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	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Total
CfD	0	0	3	12	15
TfD	0	0	0	5	5
MfD	0	0	0	2	2
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	4	40	44
AfD	0	0	0	4	4

• 4 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 0 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 0 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 10 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 153 sockpuppet investigations
• 25 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 0 Fully protected edit requests
• 0 Candidates for history merging
• 5 requests for RD1 redaction
• 22 elapsed requested moves
• 5 Pages at move review
• 19 requested closures
• 114 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 30 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (29 out of 8091 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Jadaun (clan) 2024-07-24 05:22 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; WP:GSCASTE Abecedare Executions and assassinations during the Israel–Hamas war 2024-07-24 04:06 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case American Communist Party 2024-07-24 03:59 indefinite edit,move Repeated efforts to convert redirect into an article contrary to recent AfD consensus. Ad Orientem Benny Morris 2024-07-24 03:35 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Weenus 2024-07-23 22:09 indefinite edit,move Vandalism target Anachronist Weenis 2024-07-23 22:08 indefinite edit,move Vandalism target Anachronist Wenus 2024-07-23 22:08 indefinite edit,move Vandalism target Anachronist Katherine Franke 2024-07-23 21:23 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Draft:Real Malabar FC 2024-07-23 21:20 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: per RFPP suggestion Daniel Case Gaur Brahmins 2024-07-23 13:06 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry Doug Weller Rathore dynasty 2024-07-23 03:16 2024-10-23 03:16 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Abecedare Rathore (Rajput clan) 2024-07-23 03:13 indefinite edit Persistent sock puppetry; WP:GSCASTE Abecedare Mughal–Rajput wars 2024-07-22 21:43 indefinite edit Persistent sock puppetry; will log it under WP:GCASTE given the usual Rajput-related sockpuppetry and warring Abecedare Branches of Rashtrakuta dynasty 2024-07-22 21:38 2025-07-22 21:38 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; warring sock farms Abecedare Baglana 2024-07-22 21:37 2025-07-22 21:37 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; warring sock-farms Abecedare Second Battle of Shuja'iyya (2024) 2024-07-22 21:05 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Kamala Harris 2024 presidential campaign 2024-07-22 19:45 indefinite edit,move Make move protection following edit protection per this RfPP request Favonian Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election 2024-07-22 05:33 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Johnuniq Taylor Small 2024-07-22 04:18 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: per ANEW and GENSEX Daniel Case I Don't Wanna Cry 2024-07-22 01:13 2025-07-22 01:13 edit Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts Isabelle Belato Template:Diffusing occupation by nationality and century category header/core 2024-07-21 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 3197 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Diffusing occupation by nationality and century category header 2024-07-21 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2957 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Klepon 2024-07-21 11:58 2024-08-21 11:58 edit Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Draft:List of country subdivision flags in Africa 2024-07-21 02:45 indefinite move per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of country subdivision flags in Africa (2nd nomination) Barkeep49 Endemic COVID-19 2024-07-21 01:52 2024-08-21 01:52 edit Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Youngboi OG 2024-07-20 21:38 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz Draft:Jim 2024-07-20 20:39 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD 2024 Israeli strikes on Yemen 2024-07-20 20:36 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Template:Occupation by nationality and century category header/outercore 2024-07-20 19:26 indefinite edit,move per request Primefac

How to appeal an expired topic ban

Hello! This is a bit of a weird question. Roughly 5 years ago (give or take) I received a topic ban for BLP violations. I disagreed with the ban, but did not appeal it - I mostly just stopped editing Wikipedia all that much, as I was getting frustrated with editing and didn't feel I was contributing much of value.

This topic ban was set to last for 6 months - it's since expired. However, I still think it was inappropriate. I dislike having a 'black mark' on me. Is appealing expired bans a thing? How would I do it?

WP:UNBAN suggests filing an arbitration request if I have questions about the validity but I really don't think this rises to that level of seriousness. The other recommendations seem to apply more for currently active sanctions. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: You have two basic options if you believe the AE decision was incorrect, since the enforcing administrator isn't going to be available (given they've been desysopped for inactivity, I don't see much point in going to them), might as well skip appealing to them. Your next step is either a thread here or at WP:AE to contest the sanction (which is expired, so somewhat moot, but I don't see any procedural reason that you can't do so), with the appropriate formatting. I've attached the process below, and I can help you format a thread if you'd like to do so.

Standard of review

On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
2. the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
3. the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

But ultimately, that there is the process. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 04:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@EggRoll97: Thanks a ton, that was really clear. I'll start an appeal once I've got it all formatted up. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Topic Ban Appeal Request (PeterTheFourth)

I'd like to appeal a since expired topic ban from BLP that was placed on me. My goal in lodging this request is to establish that the topic ban should not have been placed. I realise the topic ban has expired.

I received a topic ban in September of 2019 as a result of this discussion at arbitration requests for enforcement. Reading through the enforcement request would give a fairly clear picture. I was reported for restoring a link somebody had made to a tweet on a talk page which contained serious allegations against a living person. My personal summary of the discussion would be that my behaviour in doing so was viewed as pointy, unpleasant to a degree, and I should have been more civil and clear headed in my interactions with people. I do agree with that.

I was mystified at the time by the result being a 6 month BLP topic ban, and asked the imposing moderator (GoldenRing) to explain on my talk page here. This didn't go too well - I didn't feel the reasoning behind the 6 month topic ban was clear, and they did, and it was left at that. I stopped editing shortly after, which was good for me.

Additional context for the arbitration enforcement request was this ANI thread, roughly a year prior. No action was taken, but editors noted that my edit summaries were unnecessarily rude, or potentially read as threats (I really didn't intend that!) - the closer pointed out the don't insult the vandals essay which was a good call.

So, why do I think the topic ban was no good? My interpretation of the impetus behind the topic ban was that I violated BLP by restoring comments on a talk page containing links to a statement on social media alleging serious harm by the victim of said harm. I believe this because of what GoldenRing commented here, where GoldenRing says I was edit-warring a tweet into a page as a source alleging sexual assault. I restored this link here and here. These links were contained in a talk page comment by another editor. Said editor had also added a section on the page itself about these allegations to the BLP itself, using said tweet as a source. It should be noted that reliable sources did cover this allegation very shortly after, but I don't think they had covered it when the talk page section was made (this was very close after the initial tweet iirc).

I don't think restoring this comment/talk section as I did justifies a BLP ban or violates BLP policy. The best policy source for this is (I think) WP:BLPTALK. It contains the text For example, it would be appropriate to begin a discussion by stating "This link has serious allegations about subject; should we summarize this someplace in the article?". A talk page section discussing how to cover a serious allegation of harm, which had been made by the victim of said harm, in a statement published on their social media, is (to my understanding/belief) a reasonable, justifiable thing to have. I may be wrong here, in which case my request should be denied.

Please feel free to ask me more about the situation (or enlighten me where I'm mistaken). I'm happy to provide context where I can remember or find it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Considering the person that was the subject of the BLP died by suicide following these allegations, I think the topic ban was more than appropriate. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 06:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

??? ...This sounds like you're saying it was because PeterTheFourth linked to a tweet on a Wikipedia talk page (allegations which are now thoroughly documented in the article itself). Couldn't this have happened if the link were to RS coverage of the allegations, too (and thus not a BLP violation)? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes - if there was RS coverage, I would imagine that would have been far more distressing for anyone than a link to a tweet on a Wikipedia talk page. I think the suicide issue is a distraction here. The question asked was 'was this topic ban appropriate?', and by extension, 'was this edit I kept reinstating a BLP violation?'. It seems to me based on the facts presented that the answer is a clearcut 'hell yes' to both questions. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

It's a cautionary tale of what could happen (someone committing suicide because of a BLP vio). LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that the person's suicide had anything to do with the Wikipedia page, or are you just making allegations of it? Lulfas (talk) 22:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Why are you implying things I never said? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I haven't read through the links above, but I have a question about the link you were posting: did the tweet name the alleged perpetrator? It would be one thing to post a link to a Tweet where a BLP subject says 'I was subject to a sexual assault in the past'; it would be another to post a link to a tweet where a BLP subject says 'John Doe sexually assaulted me in the past'. Which of these scenarios are we talking about here? Girth Summit _(blether) 07:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Yes, it did name the alleged perpetrator. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, I think it's pretty obvious that it was a BLP violation to post a link to it anywhere on the project - it's a self-published source, making serious allegations about a named individual. If I saw something like that, I'd remove it, delete any revisions containing the link from the article/talkpage history, and warn the person who posted it that if they did that again I would block them indefinitely, noting that they could be unblocked if they made an undertaking not to do anything like that again. A 6-month BLP TBan seems to me like you got off pretty lightly. Girth Summit _(blether) 07:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

After reading all that I'm amazed you've decided to bring this all up instead of just letting it go, nobody would've remembered it otherwise. The fact that you still don't understand BLP and why what you did was an issue, even after the guy committed suicide - likely in response to these allegations and their effects - makes me believe you still need a topic ban from BLP issues. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Tweets alleging that a living person has committed a serious crime are never going to be acceptable in an article, per WP:BLPSPS. I think GoldenRing was correct when commenting on the AE request: The section of BLPTALK that PTF refers to presupposes that there is the possibility that the link might be used in the article; since there is no chance whatsoever that we would ever source such an allegation to twitter, bringing up such a link on the talk page is not something that BLPTALK allows. And even if linking to the tweet on the article talkpage were acceptable, posting it on their own talkpage clearly cannot be justified as BLPTALK. This was clearly an appropriate TBAN, and like Traumnovelle I am concerned that the fact that PeterTheFourth is trying to relitigate it now suggests they still do not understand our BLP policies. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Two things. First, if this were just about the links I'd sort of get why PeterTheFourth was confused. These weren't random allegations introduced out of the blue onto an article talk page. These were allegations which, at the time of Peter's reverts, had already received coverage in reliable sources -- reliable sources which include the same link. That doesn't mean we should include that link directly, but one could be forgiven for being surprised at a 6month tban for that offense. But, the second thing is that GoldenRing's explanation wasn't simply about restoring those links -- that's just what the usertalk follow-up was about. The full reason for the tban was For an uncollaborative, incivil and BATTLEGROUNDish approach to editing and for repeatedly restoring BLP violations. I haven't examined the AE thread to look at the evidence for the first part, but it also hasn't been contested here. My gut feeling is that, unless the sanction was based on unambiguous flaws, this is not something worth using community time on when the sanction hasn't been active in more than 4 years. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Given all the above, I would strongly suggest PeterTheFourth withdraw this request and just move on. Otherwise, this may wind up in a boomerang with more long-term consequences than an expired topic ban. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: I appreciate the concern. I'm comfortable letting someone else close the appeal/discussion when a conclusion has been reached. If that conclusion is that I should be further sanctioned, well, it is what it is. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

PeterTheFourth - there are a lot of links above, and as I said when I made my comment above I hadn't read through them all. Something in Rhododendrites' comment above has given me pause, and I think I'd finesse what I said somewhat. My comments above were based on the assumption that the allegations had not been reported by reliable sources. I see now that, when you reinstated them, there were some RS listed at BLPN reporting on the allegations. That casts a slightly different light on things, and I think I agree with Rhod's take on it - reinstating the link would not have necessarily have been a problem in and of itself had it been explained. The way you did it, however, was a problem. If you were aware that these allegations had already been covered in RS, then you could potentially have reinstated it while linking to those sources - so that it was immediately clear to people why you were doing it. Better still, you could have created a new section, citing those sources, and suggesting how the article might be edited to accommodate the material reported in the RS. As it transpired, it looked for all the world like you were simply reinstating a BLP vio. Then when discussing the removals with DFO, you again had the opportunity to explain to him why you were reinstating it - but you just told him that he didn't understand policy and that you weren't willing to explain to him why you felt that.

Put it this way: making poorly sourced edits regarding potentially criminal activity about a named person without a source is a BLP vio. At the time you made those edits, better sources existed, but you didn't cite them, you didn't mention them, they weren't present on the article, and while someone had alluded to their existence on the talk page, they hadn't linked to them - so the material was still poorly sourced. I therefore still think what you did was a technical BLP vio, but it was a less egregious one than I first thought. I still think the TBan was within GoldenRing's discretion at the time, but I no longer feel that you 'got off lightly' as I suggested above. If you want to return to editing here, I don't think that you need to have the TBan reimposed, but I hope that you're willing to be a bit more communicative than you were five years ago, especially when dealing with sensitive assertions concerning BLPs. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Yup, quite frankly, given the editor's general attitude at the time, including behavior during the discussion about the dispute itself, getting off with only a six-month topic ban from BLPs, rather than a permanent one or a wider site ban was already fairly generous. That they still not only think it wasn't a serious issue but their initial concern after five years is to relitigate the issue, is strong evidence to me that the initial block was well warranted and that, combined with the editor just leaving for five years, the block wasn't sufficient to cause an adjustment in approach. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

A user has requested removal of talk page content at Talk:Oldest people

A dispute over whether to include a deceased person in Oldest people, and with what details, resulted in edit-warring (see May 14 in the edit history), blocking and, in one case, an eventual indef for one user. Some of the content on the talk page has already been struck but an editor claiming to be a relative of the deceased person has requested that all comments about the person be deleted. This would (presumably?) require striking of much of the content of Talk:Oldest_people#Corrections: and some of Talk:Oldest_people#Page_protection_request. It might be necessary to pin a notice to ensure the person is not mentioned again or included in the article, though how this could be done without the person's name beats me, unless it is possible to flag the name for bot detection. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

This just looks like reliable sources. The person claiming to be family says we have the dob wrong. Where did we get the dob? We only use published sources. Secretlondon (talk) 05:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

The dispute was over which of 2 equally reliable sources should be used as they had conflicting information. The solution, agreed by consensus, is to omit the person until such time as the sources agree. The relative wishes all reference to the individual removed. I was under the impression that could be done under a privacy policy (not that I can find an appropriate policy). If there are no grounds under policy for the material to be removed from the talk page (and in future, from preventing their relation from being included in the article), could an admin explain that to the user? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

You and I both have been going at this topic for more than a decade now, and still I sometimes find discussions that take lameness to a new level. Given that the two sources in question have vastly different details about this marginally-notable-at-best person, and that these are the only two sources for a topic that has a well-documented history of fraudulent claims, there's no reason Wikipedia should be propagating this. I also, incidentally, note a lot of threats being bandied about on the talkpage, people making them need to stop it immediately. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe it would better if we tried to be an encyclopedia based on notable topics, rather than the Guinness Book of Records. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Alas, there seems to be some disagreement among users as to what "notable" means. Donald Albury 20:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I feel like I'm missing something here. The discussion appears to center around a disagreement between sources, and someone claiming to be the descendant of the person written about in those sources is asking us to delete the entire conversation because it is insulting to her ancestor? Is that right? Because if it is I don't see any grounds for being upset at Wikipedia about it. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Greetings, I asked to delete all inappropriate comments about my grandpa Ilie Ciocan. Later, I deleted my comments because I listed my contact email there so I was worried because it is publicly available. Namely, on the page talking about the oldest people, various comments and arguments appeared where users argued about whether to add or delete grandfather from the list. My family is appalled after reading these comments, a friend of mine sent me a link to this site. I requested the deletion of all comments where my grandfather is mentioned, because I think he did not deserve to have this type of public discussion about his age. As for publicly available sources, there is no disagreement about the date of birth, the LongeviQuest page confirms that he was born on May 28, 1913, as well as the Gerontology Research Group page. Anyway, it doesn't matter to us if he's on the list or not, it's important to us that all comments about him are deleted, it's unacceptable and we feel upset about it, it's humiliating for my sister and I who for over a decade we take care of him, it is very difficult for us, but we will not give up on him. You can see my comment in the change history. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oldest_people&diff=prev&oldid=1229004322

Sincerely, Camelia Ciocan, Ilie Ciocan's youngest granddaughter Camelia249 (talk) 06:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

A number of revisions have already been suppressed (if you look in the edit history, the revisions which are doubly stricken are suppressed). These cannot be seen by anyone other than a very small group of trusted editors. Are there still comments present which you regard as problematic? Simply not liking a comment is not grounds for its removal. I have admittedly only taken a cursory glance through the thread but I don't notice anything libelous or otherwise problematic. If you think any content is libelous, your best option would probably be to contact the oversight team (see Wikipedia:Oversight) with the diff links of the comments you think require suppression, or contact Wikimedia (see Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects) detailing your concerns. You could post what content you want removed here, but this is a high-traffic noticeboard and the content in question is likely to be seen by yet more people (for example, I would never have come across the comments in question if it hadn't been posted about here). Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 07:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Camelia249 I'm one of the small group of oversighters and also, as mentioned above, familiar with this topic area. If there's any other concerning material still visible and/or if anything that's been removed is reposted, you can send me an e-mail and I'll remove it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Block review User:Jamiesonandy

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

Blocking admin: Orangemike (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

The blocked user is clearly an elderly person who misunderstands what Wikipedia is. It was explained to him at the help desk, and he stopped editing. Ten hours later, Mike indef blocked him. I feel like this is far from the first time I have seen Mike come late to a situation and substitute his own judgement for that of others who already adressed the situation. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Egregiously bad block What the hell? Not a single warning on the user's talk page, not a note from the admin prior to jumping to a block, and an indef block at that? For a newbie who seems confused and needs some direction? Have we forgotten WP:BITE and WP:BLOCKP? I daresay I hope Orangemike is able to defend their actions, because I'm not seeing any reason they should be blocked indefinitely for a few questions on the Teahouse and Help Desk (two places designed for people to ask for..wait for it...help!). Not to mention, Orangemike mentions the editor being "belligerent" in the block reason, which I see absolutely zero evidence of, and the rest of their block reason of WP:NOTHERE seems to be a very unsubstantiated position to take. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 22:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

The belligerency was when he demanded, I asked a question; where is your answer? The guy was just not getting it, was using both the Teahouse and Help Desk as general information sources for UK banking questions, and clearly was not going to accept that this was not the place to seek help on this question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemike (talk • contribs)

It wasn't just one out of place question. It was several on both the Teahouse and the Help Desk, and it didn't seem like the user was ready to give up asking. RudolfRed (talk) 23:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Definitely not a good block. I've taken a look at a number of Orangemike's NOTHERE blocks (I didn't look at others), and there were a number of very bad blocks:

• Special:Contributions/Studio_Atinati, one-edit no warning block
• Special:Contributions/Caroline.j.ashleyy, another one-edit no warning block
• Special:Contributions/Mrpoopbenji, user who stopped editing after warning, blocked more than a day later
• Special:Contributions/Wilburthewigga, no warnings whatsoever; this is not a good deletion either

Nearly half of the blocks I looked at were like this. Orangemike really needs to stop doing these no-to-little-warning blocks. —Ingenuity (t • c) 23:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

If my colleagues really feel that I'm being quick on the trigger, I will accept your collective judgement and take my trouting like a mensch; but I genuinely doubt that any one of these accounts had any intention of contributing to our project in the way that somebody like Sideways [nee Beeble] does every day. Two spamming accounts with spammy usernames, one poop joke, one racial epithet username, and our confused British gentleman who thinks we can put him in contact with a bank account dead for over half a century...... --Orange Mike | Talk 00:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I haven't looked into any of your blocks and so have no opinion whether or not you have acted appropriately, but I would say that the fact that you genuinely doubt that any one of these accounts had any intention of contributing to our project does not override Wikipedia policy, specifically the policy on blocking. The intention behind Wikipedia was to create an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. Policies which temporarily (even indefinite blocks shouldn't be considered permanent) remove an individual's ability to contribute to the project exist only to limit damage and disruption to the project and should generally be considered a last resort, not the first tool you pull out. I am not and have never been an administrator on this or any other Wikimedia project, but I have been an administrator or bureaucrat on multiple MediaWiki installations through my work and can tell you from experience that biting the newcomers in such a way may temporarily put a stop to vandalism or disruption but long-term only harms the project. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 02:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

None of these 4 blocks make any sense, and while I think Mike's explanations are genuine, this is a base breach of the blocking policy, and at least a couple of those user's blocks are concerning. The first, for User:Studio Atinati, based on the contributions looks like they need to be redirected to a different language content project (Google tells me it's Georgian?). The second user, User:Caroline.j.ashleyy, just needs an extra dose of the introduction to Wikipedia, not a block for heaven's sake. The third user, User:Mrpoopbenji, based on their contributions just seems like they need some help getting started, something the Growth Tools like mentorship are supposed to help with. Finally, the fourth user, User:Wilburthewigga, is the only one I'll say should probably be blocked, but not for WP:NOTHERE. If anything they should have been blocked for a UPOL violation, but not for their contributions or whether they are HERE or not. To be quite honest though, their edits are just to their user page then a question to their mentor. Of those edits to their userpage, they didn't seem to have any malicious intent either. In addition, they appear to have responded to the block notice, stating they would learn from it, which isn't typically a trait associated with blocks for WP:NOTHERE. On just a closing note as well, the deletion, unless something else had been added that was horridly obscene other than the page creation with "Woo!", I would say that's a violation of WP:DELTALK and the deletion policy in general. Based on the API result here, there doesn't appear to be any other edits to the page, though. Just out of curiosity, Ingenuity, would you (or of course any other administrator) be able to confirm if there's still a deleted revision on User talk:Wilburthewigga? If there is, I wonder if it would be possible to restore that revision, as it doesn't appear to be a proper use of the deletion tool. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 01:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I remember encountering Mrpoopbenji (talk · contribs) through WP:UAA, and discovered that all of their edits were created by a large language model. Ther sandbox was deleted for this reason. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Someone with a username that's slang for "white nigger" needs only a swift kick in the ass out the door. I'd have blocked on sight as well. As to the others: one is an obvious username violation, with another the text being in Georgian is the least of the problems given it was an obvious attempt to hijack an article with blatant spam about an entirely unrelated subject, and the last was as flagrant a case of noble cause syndrome as it gets. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Just wanted to point out that the blocked editor did not stop editing once it was pointed out (not only on May 14th, which they may have not seen, but also on Jun 14th at 18:34, again at 18:34, at 18:35, and at at 18:44) that wikipedia, including the Help desk and Teahouse, was not an appropriate place for their query. Rather, 20 minutes after that last response, the editor reposted the question asking for legal/financial advice on the userpage. Secondly, while the editor said that they had "contributed to Wikipedia for a number of years" at least this account seemed to be dedicated to a single purpose that was not that of building an encyclopedia. Finally, as Girth Summit eloquently explained on this page a short while back, albeit in a different context, one motivation for applying an indef block is to get assurance from the blocked editor that the problematic behavior will not be repeated.

Hence, while I understand that the Jamiesonandy block was still a judgement call, and that it is natural to feel sympathy for a senior citizen in distress, I can also see Orangemike's thinking in applying the NOTHERE block. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 01:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I've noticed for years that Orangemike is quick to block, often without any talk page warnings but I generally have trusted their judgment. I'd ask them to ease up on the trigger finger and try communicating with an editor before laying down the ban hammer first. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Generally speaking, in my view, a NOTHERE indef block is admissible (although not necessary) if none of the user's edits indicate an ability or intent to improve our articles. This seems to be the case here. It's then up to the user to convince us, in an unblock request, that they are indeed able and willing to edit constructively. Sandstein 08:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

A quick show of hands: y'all do realize that the "reason" you fill in at Special:Block isn't just for the entry in the block log, but is shown to the user every time they try to edit, yes? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:22, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• The thing here for me is that the Teahouse and the Help Desk are exactly where we want users to go when they are lost or confused as to the purpose of Wikipedia. I don't think anyone is defending this users actual edits, but he hadn't posted anything in many hours and the situation seemed to have settled itself when Mike just indef blocked out of nowhere. Mike, like myself, has contributed for many years at WP:UAA Personally, I don't even think most of the thousands of accounts I've blocked at UAA were here in bad faith, they, like this person, just didn't get it and tried to use Wikipedia in ways it isn't intended to be used. So, they use an WP:ORGNAME and write upa draft article on said organization, and the usual response is that we delete the draft and soft block the user, explicitly allowing them to just start a new account and try to edit within the rules. Looking at some of Mike's blocks, he treats "being lost and confused on help forums" the same way most admins treat "actively disrupting article space." I just don't think being clueless in WP space is what NOTHERE hard indef blocks are for, it is for people who come here to push the content to suit their own needs, not for people who ask deeply misguided questions. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'd add that if you look at the language at WP:NOTHERE there's a lot of wording like "long-term history...Extreme lack of interest in working constructively...Major conflicts of attitude, concerning Wikipedia-related activity..." and so on. It doesn't say anything aboout "asks clueless questions at help forums, because help forums are there, at least in part, to help clueless users get some clue. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  I get that in general, but this particular account was going well beyond that. I count 4 separate instances of being told, in various ways, that Wikipedia is not a forum for handling personal bank squabbles that date back to something from 1950s British probate court (!); to respond to said warnings with this tells me that, in a very literal sense, this user was not here to build an encyclopedia. I'm American and even I could point out that a solicitor, not an online community devoted to building an encyclopedia, would be who to ask these questions. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Meirtt123 & ECP status

I have concerns that Meirtt123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may have obtained their ECP status through gaming the system.

They registered their account in November of 2023. In June 2024, they started editing, making minor edits to numerous disparate topics, such as Tobacco politics (60 edits); Malaysia–Romania relations (29 edits); US & Canada's Ledcor Group of Companies (22 edits); Pollution in China (22 edits); Oak Creek, Wisconsin (22 edits); the disease Schistosomiasis (21 edits); etc.; source: Xtools. Immediately upon obtaining 500 edits, they jumped into Israel-Palestine topics.

Could an administrator please review the situation? -- K.e.coffman (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

This editor is currently making POV edits on Israeli settlement articles in breach of a long time consensus, Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues/Archive. Legality of Israeli settlements. When reverted, reinserted the material with a dubious edit summary. Selfstudier (talk) 16:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

There is a link to some data showing the gaming in User_talk:ScottishFinnishRadish#Peak_gaming? Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Worth noting that the impressive efficiency was thanks to the Wikimedia Foundation Growth team's "Newcomer tasks" project. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I have removed their ECR status, this is an obvious example of gaming. Black Kite (talk) 17:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I pinged Black Kite on the user's page after a few more reverts, not realizing that the matter was already being discussed and that User:K.e.coffman already followed the track. It's ridiculous. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Page

The page Botola is always vandalized. Please lock it for a long time 160.177.133.23 (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I see an edit war that began on May 30 with heavy involvement from this user and from زكرياء نوير (talk · contribs), where all sides are making unsourced changes to statistics. Actually, almost all of the statistics on this page are unsourced. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Currently the page is good now, someone deletes the numbers every time, it should be closed 160.177.133.23 (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing 'good' about unsourced content on the scale of that page. I suggest you find some sources, and then settle your dispute on the talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Do not UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES edit another contributors' post like this. [1] AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The user زكرياء_نوير posted the following under their notice for this AN: Yes, there is sabotage every time the page has to be closed. So both users are accusing the other of vandalism, and that's even worse than the lack of sourcing. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Like accidentally editing the template they intended to copy to edit their own comment? That's what it looks like. – 2804:F1...57:945F (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Note, article is semi-protected until 21 June. I would advise all participants to discuss on the talk page and source their additions/changes/kept text. Buffs (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

troll at Talk:7 Days to Die

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

---

This person verbally attacked me, but I was clearly discussing this in a friendly manner, and I did not attack back. I remained friendly from beginning to end. Mcx8202229 🇨🇳❤️ (talk) 04:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

First, you are required to notify the editor about this discussion. I have done that for you. Second, yes, I agree this edit is definitely a personal attack, and is worthy of a block. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

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

RFC at RSN desperately needs to be closed

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: The Anti-Defamation League has been droning on forever and is literally causing the RSN, an already high-activity page, to slow down and malfunction. The discussion has become stagnant and bloated and needs an uninvolved closer badly just because it’s making it difficult to actually use the noticeboard. Dronebogus (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Would you say that its droning is... bogus?

Sorry, I'll see myself out. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 21:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

*finger pistols*

(But seriously, it's been months now. And it's not like any section of it is that complex. If you really feel it's necessary, assemble a three-person team or something, but clearly it needs to be closed.) Loki (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll pay extra cabal dues this month if someone can get it done. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I pity whoever has to close that cesspit of an RFC. The sheer amount alone, my gosh. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 21:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

It'll probably be worthwhile closing it to new comments while the "lucky" volunteer reads and assesses. It's exceedingly unlikely at this point that anybody who hasn't said anything will say something that hasn't been said already. Thryduulf (talk) 01:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Request for review of Draft:Hassan Nisar Haripur

A request for review of the draft article for Hassan Nisar Haripur, an award-winning Pakistani entrepreneur, YouTuber, and philanthropist, is being made. Despite meeting Wikipedia's notability guidelines, the article has been rejected multiple times by Saqib.

Hassan Nisar Haripur's achievements and coverage in reputable sources demonstrate notability:

- Award-winning entrepreneur (references: [1] [2])

- Featured in top Pakistani publications, including The Dawn and The Tribune (references: [3] [4])

Wikipedia's policy on award-winning individuals states that they are eligible for a Wikipedia page (WP:NATIONALAWARD) .

High-quality sources have been provided to support the article's notability, but Saqib has consistently rejected the draft. A review of the article is requested to assess whether it meets the necessary criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia.

Please review the draft article and references to ensure a fair evaluation. Uohabacasu (talk) 08:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Not sure why you are posting this here, Draft:Hassan Nisar Haripur has been declined three times and now rejected, the topic is simply not notable. Theroadislong (talk) 08:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

And it is not correct that Saqib has consistently rejected the draft. Three different editors declined the draft, and then Saqib rejected it after looking for more sources. Meters (talk) 09:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

While the draft's notability is still disputed, the clarification provides context to the review process. However, the core concern remains: the draft's notability is evident, yet it has been rejected. A reevaluation of the article's notability, considering the reliable sources and Wikipedia's policies, is still requested. Uohabacasu (talk) 09:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

It has already been looked at four times, by three different editors. And again, this is not something that should be on the admin board. Meters (talk) 09:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Forgot ot include that Saqib was one of the three who rejected it. Meters (talk) 09:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The post was made here to request a review of the draft article's rejection, as the decision seems inconsistent with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The repeated rejections despite the provision of high-quality sources, including award recognition and coverage in top Pakistani publications, raise concerns about the fairness of the review process.

The statement "the topic is simply not notable" is subjective and contradicts the evidence provided. Notability is determined by the presence of credible sources, which have been abundantly provided in this case. A reevaluation of the article's notability, considering the reliable sources and Wikipedia's policies, is requested.

A more detailed explanation of the rejection, beyond a simple statement, would be appreciated. Additionally, a review of the article by a different editor, without the assumption that the topic is not notable, is requested. Uohabacasu (talk) 09:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

No evidence of notability has been provided. Bonadea -- a fourth editor -- went painstakingly through the sources too, found none of them to contribute to making the article subject meet GNG, and I don't see any I'd dispute. This is not a suitable article for English Wikipedia. And this is a very poor forum for this as well; administrators are editors entrusted with advanced tools by the community, not content supervotes. In any case, the explanation of the rejection was thoroughly explained, completed with the aforementioned source analysis, and the primary issue appears to be that you don't like the explanations, not that they are improper. You should drop WP:DROPTHESTICK. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I was supposed to be informed about this discussion on my tp. --Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

OP has shown us consistent COI editing, chatbot-generated communication, resistance to attempts at instilling a clue on two different boards, and this probably isn’t their only account. Even in the unlikely event that they’re not socking, they’re clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and should be blocked accordingly before they waste more editors’ time. --Finngall ^talk 12:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• I have blocked both Uohabacasu (talk · contribs) and Thekhyberboypk (talk · contribs), who seemed to be acting in concert along with IPs 39.41.131.130 (talk · contribs), 39.41.180.193 (talk · contribs) and 39.41.181.140 (talk · contribs) to promote a YouTube personality on wikipedia, and ignoring feedback. Will leave the possible speedying of the drafts Draft:Hassan Nisar Haripur, Draft:Hazara Waterfalls Jab Valley, and Draft:Metrix Pakistan to other admins more familiar with the standards applied in draftspace. Abecedare (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Starlink and dynamic IP's

Quite recently I noticed this [2] on the Starlink website after hearing about "dynamic IP's" from this [3] discussion. Considering these IP's do not flag as proxy's, are they a issue in regards to Sockpuppets? Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Generally speaking, Starlink is not so different to any other mobile ISP, of which there are plenty, or for that matter most non-mobile ISPs. There are lots who rotate IPs very rapidly (as some editor pointed out in that discussion, switching ISPs is not actually a dynamic IP issue). As an added bonus, Starlink provides a list of their IP ranges per geolocation, for example in Atlanta, GA. Is there a sockpuppetry or PROJSOCK issue in this case? Probably. Is Starlink the issue, probably not. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

RfC at United States

Hi, is my conduct on United States appropriate? I'm trying to purge the dysfunction from the rfc I did but I'm struggling to gauge whether it's appropriate to have another topic on redesigning it for relisting. I don't plan on engaging in a relisting Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Alexanderkowal. Can you give us a summary of what conduct you've done? Maybe include some WP:DIFFs? –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:United States#RfC: foreign relations with developing countries, Talk:United States#RfC: How should the US' relations with developing countries be summarised in the body?, and Talk:United States#Workshopping a relisting of the rfc. I'm trying to rectify the dysfunction partly caused by me. When I made the initial edit per WP:BRD I received successive personal attacks which made me defensive and combative, affecting my conduct in the rfc. Multiple editors then derailed the rfc with some valid points and I'm trying to address those so it can be relisted for further input. Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

EXTRA EYEs on AIV and Recent Changes please

There is a racist troll running amok. I have blocked them twice. They create new accounts and make rapid fire edits to random pages with vile edit summaries that require individual revdeling. Any help appreciated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Contested RfC non-admin partial close

This RSN RfC on the Anti-Defamation League has been partly (as in, only a part of it) closed by TrangaBellam, with the summary: I see a consensus for Option 3 [generally unreliable regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict] — going by the numbers (roughly, 3:1) as well as the relative strength of arguments — and note that most of the participants were okay-ish with deprecation too.

BilledMammal went to Tranga's Talk to say that they oughtn't have closed, since their Talk Page is decorated with a quote by Nishidani (a participant in the RfC, who voted in alignment with Tranga's close), which includes: ...I sympathise with the silenced underdog in so many conflicts, be they Aboriginals or Palestinians or Tibetans. This as far as I am aware does not translate into being uncomfortable with my country of origins, or antisemitic, or hostile to Chinese. .... Tranga disagreed; Dcpoliticaljunkie and FortunateSons agreed and asked Tranga to revert; Tranga declined.

Back at RSN, My very best wishes challenged the close, writing that an RfC should not be partially closed, that this RfC is so long and big that it should be closed by an admin, and that the provided justification (just a head count) was doubtful.. A brief discussion took place before being hatted by ScottishFinnishRadish, who directed towards AN.

I hope this post is not malformed—I've never posted here before. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah, and a little discussion on FortunateSons' Talk. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Participants

• Overturn, per WP:INVOLVED. If you are partisan about the conflict to the extent that you feel you need to have quotes expressing that partisanship on your user talk page then you are too partisan to be closing RFC’s about the conflict. BilledMammal (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn, in line with the arguments made in the discussions. This is a controversial and significant RfC in a contentious area, and the non-admin closer has a quote by one of the participants about the topic area on top of his talk page. Even if one were to excluding the issues with a partial close (acknowledging that the RfC is quite long), the style of closure (including the heavy reliance on !vote count) is not even close to appropriate in this area, and the closer being an experienced editor should have known that. Close should be reverted and closer trouted. FortunateSons (talk) 22:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  In line with BADNAC Nr. 2, it is my belief that exclusively an admin closure would be appropriate here. FortunateSons (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse. The spirit of WP:NOTBURO would discourage us from overturning an overdue and badly needed closure on mere technicality (and a technicality that is a stretch since TrangaBellam did not participate in the RFC) and with limited sense that the outcome could be different. As TrangaBellam observed in the user talk page discussion (permanent link), There is no way that the discussion could have been closed differently by someone else, short of supervoting. Additionally, OP calls TrangaBellam's closure reason just a headcount but this is a misrepresentation. The full closure reads, I see a consensus for Option 3 — going by the numbers (roughly, 3:1) as well as the relative strength of arguments — and note that most of the participants were okay-ish with deprecation too (italics added). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse - why would anyone waste time asking for this to be re-closed? It's 3:1 for pete's sake. Make an argument for why this was anything other than an "option 3" close, and then maybe you have reason to challenge. Otherwise, you're literally wasting other volunteers' time by asking someone else to make the same edit that Tranga made (an Option 3 close). Levivich (talk) 22:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Request all involved editors to take a step back and let this close review not devolve into a unreadable mess as the RFC did. Abecedare (talk) 00:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think vote count should matter here—the policy-based substance of the votes is what needs to be taken into account. A number of option 3 and 4 votes were just criticism of the ADL as an actor, without bearing on its reliability in reporting fact. A sensitive closer would need to look carefully at the arguments made, and certainly provide a better summary than a rough ratio of votes and a simple declaration of "I weighed the arguments". ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC) @Zanahary: I'm going to put you on the spot here, apologies but I'm gonna do it. Be honest with us: before you made this close challenge, did you re-read the entire RFC from top to bottom? Levivich (talk) 23:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC) Of course not—really I was just bringing a scattered discussion that had been repeatedly pointed to AN over here. But I did look through long, detailed votes for 3/4, and I do believe a lot of them fail to make policy-based arguments, and instead just explain why the ADL is a bad organization (but not an unreliable source). In general I don't like vote count as a major consideration in determinations of consensus, since votes often come with poor or no policy-based rationale. In an RfC as big as this one, a closer who says "The ratio's big; the arguments win" is, considering my reading of the arguments made, not good enough. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC) No of course not, because who has time for that? Just Part 1 is 17,300+ words; at an average reading speed of 200wpm, that's damn near an hour and a half of reading. You didn't volunteer an hour and a half of your time to read that thing, but what you want is an hour and a half of someone else's time (more than that, really, to close), after somebody already spent that 90+ min. And why are you asking for someone else to spend 90+ min on this? Because maybe, maybe, the weighing of arguments would result in a no consensus? Don't you think you should first spend the 90 min to determine if that's likely, before asking someone else to do so? And in fact, it's more than one person spending 90+ min, because editors now have to spend time on this close review. And of course, nobody who is voting here (myself included) is going to spend 90 min reading this before they vote on whether to overturn it or not. So you're really raising a purely procedural objection to this giant RFC, not a substantive one. You have no idea whatsoever if a "no consensus" outcome is even plausible because you haven't read the whole thing (at least lately). This is why I think this challenge is a waste of time. Hours of editor time will be spent on what is very, very, very, very unlikely to be anything but an "option 3" result. Can you think of a time when dozens of editors voted in an RFC, it was 3:1, and the minority prevailed? Or it was even no consensus? I can't. I count 50 votes in Part 1. If it's a 3:1 ratio, that's like 36:12. So we'd need to discount like 20 votes in order for it to be no consensus. Can you point to 20 votes that should be discounted? Can you list 10? I really feel like, before you ask other people to do this much work, you need to do the work. Read the thing. Identify 10 or 20 bad votes. Then decide whether to challenge. Levivich (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC) Can you point to 20 votes that should be discounted? Can you list 10? Considering Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Bias in sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources, yes; most votes for option 3 simply say it is biased; too pro-Israeli or too willing to equate criticism of Israel with antisemitism. Some of these !votes did include sources to support their views - but as these sources only said that it is biased, not unreliable, that doesn't increase the weight their !vote should be given when viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. BilledMammal (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC) Equating criticism of Israel with antisemitism, or equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism, isn't bias, it's unreliability (because criticism of Israel and anti-Zionism are factually not antisemitism). Everyone who said that made an argument for unreliability (which, I think, is most). It's like: if you say the sun rises in the West, that's not bias, it's unreliability. Levivich (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC) because criticism of Israel and anti-Zionism are factually not antisemitism It is possible for criticism of Israel to be both criticism of Israel and antisemitic; it is possible for a statement to be both anti-Zionist and antisemitic. I don't think this is controversial? Whether a specific criticism of Israel or a specific anti-Zionist statement is antisemitic can be controversial, but it is largely a matter of