Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sandstein (talk | contribs) at 08:47, 22 April 2020 (→‎Removal of community general sanctions on Units in the United Kingdom: closed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Template:Active editnotice

    Open tasks

    XFD backlog
    V Mar Apr May Jun Total
    CfD 0 9 26 0 35
    TfD 0 0 10 0 10
    MfD 0 0 2 0 2
    FfD 0 0 2 0 2
    RfD 0 2 20 0 22
    AfD 0 0 0 0 0

    Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

    Report
    Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (30 out of 7801 total) (Purge)
    Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
    Sporting CP 2024-06-03 17:42 2024-09-03 17:42 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: Enough. ECR protected. Black Kite
    Economy of England 2024-06-03 09:21 2026-06-03 09:21 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan
    Draft:Yash Shah 2024-06-03 01:47 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Daniel Case
    Joseph Kallarangatt 2024-06-02 20:25 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP; raising to ECP Daniel Case
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unzela Khan 2024-06-02 20:21 2024-06-09 20:21 edit Persistent vandalism Star Mississippi
    Template:Copy to Wikimedia Commons in 2024-06-02 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2571 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    Battle of Sulaymaniyah (1991) 2024-06-01 21:55 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/KURD Daniel Quinlan
    Hossein Kamalabadi 2024-06-01 21:06 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Extraordinary Writ
    Free Palestine Party 2024-06-01 20:32 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    List of characters in Yeh Rishta Kya Kehlata Hai 2024-06-01 19:01 2024-06-22 19:01 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per request at RFPP; going longer this time Daniel Case
    Jogi (caste) 2024-06-01 18:04 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per WP:GS/CASTE and recent disruption Daniel Case
    FCSB 2024-06-01 17:55 indefinite edit a number of issues involving confirmed accounts, see TP Black Kite
    Imran Khan 2024-06-01 15:43 indefinite edit Arbitration enforcement RegentsPark
    Draft:Amir Sarkhosh 2024-06-01 13:47 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated - lowering per request at WP:AN Amortias
    Kol insurrection 2024-06-01 11:44 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: WP:CASTE RegentsPark
    John Spencer (military officer) 2024-06-01 10:47 2025-06-01 10:47 edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Robertsky
    List of presidents of Israel 2024-06-01 10:44 2025-06-01 10:44 edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Robertsky
    Koli rebellion 2024-06-01 03:42 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala Abecedare
    Kol uprising 2024-06-01 03:28 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; WP:GSCASTE Abecedare
    Koli rebellion 2024-06-01 03:25 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; WP:GSCASTE Abecedare
    Moroccanoil 2024-05-31 22:56 2025-05-31 22:56 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/A-I ToBeFree
    Draft:Ranjan Bose 2024-05-31 20:31 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; not notable; promotional; copyvio Diannaa
    User talk:GOOD-OLD-GEORGE2 2024-05-31 18:51 2024-06-07 18:51 edit,move LTA target Antandrus
    User:Leonidlednev 2024-05-31 15:32 2024-12-01 06:48 edit,move Increase to extended-confirmed edit protection, as user pages are already implicitly semi-protected by a filter Sdrqaz
    Nemo (singer) 2024-05-31 14:50 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and GENSEX; will log at CTOPS Daniel Case
    Israeli Public Broadcasting Corporation 2024-05-31 12:36 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Primefac
    List of killings and massacres in Mandatory Palestine 2024-05-31 05:27 indefinite edit Arbitration enforcement Johnuniq
    Rick and Morty (franchise) 2024-05-31 02:15 2025-05-31 02:15 edit Persistent sock puppetry NinjaRobotPirate
    General Mayhem 2024-05-31 00:29 indefinite edit,move To keep the nonsense from before at bay Pppery
    Mohammad Taha (Hamas) 2024-05-30 20:44 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter

    Appealing Topic Ban on Sports Articles

    Revisiting a long term case that was related to my disruptive editing on NHL Players Statistics back in the 2018-19 season since I like to have my topic ban appealed because I understand that when it was first issued, it was to educate me in what reliable source means when I update NHL Teams and why other editors want the correct procedure. When I first started to update statistics within NHL Team articles, I assumed the information I get comes from the recap games they played.

    Courtesy collapse. ——SN54129 18:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Was their any other way around the topic ban? Answer: Their was no other way. The topic ban was the only way for me to realize what reliable source means even though I was interested in other areas besides sports prior before the topic ban. You say hockey is the only thing I contribute. I asked the same question what my most interest was. NHL Hockey was indeed the most topic I contribute. The other areas you asked what I made positive contributions outside of hockey articles were transportation, 9/11, Nazi Germany but you would have to see me from the IP address I was in before I had an account. Also keep in mind that the information recognize where it got to from the start had to come from my edits from when I first started editing hockey articles back in June 2015. It will not work when I look back from where I first edit back in April 2018 since I was already contributing Wikipedia on June 2015.

    Even though the recap game stats are just as reliable as the official team stat website. I should know that I still should check the official team stat source to make sure my information is correct based on Goaltenders GAA Average, some examples of my corrections to stats based from official team stats and recap game sources are listed below: (Correcting Steve Mason’s stats)

    April 2018

    (For Connor Hellebuyck’s penalty minutes, I was able to obtain this literally after looking from the game recap stats.)

    (Blake Wheeler and Connor Hellebuyck’s stats were incorrect after I was suspicious whether Connor Hellebuyck had an assist. I found this one was incorrect after I checked the most recent Winnipeg Jets scoring on the boxscore to see who had goals and assists listed and I caught it but at the same time was able to catch Black Wheeler’s stats incorrect since his total assist was 32 listed on who had goals and assists on the boxscore.) December 7, 2018

    (Forgetting to add in Jacob Markstrom’s assist. I found this mistake after I double check my work by looking it from the recap game on Edmonton Oilers vs Vancouver Canucks game since Jacob Markstorm had the total number of assists listed from who scored and had assists)

    (James Neal’s stats were inaccurate. I found this was a mistake after realizing that the stats for goals and assists equal to the total amount of points. I would use the official stats records along with the Wikipedia stats and the recap game stats to correct the mistake.)

    (Oliver Kylington’s Plus Minus rating is 1, not 2 since the rating for the game he played was -1. But I could not just say it like that. For me to correct this one, I had to use previous edits, official team stat sources, and the recap game stats to increase the chance to become accurate. Not just one source.)

    Connor McDavid’s stats did not matched to the source on the recap for assists. I found this was wrong after I found from the recap game that his total listed from who got goals and assist total showed he had 51 assists, not 50. I would use the official team stat source together to correct the mistake.)

    (Patrick Marleau's assist on stats did not matched to the source on regular season stat website. I found this was wrong after I found from the recap game that his total listed from who got goals and assist total showed he had 16 assists, not 15. I would use the official team stat source together to correct the mistake.)

    (Manage to catch the time on ice for goaltenders stats wrong after the game recap stats revaluated shortly after the game was finalized)

    (Sam Bennet’s Penalty Minutes was wrong. I manage to catch this one after updating the team leader’s stats)

    Note that these corrections had to come for specific reasons: 1. This had to come with a lot of experience of editing hockey stats in previous years

    2. The sources from the game statistics and previous edits on achieved areas were the reason to why I was able to correct a few areas of incorrect stats

    3. The corrections I made during the 2018-19 season did not just happen even when I use the sources from the game stats and previous edits on Wikipedia that were reliable. If I continued to use those sources, I had to make sure I added in the accurate information by not rushing. This relates to my experience.

    4. This comes on other editor’s part of editing since I notice some of my information I added was incorrect prior before, I somehow manage to catch some of my mistakes since I was told to use the official nhl stat source which I eventually did so in some cases. But for at least one correction I made, it had to take at least 4 websites to correct Oliver Klington’s Plus Minus rating including previous edits by me and Yowashi, recap game stats, and the official team stats page since I was using game statistics and previous stats on Wikipedia as my primary source of editing in the first place, otherwise, it would have been incorrect later on since the official team stat source was not updated at the time and I used the recap game statistics as my primary source.


    Some edits that I will provide that I could have been told back in April 2017

    (I was never aware that the statistics scale should be arranged from most points to least)

    (I thought that adding in the stats from recap game statistics were allowed until I realized during the 2018-19 season I should be using the NHL.com statistics to update from their since it is more accurate and reliable)

    (Vancouver Canucks stats (October 2017) These edits look like I did not know the stats should be arranged from most points to least.

    Compared to the NHL 2018-19 season. Here are some examples where I used the official team stat source to get information that is from these edits (Carolina Hurricanes Player stats updated according to the official team stat source)

    (Minnesota Wilds Player stats updated according to the official team stat source)

    Note that the official team stats source does not provide the full list since some players get traded unless I go to NHL.com source to see the full list. In previous years since the 2016-17 NHL season when I had been updating the stats, I did not know I should obtain the NHL.com source since it was the most reliable until 2018-19 NHL season. Anywhere else that said I did not know about the most NHL reliable source till the 2018-19 NHL season?]

    Here are other examples of when I should use the NHL.com website to check that the information I added from the game only stats from recap games is corrected to what is reported on NHL.com. It is best to wait for at least a day after the game concludes because some of the information get revaluate overnight. That site that I was told of is actually way more accurate than it is on game only stats recap

    (Winnipeg Jets 2017-18 playoffs)

    (Edmonton Oilers December 23, 2018)

    (Winnipeg Jets 2017-18 playoffs stats)

    (Montreal Canadiens December 26, 2018)

    (Toronto Maple Leafs December 26, 2018)

    (Oilers Goaltender stats January 9, 2019)

    When I update NHL Statistics Teams. The sources I use to update teams for every game are listed below

    Recap Games that I can add from the game on to the statistics on Wikipedia. Adding in the information from game stats recap means it must be added carefully. It also contains the boxscore in who had the total number of goals and assists if I checked it. It is still recommended to use the official team stat source to make sure the information I added in is correct according to the NHL Team official stats. This source I used was what I thought was reliable since when I obtain this literally since the 2016-17 season. When I update for every game, I use the recent game the team has played recent to add on the previous stats on Wikipedia.

    Previous differences in edits on Wikipedia. This is useful to make sure that the information I get from the game recap statistics and official team stat source are accurate. I since had this during the 2018-19 season. NHL official team stat source for information that I can check to make sure I information is matched to the official source when I was first told of it. This can be useful to check my information to make sure my information does not have any mistakes combined together with the game statistics recap.


    Another thing I found surprising about some information I added that was incorrect was because I thought that the last time the information that was updated by another editor was correct but realized the NHL.com team website sometimes re-evaluates its stats overnight and plus I used the game stats from recap to add in to the page thinking it was correct but realize it was not from previous edits. Here are some examples where sometimes the NHL.COM official website sometimes revaluate its stats from these edits: (January 11, 2019 Winnipeg Jets vs Detroit Red Wings (Ben Chariot games played should have been added)

    (For Edmonton Oilers stats for Colby Cave, he never had penalty minutes and his rating plus minus is -3 . He did not had penalty minutes when he played against Minnesota Wilds.

    (February 7, 2019)

    (For Edmonton Oilers vs San Jose Sharks (Feburary 9, 2019) I thought that the information I was adding from the recap game was literally. But what I was not aware was that the stats from NHL.com revaluate overnight.)

    (March 7, 2019 Mike Smith’s saves total should have been 920 since he had 26 saves.)

    For Ottawa Senators update stats are the examples where I discovered some of the information from NHL.com (I at first thought I obtain these numbers literally since I thought that the last time someone else updated the stats were correct so I add in the numbers from the game they were playing but I realize some of the information from NHL.com get revaluate)

    (January 13, 2019)

    At first, I thought updating NHL player statistics in articles were allowed every game as soon as a game concludes by adding in the information from the recap game they played on to the current stats although it is still recommended through the following recommendations I had been told of

    Updating the stats from recap games must mean I have to add in them in a orderly way meaning I must added the stats from their going from the top row of the list to the bottom (left to right when adding the numbers)

    I would need to use previous stats on Wikipedia to make sure the stats are correct Sometimes, I may miss some information from their which I should have added it in, so its recommended that I should still use the NHL.com team stats that has the full accurate information. If I use the NHL.com team stats, its recommended to wait at least a day after the game is finalized because some of the information tends to get revaluate overnight. When the ANI Discussion started back in February 22, 2019, noting that when I first started the ANI Discussion, I did not started because I just did that. I did it because editors disagreed on my editing on NHL Hockey articles and that I was noticing what was going to happen when they were going to report me.

    When the ANI Discussion started back in February 22, 2019, noting that when I first started the ANI Discussion, I did not started because I just did that. I did it because editors disagreed on my editing on NHL Hockey articles and that I was noticing what was going to happen when they were going to report me.

    You also asked why I was not able to discuss probably about the issue on nhl players stats on the ANI discussion a year ago? Its because I had been assuming for a long time that the stats I updated when I really started doing this since the 2016-17 NHL season was verdiable even when I corrected some of my own mistakes, I would have thought already the information was not original research.

    I also learned that to avoid making more inaccurate information, I should be getting the official team stat source to make sure the information is accurate. If this ban is lifted, should I still discuss the issue of what sources should be used for the purpose to update NHL Hockey Team stats at Wiki Ice Hockey Project? NicholasHui (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • All things being equal, NicholasHui, in the world of Tban appeals—or any other—brevity is your friend  :) ——SN54129 16:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one is going to read all of this (which you just deleted in a subsequent edit). Consider shortening your appeal to a more concise summary. See WP:NICETRY.--WaltCip (talk) 16:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please simplify to 1) what you did wrong before and 2) what you will do to correct it. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    1. What I did wrong before was I thought I add in the information properly but editors disagree because they believe I was adding it in my own knowledge

    2. What I will do to correct it is to use most reliable source whenever I update NHL Hockey player stats articles or other articles in different topics NicholasHui (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Here are some examples that I will show you that I did before

    (Carolina Hurricanes Player stats updated according to the official team stat source)

    (Minnesota Wilds Player stats updated according to the official team stat source)

    These sources I used didn't provide me a full list of stats on nhl teams because they trade away their players. In previous years when I updated the stats since the 2016-17 NHL season, I thought updating the stats was only adding all the stats from recap only games stats from each game the team played without knowing I could have just simply refer it to NHL.com stats NicholasHui (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Maple Leafs game 2 2018 playoffs stats For this edit here, some of my information did not matched to the official source because I thought that is the way NHL updates its stats.

    for the Winnipeg Jets 2017-18 regular season stats here, the information I put in was not all correct because at the time, I disregarded reliable sources, its later fixed by another editor here. NicholasHui (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC) (Keep in mind that even without an account I used, it still counts as my editing regardless whether I edited while logged out.)[reply]

    I'll let other decide, concerning your topic ban. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I was notified of this discussion by NicholasHui on my userpage, who I think took an overly broad view of the notification requirement. I was part of the discussions that implemented the TBan. For y'alls convenience: here is The ANI that ended in a TBan, whose wording included Lifting of the topic ban will be contingent on NicholasHui's edits and behavior showing that they fully understand WP:V and WP:OR. The TBan was an alternative to an indeff at the time, and seen as a last chance. I currently have no opinion on lifting the topic ban. I do have some questions however about NicholasHui's logged out editing. Nicholas, have you made any logged out edits in the last year? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you saying I made edits while logged out last year? I used edit while logging out when making edits to my archieve page on my Userpage most recent. Another thing interesting was that I had the same habits before back a long time ago before I even used this account when I was editing NHL 2018 playoffs while under the IP address 24.84.228.210 by editing the NHL stats by not most points to least and using only recap game stats. You think its odd that 24.84.228.210 is inactive when I started using an account to continue edit player stats on NHL Canadian teams that time but it clearly had been me editing NHL 2018 playoffs stats before. When I got topic banned from editing Hockey Articles, their was no point for me editing under IP accounts to edit NHL Hockey stats that I was banned from unless you think their was something different about my edit logout habbit NicholasHui (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    According to those 2 IP accounts, you were commenting on the very topic you were barred from. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have zero interest in being involved with the final decision on NicholasHui's topic ban. To comment on NicholasHui's usage of IP accounts, I have noticed multiple Vancouver based IP's interact with my account over the last several months that I could tell that they were used by him. Yowashi (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Well I was too obsessed in looking at your contributions. My apologies. Its just that my mind has been too fixated with your editing. Should have known better next time. (Noting that I previously was not in a habit like this before although I was around on NHL Hockey articles since June 2015, I only started to become fixated with certain contributions since 2019 because over time, I would have been more interested to know how users communicate on my talkpage.) NicholasHui (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Any other comments to say about my appeal? NicholasHui (talk) 02:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • I would have to say, with your behavior here alone, I have no confidence whatsoever that you would not return to your old ways. You seem to just make a mess of things that others have to clean up. Sorry. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't mean to make a mess of things that others had to clean up. Its just that when I updated NHL player stats, I did not realized that using recap game only stats was not the most reliable source. NicholasHui (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @NicholasHui: I would suggest that you withdraw this nomination and perhaps try again after some time when 1) you can succinctly explain what you did wrong before and why the community should no longer be concerned 2) have stopped editing while logged out, which only raises more questions (right or wrong). Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 07:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Bagumba: 1) Why the community should no longer be concerned about my topic ban on Sports stats articles is because I finally understood that I should have established consensus at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey because editors could not agree with the content on player stats. Prior before the dispute when I wondered was I doing the stats hockey update properly? I expect myself to figure out whether or not I done it properly. Even though I realized my own mistake once I was notified by the editors who watched me do it. I corrected. Unfortunately, they disagreed still.

    2) I have been editing while logged out with stuff with my userpage archive. The problem is that my mind in the last several months has been too fixated with certain user contributions. I just couldn't help it.

    3) I will agree that even though my appeal is accepted, I will try to follow the community's advise that I should try to establish consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey.

    4) I am here to make productive contributions understanding that I should cite the sources especially if I add in a lot of details of events or other topics in articles and I will try to stay calm if others disagree with what I edit. Does that sound fair? NicholasHui (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Why did you chose to edit logged out? GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @GoodDay: It was because for one good reason was that I was editing my User archive page. NicholasHui (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Why would you need to edit your own archive page, logged out? GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    To save some flooded information on my user account contributions. Also, you know hockey is really not my only thing I edit on, take a look on my user page of why I have those IP accounts listed on my userpage NicholasHui (talk) 00:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    NOTICE. The editor in question has breached his topic ban and made an edit at 2016–17 Winnipeg Jets season. – Sabbatino (talk) 05:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I just was a bit too impatient. My mind gave off. NicholasHui (talk) 07:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reluctantly oppose lifting or easing of topic ban. NicholasHui is well-intentioned but unfortunately, in their eagerness and impatience to edit NHL related articles, they cannot abide with the accepted consensus, editing-conditions and collaborative norms. In the most recent instance this is demonstrated by their editing while logged out because "in the last several months has been too fixated with certain user contributions", and violating the very topic-ban they are appealing while the appeal is being discussed because they got "a bit too impatient." Given the recent and past behavior, which has led to protracted discussions (see this and this in addition to their talkpage) and greatly taxed the time and good-faith of other editors active in the area, I cannot see the lifting of the topic-ban to be in interest of the project.
    PS: I have been previously involved with the user as an admin in issuing a block and executing the (community-imposed) topic ban; see the linked discussions for details. Abecedare (talk) 02:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Another thing I should note is some asked before why I have all the IP accounts on my user page? The answer is that I cared what my own editing history was. I could tell it was me that edit those articles before. (Am I wrong?) NicholasHui (talk) 04:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @MarkH21: I understand its failure to abide by consensus because I have gone through previous mistakes many times through (understanding past mistakes) since June 2015 when I started to edit Wikipedia on NHL Hockey assuming that this one was simple but it was not. NicholasHui (talk) 05:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Wish this request would get more attention. It's not doing NicholasHui any good, being kept in suspense. GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose The logged out editing, and urge to get back to editing without an understanding of wrongdoing, rubs me the wrong way. I see no good reason to lift it at this time, and several good reasons to leave it in place. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Grudging oppose due to the TBAN violations. Foxnpichu (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I should note is that from ANI, prior before being topic banned from sports stats articles, they say, "If you wish to discuss the issue of when player statistics should be updated and what sources can be used for the purpose, you should do so at WT:HOCKEY and establish consensus that is compliant with wikipedia's content policies." There are a few reasons why I did not established consensus at WT:HOCKEY prior before being topic banned:
    1. I believed that establishing consensus at WT:HOCKEY probably would have resulted in me being banned from editing sports articles anyways
    2. I at first assumed that the problem was easy fix and it was not a big deal.
    I also must say that it will be hard for me to agree with the abided consensus norm at this point given that I had been editing NHL Hockey Articles in the last few years since June 2015 to March 2019. NicholasHui (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand what you are saying here. Are you suggesting that proposing something at WT:HOCKEY would have resulted in you being banned from editing sports articles, simply for making a proposal? Furthermore, are you now saying that you will find it personally disappointing that consensus will prevent you from editing sports articles, or are you saying that you are going to ignore consensus and edit sports articles in the future even if you are banned from doing so by consensus? — MarkH21talk 18:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @MarkH21: I say that establishing consensus at WT:HOCKEY probably would have resulted in me being banned from editing sports articles anyways because other editors would not have agreed with the editing content, furthermore after being topic banned from sports stats articles a year ago, it was still hard at first to adapt to the surrounding change, like I felt my brain was going really downhill because editing NHL Hockey was a long term goal (its not short term editing I done) I had been doing since June 2015. NicholasHui (talk) 19:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Voluntary IBAN: Elizium23 / Contaldo80

    For too long, I have been fighting over Catholic topics with this editor, Contaldo80. I have been rude and I have edit-warred and I have failed to assume good faith. I go to confession to a priest and tell him how angry Wikipedia makes me, because of Contaldo80. It's not his fault. I have a tendency to be a hothead and this relationship brings out the worst in my personality. I want out. I volunteer for an interaction ban on any articles edited by Contaldo80. It will last 6 months with an option of renewal before the expiration date. Contaldo does not need to volunteer for a 2-way IBAN, that is totally optional and not something I am requesting here. I am requesting that I be held to my word by sanctions if I violate the boundaries. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Elizium23 (talk) 03:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. I won't be offering myself for a voluntary ban. Having not edited wikipedia for a while (because of a number of unpleasant interactions with other editors) I was taken aback by your quite confrontational approach on Homosexual clergy in the Catholic Church. I think your suggestion that you step back from editing is a prudent one as you've made a very personal attack on me above - about going to confession and complaining to your priest specifically about me. I'll leave to administrators to make a judgement as to whether this falls into personal harassment and should therefore result in a formal block or censure. It's disturbing to say the least.Contaldo80 (talk) 03:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh please. I was complaining to a priest in Confession (which is about the penitent's sins and not others) about how angry I became on Wikipedia, not about anything you did. Not a personal attack. The reverse. Elizium23 (talk) 04:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it weird and unsettling that you have gone to a priest to tell him how angry I specifically make you feel because of my editing. I really don't think this is acceptable. I actually feel harassed. I'd like an administrator to exercise judgement as to whether this is acceptable behaviour? Thanks.Contaldo80 (talk) 01:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) And as someone who watched your recent inappropriate actions against Elizium at Talk:Homosexual_clergy_in_the_Catholic_Church#Today's_edits_reverted, I think it weird and inappropriate that you are calling for this. You should own up to the problems of your own behavior, not act like you're violated by someone having a reaction to it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Nat - you evidently have a problem with me. I've been respectful and polite but honestly I think you're starting to get a bit carried away. Following me to this discussion to chip in your two cents is probably over-reach for a non-administrator. Can I respectfully ask you to please back-off. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 03:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So you come to my Talk page as part of your campaign against Elizium and specifically tell me to come see this thread, but then want to squelch me from responding? No. No, you have not been "respectful and polite", you've been attacking Elizium over their taking care of your bad edits while you've been going around boasting about how great you've been in this matter. Your complaining about me having "followed" you to a thread you told me to come see is another example of you inventing a way for you to be a victim rather than taking responsibilities for your own actions. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I drew attention to his comments so that you would see that he had become personally abusive and your interventions were not helping to calm that (nor are they still). Discussing me before a priest (a third party) because of my edits is a violation of my personal privacy. I still think this frankly a disgraceful thing to say - and a way to intimidate me.Contaldo80 (talk) 04:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussing me before a priest (a third party) because of my edits is a violation of my personal privacy. No, it is absolutely not, and that's an absurd claim. Grandpallama (talk) 14:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support One-way Iban as requested. (Non-administrator comment) --Puddleglum2.0(How's my driving?) 05:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any such one-way IBAN would be a travesty of justice. At Homosexual clergy in the Catholic Church it is Contaldo80 who has been inserting names in contravention of WP:BLP and making personal attacks, and Elizium23 who has been removing the names, in accordance with that policy, and not making personal attacks. Such behaviour has continued above in this very thread. If any sanctions are taken they should be against Contaldo80, not Elizium23. Much as we might admire Elizium23's "turn the other cheek" attitude that shouldn't get in the way of our seeing who is in the wrong here. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please cite the personal attach I make. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Naming a specific person as gay in a Wikipedia article is a tricky issue, especially if we don't already have an article on that person which specifiies their sexual orientation. WP:ETHNICRACECAT says "a person may also not be described or categorized as LGBTQ on the basis of allegations or rumours that have not been confirmed by the subject's own self-identification." In my opinion, this complaint against User:Contaldo80 might be closed if they will agree not to add any more names of individuals to Homosexual clergy in the Catholic Church without getting a talk page consensus first. EdJohnston (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I have made no complaint at all against Contaldo80. If there are complaints against him, they belong to other editors and not me. This thread was opened as a request for administrators to enforce a one-way IBAN against me. That is my only purpose of opening this thread. Elizium23 (talk) 05:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but to be clear I wasn't the one that added names in the first place. I just restored the initial edit until Elizium clarified why he had cited WP:BLP. It wasn't clear to anyone (except himself) as to where BLP had been violated. If I want to I can just restore the names in the article and attach a source to a mainstream media showing that these priests have publicly come out as gay - this would not violate WP:BLP. The reason why I eventually supported the removal of the text was because a closer look at the article showed that it could not be established that the priests cited came out as gay because of a statement made by Pope Francis. That was the problem. This doesn't resolve the issue, however, that another editor has admitted that they personally discuss me edits with a priest and the feelings of rage this creates in him. This is intimidating me and I don't think this is acceptable. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "It wasn't clear to anyone (except himself) as to where BLP had been violated." That's false. You were the only one who claimed it was unclear, and frankly, with the length of experience you have on this site, it's hard to believe that you didn't understand why the unsourced claim that certain priests had announced themselves to be gay would be a BLP problem. But even if we accept that you're that ignorant of BLP, why, if there was even a question in your mind that there might be a BLP problem, you would re-add the material? When you're wasting people's time with such actions, it should not come as a surprise to you that they have an emotional reaction. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't presume to tell me Nat what is "false". Elizium should have indicated where the material had violated BLP - that would have been the respectful thing to do with other editors. The claim that these men are gay is not controversial as they have spoken publicly about being gay (https://novenanews.com/gay-amsterdam-netherlands-priest-valkering-wins-vatican-appeal-dismissal/) Maybe you'd like to be an administrator Nat - who knows maybe you'd make a good one - but you're not one. You weren't even engaged in editing the page under discussion. I have no idea why you think we need your ongoing "insights". I for one am starting to feel harassed and intimidated by you - is that your intention? In the same way that elizium spoke to his priest about me and how "angry" I made him? Contaldo80 (talk) 04:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't presume to tell me Nat what is "false". - Why not? I can certainly understand why you might not want your false claims pointed out. I see no reason why not pointing them out would do any good for anyone but you, and this is a public discussion where you're making false claims. You weren't even engaged in editing the page under discussion. Actually, I've been editing that page since 2013, making me one of the top 10 editors of the page. I for one am starting to feel harassed and intimidated by you I honestly don't care. My job here is not to nurture your feelings. If it upsets you that someone is pointing out the falsity of what you say, you could, I suppose, not say false things. I happen to think that correcting misinformation is a good thing. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Review of RfC close by User:Cunard

    Wondering if I could request a review of the close of this RfC by User:Cunard here Talk:Electronic_cigarette#RfC:_Article_readability.

    Supposedly it looks a specific version of the lead of that article into place. I am not even sure what the RfC was proposing with the dif provided being the fixing of a pipe link.

    Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Looks like the two "versions" he was referring to side by side are seen here. It's easy to compare two "versions" as a single diff, so I'm confused as to why he would present them as separate diffs in which you could not actually see the specific changes, nor expect your average RfC respondent to figure it out. Setting that aside, the line of questioning itself seems to be in violation of RfC guidelines. RfC questions must be "brief" and "neutral". "Version 1 or version 2?" is a brief and neutral question. However that's not how the decision was posed. Instead, users could choose between version 1 by simply taking the position statement that it "is preferable" to version 2. On the contrary, the only way to prefer version 2 was to agree with the a specific, predefined argument written out by the OP, who favored version 1. In other words, your choices were to choose the OP's preferred version or be pigeonholed into making a specific argument written by the OP. There was no option presented to choose version 2 in any other way. This seems like a gamey tactic, whether it was intentional or not. So, given the confusing way the diffs were presented, in addition to the non-neutral way the question was presented, I would move to strike the reading of consensus in favor of version 1 from the close. ~Swarm~ {sting} 17:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doc, it's surprising that you didn't see what the RfC was proposing, because you are the person who asked for it. Specifically: I boldly made a series of changes to the lead, after which the article looked like this. You rejected the majority of the changes and, when challenged, you suggest I try a RfC. I begin the RfC you asked for on the same day, and Cunard closed it 41 days later. You have subsequently claimed that you thought I'd begun a full RfC about a pipe link, but it's hard to reconcile that with the sequence of events. Swarm's allegation that I was gaming the system is ludicrous.—S Marshall T/C 17:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) In terms of closing the questions as presented, there is unanimous consensus in favour of statement 1 and against statement 3. Statement 2 was also unequivocally supported but less strongly. I would have said there was no consensus regarding statement 4 but I can see why the closer did find consensus for it. As for presentation of the diffs and understanding of the questions, the only person commenting who seems to have had any issues was Doc James, who failed to explain his issues in a manner that anyone else seems to have understood. I agree the RfC was not brilliantly worded (and was also not brilliantly attended) although it was possible for editors to oppose both statements 3 and 4 if they preferred version 2. I don't see a need to rip this up and start again, but rather use it as a starting point for a better discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      +1 -qedk (t 愛 c) 18:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @S Marshall: I did not claim that you "gamed the system", I highlighted an obvious, straightforward procedural failure in your wording of the RfC, in violation of the RfC rules, and said that it appeared to be a gamey tactic, whether or not it was intended to be. Rather than becoming defensive, a good faith user should presumably understand the concern of gamey or non-neutral RfCs in a discretionary sanctions area, and acknowledge the problem and pledge that it will not happen again. The concern is rather straightforward, as I explained, and why you would go straight to attacking it is confusing. Regardless, I think it's something that you should take seriously. ~Swarm~ {sting} 01:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      You did say This seems like a gamey tactic... any editor would assume you're trying to implicate them if you say it like that. --qedk (t 愛 c) 06:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Exactly. The RfC was perfectly neutrally-worded; only one participant had any trouble following it; and I categorically reject the allegation that any "tactic" was employed.—S Marshall T/C 08:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I found a clear consensus for position #4 to reinstate the article version #1 referenced in the RfC. Here are what RfC participants said about position #4:
      1. S Marshall wrote, "Support positions 1, 2 and 4."
      2. EllenCT wrote, "I've already stated I prefer the newer revision of position 4."
      3. Jd4x4 wrote, "I've voiced my opinion for Version 1 in the RfC but the entire reason I involved myself here is because the 'stable' version was painful to read" and "To clarify my position, I agree with Position 1 at the time the RfC was raised, disagree with Position 3, and currently agree with Position 4 should it be decided to revert the lead from what it currently is."
      4. Darwin Naz wrote, "I am opposing position 4, primarily for the Nicotine part in Article 1's lede. This is an encyclopedia and not an editorial or an essay written to persuade readers against smoking."
      5. Yrwefilledwithbugs wrote, "I think I like 4 also, but it's because I believe it has more info which isn't a bad thing; it just needs to be consolidated and/or broken apart some. It's a massive amount of info though which is really difficult to get through"
      I gave significantly reduced weight to the comment by Yrwefilledwithbugs since the account was created on 12 March 2020 and participated in the RfC on the same day. Out of the remaining four editors, three supported position 4 and one opposed it. These editors provided reasonable arguments for their positions. Regarding article version #1, editors liked its readability (S Marshall and Jd4x4), its use of more recent MEDRS sources (EllenCT), and its discussion of nicotine being highly addictive (Jd4x4). Darwin Naz, the only opposer of article version #1, raised a reasonable point about the nicotine part that this is not "an essay written to persuade readers against smoking". Despite this valid concern about article version #1 possibly needing revisions, there was a clear consensus among the RfC participants that article version #1 was a significant improvement over article version #2 (the version of the article when the RfC was created). I therefore closed the RfC as reinstate article version #1. I also noted in the close that more improvements can and should be made to the article. I agree with Thryduulf that "I don't see a need to rip this up and start again, but rather use it as a starting point for a better discussion."

      One editor, Doc James, did not understand to the RfC statement. He was confused about the links to the article versions. S Marshall explained the links to him, after which Doc James did not respond to the explanation. From reading the other RfC participants statements, it was clear that the RfC statement did allow them to explain which article version they preferred. Position 4 said "Article version #1 is preferable to article version #2." Article version #2 was the version of the article when the RfC began. If editors had preferred the status quo of article version #2, they could have opposed position 4 which means no change to the article. The RfC opening statement presented a list of statements and asking editors if they agreed or disagreed with them. The RfC statement could have been phrased more clearly as a yes–no question but that is not required and does not invalidate the RfC. RfC participants could have added more position statements if they felt the existing statements would have inaccurately framed their arguments. RfC participants have done that numerous times in past RfCs. No one did that in this RfC. I see no gaming or even appearance of gaming in the RfC statement.

      Cunard (talk) 10:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Help needed with some moves

    Yup...page got locked up in the middle of moves...would have been nice if those involved had read the talk page or at least replied to inquiries.--Moxy 🍁 00:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Introduction page move

    Tracked in Phabricator
    Task T250551

    Hi, we need some help closing this discussion because the system keeps throwing database errors in our faces whenever we try to move some pages. Wikipedia:Introduction and Wikipedia:Tutorial are supposed to redirect to Help:Introduction.

    Here's how it currently looks:

    How do we get around these database errors and resolve this? Anyone else wanna take a shot at moving the pages in one attempt? Anarchyte (talk | work) 03:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    At this point I think we should ask meta:System administrators to handle this request. I tried moving Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Introduction (historical) which only has a handful of revisions, but even that raised a database error. — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I got it as far as Wikipedia:WIntroduction (historical) through intermediary steps (and lots of leftover redirects) but it keeps throwing errors after that. I've filed a Phab task. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Revision history sitting at User:Wikipedia:Introduction (historical).--Moxy 🍁 11:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just now tried to move Wikipedia:WIntroduction (historical) to Wikipedia:Introduction (historical), since the extra "W" obviously doesn't belong long-term, but even doing that produces a quick database error. Nyttend (talk) 13:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    However this gets resolved, please leave a redirect upon your page move. Yesterday, I undid about two dozen page redirects that were broken and in danger of being deleted. If you leave a redirect with your page move, than those original redirects can get corrected by one of our helpful bots. Liz Read! Talk! 18:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. There's no long-term reason to retain the intermediate redirects, like WP:WIntroduction, so I would be inclined to move without redirect, but I wouldn't have thought of the redirect-fixing bots. Nyttend (talk) 10:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) consolidated similar discussions. Related discussions (as of this comment) for reference: meta:Steward requests/Miscellaneous#Moving some pages on the English Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#Moves needing help from a steward, and Wikipedia talk:Introduction#Implementation. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 01:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Account recovery for non-existing email

    I've registered on Wikipedia long time ago, and I've forgotten the password. Since then, provider of email address I've used during account creation discontinued the email service - I can't use password reset option. The email address no longer exists. Is there any option to recover the account? Or is my login (which I use anywhere else on the Internet) just unavailable forever? If it helps, said email address was bound to my personal data and I think I would be able to provide some proof that I was the owner of that account.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:a311:8044:b380:c244:dfa3:d599:18e3 (talk • contribs)

    I am afraid it is lost. I have heard that some accounts have been recovered though if the owners could have confirmed the identity, so that it would be useful to wait for more knowledgeable people than me.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless you were an extremely prolific editor or an administrator this is very unlikely to go anywhere - however you can just register a new account and take up where you left off. — xaosflux Talk 13:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Create a new account and label it as a continuation of your old one, perhaps using {{User previous account}}. Labeling the accounts will help prevent misunderstandings. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So even though I can provide proof that account is linked to my real life identity, my best option is to register create a new one (e.g. oldAccount2)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A311:8044:B380:34A3:2874:A973:9858 (talk) 22:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not that we won't give access because we don't believe it's you, it's just that passwords cannot be retrieved from the server. Jimbo himself could forget his password and not have email enabled and he would be required to open up a new account. Primefac (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Understandable, but damn it's frustrating. Every half a year or so I get an urge to contirbute, but original account was registered on and old email in 2010. Wikipedia must have been single account that I forgot to migrate. I assume changing email associated with an account is not an option either (especially for user with no contirbutions)? If so, I guess it was worth a shot and the discussion can be closed. Thank you for your help. 2A02:A311:8044:B380:34A3:2874:A973:9858 (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's the inaccessible account that has no contributions, then there's some hope once you've made some contributions and become established. —Cryptic 14:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Dmitri Smirnov, RIP

    Sadly User:Dmitrismirnov has died ([1]). Please protect his user page and put in place other measures, as described at wP:RIP. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Sad news indeed. I've protected his user page. Additional verification is available at [2]. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved
     – Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Really sad. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Limits to administrator discretion: GS vs AC/DS

    WP:AC/DS places certain limitations on administrator discretion in areas where ARBCOM has authorized discretionary sanctions. Wikipedia:General sanctions theoreticaly documents the rules for all discretionary sanctions regimes, including those authorized by the community. However, I am unable to find the restrictions that apply by default to a community-authorized DS regime. Common sense suggests they should be the same as those of ARBCOM-DS, but I cannot find this documented anywhere. I'd appreciate any clarity anyone can lend, and if this just makes it clear that we need to revamp our documentation, so be it. Courtesy ping to @El C and Sandstein:, with whom I was just discussing this (this isn't about them, so not sending a notice.) Vanamonde (Talk) 17:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    As mentioned here, my take is that this is a procedural anomaly that ACDS are subject to, but GS are not. I cannot really explain it otherwise. El_C 17:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sometimes I wonder if one should merge the GS and AC/DS systems together so that we don't need two parallel frameworks, but I take that would require forcing Arbcom to discharge some of their authority over the DS system. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a new editor, I jumped into a bunch of DS areas (because those are the most interesting ones, relating to politics, international relations, history, etc.), and man is it confusing as alllll heck. I would love for the community to make some (relatively minor) changes to make this scheme work better and be easier-to-understand for new editors (and probably experienced editors also), such as:
      1. Combine GS and DS into one "thing" instead of two
      2. Rename that one thing. "Sanction" is one of the worst possible words we could have chosen for this, because (in wonderful English style) to "sanction" can mean to either "allow" or to "punish". It's a word that has two opposite meanings. Also, an editor can be sanctioned, but to "sanction a page" or "put a page under sanctions" doesn't make sense grammatically. Are we "allowing" the page, or are we "punishing" the page? Neither; it's editors who are sanctioned. So rename it to Special Restrictions. That makes sense: a page is under "special restrictions", when it's restricted in a way that pages normally are not. Special restrictions are what GS and DS actually are.
      3. There should continue to be two ways of placing pages under Special Restrictions: the community can do it (a la GS), or Arbcom can do it (a la DS).
      4. The notification requirements should be adjusted to require one user talk page warning before imposing a sanction. Edit notices are great, but not everyone sees them. Talk page banners are great, but not everyone sees them. Mobile users in particular won't see either, but even desktop users can miss them sometimes due to banner blindness. Notifying an editor with a DS notice is OK, but people will forget, either that they received the notice (could be up to a year ago), or they'll forget that a particular page is within a particular topic area. The solution is simple: first time an editor breaks a Special Restriction, an admin posts a formal warning on their talk page ("Page:X is under the 1RR special restriction"). Second time, the editor can be sanctioned (page blocked, banned, whatever). Allow exceptions for egregious or emergency cases. This will ensure that nobody who doesn't know a page is under 1RR will get blocked for breaking 1RR (or whatever the restriction may be), while also ensuring that everybody who violates 1RR or some other Special Restriction is informed of the Special Restriction status in a no-excuses way. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I...I have no snarky reply to this. Wholehearted support for the concept. Room to improve bullet 4, since DS is a lot more than just the imposition of 1RR, but I absolutely agree with unifying the GS and DS systems (and renaming them). creffett (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Certainly seems a legitimate set of ideas by @Levivich:. 4 probably would want to be clarified - perhaps first time breaking a special restriction within a category (e.g. post 1932 US politics), which would avoid disputes about people bouncing around on various related pages, action only to be taken on edits made after that warning (egregious aside). Obviously the arbs would probably have to sign off, but I can't see any reason they'd complain if the community wanted to change the name. Nosebagbear (talk)
        There are a couple of minor aspects: CS appeals are purely to AN, not to AE - and I wouldn't want this to change. Additionally, one minor community vs (prior) ARBCOM snitfit was about whether DS allows for the deletion of pages. The community firmly refuted it (and so CS doesn't allow deletion without a normal process), ARBCOM either disagreed or equivocated. Indeed, a couple of failed arbcom amendments were bought on the issue, I think. If that was to be aligned, it might be worth asking the new arbcom their views on that facet. Nosebagbear (talk)
    • In terms of the original query, the same restrictions probably make sense (not that anyone has broken any rules, just we should unify to align with DS regs, at least in this aspect). Nosebagbear (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are we talking about general sanctions vs discretionary sanctions, or arbcom DS/GS vs community authorised DS/GS? Because AFAIK there are arbcom general sanctions which aren't discretionary sanctions. E.g. the 1RR and 500/30 for ARBPIA. Nil Einne (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @Nil Einne: My original question was about limits to discretion in the two different discretionary sanctions regimes. ARBCOM general sanctions are far more specific, and the question is less applicable there. So far, no one seems to know of explicit, en.wiki-wide documentation on limits to admin discretion for community-authorized discretionary sanctions. I'm going to ping another couple of policy wonks here: @Calannecc and Xaosflux: any thoughts? Vanamonde (Talk) 22:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @TonyBallioni: you too. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @Vanamonde93: sorry, but this is an area I usually steer clear of. — xaosflux Talk 23:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @Xaosflux: I don't blame you. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, Vanamonde93, general sanctions are typically authorized as "standard discretionary sanctions" and modeled after the ArbCom ones. If there are additional sanctions beyond standard DS, they're also typically modeled after ArbCom topic sanctions. There are some differences (how notifications are done is de facto left up to the whim of the closing admin as an example), but generally the rules are the same and you just replace the phrase "Arbitration Committee" with "Community at AN" in WP:AC/DS and remove any reference to WP:AE.
      In short, WP:AC/DS is still the controlling procedure for the most part, you just replace arb functions with community functions. That's how I've always interpreted it, because AC/DS are the definition of standard DS. Also fixing ping to Callanecc TonyBallioni (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      What Tony said. It is generally up to the closing admin to determine the exact wording of the community authorised sanctions per the consensus model, generally though it is modelled directly on ArbCom's discretionary sanctions system.

      I disagree with others above that merging the ArbCom and community discretionary sanctions system would mean ArbCom giving some of the authority - it would actually mean the community giving up their authority. For example, ArbCom would oversee the whole thing, including when the community decides to impose DS, and community and ArbCom DS would both by enforced at AE. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      @TonyBallioni and Callanecc: That makes sense to me. However, am I correct in my understanding that in the absence of specific wording in the closure, this is not codified? I'm looking through the various GS-authorizing discussions, and the wording is...variable. See here, or here, or here. I don't think this is an academic question. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      No it's not codified anywhere. Discretionary sanctions|This and this are currently as close as it gets. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      So we're bound to the DS formulation if it's in the closing statement, and otherwise only to the extent we choose to be...I don't think I can be bothered to fix that loophole, but this is perhaps something for us to collectively keep in mind when future DS are authorized. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) Two of those are fairly old in wiki-terms, but at least for the British measurements ones, it looks pretty similar. As to the ones you proposed in 2019, while you didn’t use the phrase standard discretionary sanctions in your proposal, it’s fairly clear at least to me that’s what you were describing, just authorized by the community and not by ArbCom.
      I guess my view is roughly that as WP:AC/DS documents standard discretionary sanctions, when community general sanctions are authorized, they follow those rules for the most part unless explicitly stated otherwise. en.wiki tends to go off a common law type of approach to policy, despite our legion of policies, guidelines, and essays.
      This is especially true for administrative actions since the four main policies on it (WP:ADMIN, WP:BLOCK, WP:PROTECT, and WP:DELETE) are fairly ambiguous and leave a lot to judgement. My view is that since AC/DS establishes a generally followed standard even for community GS, people are normally thinking of it when they’re voting to authorize them, and admins typically use them the same way, unless there’s a consensus that you can deviate from them, you shouldn’t.
      I think you could probably add a sentence like While not limited by Arbitration Committee procedures and guidelines, community authorized general sanctions ordinarily follow the procedures of standard discretionary sanctions authorized by the arbitration committee, but with the community handling all appeals at the Administrators Noticeboard. Deviation or additions to these standards typically require consensus in the discussion authorizing them unless purely clerical in nature. without much controversy to document this. If it’s objected to, you could have an RfC, but I think that sentence is the unspoken consensus of behavioural norms. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Vanamonde93, I was bold and added the above because I think it fits with the de facto understanding and no one here appeared to disagree. If it gets reverted we can have a formal support/oppose straw poll here or at VPP, I suppose, but I think this is a good candidate for "update documentation to match how we normally do stuff without an RfC." TonyBallioni (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Good addition, Tony. El_C 00:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @TonyBallioni: Much appreciated; I was intending to do it when I logged back on. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      El C, shouldn't such a change to that page be discussed at Wikipedia_talk:General_sanctions not here? Sir Joseph (talk) 03:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, right now the conversation is here, so it's best to keep it un-split. But later on, sure. El_C 03:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    File:180px-Ivan-Kozhedub2.jpg

    Hi! This file was copied to vi.wikipedia (vi:Tập tin:Ivan-Kozhedub.jpg) where it still is. I wanted to check the source but now the file is deleted as F8 NowCommons. Could someone check what file name on Commons is supposed to be? --MGA73 (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    If its not too much trouble perhaps you could undelete File:Jakūn gūsa.png so I can copy that to Commons (it is used in vi.wikipedia: vi:Tập tin:Jakūn gūsa.png). --MGA73 (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The summary was indicated as "German Wikipedia", and I know the uploader and would not expect of him a deep understanding of copyright policies, even less 15 years ago.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I see, this is not the question you asked. The name was File:Kozhedub.jpg.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @MGA73:, I restored the other file. Please let me knw after you have performed the transfer, I will delete it. I am not willing to transfer it to Commons myself.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ymblanter: Thank you. I copied the file to Commons Now. --MGA73 (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I now deleted the file.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Removal of community general sanctions on Units in the United Kingdom

    At this time there is no consensus to lift these sanctions, with a majority opposed. People are concerned that disputes might flare up again if sanctions are removed: Give them an inch and they will take a kilometer ... Sandstein 08:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The community authorised community general sanctions to curtail disruption related to systems of measurement in the context of the United Kingdom in November 2014. Since these sanctions have been imposed, no sanctions have been recorded in the log and no notifications of the sanctions have been logged since October 2018 (there were only 4 notifications logged in 2018, none in 2017 and 1 in 2016).

    It appears that these community-authorised general (discretionary) sanctions are no longer necessary in this topic area, so I propose that the community ends the authorisation of general sanctions for this topic area. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • For your consideration, a currently occurring MOS discussion. --Izno (talk) 02:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Covered by the MOS AC/DS there, though. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Of course—I left a DS alert for a couple editors—but I think it indicates conflict that might spill out onto other pages. (I have no particular interest for/against the proposal, but I did think it was amusingly timely.) --Izno (talk) 02:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 18 months without a logged notification is a good sign the community doesn’t utilize these anymore. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - even if the MOS discussion spills a bit, I don't think there's any indication of problems in the field to the scale that conventional methods could be considered to be insufficient. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I can't imagine that disruptive editing was being held in check just because of the fear of the GS, and if there have been no enforcement actions and very few notifications I'd be inclined to call it an unnecessary GS. If removing the sanctions leads to a sudden wave of disruption by the feared Customary Cabal and the formidable Metric Mafia (waiting in the shadows to strike until this very moment), well, we can re-authorize them. creffett (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Per the comments on timeliness of this - if people really do think that the MOS discussion will spill out and would be better controlled by the UK measurements sanctions than the MOS sanctions, then I'm fine with tabling this discussion until the MOS discussion is finished. creffett (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong oppose. Creffett says that "I can't imagine that disruptive editing was being held in check just because of the fear of the GS". So far, that's precisely what's happened.
    The biggest problem this is trying to address is a couple of editors who just go from article to article to article, flipping the units over and over and over and over, deliberately against the advice of MOSNUM for no better reason than a strong preference for one set of units. Those editors have gone through articles literally by the thousand, attempting to create a WP:FAITACCOMPLI as a means of changing MOSNUM. This damages Wikipedia because it means that our presentation is inconsistent. It is disruptive behaviour in and of itself, and the fallout creates further disruption.
    This problem has been going on for well over a decade with these editors, and they are still active. And these general sanctions are the only reason why it isn't still happening now. Take the general sanctions away, the problems will come back.
    Bear in mind we have in the past seen entire topic areas held hostage to editors insisting every three weeks that consensus might have changed and that we need to rediscuss units again from scratch. Kahastok talk 19:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Kahastok, I believe I understand what you're saying, and I'm clearly not as familiar as you are with the history behind this, but two concerns with what you've said. First, if it is only a small number of editors causing the problem, then GS is a rather large hammer - I feel that community-authorized topic bans would be a better approach than full-on sanctions. Second, I don't think that "that's precisely what happened" is necessarily the right conclusion to draw from the evidence Callanecc presented - if a GS topic area is an ongoing problem, I would expect at least an occasional notification to be issued (not to mention a sanction or two), and we haven't had one since 2018. I feel that "it's not a problem that requires GS" is a simpler explanation for the data than "everyone involved is lying low."
    Now, I could see those two statements ("it's just a few editors" and "they're held in check by GS"), taken together, being a reasonable explanation (suggesting that there's a small group of editors who both care about the issue and are familiar with the sanctions). However, that would imply that the group of problem editors are fairly static; I would generally expect GS to be necessary if there were a steady stream of new people joining the contentious area and the community felt that administrators needed the freedom to act quickly on issues in those areas. Compare, for example, DS/AP2 or GS/COVID-19, both of which have steady streams of new editors who want to write about those topics. If that's true, I think the problem could reasonably be handled with targeted community sanctions against a few problem editors rather than full GS. creffett (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The worst of the flippers.
    I've been calling for community sanctions on the worst of the flippers for over a decade now.
    Part of the problem is that the issue is seen as minor because it's not something most people care about. So whenever you go to one of the admin boards, admins just tell you that it's not important. Even when the disruption it's causing is extreme. Even where you have editors deliberately breaking the MOS on an industrial scale. And the flippers take it as licence to carry on flipping. You want to enact community sanctions against the worst offenders, that's fine - if you actually do it. But past experience suggests that that's unlikely no matter how disruptive they are. Kahastok talk 19:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose for now as untimely. The MOS discussion Izno linked to above started with an insulting and dismissive assertion and has continued to attract heated discussion. I cannot believe that this will not spill over and sanctions may be called for in the near future. If the stable situation that Callanecc refers continues to prevail in two weeks or so, then it may be worth it to release sanctions. At this time when there are so many people cooped up and arguing about minutiae here has become a definite trend, however, I would suggest that it would be more cautious to allow at least that discussion to resolve before releasing the sanctions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, I recognise that my response there was poor, which is why I saw no benefit in responding further. However, if you check previous discussions on this topic, you will see that some variant of this is generally where it ends up, almost no matter what I do. You may appreciate that being repeatedly told I am some kind of monster because of a minor difference of opinion becomes tiresome. Kahastok talk 19:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, I'm perfectly happy to toll my !vote for a month, so long as everyone is repinged when the discussion is reheld. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't realise that we had any sanctions in place about this, and am very disappointed, but unfortunately not surprised, that people argue about such things. I'm a 62-year-old Englishman, know my height in both feet and inches and centimetres, if I knew my weight would know it in both kilograms and stones and pounds (but would have to work it out to get that American weight in pounds only, which is never used here), and, like every driver in this country, buy fuel for my car by the litre but measure its fuel consumption in miles per gallon (which is not the same as an American gallon). Let's just get on with writing an encyclopedia rather than worry about such trivia. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is all very well until readers start asking why all the distances that they think of in miles are now given in kilometres, why a Munro is now defined as a Scottish mountain taller than 914.4 metres instead of 3000 feet, why Wikipedia is now giving the motorway speed limit as 112.65 kilometres an hour instead of 70 miles per hour. And the answer is because a single editor with a strong POV spent a year doing nothing but flip them all.
    Wikipedia should not be a vehicle for promoting a POV, on this or anything else. Kahastok talk 19:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't mean my post to be justifying a lifting of sanctions, if that's what it takes to avoid disruption, but merely an expression that I wish people would get on with more important things rather than disrupt Wikipedia in such a way. The UK has a strange hybrid system where some things are measured in imperial units, some in metric and some in both, but it somehow works and I wish people would just recognise that. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I agree with Kahastok, and believe that without it the problem that it is keeping at bay will reappear. There is at least one editor who previously did the flipping, and who is still actively searching out the use of non-metric units, and replacing them with metric units - but only in non-UK-related articles - in UK-related articles they are mostly adding 'convert' templates and keeping imperial as primary. If this deterrent was removed, I am sure their old behaviour would start again. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I generally hate the whole idea of general sanctions, but I agree with Kahastok on this particular issue. This is a topic that most people don't consider important but attracts a small but steady stream of obsessives (both pro-metric and pro-imperial) demanding we follow whichever they consider the One True Path. It's not a matter of just a couple of editors who can be individually sanctioned, but of a constantly-replenished stream of new editors who in each case genuinely believe they're Righting Great Wrongs and thus can't be dissuaded by discussion, and it's been an ongoing issue for well over a decade, now exaggerated by sparring between pro- and anti-Europeans who each see the other's measurement system as some kind of embodiment of evil. ‑ Iridescent 10:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I watch areas involving units and the disruption was beyond belief. IMHO the only reason there is quiet now is that the principal participants know they or any socks who take up the cause will be indeffed fairly quickly. The problem with removal is that getting sanctions reinstated would require an enormous amount of disruption because people who don't follow the area will argue that those involved should just discuss whether someone is 5 ft 10 in or 1.78 m or 178 cm. That sounds plausible until you meet the typical Righting Great Wrongs warrior who won't stop until they have fixed every page. Johnuniq (talk) 23:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I remember the issues this behaviour caused and I think the topic will always be a potential problem unless sanctions are in place due to the type of people Iridescent mentions. Number 57 23:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. It's not needed now, but perhaps in the future it will come in handy. I don't see the use of disabling sanctions on the topic just to say it's no longer on our books. It doesn't cost anything to have it in reserve. El_C 00:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Even from the cheap seats, I remember all too well this 5000 meter donnybrook that was 16404.2 feet too long . . . let's, not go back. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose The proposal to remove DS in this case reminds me of a story I was told be an official in an Australian embassy when I was visiting with the Navy. Apparently there was an intersection in the capital city that was notorious for accidents. So the local authorities built huge signs over the intersection saying "Dangerous Intersection Slow Down" (in the local language). The accident rate dropped dramatically after the sign was put up so much so that the local authority decided the sign wasn't needed any longer and took it down. Guess what happened next? - Nick Thorne talk 08:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Per Iridescent and others. Paul August ☎ 21:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User made legal threats and Personal attacks on Wikipedia

    Good day, I am Gharouni an admin in Persian Wikipedia (fawiki). As an admin I have recently blocked @Behrouz asbahi sis: in fawiki due to WP:DE and WP:PA for three days. Before that he abused a user and started to canvassing due to deletion of an article for WP:Notability. I tried to solve the problem and explained to this user and the other user of wikipedia policies etc. However, after this user was blocked for 3 days the user made a legal threat against me here that ended up to the useer's account was blocked for one month by another fawiki admin due to WP:NLT. I noticed today this user was trying to complaint against fawiki admins and users in an enwiki's admin talk page. And then calling fawiki admins dictators here. And here Wikipedia talk:Contact us. The user's English does not make sense sometimes seeing mentioned edits. However, the user has published an article in English here, I am trying to check citations due to doubt in breach of copyright or copying from source. I appreciate it if you kindly review my complaints and review the mentioned article. Gharouni Talk 00:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


    As you can see, this manager Gharouni does not tolerate the review of an article published by me, and at the request of the review by the managers of the English Wikipedia, he is somehow suppressing and exercising his dictatorship in the English Wikipedia. This is a major problem, and Wikipedia executives need to provide oversight. It's not my problem or my article. This is a fundamental problem, and it is far from being the main goal of Wikipedia. Behrouz asbahi sis (talk) 07:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Attacking other editors as you've done here is never acceptable, and bringing complaints from another project here is even worse. If you come back from this block and persist in such disruptive behaviour, your next block is likely to be indefinite. Nyttend (talk) 10:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Unblock appeal by Ms4263nyu

    Consensus to unblock. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Ms4263nyu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I can't ask the blocking administrator for input, and this is a checkuser block as well... {{checkuser needed}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Unless there is new evidence for sockpuppetry, I support an unblock. The user has contributed constructively; their article Lilie Chouliaraki was been accepted via AFC. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I’m typically not a fan of unblocks before 6 months, but I see no additional accounts and no definitive IP socking, so I agree to an unblock as a CU, but only if there’s community consensus for it here. Personally I’m neutral. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Regarding six months, I usually agree, and have recently opposed an unblock appeal for this reason. This especially applies if someone is told to wait for six months and fails to do so. In this specific case, the closest the user has received to this is a link to WP:GAB, which contains the advice "Refrain from making any edits, using any account or anonymously, for a significant period of time (e.g. six months), in English Wikipedia." This might not be sufficient to justify concerns about the number of months waited. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, from what I can tell it wasn’t that egregious. Hence my saying the community can decide how to handle it :) TonyBallioni (talk) 02:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Old editor - haven't edited under an account for over 6 years - but this very edit I'm making would possibly be considered "abusive". Unless there is evidence that this person was logging in/out to appear as two separate users, **a mistake does not make it abusive**, even if that mistake was made multiple times. If this user remains blocked, not only will it discourage IP editors to return to contributing, but it will discourage new editors from registering altogether given they could be blocked simply for forgetting to log in once or twice as "abusive". Absurd how WP has taken this stance both towards prolific editors (wrt arbcom rulings and "warnings" recently) and newer editors - there won't be any left if everyone keeps all this up. 52.119.101.25 (talk) 02:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not relevant to this unblock, but if you’re going to be actively contributing to project space, yes, you should log in, especially as you don’t have a static IP (from looking at the public range contributions and the fact you said you’re on mobile.) I’m not blocking because you’re clearly here in good faith and not intending to be abusive, but a big part of the reason we strongly encourage people to register if they want to contribute to internal discussion is that it’s extremely difficult for many people to track dynamic IP contributions and the way we remember people is typically by names not numbers. So yes, mistakes happen. I never block on good faith mistakes. If you’re going to consistently comment on the internal workings of the English Wikipedia at dramah boards, however, you really should have an account. This from the guy with an “I support IP editing” userbox. Anyway, thank you for your contributions, but just a bit of background as to why we don’t particularly like logged out editing in project space. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. You assume mobile means “on a mobile network. This is the first edit I’ve made from a mobile network - the others were my static home IP. Tons of anti-AGF - the entire Provo m which can makes me not want to come back. Congrats TonyBalloni?l, you’ve proved my point. 2600:387:A:19:0:0:0:B0 (talk) 03:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s not anti-AGF to interpret it as mobile internet. I’m not familiar with your ISP, so I read it in a natural way to me. There also seems to be a post from you, in good faith, a few months ago on a different IP (assuming there’s only one person on your range who edits AN anonymously.) I explicitly said you’re here in good faith. I just explained why policy favors those who have accounts editing project space with them. It’s easier for people to recognize. Anyway, as I said, not particularly relevant to this unblock. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would you think this person was editing from a mobile network? Check the WHOIS; the first IP belongs to SYNERGY BROADBAND, while someone using a mobile network would have an IP belonging to a mobile provider, such as AT&T Mobility LLC for the second IP. Nyttend (talk) 10:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I did, which is how I got the range to look at contribs for, but it’s not an ISP I’m familiar with and I read this as saying they were on a mobile network rather than device. There are a lot of random ISPs that offer a variety of services, so I didn’t see any contradiction. My home ISP currently also provides my mobile service, so it’s not that big a stretch if someone says so and it’s an unfamiliar ISP. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Literally anyone else would assume what Tony did. Just because you decided to WHOIS and figure out does not mean everyone else is stupid to read it like a normal sentence. --qedk (t 愛 c) 14:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unblock. A review of the edits reflects that Ms4263nyu's first edits from an IP were to expand comments that were already signed under her username. It seems likely that this was an inadvertent error by an inexperienced editor and not intended to mislead anyone. This makes it easier to accept that the only other edit by the IP, on the same AFD two days later, was a product of the same error. I recognize that the blocking admin is not here now to explain why he blocked. However, based on what I can see, a reminder or warning to avoid editing the same discussion from both a registered account and an IP would have been sufficient. Escalating immediately to an indefinite block was draconian, excessive, and disproportionate to the usual block length for a first offense of even intentional socking, which I do not believe this was. And even if one did agree the block was warranted, the four months of "time served" is a sufficient sanction. (Note that although I am a checkuser, I have not used any CU tools in reviewing and commenting on this appeal.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unblock - Per NYB, it's realistic to believe that they were simply editing in good faith while logged out, with no intention of socking. It does seem that someone trying to maliciously sock in order to vote stack would not try to simply log out and vote from an IP that they had already been editing their own signed comments from. They explained that it was simply an error on their part but I'm not even sure if you could call it that as the user would have had no way of knowing that what they did was wrong, as there were no attempts to communicate with them whatsoever. What's worse, they explained the mistake at the time of the block but went completely ignored. As current CU evidence yields no concerns of socking, I think it's safe to AGF here and unblock with apologies. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as a premature WP:SO request, and as they have failed to disclose their use of alternate accounts in an attempt to influence an AfD. ST47 (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @ST47: I am sorry but I do not understand the basis for your position. The editor acknowledged the logged-out editing at the time of the block back in December. Moreover, no one ever told him or her that waiting for six months for the "standard offer" was required—nor should it be. (It bears mention again that WP:SO is an essay, not a policy or a guideline, and in any event it applies only to community-endorsed blocks or bans, not to ordinary unblock reviews.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Newyorkbrad: I'm particularly interested in the account Special:Contributions/Biancalu123, which showed up to support Ms4263nyu's AfD and hasn't edited since. Evidently it wasn't necessary for them to use socks in order to get that article deleted, since the AfD garnered some legitimate support. However, their choice not to disclose that other account - whether it be sock or meat - seems dishonest. ST47 (talk) 04:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • @ST47: Thanks for the quick reply and helpful explanation. I invite Ms4263nyu to respond to this comment, on his or her talkpage. I see that the block notice from December referred only to logged-out editing as opposed to socking through another registered account, but since Biancalu123's first edit took place after the block, that doesn't prove anything one way or the other. I don't know if you CU'd Biancalu123 but it looks like it would be stale. Interestingly, however, the second of Biancalu123's two edits was to delete his or her "delete" vote and comment on the AfD. If Biancalu123 was the same editor as Ms4263nyu, then I would still support an unblock for four months of time served, though less emphatically than before, and with a one-account restriction going forward. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unblock Current indef block serves no preventative purpose, and per WP:NOTBURO I see no reason to be a stickler for 6 months in this instance. TonyBallioni performed a CU that found no evidence of socking since, and the user's actions that led to the CU block can easily be considered good faith mistakes better handled through warnings as NYB and Swarm mention above. I have absolutely no reservations about unblocking. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unblock - per the GF reasoning coupled with not seeing how our indef block (or waiting another couple of months) appreciably protects the encyclopedia or the community. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unblock - this honestly does read to me as a good-faith screwup rather than bad-faith use of logged-out editing, and per TonyBallioni the CU log looks clean, so in the name of AGF I'm willing to extend some rope. No issue with it being 4 months per ToBeFree's comment, NOTBURO, etc. I'd strongly recommend that Ms4263nyu read WP:LOGOUT, but I'm willing to support unblocking. creffett (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The user is continuing to evade their block at this time. Clearly they have not learned that logging out in order to evade a block is sockpuppetry. @TonyBallioni: does your statement overriding the checkuser block still stand? ST47 (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      ST47, are you referring to the self-reverted comments to this page? Then please be specific, because I have seen these and my opinion remains the same. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      ST47, I suppose my view is that this was only related to the appeal, was self-reverted, and was open, so I don’t see it really as being private information from a CU block perspective. To me, it’s a question for the community on that specific point unless there’s something else going on. I think it might be worth pinging previous participants if you think it changes their view. Like I said, I don’t think it’s a privacy policy violation since they admit it’s them in the edit. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I still support unblocking. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Per TonyBallioni's suggestion, ping @Nyttend, QEDK, Swarm, and Creffett:; notifying Talk:2600:387:A:19:0:0:0:B0 User talk:2600:387:A:19:0:0:0:B0 and Talk:52.119.101.25 User talk:52.119.101.25. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      My support is definitely weakened, but I am willing to assume good faith here (that the editor thought that they were expected to reply here - supported by the fact that they did identify themselves as the blocked editor) Ms4263nyu: stop editing while logged-out. That is what got you blocked in the first place. If you feel that you need to respond to something or provide a comment post it to your talk page and someone will copy it here if needed (but please, do that only if it's really important or if you are directly asked a question). If you continue editing while your main account is blocked, then you're rapidly going to run out of good faith from the people supporting your unblock. creffett (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      +1 Ms4263nyu isn't trying to be deceptive, they're just making some blunders that are obvious to us but may not be obvious to a casual editor. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      (Sorry Wugapodes, I forgot to ping you – and messed up the IP pings above.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Ping Nosebagbear as well, I keep mixing their name up with Newyorkbrad who had already commented. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:36, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      IPs can’t be pinged. P-K3 (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      If the IP edits were solely on this page, I might be less inclined in the judgement of the editor, but not concerned that they would cynically and willfully choose to evade the community judgement. I could of course be wrong, but I don't think that to the degree, yet, to overturn my !vote. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:07, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unblock per everyone above - Their reasoning on their talkpage seems plausible, Also as noted above the IP at the AFD was expanding on his comments [logged out] and not !voting or trying to be deceitful,
    Inregards to them using an IP here - I'm in agreement with Wugapodes this seems more like an editor making accidental blunders than someone actually trying to be deceitful,
    All in all as per AGF I support unblocking although it should be emphasised to them that they should stop editing logged out otherwise they're going to find themselves back where they started. –Davey2010Talk 14:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unblock – not every instance of logged out editing is "abusive". I'm not convinced this was a good block in the first place. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 15:44, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unblock. Another chance seems fine, even though the request can be seen as a bit early TonyBallioni, I think there is consensus for unblocking, so please feel free to go ahead. El_C 15:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Notification of global ban proposal who were active on this wiki

    English: This is a notification of global ban discussion against PlavorSeol, persuant to the global ban policy.

    You are getting notified because they have edited on this wiki/blocked on this wiki.

    한국어: 이 안내는 전역 추방 정책의 규정에 따라 PlavorSeol 사용자에 대한 전역 추방 논의를 알리기 위한 안내입니다.

    이 사용자가 이 위키에서 활동한 전력이 있거나, 차단된 바가 있기 때문에 이 안내를 받게 됩니다.

    — regards, Revi delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    HTTP => HTTPS in Template:MathWorld

    (non-admin closure) Template edit request was added by our IP friend Spectrum, I don't see a need to keep this open. We can debate how much of a security vulnerability HTTP links are another day. creffett (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Hi, y'all. Sorry to bother, but I couldn't find an appropriate forum to raise this issue. I posted a note at Template talk:MathWorld, but seeing as the template hasn't been substantively edited in two and a half years, I thought I'd try to raise a flag in a more trafficked place.

    Currently the template points to http://mathworld.wolfram.com/. This should be upgraded to use SSL: https://mathworld.wolfram.com/. This is a security issue. In this day and age, unencrypted and unauthenticated connections should not be used if at all possible.

    On a side note, I noticed that Wikipedia:Contact us doesn't include a section on contacting Wikipedia about security issues. While I realize that the SSL issue here isn't earth shattering, IMHO Wikipedia should have a dedicated channel for reporting security issues with Wikipedia's site (in general). Many other organizations have specific points of contact for security.

    My two cents, 64.246.159.246 (talk) 00:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    On second thought, maybe it's a good idea to make a systematic review of all templates. Check whether external sites are being sent via HTTP vs HTTPS. 64.246.159.246 (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    IP 64, if you had tried to edit the template, it would have provided you a page that said you could not edit it due to the protection, and provided a link to request an edit on the talk page from there, which would have put it in a queue for processing. I'll take care of fixing it now. --Izno (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Security issues with the software (not the case here) can be reported at phabricator.wikimedia.org. Information for developers is linked in the footer, labelled "Developers". I'm afraid a more prominent "security issue" report link would cause people to create phabricator tasks for http links in templates. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Request reconsideration of topic ban

    To an uninvolved administrator, I was a prolific editor of COVID-19 as the outbreak progressed. There was rapidly developing sources around the mode of transmission. You can see that I originally created and developed the transmission section and worked for many weeks on its improvement and readability. It became controversial around the world "exhale" in the sources, leading to a prolonged RFC around the wording, which resulted in a new consensus advocated by myself. Prior to this there was what I would have termed an edit war between doc james and myself, because we were repetitively changing content. We mostly worked together, and would always come to agreement eventually, but sometimes without the necessary discussion because it wasn't being discussed well at the time. I was told that I was threatening an edit war, but in fact all I was doing was notifying that a protracted arguable edit war was in progress. I then considered resigning due to wikistress.
    I returned because the technical words "airborne" and "respiratory droplets" were still being misunderstood by editors and the general reader.
    When further edits were immediately reverted by Doc, I was aiming to get a forced block when I did an intentional edit war which led to the topic ban and a 72 hour block. I didn't know how to get a block on request. Because I was not well at the time, I requested a 2 week block over email and on my talk page which was granted and now expired.
    Doc James and I achieved further consensus over email and this stands in the article. I apologise for my actions and recognize that this was a "spectacularly bad idea" as per User:Bradv. Doc James supports me returning and awarded me a barnstar. Would appreciate anyone reconsidering the topic ban. Please see my talk for further info. --Almaty (talk) 04:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello Almaty. I am an administrator whose previous involvement with the main coronavirus articles has been minor, so I don't think I am involved, but if anyone disagrees I will step aside. I knew nothing about this particular dispute until now. I am very concerned about you saying that you were "aiming to get a forced block when I did an intentional edit war which led to the topic ban and a 72 hour block". That indicates to me a very recent inability to deal with the stress of editing highly important articles about current life-or-death matters. That is perfectly understandable, but if you want to resume editing in that topic area, I think you need to do a better job of explaining how we can be reassured that your editing will not be similarly disruptive going forward. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I can explain that. I am a doctor, and I was working far too hard simultaneously on wikipedia, and the edit war occured at 4:30am in Australia. I am no longer doing that and I needed to sleep, which is why I wanted the block. I went about it the wrong way. I now have familiarised myself with all the recommendations around wikibreaks and how to get a block wikicoded. As I state on my talk page, I no longer have the opinion that any of the COVID-19 articles require bold edits, and as you would note from my edit history, I did many bold edits which were stressful. I will not be doing so again. --Almaty (talk) 04:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also please note that during the edit war my only comments were "many people disagree" and "there is no time" on Doc James' talk page. I think it is relatively clear from this, considering I know to a limited extent many wikipedia policies, that I was aiming to get a block. I also asked for the ban, but what I really wanted was an enforced wikibreak. (I didn't understand the difference between blocks, bans, topic bans and wikibreaks, properly at the time). I didn't know how to go about it at the time, and now I do. Having said that, I think this unlikely to occur in the future due to the amount of consensus that has been achieved around the mode of transmission, both prior to and during my much enjoyed (and if i may say so deserved) wikibreak. Thanks User:Cullen328 --Almaty (talk) 05:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the explanation, Almaty, which I appreciate. I am going to wait for other editors to comment before coming to any conclusions. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Ping User:Doc James (if he has time to comment, he already has done so on my talk) and User:FeydHuxtable who as my "wikignome" both support me returning. --Almaty (talk) 05:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    After reading recent posts on your talk page, Almaty, I am reassured that you have been a long time positive contributor and have the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart. I cannot possibly understand the stress that frontline health care workers like you are experiencing. I hope that we can come to an agreement that allows your topic ban to be lifted. Be well. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I hadn't been aware of I'd forgotten about* this issue until today, but having examined it (including Almaty's talk page), I'm happy to supporting lifting the topic ban. I can only imagine what the stress is like for front-line workers, and I thank you Almaty for your efforts (and everyone else working to halt this thing). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (*Memory of a goldfish. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC))[reply]
    • Unsure - the firmly positive comments by Doc James on Almaty's talk page factor very highly in ending a TBAN way earlier than I would normally support, but obviously everything that @Bradv: said at the time was accurate (indeed, I'd probably have used somewhat stauncher language) - I see he was pinged on the talk page but hasn't yet commented further - I'd be interested in hearing his viewpoints before making my final position. (Addendum): in line with being preventative, a major concern is that which has already been somewhat discussed above about whether Almaty will fall afoul of the same issues again. He (?) clearly knows how to avoid it going forwards, but it's a question of whether the methods will be utilised in the heat of moment. @Almaty:, could you cover that? Nosebagbear (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, with some hesitation. You need to learn to back away and go outside some and smell the roses a bit, mow the law, anything that isn't work or Covid related. With Doc James's blessing, as well as your own clearly stated understanding of the problem, I'm willing to support. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Dennis Brown, I strongly support mowing the law...oh, wait, that isn't what you meant. S Philbrick(Talk) 23:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I was aware of this dispute at the time and it seemed specifically focused on mode of transmission of COVID-19 which is a subject that, as far as I know, has been resolved. It was pretty heated and involved threats of "going to the media" which give me pause. But I support this if Doc James does (and I'd like to hear from him). Almaty has made a lot of contributions in this area and if the dispute was singularly focused on this one disagreement which has been resolved, I think he should be able to return. Just be aware, Almaty, in the future, any threat to go to some public venue about an editing disagreement on Wikipedia will not be resolved in your favor. Remove yourself from a dispute if you reach this level of stress in the future. Liz Read! Talk! 18:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Am happy to see User:Almaty return to editing the topic area. How to appropriately cover the spread of COVID is definitely complicated and not something that only we have struggled with. Reassurances that they will take a break when needed are sufficient. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment A couple of weeks seems very short compared to most topic bans. I'm concerned that issue seemed stress related (and there's nothing wrong with that!). But what has been done to reduce that stress? I hoped to see some examples of the user editing fruitfully in other areas, or on other Wiki's, but since the block, I don't see much other mainspace activity. My inclination is to think that if it is stressful to edit in this area, then don't edit in this area. (now off to hit the whiskey, so I can sleep properly ... ). Nfitz (talk) 03:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lol. In all honesty, the whisky you refer to may have been a factor. As it has been for many doctors on the front line - tough times! No whisky for me going forward --Almaty (talk) 10:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nosebagbear: clearly knows how to avoid it going forwards, but it's a question of whether the methods will be utilised in the heat of moment. The heat of the moment was when I was medically unwell, terrified about the pandemic reaching Australia soon (luckily it hasn't, the lucky country) and trying to do the best I could for wikipedia. But then I realised it was very late at night, with work tomorrow, and all my edits were being reverted, i was stressed for numerous reasons, and starting to become medically unwell. A consensus of them now stand. But the last edit war leading to the topic ban really wasn't about a content dispute from my end, it was intentionally getting the block due to wikistress as I said. Still, a "spectacularly bad idea". A better idea would have just been to go for a walk. (I had been self isolating myself too). Thats higher than our rules here. --Almaty (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per my discussions with Almaty on their talk page, Doc James' support, and the comments here, it's clear this topic ban is no longer necessary. I will go ahead and lift it. – bradv🍁 15:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    IPv6 block oddness

    Looking at 2607:FB90:2840:F19C:58E9:3552:CAC8:CAA5 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) I see two edits at Talk:List of concentration and internment camps (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs) which are block evasion by TruePatriot1776. The contributions for the IP show only one edit, though there are clearly two on the talk page. 2607:fb90::/32 is blocked locally for a year and also globally locked. So no edits should have been possible from that IP. This looks weird, what am I missing? Guy (help!) 10:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The older edit was made by 2607:fb90:4a34:9254:58e9:3552:cac8:caa5 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Curiously the two IPs have the same pre- and suffix, the difference being in the third and fourth group. The local block was imposed after the edits, the global one even later. Favonian (talk) 10:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Is sand biotic

    Sand could be both biotic and abiotic because biotic is remains of dead organisms and sand includes stuff that's been decomposed for millions of years. It could also be abiotic because sand isn't a living organism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 𝕃𝕦𝕥𝕫𝕦𝕩 (talk • contribs)

    That is not a question that administrators can answer (at least not in their capacity as administrators). The place to ask would be Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. See also Biotic material. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And, 𝕃𝕦𝕥𝕫𝕦𝕩, please change your user name to be something in the script used by your native language, or at least some human language, not these unicode characters. I tried to leave you a message on your talk page but was prevented from doing so, presumably because you were using these strange characters. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sheeat, sorry Phil B., I just went and created it! Yes, this stylized font is very pretty, but hardly conducive to communication. ——SN54129 18:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see the problem. Links work fine for me. EEng 18:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to work OK now, but when the talk page didn't exist I was prevented from creating it. I don't remember the exact error message that I got, but it was about illegal characters. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Did it say something about the title being blacklisted? That's what I get now if I try to create User:𝕃𝕦𝕥𝕫𝕦𝕩. Maybe Lutzux is a naughty word in Sumerian? EEng 21:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't match anything in the Basic Multilingual Plane, thus is not allowed by the filter, and why they probably need to change their name, as this is probably going to break other things. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User has been notified. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Copy vio

    Can an admin please take a look at the copy vio tag pasted on Skateboard that has been there for almost three weeks. Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 15:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I am also seeing a few entries at Category:Requested RD1 redactions that have been there for a few weeks as well. -- LuK3 (Talk) 15:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    On Skateboard, the supposed source https://www.slideshare.net/ramprasad338/power-skate-board is not a match for the removed content Diff of Skateboard. So I did not do the revision deletion. Have you got a source that matches the removed material? If not, the revision deletion request should be removed.— Diannaa (talk) 18:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Diannaa, I think the request can be removed. It looks like the copyvio detector saw content on that source that was most likely copied from Wikipedia. -- LuK3 (Talk) 18:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay that's it for now. The backlog of cases has been cleared.— Diannaa (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    LuK3, I removed it. S Philbrick(Talk) 23:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Self-requested closure review: RfC on race and intelligence

    I closed the recent RfC on race and intelligence (diff and permalink. This has been challenged on the grounds that the close required three admins; I shouldn't have discounted new accounts that are SPAs; and that because I wrote WP:BLOCKNAZIS I am involved in regards to the matter of race and intelligence, and that as such closing is a matter of administrator misconduct. I have reproduced my close below for easy reading:

    First: I discounted opinions from new editors who have not been active on the English Wikipedia outside of this topic. I believe that was within my discretion and is relatively normal for administrators and other experienced editors to do.

    As to the discussion between established Wikipedia users, there was a lot of text but two of the most salient lines of discussion were whether or not being a minority position within academia corresponds with being fringe, and on a more procedural note, the scope of this RfC and the broadness of what it was defining.

    In closing we are supposed to be guided by the English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. My understanding of what this means is that we look to the policies and guidelines for principles to define how we act, and we trust our editors who are familiar with them to reach their conclusions based on that. In this case, the relevant princple from WP:FRINGE is this: We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. and it is in light of that guideline that I read the RfC.

    Having read the positions of this RfC twice, I find the following points:

    • There is consensus that the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is enough of a minority viewpoint in the scientific consensus that it falls under Wikipedia's definition of a fringe theory above.
    • There is no consensus right now in this discussion on the question of how to discuss non-genetic research, theories, and conclusions surrounding race and intelligence.

    Taking some liberty as a closer, if people want to drill down on the last point, I would suggest an RfC with multiple sectioned proposals that are specific.

    To address the three concerns raised:

    1. I shouldn't have discounted votes of users who are SPAs. This is fairly routine and WP:Discard states: If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy. We rely on the policy judgements of experienced Wikipedians when closing discussions, not accounts that are unfamiliar with our broader policies and guidelines.
    2. A three admin close was required: a three admin close is never required, and is usually a bad idea because it ends up being one person defending it when people get mad and challenge it. I have been on this project a while, am familiar with most of our policies and guidelines, the history behind them, and how they are applied, and I've been an sysop for three years. I think I'm qualified under policy to close.
    3. I'm involved because I wrote WP:BLOCKNAZIS: the involved theory doesn't work here because first, that's the main part of the essay I wrote and it is about blocking holocaust deniers and and people who put Nazi imagery on their user page and the like, not about blocking users for debating sourcing. I also wrote WP:CRYRACIST which makes the point that using accusations of racism against people on topics that are debate, such as race and intelligence, is a personal attack and will not be tolerated as a way to stifle debate. I did not write WP:RACISTBELIEFS and my additions to that essay are to my knowledge solely about administrative actions to actual neo-Nazis and not to call people racist to stifle talk page discussions.

    I'm fine letting the community review my close. I expected someone would bring it here since it was very heated, so I'm opening it up to community review. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Anything that has gotten this much traction at Arb and everywhere else should have been closed by three people. Not necessarily admin, but three very experienced editors. That says nothing of the closing rationale, which I haven't poured over, but as a matter of procedure, closing it unilaterally was bound to cause problems. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree to disagree. I think three people would have caused more, in addition to likely causing the RfC to be prolonged for a significant length of time because no one wants to touch it. I've been involved in panel closes before, they don't add much and I think we've become over-reliant on them recently, which is why I don't mind doing it. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tony, thanks for taking this on. It is really very much appreciated. And you're right - your word, or any admin's word, stands on their own. As far as I know all admins are equipped for a job like this. It all depends if they mind doing a job like this. Maybe brand new Admins would not be ready - this I don't know. I just assume any Admin who is willing to close an RFC is probably equipped to do so. And there are very sharp non-admins who could also do this. (copied my comment from Toni's talk page).
    Hey, maybe that is what you should call your talk page - Toni's talk page - and then in parenthesis you can add (fah-get about it!) ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think any RfC closed by an experienced admin adheres to policy. Now, it's one thing to ignore an emerging panel and then closing unilaterally, anyway, as was the case recently. But seeing as no such panel was likely to form any time soon, the closure seems like an appropriate action to me. Having written WP:BLOCKNAZIS does not make TonyBallioni involved, in my view. El_C 01:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was a rough consensus that a 3 admin panel was required to close this RfC, see this archived discussion here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure/Archive_29#Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#RfC_on_race_and_intelligence. Why did Tony not consider this? My other concern was did Tony just skim over the RfC because he made no attempt to summarise the core arguments. The RfC included a 2020 survey of experts published in Intelligence (journal) that found that only 16 percent of experts regarded I.Q. gaps between races to be fully explained by environmental factors, with 43 percent saying mostly genetics and 40 percent saying mostly environmental factors explain the gap. TonyBallioni has now stated that the the minority academic viewpoint is the majority viewpoint and the majority academic viewpoint is the fringe viewpoint. If Tony is going to do the close then at least consider the arguments alongside WP policies in his close.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • (I !voted "yes" in the RFC.) This was a long discussion and thanks again to Tony for diving into it. I think it was a good close. I strongly disagree with the notion that this RFC either "required" or "had consensus for" a panel close. We don't require panel closes for difficult RFCs; there are difficult RFCs every day; we don't have the resources for it; there's always a backlog at ANRFC; and finally, if it's not important enough to list at WP:CENT then it's not important enough to take up the time of multiple closers. I also strongly disagree with the suggestion that an editor is involved or biased because they edited an essay about Nazis or racism. If the title of the essay was WP:NOHEREDITARIANS, then it might be a different story. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 01:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do think TonyBallioni is involved as he commented on the talk page of the No Nazis here saying: racist POV pushers will be blocked, but quickly blocking someone for being a nazi is somehow on a different level than your standard race and intelligence POV pusher (or insert other racist POV pusher here). This sounds a lot like he is saying Neo Nazis are worse than the type of editors who have the “wrong” POV on race and intelligence (like the ones who voted no in the RfC he has closed) but both should be blocked. I do not know how much more involved or even COI you can get that this comment.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see how any of that makes TonyBallioni involved — and I, myself, am uninvolved with regards to this subject. El_C 01:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This doesn't seem to make Tonyballoni involved. Also, it seems to be an attempt to impugn Toni as an Admin to claim that he is involved more than once. Toni's track record about being policy minded should suffice and override any concern that he has BIAS. I really don't see a consensus for a three admin panel in that discussion. I see a bunch of participants and I see ancillary conversations about a discussion at RSN. I see claims of WP:BIAS that will automatically occur if only one admin closes. I see what appears to be an IP contacting some admins on their talk page about closing the RFC. I also see some editors essentially delineating requirements for the closing admin. I know what I would call this type of behavior - but I'm not going to say it here. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • TonyBallioni is involved because he has edited in the topic area and has articulated a clear POV, ignored a rough consensus that a 3 admin close was required and did, in my eyes, a substandard close that did not address the sources, arguments against policies. The close actually shows no proof he did anything more than skim read the RfC. I am not saying that is what he did but the close gives no evidence one way or the other. It is not a high quality close which is what this topic area really requires.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Editing the topic area does not make one involved with respect to this singular topic of dispute. The close does not need to address the sources, "show proof," or anything of the sort. It is supposed to evaluate the consensus (or lack thereof). Also, you continuing to imply that they "skim read" the discussion is an unwarranted aspersion. A panel close was not required — you repeating that it did does not make it so. El_C 01:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) See my response to the IP user whose claims you are repeating. I am one of the few administrators still willing to be involved in the race and intelligence topic area. I have blocked people in it before, and yes, there are racist POV pushers who show up there and they are blocked. It's not a surprise that as one of the more active administrators in policy areas, that I've written my views on what policy requires in one of the areas I am active. If you look at the actual conversation being cited, I am arguing that we should not lump people together with nazis and block them.
      One of the criticisms I have made of that essay is that people are too quick to discount the views of others as racist and use accusations of racism to stifle discussion. I wrote WP:CRYRACIST in response to that. The idea that someone should be blocked for having a good faith disagreement on sourcing is something that I've actively argued against both in writing and in my decisions at AE, and yes, I've blocked people for calling other people racists without good cause. There are many valid criticisms of me, but I'm pretty evenhanded and consistent on this one. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then why did you not address the core point of dispute in your close that the RfC question had this year already been asked in a survey of experts in a reliable source (which came to the opposite conclusion of your close)? How are we meant to implement the RfC without you addressing the source and declaring the source to be acceptable or not? Are you saying only reliable sources that agree with your close are reliable? There were lots of reliable sources that dispute your close and you ignored all the evidence in your close which is deeply unfair to the editors who spent many hours and all they asked in return was a fair weighing of the arguments. Your close was not a normal close, it looks like a duff close quickly put together, with no analysis of several core points of dispute against policy.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I explained that in my close: policy guides us on principle and we trust the participants of the RfC who are versed in policy and how to apply it and sourcing requirements on Wikipedia to come to a conclusion. The underlying question was one of what met WP:FRINGE's definition. You argued strongly for one position. Some others agreed with you, but many others didn't, and also gave their views on the sourcing and what the scientific consensus was. Ultimately, the other side had consensus on the genetic question. People can and do disagree in good faith, and it isn't the job of the closer to decide who is right. It is not the job of the closer to evaluate the reliable sourcing. It is the job of the participants in the discussion. On the whole, they disagreed with your analysis.
      Anyway, I've responded to the concerns here in a manner that I think is in accordance with WP:ADMINACCT, and I've already written quite a lot, so I think it's best that I step back and let the community review. I'd suggest you do the same. The discussion was so intense and no one wanted to respond or close because of the length and the response to every argument. Let's try not to repeat that here. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was not a normal RfC, but the close was appropriate. You cannot dictate the terms by which it is closed, Literaturegeek. That is not a recipe for a successful WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. El_C 01:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just want to be assured that a WP:SUPERVOTE has not occurred like what happened only two months ago in the AfD (where a duff close was written that did not address the arguments against policy) in this topic area that a 3 admin panel (appointed by a deletion review) overturned it from delete to keep. So there is history for my concerns.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no indication that a SUPERVOTE has taken place here. As an uninvolved observer that is my assessment. Hopefully, that reassures you. El_C 03:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I read that RfC from top to bottom and numerically the yes side won by a small margin but most yes voters argued from an original personal opinion, they produced no survey of experts that the no side produced, the no voters had two surveys that supported their view. I can’t help but think if you had weighed the strength of the arguments in your close they would not support your close and I would like a 3 admin panel close to ensure a fair close which was a consensus you also did not pay attention to before taking on this role. If you gave a strong high quality close I would better be able to accept it. Anyway it is what it is.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've already expressed my opinions on this matter here, so instead of repeating myself I'd like to call attention to TonyBallioni's comment, "I expected someone would bring it here since it was very heated". This is similar to Spartaz's initial "delete" close in the AFD, in which he stated, "There is, however a lot of heat, and its seems pointless enacting the consensus until the inevitable DRV." In Spartaz's case, the community strongly objected to the discussion being closed in a manner that the closer knew full well would generate additional drama instead of a resolution.
    After this had previously happened just two months ago, how could TonyBallioni possibly have thought it was a good idea to do the same thing? Like Spartaz, he clearly knew that his closure was going to be disputed and generate additional drama, but chose to go ahead anyway, even with the benefit of hindsight looking at the fallout that resulted when Spartaz did this. Whether or not TonyBallioni is truly biased or not is somewhat beside the point - if he knew from the start that he was going to be accused of bias, he should have withdrawn as a potential closer and let someone else handle the task, just as SilkTork previously withdrew for the same reason.
    So now we're back in the same situation we were in two months ago with the AFD. And I think the outcome that's needed is the same outcome that eventually happened last time: for the discussion to be re-closed by an admin (or preferably, team of admins) who trust themselves, and are trusted by the community, to assess all of the arguments presented in the RFC, and to close it in a manner that won't be suspected of imposing their own personal opinion(s) on a community discussion. 2600:1004:B103:626E:68A2:83EC:91F:A19 (talk) 02:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40 the two situations are not the same, that discussion had a {{closing}} on it, and the logistics of the team close were in the works. There was no evidence that any specific admin was even considering volunteering to be part of a team close in this case. Any admin that closed this in a way that certain participating editors didn't like was going to be accused of bias, that's more or less inevitable in contentious cases like this. There is no credible evidence of involvement or other reason to suspect lack of suitability as a closer.Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 02:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tony's close accurately reflects those !votes that were based on substantive analysis of the sources. Those that are seeing his closure as challenging the notion that intelligence has a hereditary component have either not understood the closing statement, or have not understood the contemporary sources present there. I see no reason why a three-person panel would do any better here, and I see no evidence that the need for such was established beforehand. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just don't see the consensus that he came to. By my count it is some 24 Yes votes to 20 no votes (discounting 3 in-between, who supported some of the RfC's statements but not all and discounting some 8 SPA accounts). By and large most of the 'Yes' voters cited almost nothing to support their assessment, instead seemingly relying on gut feeling. The close does not address the source currently under discussion at RSN (about which a large amount of the RfC was spent discussing and which most directly answers the RfC's main question). This in particular should have been discussed in the close. This should have been a clear No consensus close, but somehow Toni saw it as a "yes". I'm not really sure why. I think that it was pretty clear that everyone asked for a three admin close beforehand, though I notice now that the "yes" !voters are perfectly happy with a single admin close in their favour... hypocrites. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 02:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Insertcleverphrasehere, that last part is inaccurate and uncalled-for. Both "yes" and "no" !voters were on both sides of the panel-close issue. I was a yes voter who was always against requiring a panel close. This was discussed at WP:ANRFC and in the RFC thread. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 03:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Levivich, then I wasn't referring to you. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 19:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Insertcleverphrasehere, really, hypocrites? It is unwise to engage in personal attacks on the Administrators' noticeboard, to say the least. You can take that as a formal {{uw-npa4}} warning, by the way. El_C 03:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      El C, I made this more clear at User_talk:Insertcleverphrasehere#Change. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 19:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      If you want to go the number route, "weighing of opinions by established editors familiar with policies and guidelines" gets you somewhere around 25-17/18 with several more nuanced comments that don't easily fall into a group. Nose counting is hard which is why it's never done on it's own. That's around 58%, which isn't so overwhelming it automatically passes by our general numeric standards, but is well within the range where it could pass. The arguments from the "in-betweens" seemed to acknowledge a scientific consensus while also arguing for nuance. That nuance can occur on talk pages still, and the Wikipedia definition found in FRINGE is explicitly stated as broad. Given the rough consensus that you have a scientific consensus one way where the opposite position is far outside the mainstream, and that the policy is intended as broad, I think we have the level of support needed to make a close in a content RfC that isn't trying to establish a new policy or guideline but rather implement an existing one. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      TonyBallioni, That depends what you consider as the group that it is fringe to. Your close does not make this clear. Are we saying it is fringe amongst intelligence researchers? That simply isn't true and isn't backed up in the sources that we have. Are we saying that it is fringe when compared to all psychologists and other scientists that just happen to want to weigh in despite no qualifications or background in the subject? In that case, perhaps it is fringe, but then, in that case you need to define the entire field of intelligence research as fringe. Can you please clarify your close? — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 19:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I was using the definition cited by WP:FRINGE in my close, which is intentionally broad. It is up to the participants in the discussion, not the closer, to determine how broadly they want to define the field they are looking at. The participants in the discussion as a whole determined that the scientific consensus had established that this was fringe, and many on the "no" side even recognized it as a minority view, meaning even those opposing it did not find the analysis of sources cited claiming it to be a majority viewpoint to be convincing. The question was whether or not it was minority enough to be considered fringe. The general agreement of that discussion was, yes, as a part of the overall academic and scientific consensus, it was indeed minority enough to be fringe. I hope that clarifies. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      TonyBallioni, It does. Thank you. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 01:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding the claims that Tony violated ADMINACCOUNT because the close required three admins; [he] shouldn't have discounted new accounts that are SPAs; and that because [he] wrote WP:BLOCKNAZIS, I do not find support in the listed discussions or relevant policies and guidelines. I'll leave the analysis of the RFC-proper to those uninvolved others who have already commented. --Izno (talk) 03:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Izno, Nobody has stated Tony should have included SPAs, that is just silly. I am afraid that TonyBallioni seems to be misrepresenting the comment on another board. The IP editor never mentioned he should not have discounted SPAs, the IP editor just mentioned SPAs in the context that the close appeared to be based on a numerical count rather than an analysis of the strength of the arguments. Tony should strike that anyone is arguing for SPAs to be included in his analysis and he should add to his first post the core concern here to his above first post and that is that there is a concern he did not weigh the strength of the arguments in his close, otherwise this community review is tainted by reducing the quality of those disputing his close. I would ask Tony to strike and reword his above message to fix what appears to be a misrepresentation.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, that's tweaking verbiage to get to the point that everyone's argument should be equal, which isn't what WP:NHC says, nor is the concept that numbers are completely irrelevant what that says either. The idea is what does the bulk of informed, established editors who are aware of the policies and issues at hand agree on, and the closer doesn't decide who is right, which appears to be what you're going for. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not sure if you are implying, by your “going for” wording, that I am pushing for a biased outcome to the RfC review. I consistently wrote, long before you did the close, that I wanted a 3 admin panel to guard against a biased close WP:SUPERVOTE that this topic area has recent history of. I hope I did not misinterpret your ”going for” comment. You don’t have to reply. You are correct that numbers are not irrelevant (they are important) but the quality of the arguments against policy carry the most weight.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The vote from Sinuthius is a good example of why I think there is a problem with your approach. Sinuthius was tagged as a SPA, but he also quoted a source that directly addresses hereditarianism's level of support in academia (the Areo Magazine article), and no one else in the RFC had previously mentioned this source. Two non-SPAs who subsequently voted "no", Jweiss11 and Tickle Me, said "per Sinuthius" in their votes. But you seem to be saying that since Sinuthius was a SPA, this source mattered less than it would have mattered if the person who originally posted it had been someone else.
    The reason Jweiss11 and Tickle Me said "per Sinuthius", instead of citing this source directly, might have just been because Sinuthius voted before they did, and they did not want to repeat what he had already said. It isn't reasonable to discount certain sources based on who originally posted them, especially when later comments from others are indirectly referring to those sources. 2600:1004:B10C:92A0:FD9F:20BD:FBCF:9414 (talk) 04:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Looking through the discussion, I think Tony's close accurately assesses the rough consensus there. Writing an essay on a barely-related topic doesn't make someone involved. Nothing there makes me think a panel closure is required and honestly I doubt you could find 3 people who would touch this in a reasonable time frame anyway. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse As a long-time WP:FT/N regular I have been observing this gnarly RfC while choosing not to get involved. I do not think the arguments that TonyBallioni is involved have merit (and ironically, seem to come exclusively from involved participants in the RfC). Fair close, and TonyBallioni is to be commended for grasping this nettle. Good admin'ing. Alexbrn (talk) 05:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse This was a good close. Closers are not supposed to decide the issue for themselves as some of the above commenters that seek to re-litigate the issue appear to believe, but to assess where the rough consensus of the participants is.
    1. The concerns of the first point seem to be based on the mistaken premise that it was incorrect/abnormal for a close to assign minimal weight to the !votes of SPAs, but it isn't at all, in fact that's the way we usually do things. Further, the relevance isn't particularly high in any case as the arguments presented were for the most part considered anyway as essentially everything stated by the SPAs was also repeated by others.
    2. The second point of concern appears overwrought. Would it be nice to have panel closes on all contentious RFCs, absolutely. Is it necessary, no, and there is nothing in policy to suggest otherwise. Maybe if the logistics of a panel were in the works and volunteers had stepped up it would be different, but there was no evidence for that here. Doing a proper close is time consuming. Anyone who's glanced at the backlogs recently knows that we lack sufficient experienced closers to handle the volume our processes demand. Honestly, kudos is in order for stepping up and sorting through that mess of a discussion to reach a well-reasoned close.
    3. The third point is grasping at straws. I agree wholeheartedly that involved should be construed broadly, and that it is important whether using tools, closing contentious discussions, or taking similar actions to avoid the appearance of impropriety, but the connection that objectors are drawing between edits to those essays and this close is so oblique that if a similar standard were universally applied no one would be able to close anything. Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 06:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even without evaluating WP:INVOLVED, the optics are not good when the OP of that RfC first dissuades SilkTork from closing it, then there is a discussion about a three-admin close but TonyBallioni goes ahead and closes it before that. TonyBallioni has a history of administrative actions in the topic area, atleast dealing with Captain Occam, who primarily was a "race and intelligence" editor. ANI had an unblock request for Captain Occam in January 2020, in which I thought TonyBallioni's comment constituted a personal attack. TonyBallioni stated that the appealing user is a pseudoscientific racist without presenting any diffs. If he's resorting such attacks when discussing his administrative actions in the topic area, then it's also likely that he has strong feelings about it, fulfilling WP:INVOLVED to the letter as well. --Pudeo (talk) 07:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Briefly adding: I don't think TonyBallioni shouldn't do administrative actions in the topic area, but closing the RfC like this was a poor idea especially from him, after SilkTork had backed off and three admins were discussed. RfCs/AfDs are always a farce when closure becomes playing musical chairs. Fundamental changes to a topic area that has had discretionary sanctions for 10 years shouldn't happen like this. Overturn to no consensus would be an acceptable result, which would still allow classifying specific authors as fringe case-by-case. --Pudeo (talk) 08:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn to no consensus per Insertcleverphrasehere. If anything, putting aside the optics and inevitable controversy in this, the points made by those in opposition seem slightly stronger than those in support, as they were more evidenced and contained details of reputable publications and authors expounding the theory. Nobody is arguing that the theory is a majority one or that it should be promoted in Wikipedia's voice, and I don't personally think there's any link between race and intelligence, based on my understanding of the science. But I wouldn't have closed the RFC this way myself because the case that it is an outright WP:FRINGE theory rather than a minority theory was not conclusively made in the discussion, and many eminent Wikipedians argued otherwise. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 07:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • TB was perfectly entitled to do a single admin close. The only required exceptions are spectacularly rare, where the wider community has decided beforehand it will be required. Their actions re SPAs were also reasonable. I'm not really aware enough of their actions in the field to make a judgement on involved. Fringe is indeed broad (some might say overly so), but I'm not sure whether this falls into it or just about makes it into being a minority opinion (not one that I share, to note). Certainly one side were making much better arguments, so I think at worst it would be NC, and might well be suitable either way. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Nosebagbear - Given that consensus is determined by the strength of arguments, if one side were making much better arguments, then shouldn't the RfC have closed with consensus in their favour? A no consensus close makes no sense where one side has the weight of arguments heavily on their side – although you haven't articulated which side had that advantage. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mr rnddude:, was about to say you were taking my paragraph out of context until, thanks to your note, I realised I that I forgot the fairly fundamental addition of "better arguments on average". If no removals were occurring, then the weight of justified !votes would lean to the current close position. I haven't, however, reviewed how that holds up after SPAs are removed (in effect, to avoid double removing them), so that's why I went for a fairly ambiguous position. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Nosebagbear by the sounds of things I think you should consider reading the RfC from start to finish and discount the SPAs who are clearly marked (one or two were disputed but you can read that as well there) and then make a decision of no consensus or decide if you feel that the ‘yes’ or ‘no’ side carried the RfC.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse close as the backbone of the argument against the close—WP:INVOLVED and the SPAs—completely miss the point of what has been argued. Also endorse per Nosebagbear (Certainly one side were making much better arguments, which is, all things being equal, the sole arbiter of consensus at those discussions. Not per Nosebagbear's other suggestion that at worst it would be NC, and might well be suitable either way, however, which would be, in the colloquial, a cop out in the face of consensus. After all, AfD closers are not in the business of making the majority happy. Or anyone, for that matter—as this discussion indicates  :) FWIW, very few editors from the AfD itself seem to be overly concerned by the close, although not that the concerns raised are of course lessened by that—more of an observation. ——SN54129 13:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    SN54129, are you sure that you're correctly understanding Nosebagbear's statement that "one side were making much better arguments"? The comment immediately before his, from Amakuru, made the point that "the points made by those in opposition seem slightly stronger than those in support, as they were more evidenced and contained details of reputable publications and authors expounding the theory". When Nosebagbear said that one side was making better arguments, he might have been referring to Amakuru's preceding statement that the "no" votes were generally better justified than the "yes" votes, although Nosebagbear's statement was ambiguous so it could be interpreted either way. 2600:1004:B10F:2086:59A4:D34C:4402:41E8 (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My comment was deliberatey nuanced. Please sign in under your original account. ——SN54129 13:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have an account, and it isn't possible for me to use one. Can we please not get sidetracked? This discussion is about whether TonyBallioni's closure of the RFC was appropriate. 2600:1004:B10F:2086:59A4:D34C:4402:41E8 (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The close probably causes more problems than it solves, it's too vague to provide any guidance for article content and assigns weight to a bunch of biased and opinionated arguments. Also gives a pass to those with poor conduct during the RfC: a great deal of bludgeoning and focus on contributors rather than content. Should never have been closed as either Yes or No, there are prominent and qualified critics who directly address the merit of research in this area and separate the sheep from the goats. Their views are what should help establish content for the article, not some mythical "consensus" of editors. The close is generally what I argued in the RfC, that FRINGE has some application, but it's disappointing in the lack of specific guidance. The expectation that we look to the policies and guidelines for principles to define how we act, and we trust our editors who are familiar with them to reach their conclusions based on that is belied by the RfC itself and unlikely to prove correct. fiveby(zero) 14:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The RFC close seems properly elucidated to me. It undergirded the policy known as WP:FRINGE and the closer described that policy. Saying the closer "assigns weight to a bunch of biased and opinionated arguments" is a huge mischaracterization and is an insult to participants from both sides of the issue, who put a lot of time and effort into this RFC. In fact, that is really a demeaning comment. Also, I didn't notice any poor conduct worth mentioning. Yet the above makes it seem like "poor conduct" was a central attribute of the discussion, with editors back and forth pillorying each other with personal attacks (and the like). This did not happen.
    RFCs are created and function, based on support for the question or proposal or lack of support. Each response has its rationale. So, yes, it is binary simply because that is the most effective way to present an issue to the community. This results in an organized discussion based on policy. This is not a "yes" or "no" vote, or a, thumbs up or thumbs down vote. Also, the issue being discussed in the RFC was not about research on sheep. Likewise, no research on goats was taken into consideration.
    Lastly, I noticed a good number of editors did state their positions based on policy, apparently meaning they reached their conclusion based on policy. For the record, I was a participant in the RFC. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Close seems fine. I'm not involved with this discussion; just commenting because while I agree with most of those endorsing the close here, I want to defend the idea of a panel close in general (this is not an argument to overturn). A panel close isn't because a single admin can't do the job or even because the close would be any better or different at all. The point of a panel close is to cut down on this, and what I'm sure will be several more threads in various venues related to this subject. It's to cut down on relitigating, as well as attempts to attack any particular admin's background. The WP:INVOLVED comments are way off the mark, but regardless of whether Tony is ok fending them off, in a panel close those comments don't go as far because the whole close isn't at one person's feet. In sum: close is fine, but with a hotly contentious, high-participation RfC, panel closes are very useful to cut down on hassles afterwards (for the community and for the closers). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse close. An exemplary closure, IMO. Guy (help!) 17:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse close. Agree with Guy above. Good close. The objections raised are dreadful. ~Swarm~ {sting} 19:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • JzG/Guy was involved in the RfC (as was myself and Steve Quinn). Not sure if you are aware of that when referencing him. If you are already, I apologise.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn close per the issues raised by Pudeo and Fiveby above. Regardless of whether the closing party is biased or involved, a contentious RFC like this one should be closed in a manner that will help to resolve conflicts rather than exacerbate them, and this closure does not seem to be reducing conflict. I agree with the arguments that it should have been closed by a panel of three admins. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • What policy lays out when a panel close is required? There's a difference between something we'd like and something that is required. If no policy requires a panel close in this instance, the lack of a panel close is not sufficient justification to overturn the close. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also "if the side that didn't get their way are whining about it, then the close should be overturned" is obviously not a viable principle, either. Also also, people who participated in the RfC (as Ferahgo the Assassin did) should identify themselves so as not to give the misleading impression that they don't have a preferred outcome. (I !voted yes.) --JBL (talk) 22:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I can only speak for myself, but if the RFC had been closed by a panel of three admins who all had no prior involvement in the topic, with a closure summary that addressed all of the major arguments presented there, I'd have accepted the outcome even if it wasn't in my favor. (I voted "no".) I suspect this is true of a lot of the other "no" voters as well. When an admin knows ahead of time that his closure is going to be contested, as TonyBallioni clearly did, it's essential to make the closure as rock-solid as possible in order to avoid the type of situation that's happening now. This is the same point that Dennis Brown was making (who, incidentally, did not participate in the RFC). 2600:1004:B109:A549:E918:2939:512:DF4A (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you the person who spent several days insisting that it was necessary for you personally to select a closing admin to ensure closure was "fair"? Or was that someone else? --JBL (talk) 23:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Panel closes are not panaceas. I team closed Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices and got pinged in follow-ups for weeks. I also agree with Dennis that a panel closure would have been better, but in the absence of a requirement that's not a reason to overturn a close. The problems Tony raises with panel closes are reasonable and should not be dismissed out of hand. A three person close at minimum triples the workload of the project since three people need to take time away to read and analyze it, and there's still no guarantee that the closure will not be challenged. The best way to prevent disruption is for people to accept the results of an RfC based on the merits of the closure, not on who or how many people closed it. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think people also would not be objecting so much if TonyBallioni's closure had clearly addressed the major arguments presented in the RFC, in particular the source that was being discussed at RSN, which was pivotal to the RFC's outcome. (See the comments by Amakuru and Insertcleverphrasehere). So the problem here really is twofold: it appears to have been a low-effort closure, and as a result of that people are questioning TonyBallioni's impartiality with respect to this decision, which is precisely the type of situation that a three-admin closure hopefully could have avoided. It also would have been very easy to predict this outcome beforehand, because there was a similar result from Spartaz's initial low-effort closure of the AFD. 2600:1004:B109:A549:E918:2939:512:DF4A (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In the above discussion the RfC no-voters' claim that they had good sourcing relies primarily on a "survey" conducted by Heiner Rindermann. This IP-editor is referring to that source, which was discussed at length during the RfC, and then a no-voter initiated a parallel extensive discussion at another forum (WP:RSN). That so-called "survey of experts" was conducted by a strong advocate of theories of genetic differences in intelligence along racial lines who recently (2017) published in the white-supremacist journal Mankind Quarterly. The survey was published in Intelligence, the mouthpiece of the International Society for Intelligence Research, which actively promotes theories of genetic racial differences in intelligence. Among other things, Rindermann's survey claimed that Richard Lynn has a higher reputation as a scholar than Stephen Jay Gould, which is absurd. This was not a reliable source. (Disclosure: I was the OP for the RfC.) NightHeron (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Rindermann was not the lead author of that 2017 paper and thus it probably wasn’t his decision to publish it there in Mankind Quarterly. Much like if a doctor accepts drug company money for a single research project one time doesn’t make them corrupted by the drug companies in all other areas of their work.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You're wrong. Rindermann's coauthor David Becker had a Master of Arts in political science and was Rindermann's Student Assistant, see [3]. Rindermann was the senior author. It obviously wasn't the student assistant who decided to publish the article in the white-supremacist journal Mankind Quarterly. NightHeron (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict x2, reply to anon) It is not the job of a closer to weigh the evidence, it is to assess how participants weighed the evidence. If the source brought up by the opposers was so ironclad, it should have persuaded the supporters. It did not. The supporters' views were backed up by policy, specifically the part that Tony quotes: we interpret fringe viewpoints "in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views" (emphasis added). No one in that discussion argued that this was a majority viewpoint, so the opposers were already starting on weak footing. The discussion, as Tony accurately summarized, focused on "whether or not being a minority position within academia corresponds with being fringe", and the conclusion was that editors generally agreed that the genetic theory was "enough of a minority viewpoint in the scientific consensus that it falls under Wikipedia's definition of a fringe theory above". His line of reasoning is very clear, and I don't see this as being a low-effort close.
    It's for this reason I don't find ICPH's rationale convincing, and Tony gave a similar explanation in response. Amakuru's reasoning is more nuanced, but I disagree with their criteria for overturning. Based on my understanding of their comment, Amakuru's rationale relies upon their own interpretation of the evidence's weight rather than how participants weighed the evidence. If the evidence on the "no" side was in fact "slightly stronger" as they claim, we should have had more "no" opinions and certainly we shouldn't have had a "yes" majority because participants would have weighed those comments strongly without us as the closer needing to decide whose evidence was better.
    The point of a closure review is not to reargue your case and hope you find a more favorable audience. In review we must be especially careful to stick to how participants weighed the evidence and not substitute our own opinions on who had the stronger argument. Let's call a spade a spade: people are not concerned about whether Tony is INVOLVED because they have a deep concern for the sanctity of the administrative process, people are critiquing Tony because they don't like the outcome and getting it overturned gives them a do-over. Even if I agree that Tony's close was low-effort (I don't) and that he was not impartial (I don't), per WP:NOTBURO I would want some evidence that his close was completely unreasonable before concerning myself of procedural questions. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The evidence is the RfC itself, and Wugapodes you will have to read it from top to bottom. I doubt many people here voting endorse close have actually read the RfC from top to bottom. There were many problems with NightHeron’s sources including misinterpreting them, being very old, being discredited by experts in the field, but these issues only were discovered and highlighted towards the end of the RfC which biased some people’s votes and the RfC was bludgeoned severely by NightHeron so that new voters did not read the rebuttals as they were drowned out. Repeated personal attacks of being called a racist no doubt scared some editors from commenting against the RfC for fear of such personal attacks. I read the RfC from top to bottom and most of the yes voters relied purely on original research when voting yes for fringe whereas no voters clearly had reliable sources on their side. But sadly the RfC is so long no one will read it and realise how badly TonyBallioni handled it and people who never read the RfC will just endorse the close and that is that, There were actually no sources that said it was a fringe theory, just original research and misinterpretations of an old source, but you need to read the RfC and weigh the arguments to see that. This is what I thought after reading the RfC: the yes voters have mostly only original research to stand on for fringe label and their arguments have been refuted with sources and the only way the RfC can go in their favour is if a SUPERVOTE occurs and for that reason I advocated for a 3 admin close to guard against a supervote scenario. I expected the close to treat the genetic contribution as a significant minority viewpoint to be governed by WEIGHT not FRINGE as fringe means we are compelled to pseudo scientifically misrepresent the WEIGHT in reliable sources and label major academic views as fringe.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I had read it. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not the job of a closer to weigh the evidence, it is to assess how participants weighed the evidence. If the source brought up by the opposers was so ironclad, it should have persuaded the supporters. It did not. Something that clearly happened in this RFC is that the discussion became so long, people were voting without having read the existing discussion or examining the evidence that others had presented. This happened somewhat among both the "yes" and "no" voters, but it especially happened among the "yes" voters. Around half of the "yes" votes are only one or two sentences, without citing any sources or commenting on any of the sources that were cited by others. Ironically, some of the single-purpose accounts whose votes were thrown out, such as AndewNguyen and Sinuthius, showed far more evidence of having read the entire discussion than many of the "yes" voters did.
    When this type of situation happens, it's essential for the closing admin to closely examine which side is presenting the stronger arguments. To do otherwise is to create a situation where bludgeoning to drown out the opposition is an effective tactic, as it seems to have been in this case. 2600:1004:B109:A549:E918:2939:512:DF4A (talk) 01:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Literaturegeek's sources are literally the first reply to the post and stated in bold. If editors would need to be completely incompetent to miss that. I don't buy it. I'm also not going to speculate about who may or may not have participated. Perhaps the discussion was being watched by right-wing trolls who would dox editors who commented "yes", and so some editors didn't participate? If I were to apply that reasoning, you would rightly call for my head, so I decline to speculate on what the people who didn't comment on the RfC were thinking about. The proper way to handle bludgeoning is seeking administrator intervention during the RfC, not using it as a post hoc reason to speculate about what might have happened. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wugapodes NightHeron posted those sources on the 16th of March and I only replied to her message on the 11th of April after several no voters raised issues but got drowned out by bludgeon. Almost everyone had voted by the 11th of April. I thought about getting admin help for bludgeoning and personal attacks but figured it would be seen as me trying to sway the outcome of the RfC via GAME and also because I prefer to resolve drama through diplomacy rather than utilising admins.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wugapodes I bolded the text 34 minutes before TonyBallioni did the close so you are misinterpreting the situation, I know it is a confusing large RfC so not criticising you. So yeah, my replies below NightHeron had little to no impact on the RfC voting because it was all done towards the end.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, I've spent more of my life reading that discussion than I care to; hell, at this point I could close the discussion. These arguments are straw-grasping nonsense, and every minute I've spent on this I regret. I don't think you understand how double edged these arguments are, and that to accept them in the way you want would mean ignoring how they apply to your side of the argument. You claim the yes !voters were bludgeoning; so then what do you make of this thread? You were afraid that seeking help for bludgeoning would be seen as trying to game the process, yet we should not take bludgeoning of this discussion as gaming the process? Should the closer of this discussion give extra weight to endorse not votes because they may have been scared off by this long thread, or downweight overturn !votes because they maybe didn't read this whole thread? How is it that sources brought up by "no" !voters were both unanalyzed and generated threads and threads of discussion? Even after nearly a month of discussion, your summary generated plenty of discussion and the comments that came after it such as Littleolive Oil's clearly show that they had read the prior discussion. Either the sources were ignored or they generated a lot of discussion. It is patently absurd to say that !voters came to the page, read absolutely nothing, and posted a !vote. It goes against WP:AGF and it goes against common sense. If an editor goes to that page, sees the forest fire and comes to the conclusion that there's no consensus on whether the sources you bring up are reliable, they can still come to a valid, informed, and reasonable conclusion on whether the opinion falls within the definition of WP:FRINGE without doing a point by point refutation of the sources. The opposition is not for a lack of understanding. I have heard you and understand your points. I do not find them convincing. Please stop throwing spaghetti at the wall; it is not sticking. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course I knew it would have been controversial. Any close would have been, and in my opinion a group close likely would have caused more disruption as it was also all but certain to have been contested in a closure review and you'd have three people having to defend something that one person largely wrote then the others helped adapt (which is how most team written documents work.) I also don't believe that this wouldn't have ended up at a closure review with a panel based on the reactions here. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The AfD where race and intelligence was nominated for deletion for the 4th time resulted in a super vote being cast by a closing admin, it caused enormous drama with the deletion review recommending overturn and reclose by a 3 admin panel. The 3 admin panel came to the exact opposite close to the supervote admin. Given the high emotions on this topic area pretty much every Wikipedian either hates racially offensive material more or pseudoscience more and so this constant battle to misrepresent academic opinion to be politically correct in the article or include potentially offensive views. It is a tough one and requires a high quality close that weighs the arguments in the close not in your head as we don’t know how you weighed them in your head. Once the three admin panel closed it there was zero drama, everybody accepted it because it was a high quality close where you could see the admins weighed the core arguments, determined points of consensus and where there was no consensus used policy to determine the outcome. I am afraid your close did little to none of that. The 3 admin panel close was a close that was accepted and there was zero protest or drama which was why I advocated for it. Compare the quality of the close here: wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Race_and_intelligence_(4th_nomination).--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, those of us who supported the AfD for Race and intelligence did not come here to complain about the DRV closure that ruled against deletion, but that was not because it was a 3-admin panel. Nor was it because the closing statement (which was no longer than TonyBallioni's closing statement for the RfC) carefully considered the arguments. Rather, the DRV closure invoked policy, basically saying that non-neutral or fringe content was not a reason for deletion. We understood the significance of the words in the closing statement that "non-neutral or fringe content can be fixed by editing." This was a road-map. Rather than trying to get the article deleted, what we should do is first get a community consensus that scientific racism is fringe, and then on that basis we could proceed to remove the false balance in that article and some other articles so as to bring them up to Wikipedia standards. That's why I started the RfC. NightHeron (talk) 01:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I can barely wait until this whole RfC close review process is over so I can move on from this toxic and impossible editing area.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't wait. You could stop participating now and no-one would think any less (or more) of you. The process will sort itself out, whether or not you continue to participate. --Izno (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn close. I concur with Dennis Brown's point: this discussion got an enormous amount of traction and thoughtful comments on both sides of the question, and to do fairness to all the participants, this close should be re-examined by multiple admins or experienced users. MaximumIdeas (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn and reassess. I would prefer to have a three-admin close with more nuance and detail, and would not preclude TonyB being one of the three. A more in-depth close by another single admin (probably best for acceptance level if it's one who's not an essayist on closely related topics) might work, though. It's not that the close was incorrect in what it said, it simply didn't say anything that needed to be said. In particular, the close ignored the central point of the RfC, which was not an attempt to conclude that the "there is a proven link between race and intelligence" narrative is a fringe position; we already know it is. It was an attempt, rather, to conclude that because that ultimate, synthetic, largely undefinable conclusion is fringe, then any research that purports to show any population differences in cognitive testing, or any potentially genetic performance deltas at anything cognitive, are also fringe research by fringe scientists and must be suppressed. That's just a politicized censorship putsch, and clearly is not actually permissible under policy or pillars. The close did not address this, yet it is the only part of the RfC that really matters.

      That said, I don't think any of the three exact criticisms that TonyB outlines against himself are valid. However, this is essentially a tripartite straw man, since they're transparently silly accusations. The actual concerns with the close are mostly other than those three things, and don't involve administrative malfeasance, but simply a failure to assess the actual consensus direction of the discussion (which is clearly that going from "this one OR conclusion is fringe" to "any scientist is fringe and their work cannot be mentioned if its data can be bent by a racist asshole toward such OR" is fallacious and an invalid conclusion).

      PS: Overturning to "no consensus" is not an option. There very clearly is a consensus, and there literally would have to be one, since most of this is policy basics (which could not be overturned except by an overwhelming consensus to change the policies). That, and doing a "no consensus" on this would just be rubbing salt in a wound open too long already. This has been bouncing around from noticeboard to noticeboard for months, and it has to settle out, so we can get back to work. Doing this article right is important, because if we fuck it up (e.g. by trying to just suppress the topic and all research that touches on it, rather than contextualize it and present the cross-disciplinary scientific consensus that this is mostly to do with socio-cultural factors, and what might not be is statistically meaningless blips), WP basically cedes the entire subject to racist webboards.
       — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      • The RFC was not asking whether any research that purports to show any population differences in cognitive testing, or any potentially genetic performance deltas at anything cognitive, are also fringe research by fringe scientists and must be suppressed. The RFC asked a single question: "Is the claim that there are genetic differences in intelligence along racial lines a fringe viewpoint?" It's asking whether a claim is fringe, not whether "any research" is fringe. The specific claim is "there are genetic differences in intelligence along racial lines". It's not about "any population differences in cognitive testing", nor about "genetic performance deltas at anything cognitive", it's about whether WP:FRINGE applies to the claim that there exist (1) genetic differences (2) in intelligence (3) along racial lines, and nothing else. It's very obvious that the RFC question was carefully written to not overreach; unfortunately, some of the arguments in the RFC extended it beyond what it's asking, and then argued against the part that it was never asking about (e.g., arguing that we shouldn't suppress any and all research into intelligence and genetics... well, of course not, no one ever suggested that)... I forget the word for that variety of straw man argumentation. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 04:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll leave most of this for SMcCandlish to address, but I'd like to address this part: It's very obvious that the RFC question was carefully written to not overreach This is incorrect. It only appears that way because Barkeep49 modified NightHeron's original post to move his subsequent commentary into a separate section, due to the requirement for RFCs to be neutrally worded. This is something that Barkeep49 did at my request, and he explained his reason for doing so here.
    Here is NightHeron's RFC question in its original form, before Barkeep49 modified it. Originally NightHeron's RFC question included his commentary that editors (those who would subsequently vote "no") were "promoting white supremacist views" on these articles, so it's very clear that categorizing all pro-hereditarian research as white supremacism is part of what he intended for the RFC to be about. And he continued to make that argument throughout the RFC, despite Barkeep49's modification to his initial post. 2600:1004:B11E:FE8D:F48C:6A63:5D35:30BB (talk) 05:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Your response is an example of the "straw man argumentation" I was talking about. You're talking about NightHeron's intentions, whereas what I said was, the RFC question was carefully written to not overreach. The RFC question was Is the claim that there are genetic differences in intelligence along racial lines a fringe viewpoint?, and those sixteen words were, indeed, carefully written to not overreach, regardless of what the author's intentions were. For all I care, NightHeron's intention in posting that RFC was to please their alien overlords or to fulfill an ancient prophesy and thereby ascend to heaven... I don't give a hoot what the author's intentions were, I'm talking about the RFC question. Because of the rearrangement you suggested, we can be sure that RFC !voters were responding to the question, Is the claim that there are genetic differences in intelligence along racial lines a fringe viewpoint, and not, as Smac suggests, to any question about "any population differences in cognitive testing" or "genetic performance deltas at anything cognitive", and that's true regardless of NightHeron's intentions or subsequent comments in the RFC. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 06:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • You do realize that a "three-admin close" would just be two admins adding their sigs to the already-existing close? ~Swarm~ {sting} 08:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Swarm: Then why did TonyBallioni close the RfC before the discussed three-admin close, and why did the OP dissuade SilkTolk from closing it? It's as if closing admins hold discretionary power to sway to the close in some direction... and that's why people are picky who gets to close. --Pudeo (talk) 08:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uninvolved users do not "sway" a close, they simply close. ~Swarm~ {sting} 08:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse close Based on my reading of the discussion, I believe Tony's close to be a fair and reasonable summary of the discussion. If an administrator publicly stating that they are opposed to literal Nazis is enough to make them INVOLVED in a different topic area, we'd have a lot of overturning to do. The argument that a panel of administrators should have closed the RfC also is insufficient for me. There is no policy or guideline that I'm aware of requiring or reccomending panel closes. While I don't think they're quite as unnecessary as Tony does, I agree that a panel close was not required in this case. Panel closes are most useful when there are questions about how existing policy affects the closure and when the RfC is on a complex topic. Neither of those are the case here: while the topic area is controversial, the RfC and the closure apply only to the application of a particular guideline to a particular topic. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested move by article subject?

    User:Ivanchukvasyl is claiming to be chess Grandmaster Vassily Ivanchuk and has requested a move of the article to his preferred spelling, Vasyl Ivanchuk. There is some discussion at the RM as to whether he is the real Ivanchuk. What is the correct procedure here? Does the account need to be blocked as a possible impersonator? P-K3 (talk) 12:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    There's an email address buried in one the bottom paragraphs of Wikipedia:Contact us/Article subjects. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This was at WP:UAA (Special:PermanentLink/951789227, Special:Diff/951789295). I wouldn't object to an {{uw-ublock-famous}}. Ping Justlettersandnumbers. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think my only contribution there was to ask if there's any reason to doubt that it's really him. If there is reasonable doubt then, yes, he should be asked to verify his identity; I'm not convinced that a block is the best way to make that request, but if that's the consensus then so be it. Since we're here, am I the only one to find at least one comment in the move discussion unacceptably close to PA/harassment? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're referring to "probably a liar" I would say that's certainly a less diplomatic way of saying, "possibly an impersonator" and could be construed as a personal attack. User:ToBeFree, thanks for that background, and for informing the editor of this discussion as I forgot to. It could well be him, and he isn't being disruptive as after his one edit to the article was reverted he started the talk page discussion.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll invite Quale to the discussion as well. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The person reached out to verify the identity, see ticket:2020042110008891. I'll keep you posted. --MrClog (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • We should assume good faith, but not accept unverified claims. That means that we should not accuse anyone of being an impersonator but we should point anyone making such claims to OTRS so they can be verified. Why couldn't the people commenting in the move discussion simply wait for that to be done rather than accuse this editor of impersonation? Of course the subject's wishes, if this is verified to be the subject, are not final in article naming, but there was no need for such accusations. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Such accusations should not have been raised. There is some use of Vasyl in sources, but it is far outnumbered by Vassily, in the past year 142 for Vassily vs. 3 for Vasyl.--Bob not snob (talk) 05:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Beetstra/Spam-whitelist

    We are done here. Drmies (talk) 00:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I am working on the Timeline of asexual history article and came upon a book that I can not find a URL link to. No matter how hard I try, can't find one. Obviously, I can't go out and get a copy at my local library, so after a request on Twitter, a user in the Ace community uploaded it to docdroid.net. I wasn't aware of the website, nor aware it was on our blacklist. Anyway, it is, of course, blocked. But, this is the only copy available online with the chapter I need to link. Now, I am clearly not trying to violate copyright, I am trying to link to that particular chapter, but let's not get off topic.

    I took it to the Spam-blacklist board were it was defered to the Spam-whitelist board. This is where it gets interesting. After posting there, Beetstra replied with this snarky post included was this link.

    Now that link shows you were the book is available at local libraries. Libraries that have been ordered closed, because they are deemed non-essential by local and state governments due to a global pandemic. Beetstra also said "people can find it in their nearest library". My reply was shocked, yes, and snarky as well.

    But to that he replies not that he royally screwed up, no. He doubles down, saying yes, I know, it makes it utterly inconvenient that you have to actually go outside (which, I also know, is now also not possible). DUH!!!

    I made a point in my reply of saying "I can find no information regarding "Association Press" outside of the YMCA (which I doubt is the same), so I am having trouble believing that the copyright is still in effect for a company I can't even tell even exists." To which he replies "that copyright is with the writers, and up to 50-100 years after they die." This is true...if it is renewed. Since I can find no evidence of this Association Press (and clearly Beetstra took no time to look between his snark) I am having trouble finding that a copyright actually exists.

    Unfortunately, I am brought back to my previous statement, I am clearly not trying to violated copyright (nor was that Ace community member) in linking that particular chapter, I am trying to show the reader that the chapter does indeed exist (when no other source (ie: Google Books, Springer, JSTOR, among others) where the reader can view the cited and quoted portions.

    I believe that Beetstra did not take the time to view my arguement and given the current climate of the world (ie: global pandemic), his answers were very poorly worded, thought out, crude, and to the everyday editor/reader could actually get them killed by making them "find [the book] in their nearest library", which is the last place officials want us at right now.

    I ask that my request be reviewed and Beetstra's behavior also be reviewed. Thank you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:11 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

    I have informed Beetstra of this discussion via ping, as well as here and here to cover all bases. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:15 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
    Neutralhomer, please correct me if I am wrong: Are you currently spreading a link violation across noticeboards? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn't spread a link violation, because it would be caught by the blacklist. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:42 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
    Ah, sorry. Neutralhomer, we seem to disagree about what a "link" is. Your plaintext... "link", I'd say... seems to be problematic to me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've mixed up "(hyper)link" and "URL". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I followed directions. I've messaged you regarding this. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:58 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
    It relieves me that the instructions mix up URL and "link" too. Well. You did not knowingly link to a copyright violation, so it was probably acceptable. That is, until now, when you became aware of the issue. I can't restore what I consider to be contributing to copyright infringement. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @ToBeFree: and @ToBeFree (mobile): If it is indeed LINKVIO to put a URL/link there, as instructed by the pages own instructions, that should definitely be changed posthaste. Else that will continue to happen for other editors. I'll leave that up to you or another editor to take care of. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:38 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
    Copyright renewals largely became irrelevant after the Copyright Renewal Act of 1992. Since it was published after 1964, this book still has copyright protection, at least in the US. - MrOllie (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Neutralhomer Copyright is valid for 50-100 years (copyright term - " In most of the world, the default length of copyright is the life of the author plus either 50 or 70 years."). This book is only 43 year old, which very likely means that the copyright is still valid, and that is all that WP:COPYLINK asks me: "However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." .. I reasonably expect that the copyright is still valid. I was, and still am, shocked that you ask me to whitelist a link on a site that is full of copyright violations (and that was why it was blacklisted) on something that is very likely a copyright violation. And that while the reference is perfectly valid without a direct link to the material. And that is shown by your 2 hour link extensive search: if this material was in the public domain, you would be able to find online copies without problem. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)Regardless of the merits of this in general (and I’d suggest that linking to this is, in fact a bad idea), the concept that anything which is out of copyright is easily available online is ludicrous. Qwirkle (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Qwirkle, I agree, but it becomes quite a bit more likely that you will find pieces. Dirk Beetstra T C 15:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: you explained that Docroid.net is spam blacklisted because it hosts copyright violations. This is odd because the Meta Externals links policy does not even mention copyright. WP:SPAM or WP:BLACKLIST do not recognize possible copyright violations as spam either. The blacklist seems arbitrary, as for instance, the videosharing website Liveleak is blacklisted because it hosts copyrighted. Well, so does Youtube and Twitter. So exactly on what policy basis these additions are done? --Pudeo (talk) 15:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just about to reply and Dirk beat me to it. This reference is 100% in compliance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines without a link. Is online verification preferable? Yes. But it's not always possible and it is not required in order to source material. No whitelisting needed especially for something with COPYVIO implications. Broader discussions about the blacklist policy probably belong somewhere else. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Pudeo, there is no such "policy", but there is meta:Copyright, which discourages "Providing external links to material in violation of its copyright". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Pudeo, there is a difference between sites that contain the odd copyright violation left and right (youtube has some material in violation of copyright, but by far most of it is not; liveleak has some copyright violating material, but much material is not in violation of copyright). However, for docdroid.net it was reported as "This is pretty much all copyright violating uploaded papers and "leaked" sources." by one editor (user:Natureium), and blacklisted by another (user:JzG) with "Yup. Systematic WP:LINKVIO". If a site is in far majority copyright violations like likely the material that Neutralhomer wanted to link to then it is safer for Wikipedia to disallow linking to the whole site, and whitelist the specific material that is of use and can be shown not to be hosted in violation of copyright. Dirk Beetstra T C 15:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra:: Again, if a copyright exists. I can find no evidence of this Association Press. From 1977?! Kinda hard to do in a pandemic and the closest copy to me in about 110 miles away. Is this, indeed a copyrighted book or was it independently published without copyright? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:47 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
    (edit conflict) x4: Neutralhomer, the "snarky post" was both helpful and correct. Per WP:LINKVIO, you may not link from Wikipedia to any page that you know or suspect to be a copyright violation, which is certainly the case here. Moreover, there's no need to do so; you need only to cite the book with proper bibliographic details including ISBN (if it has one, otherwise OCLC), and the page numbers for the material you are referring to. Our article on Copyright law of the United States may be worth a glance, too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) @Neutralhomer: If you write a text, you own the copyright unless you explicitly give it away. If you write a letter you own the copyright of that text. If you write a book you own the copyright of that text. Unless you explicitly sign away those rights (which some companies you work for ask you to do, whereupon the company owns the copyright) or you explicitly release the material in the public domain (like here on Wikipedia, still what you write needs to be attributed to you) you own the copyright. You here explicitly say that you cannot check whether that copyright is expired, and therefore we fall back to the default in copyright term (50-70 years after the writer dies) and reasonably assume that the copyright is still valid, and hence WP:COPYVIO/WP:COPYLINK applies: do not link to that material if you reasonably expect that the copyright is valid. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Justlettersandnumbers:: So linking someone local libraries and telling them to "can find it in their nearest library" saying it's "utterly inconvenient that you have to actually go outside" during a pandemic is appropriate behavior for an admin? Also, what copyright? There is no proof of a copyright. <I wrote this, it's copyright. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:04 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
    @Beetstra:: I linked to it on Spam-whitelist because that's what the directions (in the big green box) right beside "IMPORTANT" say to do. I followed directions. Can't call "LINKVIO" when the directions are right there on the page. Sorry. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:02 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
    As others have pointed out, there is absolutely no need to link to an online scan of the book content, and all that is required is to furnish the full bibliographic details. The book is available at 11 libraries within a relatively short drive of where I live in Northern California. Yes, libraries are closed at the moment but they will reopen sometime fairly soon, and online used book sellers are still operating for someone who really wants to read a physical copy. Well over 1000 books have been published since 1888 under the "Association Press" moniker but I do not know if that represents one company or several companies using the same name. The pandemic is irrelevant to the fundamental point: we simply do not link to websites that exist to host copyright violations. End of story. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cullen328: Cullen, my old "friend". Still stuck on the copyright that may exist. Where? Show the copyright. There is no proof that one exists. You yourself just said you don't know if that's one company or many. Someone could be piggybacking on that copyright.
    Yes, the pandemic is relevant, because Beetstra tone deaf answers (ie: go to a library) show that he isn't up to making that determination. NorCal, from what I hear, isn't opening anything up "fairly soon" either. Not here in Virginia. They will remain closed until June 10 and probably after too. This is two fold. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:58 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
    I confidently predict that libraries will reopen before the WP:DEADLINE. Guy (help!) 17:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @JzG: Not in Virginia they won't. :) At least not until June 10. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:40 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
    Neutralhomer, as an uninvolved editor with an interest in copyright: the burden of proof here is on you. Just like how we can't accept text copied from a website even if that website doesn't have a copyright notice (unless that website is explicitly licensed in a compatible way), it is not okay for us to be linking to a possible copyvio because "it might not be copyrighted." Per MrOllie's comment above and the copyright office's page on this, works copyrighted from '64 to '77 automatically were renewed, so unless you have records indicating that it was not copyrighted or that unusual circumstances apply, we need to err on the side of caution. Please, just do a {{Cite book}}, it is not vital to the article that we provide this link. creffett (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Creffett:: So we can't accept it isn't copyrighted, but we can accept is? You see where I have probably with that. I'm just to take someone at their word "yeah, it's copyright", but you can't take me at my word "but what if it isn't?". See the problem here?
    I've already done a cite book. That's not the problem. I like to have PROOF of what I am citing. I am citing quotes too. Since someone can't actively go out and see this for themselves, it's good to have an actual book link on hand.
    I'm still would like someone look at Beetstra tone deaf responses, but I don't think that's gonna happen. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:18 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
    Yes, that's exactly right. When in doubt, we always assume copyright. In the absence of further info either way, that is by far the most likely. Plus is the safe assumption. It is always the burden of the person claiming there is no copyright to prove that claim. I've also looked at Beetstra's comments, and they are at most 5% more snarky than needed. Not gold standard, but certainly not a reason for bringing this to ANI. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutralhomer, Beetstra is Dutch. His English is excellent but word choices may seem idosyncratic or blunt at times. He also spot-on: you bear the onus of proving that the link does not violate copyright, something your comments above would indicate that you may not have fully appreciated. Guy (help!) 17:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @JzG:: I'm American, my English is also excllent, my word choices are also blunt (I'm Autistic). Not sure how any of that (above) was needed to be brought up, but OK. Why are we stack on top of comments? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:34 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
    Copyright 1977 (it's in field 260 – I hope the link works, otherwise you'll have to take my word for it). Yes, I know it wasn't necessary, copyright should have been assumed anyway, but I already had the library catalogue open in another tab. --bonadea contributions talk 17:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So we can't accept it isn't copyrighted, but we can accept is? You see where I have probably with that. I'm just to take someone at their word "yeah, it's copyright", but you can't take me at my word "but what if it isn't?". See the problem here?
    (edit conflict)By law in the United States, any published work is copyrighted unless the author specifically designates it otherwise. The author may choose to register the copyright, which provides additional legal protections, but it is not required. Therefore, the onus is on us to prove a work is not copyrighted, rather than the other way around.
    Beetstra's comments were unnecessarily dismissive, but they may have just assumed you knew this fact about copyright status, and that led to the misunderstanding. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment)That "automatically copyrighted" thing started in 1978, so it wasn't true in 1977 when this book came out; many things landed in the public domain by either not having their copyright registered or not having it properly marked on the work. However, this book did have its copyright registered, as you can find record of in the appropriate copyright catalog. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC) Added: This book is so absolutely impossible to find that... four used copies are available through Amazon right now. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @NatGertler: Find online. I'm not saying to buy, I'm saying in academic form (ie: Google Books, JSTOR). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:34 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
    Utterly irrelevant. Wikipedia does not require that references be online. The idea that "in academic form" requires an online version suggests that academic studies did not exist prior to the Internet. My pointing out that physical copies are available is in response to various "but the libraries are closed" comments. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @NatGertler: Because I quote the document multiple times on the page, it helps the reader to see the document "in hand". Also, after the Pauley Perrette/Asexuality/User:NedFausa madness, I'm not taking any chances when it comes to anyone coming in any removing anything saying "oh, this can't be cited" or something similiar. I'm covering all my bases. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:44 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
    If you are “covering your bases” with the online equivalent of extensive scholarly notes, you really shouldn't be doing that in the article, any more than we should be uploading extensive photocopies of copyrighted material to be used in the article. If this belongs at all, and I’m not at all convinced it does, it belongs on the talk page, not the article. Qwirkle (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Qwirkle: First, I didn't upload it. Second, if it keeps users from mass deleting things from multiple articles, I'll add scholarly notes everytime. Plus, it's a timeline, so scholarly notes are actually a good thing. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:16 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
    Generic “you.” When writing an article or a book in real, non-online life, a researcher might conceivably copy the whole of a copyrighted work by hand or xerox at a library, toddle home with it, and use it, quite legitimately, to create a new work. But if he copied that whole work whole as an appendix, or added it as a running footnote, or what have you, his house might become the disputed property of his lawyers and the original copyright holder’s. A bluelink out to a dodgy source is pretty much the online equivalent of this. We are putting someone else’s work in ours, without their agreement, and without compensating them, right in the article. That is not the equivalent, so to speak, of a manila folder of clippings, scrawled notes, and photocopies. Someone might make the case that the talk page is. (It ain’t gonna be me, though.) Qwirkle (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm quite confused as to why there's any controversy or disagreement over this. It's a copyrighted book, and we can cite it, but we can't link to a illegal copy of the book. It's entirely irrelevant how hard it is to get it; U.S. copyright law hasn't changed in lieu of the coronavirus. Vermont (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Vermont: Tell that to The Internet Archive. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:34 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
    There's been a few articles recently about whether what they're doing is legal. It is all quite uncertain; the only thing I can be sure of is that the WMF doesn't want to get involved in anything like it. If the copyright owner of that book sends a DMCA, it would be taken down, and we don't want to get to that point. Vermont (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s worth noting that the IA position is bolstered by a large number of associated libraries who have physical copies which can not currently circulate. Except for current bestsellers, the number of copies physically held by libraries often covers the online access. Very different thing here. Qwirkle (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Qwirkle: I am so very aware of the physical copies, I even mentioned them to begin with. I am talking about a linkable, readable online copy. There isn't one. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:16 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
    • This can be closed, right? Content question asked and answered, behavior evaluated and determined not to be a problem. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Unreferenced material being added after level 4 warning by IP user

    (non-admin closure) Blocked. creffett (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    User:74.70.104.93 has been repeatedly warned for adding unsourced material, including up to a level 4 warning, and yet has continued to do so. Their edit history is pretty much without exception full of unsourced edits. I didn't think WP:AIV was suitable for this - although I could be wrong in thinking that - as it's not "vandalism" per se, but it needs addressing given that they have been told a block without warning is imminent. | Naypta✉ opened his mouth at 15:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Naypta: That's garden variety date change vandalism, and violations of the biographies of living persons policy to boot, and massive nontrival unexplained changes are nearly always DE anyway. I reverted their current edits. In the future just report this to WP:AIV once they violate past final warning. Also for for reporting more complex cases requiring administrator intervention ANI is usually preferable to AN. (Non-administrator comment) 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D: I wasn't sure that it met the standard for WP:VD because it's not completely clear to me that the behaviour is designed to defeat the purpose of the project - it may simply be original research, and there are a few edits which seem to be genuine attempts at doing something good. Thanks for the note about ANI vs AN though - I'll freely admit I'm not fully clear on the difference. | Naypta✉ opened his mouth at 16:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Naypta: No worries this is not always easy to identify, if it were just restricted to quibbles over dates active that would be one thing, although you could still report if they made mass-changes against consensus, but knowingly changing birthdates and places of birth to incorrect values when the reference is provided is a transparent attempt to defeat Wikipedia's purpose, AGF is not a suicide pact. As for attempts at doing something good, it is necessary to weigh the benefit vs harm to the project, as well as the degree to which a problematic user is willing to listen to criticism. This is further complicated by the fact that many IP addresses are shared, but if the bad outweighs the good a block is usually the best course of action to maintain the integrity of the project, hope this helps. (Non-administrator comment) Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 16:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=952449825"