how community consensus works here. There was consensus against whatever draft repeatedly got recreated, but that is not necessarily a consensus against any draft ever, and non-admins can't really assess that at any rate. WP:BFDI says only that "drafts about BFDI have often been deleted", not that there is consensus against any existing. Half a decade on, I suspect an admin could boldly unsalt the draftspace unilaterally, so long as they were prepared to resalt if "drafts being submitted for review and declined over and over again" issues emerge again. CMD (talk) 05:42, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at WP:BFDI, it appears to me that what happend was that the community completely ran out of patience after repeated pushing over and over and over completely poisoned the well for anything related to BFDI, largely because of...well, what started this thread was a very mild example, but it's an example nontheless - "the sources totally exist bro for this totally notable thing that Wikipedia must have an article about". Was salting the draft overkill? Maybe, but take a look at Wikipedia:Why is BFDI not on Wikipedia?#List of deletion nominations - especially that footnote "d". If there really is new sourcing that evidences notability, somebody can request the draft page be unsalted - but Wikipedia:Source assessment/Battle for Dream Island, which includes references to this movie-theater screened episode, is telling reading. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:55, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BFDI is mentioned in the WP-articles TomSka, jacksfilms, Rosie O'Donnell, and The Gregory Brothers. Based at least in part on discussions like those at Talk:Rosie O'Donnell/Archive 6. I like The Scale of the Universe though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit @Tamzin @The Bushranger @Chipmunkdavis, flagging a conversation on my Talk (courtesy ping @JBW, no action needed) about Object Show. I lifted that SALT. I haven't followed BFDI since I was more active in XFDs but if there are extant SALTings of mine, feel free to undo if you feel they're no longer helping. Star Mississippi 01:44, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Images on the Main Page

Recently I have seen more than one admin change images on the Main Page without checking that the image is protected on Commons. This is bad for WP:BEANS reasons if KrinkleBot, the protection bot on Commons, is running (the image might be unprotected for up to 10 minutes), and very bad if the bot is not running (which happens occasionally). Can we get everyone (especially those working WP:ERRORS) to use the right steps to add an image to the Main Page:

Add the image to Wikipedia:Main Page/Commons media protection.
Wait for c:User:KrinkleBot to add the image to the cascade protected page c:Commons:Auto-protected files/wikipedia/en.
If that hasn't happened after 10 minutes, ask a friendly Commons admin on WP:DISCORD or similar places to protect the image
Double check the image has been protected, only then add it to the Main Page subtemplate.

We should probably update the instructions (those at Template:Editnotices/Page/Template:Did you know seem to be from before we used KrinkleBot) and add them to more places like Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Today's featured list. But we really need all admins to be aware that images need an extra protection step before they are put on the Main Page. —Kusma (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While you're of course right, overwriting files on Commons is restricted to autopatrolled users by commons:Special:AbuseFilter/290, which significantly reduces the risk. Uploading a file locally with a name already in use on Commons is restricted to administrators through the reupload-shared privilege. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:55, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Might be spilling some beans here, but the Commons filter isn't all that great for multiple reasons. Unfortunately, I can't find a way to privately contact the abuse filter managers. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 02:21, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ChildrenWillListen: c:Special:AbuseFilter/history/290 reveals that c:User:GPSLeo is the creator of that filter and is currently maintaining it alone. Perhaps you might want to mail them. — DVRTed (Talk) 09:00, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but we do not want to have a recurring open attack surface allowing the over 8,000 accounts on Commons with the relevant permissions to put inappropriate images on our Main Page. I have edited a few of the Main Page's relevant edit notices. I am sure that my edits can be improved upon. The edit notices are currently very different in tone and format and I do not know which of the formats works best. —Kusma (talk) 08:30, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Large language models (LLMs) Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards