Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Total
CfD	0	1	59	0	60
TfD	0	0	3	0	3
MfD	0	0	3	0	3
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	79	0	79
AfD	0	0	2	0	2

• 12 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 4 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 2 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 2 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 201 sockpuppet investigations
• 9 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 4 Fully protected edit requests
• 3 Candidates for history merging
• 93 requests for RD1 redaction
• 57 elapsed requested moves
• 4 Pages at move review
• 17 requested closures
• 110 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 29 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Bericht

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (30 out of 8186 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Typ Summary Admin Ras Sedr massacre 2024-08-03 04:21 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Template:Ivory messagebox/styles.css 2024-08-02 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 4463 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Sodhi 2024-08-02 17:15 2024-09-02 17:15 edit Persistent disruptive editing Anachronist Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/talk/talk 2024-08-01 21:07 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated by LTA Jauerback Lin Yu-ting 2024-08-01 20:47 2024-08-11 20:47 edit,move Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Real Malabar FC 2024-08-01 20:44 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated El C Silver Synth 2024-08-01 19:50 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ad Orientem Imane Khelif 2024-08-01 17:14 2024-09-01 17:14 edit Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (1 August 2024 – present) 2024-08-01 14:09 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Isabelle Belato Beit Jala 2024-08-01 11:48 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Ismail al-Ghoul 2024-08-01 03:52 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Firefangledfeathers Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gaza Health Ministry qualifier 2024-07-31 20:51 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Template:Inprogress 2024-07-31 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2500 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Cricket squad2 player 2024-07-31 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2501 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Spike (missile) 2024-07-31 16:03 2024-08-07 16:03 edit,move WP:ARBPIA4 temporary enforcement Swatjester Kefas Brand (actor) 2024-07-31 15:05 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Bishonen Assassination of Ismail Haniyeh 2024-07-31 12:30 indefinite edit Highly visible page as currently on main page; it's been moved regularly over the last couple of days Schwede66 Reactions to Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions 2024-07-31 01:47 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Death of Paul Kessler 2024-07-31 01:47 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Azzam Pasha quotation 2024-07-31 01:14 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:ARBPIA; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Queer advocacy in the Israel–Hamas War 2024-07-31 01:13 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato 80th Air Assault Brigade (Ukraine) 2024-07-31 01:11 indefinite edit,move WP:RUSUKR; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Megagle 2024-07-31 00:56 2026-07-31 00:56 edit Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of poorly sourced material. Yamaguchi先生 2024 Gaza Strip polio epidemic 2024-07-30 21:20 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case 2024 Haret Hreik airstrike 2024-07-30 19:42 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Talk:Sister location circus fox 2024-07-30 19:11 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Pickersgill-Cunliffe Fouad Shuker 2024-07-30 19:08 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:ARBPIA; requested at WP:RfPP Elli July 2024 Israeli attack on Beirut 2024-07-30 19:07 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:ARBPIA; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Jhanak 2024-07-30 16:56 indefinite move Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Bat Ayin 2024-07-30 15:20 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:ARBPIA; requested at WP:RfPP Elli

Anonymous IP Vandalism by 185.244.242.83

A Bulgarian user 185.244.242.83 keeps vandalize the First Bulgarian Empire. he engaged in edit war, first I started to discuss with him two times, He has many Bulgar related unexplained-unsourced-unreasonable content removals. Volgabulgari (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I find it concerning that Volgabulgari posts an edit warring warning on my talk page with no explanation[1], while Volgabulgari appears to be edit warring over:

• First Bulgarian Empire,[2][3]
• Hunno-Bulgar languages, [4][5]

:Volgabulgari needs to either explain why they posted the warning on my talk page or remove it. Also, Volgabulgari needs to find the article talk page and discuss instead of edit warring. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC) Addressed. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I made a Wikipedia page of Hunno-Bulgar superfamily which mentioned by Gerhard Doerfer, Denis Sinor, Marcel Erdal, Otto Maenchen-Helfen, Omeljan Pritsak, Peter Golden John V. A. Fine and many other both historians and linguists. But for some reasons, my page is redirect with Oghuric languages. While there may be some linguistic and historical connections between the two, they are not the same thing. The Hunno-Bulgar theory is supported by some reputable scholars in the field of linguistics and history, and there is ongoing research and discussion on the topic.

Redirecting Hunno-Bulgar to Oghuric would not accurately represent the current state of knowledge and understanding in the field, and would be misleading to readers who are looking for information specifically about the Hunno-Bulgar theory. I tried to speak with those who redirect in talk page but at some point they stoped replying me.Discussions about proposed language families and linguistic history should be guided by scholarly research and evidence, rather than by nationalist or political motivations.

Please look at here Volgabulgari (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Reporting Disruptive user / A new user harrasment at Vriddhi Vishal

OP blocked as a sockpuppet. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi, I have created the page Vriddhi Vishal yesterday and a new user named Uncle Spock, who created his account 13 days before ie; on 9th april 2023 placed the G4 deletion tag, which was declined by an admin. He is HARASSING now by placing the AFD tag after the G4 tag was declined. I think he is more for a destructive edits in wikipedia rather than doing constructive edits. Christopheronthemove (talk) 10:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC) If the deletion request is baseless, this will be shown by the lack of any users supporting deletion other than the nominator. If he really thinks it should be deleted, AFD is the correct route for him to take. Animal lover |666| 10:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC) Based on the editing pattern of the filer Christopheronthemove, I strongly suspect them for COI/UPE editing. First of all they are trying to recreate or protect many of the previously deleted articles that had the COI/UPE or socking issues in the past. The tone they use in the new articles has also got a strong UPE flavour. Uncle Spock has done nothing wrong here. Every user on good terms has got the right to open an AFD irrespective of the age of their accounts. I recommend WP:BOOMERANG here. Pinging Oaktree b and Hadal. 111.92.78.203 (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC) Thank you for the update, I didn't think I had done something wrong. Oaktree b (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC) When you start a new discussion about an editor, you must notify them but you haven't notified Uncle Spock about this thread. So I'm pinging them. 111.92.78.203 (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC) Thanks for the ping, 111.92.78.203. I've already responded to Christopheronthemove at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vriddhi Vishal (2nd nomination). Suffice to say, there has been no harassment or other impropriety on the part of Uncle Spock. Re: any COI or socking issues, I was being charitable at AFD because I was not involved in the previous AFD; I don't have the insight to make a call on that. But I did catch a whiff of something off. --Hadal (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Tatar Confederation

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

---

User @Erminwin reverted my edits multiple times. I tried to warn him. He is using a Britannica source where it says Tatars originated between Lake Balkai and Manchuria. Same source also says Original Tatars (Nine Tatars) are a Turkic-speakers unlike Mongols. When I added "Original Tatars associated with Turkic peoples" he keeps deleting without saying anything most of the time.

Corrupted page: Tatar Confederation Volgabulgari (talk) 13:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

This looks to me like a content dispute. Please discuss on Talk:Tatar confederation. Animal lover |666| 13:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Philoserf is continuing to make hundreds of semi-automated edits while leaving thousands for everyone else to clean up and then saying that he's "retired" whenever someone calls him on it

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

---

Philoserf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Philoserf&diff=next&oldid=1151425190. I think a block is warranted, since he seems to want to retire and not collaborate. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

This is pretty much a case of WP:LISTENTOUS now. 1AmNobody24 (talk) 07:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

This comment seems to support the idea they are using "retirement" to evade communication with us. 331dot (talk) 07:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I have enforced their self-declared "retirement" with an indefinite block. Cullen328 (talk) 07:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Good block, as the length of this potential error list shows. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, good block. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

This is the kind of block I wish I made. BorgQueen (talk) 08:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Close of RFC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC on draftifying a subset of mass-created Olympian microstubs

Bradv has closed the above-linked discussion with a close that can be seen in this diff. This issue was discussed by the opener of the discussion on the closer's talk-page here, in which Bradv indicated that further discussion should take place on this notice board.

This close should be over-turned from no consensus to passed, or alternatively the discussion re-opened for closure by another admin. This is based not just on the large majority in favour of the draftification and the high level of community involvement in the discussion, but also:

• 1) The 2020 RFC that their close was based on was not raised as an issue in this RFC, Bradv using it in their close was therefore a super-vote, which is inappropriate.
• 2) Bradv misapplied the close of the 2020 RFC, which stated that "moving articles to draft space is generally appropriate ... if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify..." a case that clearly applies to this RFC which was in every wise a deletion discussion other than not taking place on the AFD page and going on for longer than 7 days, including there being multiple votes for deletion.
• 3) Bradv indicated in their talk-page comments that the articles would have been draftified if an AFD discussion had resulted in a consensus for draftification. However, this RFC was in no wise different to an AFD discussion other than having taken place in a heavily-advertised discussion at VPP which last for much more than 7 days. Bradv is essentially asking that the discussion be re-held at AFD with no reasonable expectation that the outcome (which was heavily in favour of draftification, and which any AFD-closer would have closed in favour of draftification had it occurred there) will be any different.
• 4) The CONLEVEL of the 2020 RFC was the same as (or at least not higher than) that of the RFC being closed.

FOARP (talk) 09:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn. FOARP raises many good points that are sufficient to overturn the result but there is one reason that makes the rest irrelevant; Bradv was WP:INVOLVED.

Previously, they opened a discussion at AN where they argued against the mass draftification of problematic articles. This discussion prompted an RFC that they participated in and advocated for a position stricter than that held by policy.

Clearly, they have both engaged in prior disputes on this topic and have strong feelings about it, and this involvement is likely to have influenced their close; for example, they claimed that policy only permits new articles to be draftified, even though policy permits older articles to be draftified when there is a consensus to do so. It was inappropriate for them to close this discussion, and it should be reclosed by an uninvolved editor if not directly overturned to passed. BilledMammal (talk) 10:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse (uninvolved). As Brad notes in the close, there was a numerical majority in favour of the motion, but he's also correct to say that the proposal seeks to establish a carve-out to established WP process in draftification which has explicitly been rejected by the community. There are all sorts of sensible reasons for this, including that there will be many editors who are active at AFD who don't follow VPP, and will therefore not have had an opportunity to "vet" the 1000 deletions in question. I'm not persuaded by the "involved" argument above... If editors are to be deemed involved because they had a hand in shaping the policy which passed by consensus and which they then later enforce, we'd end up with no administrators able to close discussions at all. The draftification policy passed by consensus and is therefore binding, regardless of whether Brad supported it or not. Anyway, the way forward here is clear, and outlined in the close - either PROD the pages or take them to AFD. If they're really as obvious deletion candidates as the RFC implies, then it should be straightforward.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  I’ll add that the WP:NOTBURO is a strong reason to overturn this close, for two reasons. First, Bradv suggests that if this was a deletion discussion, even if it was held outside of AFD, it could have found a consensus for draftification. The notion that we can propose deletion and get draftification, but we can’t propose draftification and get draftification, is kafkaesque. Second, the close means that we could make an identical proposal, including the five year auto deletion, with the only difference being we move it to wikiproject space instead of draft space. The notion that making a proposal worse, by making it harder for editors to find these articles, can make the proposal policy compliant is clearly bureaucracy gone mad. BilledMammal (talk) 11:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Amakuru - "he's also correct to say that the proposal seeks to establish a carve-out to established WP process in draftification which has explicitly been rejected by the community" - Where has it done so in a form that would prevent this VPP discussion reaching the opposite conclusion? We have only two VPP discussions, one of which was later, and much more heavily advertised and commented on, than the other. FOARP (talk) 12:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

If the discussion were about revoking the policy in question, then this would be a valid point. But it wasn't. It was a proposal to specifically about draftifying articles in one limited scenario, in a manner not permitted by policy. That's textbook WP:CONLEVEL and the closer was absolutely right to close the discussion according to established policy, which is how discussions are always closed. I also don't really understand why you're here arguing this anyway, Brad has given you the way forward. Why not pursue the deletions in the normal manner, as suggested?  — Amakuru (talk) 13:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how this - an earlier less-well-commented VPP discussion governing the outcome of a later heavily-commented one - is just a classic application of CONLEVEL. One could just as easily turn it around: how can an entirely theoretical discussion govern the outcome of one presented with a concrete scenario and set of facts on which to decide? FOARP (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse (uninvolved). I can understand people thinking it would be nice (or expedient) if a conclusion had been reached but I cannot see there was a consensus in that discussion, not even a "rough consensus". Thincat (talk) 12:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn. consensus was sufficient, and closer was involved. ValarianB (talk) 12:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
• Note: I didn't "base" my close, or any other part of the decision, upon the 2020 RfC. I merely mentioned it because it is linked to from the WP:ATD-I policy page on this topic. That I happened to participate in said policy debate is immaterial. – bradv 13:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

If no part of the 2020 RFC was relevant to the discussion, why cite it at all? Why quote it as supporting your position? Stating that it was not even a partial basis for the close just casts more doubt on the reasoning in the close. FOARP (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I thought that the closing statement linked in the explanatory footnote at WP:ATD-I would be useful as it spelled out the preferred alternative. I included it to be helpful to provide a way forward to the participants in this RfC. However, my close reads the same if you skip that paragraph, and I'm happy for it to be removed if it is causing confusion. – bradv 13:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

With the mention of the 2020 RFC and the alternative suggested, it appears that the proposal could have passed at AFD. Without it, it appears that there is no way that the proposal could have passed, regardless of venue. I don't know which of these was intended but both appear problematic. FOARP (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse (involved - I opposed draftification and supported redirection) - Responding to the points at the top: Bradv using it in their close was therefore a super-vote, which is inappropriate. - While calling a closure a "supervote" is a popular way to attack any closure that goes against raw numbers, the precedent of the referenced RfC is documented in ATD, which many people raised. this RFC which was in every wise a deletion discussion - This betrays that the purpose of the RfC was to use draftification as back-door deletion and thus strengthens the closing statement. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse (involved) per Rhododendrites, Amakuru, etc. Good close. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) endorse. the close is sound. so please don't drag this out longer. lettherebedarklight晚安 14:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  I don't understand how this argument applies. The close calls for ~1000 articles to be PRODed or AfDed. Is that not longer? CMD (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  i meant the rfc. lettherebedarklight晚安 14:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse (uninvolved, though I did post some general information about notability in the RFC discussion, and I have separately talked to the OP about his views on very short articles). This summary is not the only possible summary, but it is a reasonable summary, and therefore should be allowed to stand. If anyone wants to pursue the AFD route, then I suggest selecting a theme (e.g., early Olympic athletes from a single country or from a particular sport) instead of trying to handle almost 1,000 articles at once. Enormous AFDs sometimes get responses based purely on the scale of the nomination. If you can send 10–20 in a single nom, and then wait until you see the outcome, you might figure out a path forward. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn (involved) per WP:NOTBURO. The close is basically that this should be done via the deletion process, so what now? Open a mass AfD for the 960 articles and have the community answer the same question again, just to make sure it's at the right venue? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
• Leaning overturn. I haven't fully read the RFC in question, but there are enough issues with the closing statement that I think that it is likely incorrect. First, pointing out that the deletion policy is against incubation as a backdoor to deletion doesn't hold much water in a discussion on the board where proposals to make and change policy are put forth. Policy is descriptive, and if a consensus of editors wishes to change policy to deal with an issue VPP is the exact place to do it. Additionally, drawing from the close of a discussion saying

  Instead of unilaterally draftifying an unsuitable-for-mainspace article that is not newly created, editors should instead nominate the article for deletion, e.g. via WP:PROD or WP:AFD.

  when the discussion had fewer than half as many participants as just those supporting the draftification is not very convincing. A discussion with much broader participation is exactly what is necessary to demonstrate a consensus not to strictly follow the earlier result.
  A very large discussion at VPP is exactly what is necessary to demonstrate that community consensus is different than what is presently recorded on the policy page. The policy should be updated, rather than disregarding the support of there is sufficient community support. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  Oh yeah, I'm uninvolved in this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn (involved) mostly as per ScottishFinnishRadish, who pretty much exactly wrote down what my thoughts were. I'm not particularly happy with the close - a discussion at WP:VPP that was advertised at WP:CENT should be enough to change almost all policies if need be, and draws so much participation that it's hard to say there's a WP:CONLEVEL issue - I don't think this is a case where the intention of CONLEVEL is met either.
  The close seems to be mostly reliant on WP:ATD-I. But what ATD-I does is allow "Recently created articles that have potential, but that do not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards" to be draftified - it doesn't bar other uses for draftification that can be developed with consensus. What it does restrict is backdoor deletion, but the result of a widely advertised RfC is not backdoor deletion.
  What the close suggests is that another RfC be held to add to WP:ATD-I that "A widely-advertised consensus can result in the mass incubation of articles" which seems bureaucratic to the extreme. Galobtter (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
• (Uninvolved). Much per SFR and Galobtter above, I'm of the heart that a CENT-advertised VP discussion spanning nearly two months should be adequate consensus to ignore any policy it likes. Our policies are not etched in stelai, and in this sense I feel any strict policy-based close that countervenes consensus of this magnitude is essentially incorrect. Moreover, the penultimate line of WP:ATD-I reads: Older articles should not be draftified without an AfD consensus.... With a single imagined removal of AfD to accommodate this specific case, certainly unpondered during the general case policy drafting, even the policy-based argument evaporates.
  Having said that, I don't agree that Bradv was WP:INVOLVED, and I'm aware that my reading of the situation is more based in idealism than anything enshrined in our hallowèd WP:PAGS, so I'm not sure I'm prepared to bold an "overturn" here. I'll instead register my disagreement and gladness to see Brad's name back. Folly Mox (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse per Rhododendrites, Amakuru, et al. You can be sure if the nominator's desired outcome is not reached, they will keep trying and not drop the stick. –Fredddie™ 00:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  Fredddie - I've seen at least one person on here already mistake who is actually challenging this close, and I think you may be doing so as well. Just FYI, I'm the one who asked for this close to be reviewed, and I don't believe I have an extensive record of challenging decisions I did not agree with. This is the first time I have asked for AN to review the outcome of an RFC. Obviously I think review is justified otherwise I wouldn't have asked for it, but the Overturn !votes above also show that I am not the only one who thinks so, so I don't believe I'm being unreasonable here. FOARP (talk) 08:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse (uninvolved) per Amakuru, mostly. The proposal seeking out to carve an exception to existing policies should have much more broad acceptance than the current one had, and reasonable concerns and counter-arguments were all policy-based. If one wants an IAR action performed (and this proposal amounted to one, seeking to bypass established policies), they should better have near-universal approval that it improves the encyclopedia; removing innocuous ~1000 articles on borderline notable early-20th century people does not cut that slack. Bradv's closure has artfully reflected the discussion and has shown a way forward. No such user (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
• I'm involved and therefore disinclined to add a word in bold... but I would have sworn that there was consensus to draftify there. These are biographies; the database sources are self-published and unreliable; their creator admitted to introducing inaccuracies into these articles; and this fact was proven with diffs during the debate.—S Marshall T/C 13:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  S Marshall - Agreed. This no-consensus close came out of nowhere. It leaves it very unclear what exactly we're supposed to do: it's hard to believe the problem was venue because, how could it have been? It's not believable that this was a policy issue because this WAS a policy decision. I can just see the AFD getting closed "no, AFD isn't for this" because that's what's happened so many times in the past when this was attempted. Hell, I had complaints just trying to get hundreds of Iranian "village" articles (that were actually about pumps/wells/etc.) deleted even with an overwhelming consensus in favour. You cannot PROD hundreds of articles, and if you did they can be de-prodded by a single editor without discussion. It's just setting up a Catch-22 where nothing can be done. The assertion that policy-changes need to be near-unanimous just doesn't make sense since these policies were not typically made near-unanimously, and any way consensus can change. FOARP (talk) 13:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  Olympedia isn't unreliable: they're related to Sports Reference and editing can only be done by "about two dozen trusted academics and researchers who specialize in Olympic history." BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

BeanieFan11 - This is not the place to re-hash the RFC, rather, the focus should be on the close itself. However, I've seen Olympedia's editors basing their content on Wikipedia (the Frank English case we discussed in the RFC). The prose content is particularly suspect and I've seen it be flat-out wrong on multiple occasions. The "two dozen trusted academics and researchers who specialize in Olympic history" are unknown and we have not tended to treat other such user-created databases where the users were self-proclaimed experts as automatic reliable sources. FOARP (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• Leaning overturn (involved and hence not bolded) due to supremely odd usage of CONLEVEL. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn per FOARP, but also involved and won't bold. Therapyisgood (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Non-admin request for Edit Filter Manager access

A non-admin request to be granted edit-filter management access is currently open at EFM. Editors may express their support or reservations, and ask questions of the application there. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 18:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Cleanup of articles after

This is part of the cleanup after Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1125#Disruption, where the user Hanshingling (talk · contribs) was blocked. Two articles are currently at AfD (Gypsy (Rajput clan) and Rathore clan), one is at PROD (Bhadanakas Kingdom), and one more has been redirected (Takka Dynasty).

• Battar
• Chandel (Gujjar clan)
• Chavda clan
• Chechi clan
• Gorsi clan
• Hun clan
• Maitrak
• Meelu clan
• Nagar (Gurjar clan)
• Nekadi
• Poruswal clan

I seek to determine if these articles should be preemptively deleted due to alleged use of a large language model. Some of the articles also contain improperly sourced lists of allegedly affiliated people oftentimes based only on surname, which violates established guidelines about caste, and all of these lists will be removed by me. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Content was also added to the following articles, and requires scrutiny:

• Maitraka dynasty [6]
• Bhadana clan [7] (contains a list of people which predated Hanshingling, but was previously unsourced and based on name only)
• Gurjar Veer [8] (not related to caste)
• Baisla [9]
• Nain Singh Nagar [10]

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• Noting for completeness that Hanshingling had created a sock BonzonEllite (talk · contribs), which was blocked. All the sock's contributions have, I believe, been reverted or speedied, and some of the targeted articles protected. Also pinging @Packer&Tracker: as a fyi since they too have been dealing with these accounts. Abecedare (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to establish merge review process

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

---

I've noticed that despite tons of articles that are in the process of being merged, a vast majority of merger projects have been dormant for at least a year. To be frank, I believe that the reason for this is because several people, myself included, feel that some of these merger proposals shouldn't have been accepted, and would like to contest them akin to a move review or deletion review. The problem is, I couldn't find a process to do that, which leads me to belive such a thing doesn't exist. I therefore propose that a merge review process akin to those regarding moves and deletions be established. 100.7.44.80 (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

This is probably better suited to The Idea Lab oder The Proposals page at Village Pump, as this is not particularly an admin-related issue. --Jayron32 15:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

All right, I'll take this to the Idea Lab. Thanks for letting me know! 100.7.44.80 (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

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