opinion; there isn't a single objective definition of antisemitism by which we can decide if a source is right or wrong. Instead, as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Bias in sources tells us, we consider all reliable sources - including those that we consider too quick to label something antisemitism and too slow, and decide if the label is WP:DUE to include in the specific case under consideration. BilledMammal (talk) 00:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC) Of course it's possible for something to be criticism of Israel or anti-Zionist and also antisemitic. And it's possible for something to be the former and not the latter. As many editors pointed out in the discussion, the ADL equates all criticism of Israel and anti-Zionism with antisemitism. This was backed up by sources in the discussion making this exact point, as well as sources from the ADL making this exact point. And that's what makes ADL unreliable, not just biased, in the view of a 3:1 majority. Levivich (talk) 00:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC) The ADL has certainly never said "criticism of israel and antisemitism are the same thing", and that's not something being alleged about them. Their "equating" would be better described as "evaluating anti-Zionism to be antisemitic", which is a subjective assessment—as valid (and subject to criticism) as any in the messy realm of bigotry and discourse, and not a matter of fact or definition. I wouldn't consider someone unreliable on facts relating to, say, women and sex, just because they'd evaluated marriage to be a sexist institution. They're not compromising their factual reliability by pushing the untruth that misogyny and marriage are literally equivalent (and thus misidentifying marriage as misogyny): they're only putting forth their POV that marriage is generally misogynistic. That's what, per voters favoring a GUNREL/deprecation designation, the ADL does with anti-Zionism and antisemitism. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC) Evaluating anti-Zionism to be antisemitic is not a subjective assessment. Anti-Zionism is not the same thing as antisemitism, period. For example, Jewish anti-Zionists are not antisemitic. Holocaust survivor anti-Zionists are not antisemitic. Period. This is why the ADL's reputation for reliability has plummeted in recent years: because they are saying that anti-Zionism is antisemitism, and they call Jewish anti-Zionist groups antisemitic. Levivich (talk) 00:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC) I'm not convinced that 90 minutes were spent, judging by the one-sentence summary. I do have some idea of whether a no consensus result is likely, because I've read the longest votes, which are broadly cited by the people not providing original rationales, and I think the 3/4 votes are largely not policy-based. Can you think of a time when dozens of editors voted in an RFC, it was 3:1, and the minority prevailed? I'm a new editor here—I opened this account as a child, but didn't begin getting involved with editing until about a year ago. So I don't know. I hope the answer is yes! Bad arguments may sometimes overwhelm, and I hope a closing admin would put policy first and not consider the popularity of arguments not rooted in WP policy. I may look through and count bad votes, but I might not, because I think even just on procedural grounds, an RFC with over 700 comments need a sensitive admin reviewer who will provide a detailed summary of the discussion. But I thank you for your feedback (earnestly). ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC) There is nothing about admins that makes them better closers than non-admins. WP:NAC is an essay, whereas the longstanding global consensus is that a NAC cannot be overturned simply because it's a NAC (read, for example, WP:CLOSE, WP:XFD, WP:RMNAC, and see how they all explicitly state that non-admins can close discussions just like admins). I haven't been around that long -- 5 years -- but I've never seen a 3:1 go the other way when there are dozens of editors participating (it's different if there are only 4 editors participating and it ends up 3:1). And I AGF that Tranga spent the time reading the whole thing before closing it, even if she only wrote a short summary. If you challenged this on the grounds that the arguments need to be summarized better in the closing statement, I'd support that. Thank you for being a good sport about me getting all huffy :-) Levivich (talk) 00:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC) Rollback of Vector 2022 wasn't 3:1 - closer to 2:1 - but given that 150 more editors supported rolling back than opposed it I would suggest the result to not rollback would be similar to the result with a higher ratio but lower !vote count. BilledMammal (talk) 00:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC) Touche! That is a "big" overturn. I'm still not technically wrong, though :-D But surely you'd agree it's extraordinarily rare for a majority in a well-attended discussion to be overturned, and V22 is probably the most extreme counterexample, I still can't think of another one (although admittedly my memory is not very good as you've just proven). Levivich (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC) It is very rare, though I believe less so in areas where editors are more likely to !vote based on their personal opinion - whether because it is a matter of personal opinion, such as the format of the website, or because the topic area is highly contentious in the real world. I'm pretty sure I've seen other examples but I can't think of any off the top of my head, and I don't have time to look right now - if I get the chance before the appeal closes I will (and if I don't, I might look later and post on your talk page if I find anything, solely to satisfy my curiosity and because I think the discussions would make interesting reading). BilledMammal (talk) 00:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC) Meanwhile I will not embarrass myself by blindly claiming that there are no other examples Levivich (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC) A few bad votes for options 3 and 4 which are or contain criticisms of things other than the reliability of the ADL's reporting: Its CEO publicly comparing the pro-Palestine protestors wearing keffiyeh with Nazis wearing swastika armbands as well as mispresenting all pro-Palestine protestors as "wanting all zionists dead" demonstrates its skewed views and manipulative presentation on the IP topic and thus highly unreliable. After AIPAC, the ADL is the primary propagandist for Israel in the United States. All of its pronouncements regarding Israel are based on the advocacy role it has adopted and not based on an unbiased analysis of the facts. because as discussed earlier, it is partisan pro-Israel advocacy group which has historically been engaged in espionage and defamation campaign against pro-Palestinian activists, and its broadened definition of antisemitism. Their reliability on the topic has been put into question by the Guardian and the Nation, both RS per WP. Attribution is required for any claim; and for controversial claims, probably best not to be used at all. Option 4 The ADL has consistently misidentified critics of Israel as anti-Semitic, has proven credulous to disinformation that supports Israel and has experienced negative reputational outcomes from its engagement on the topic. It should not be used as a source as it is thoroughly unreliable. (I consider this one to not be about reliability because it just expresses a difference in opinion with the ADL's subjective evaluations of critics' sentiments—not an error of fact. Certainly the ADL would never be used to state in Wikivoice that a critic of Israel is an antisemite.) The ADL has consistently called for laws and measures that consider as possible examples of connivance with terrorism significant movements which protest in solidarity with an occupied people, i.e. Palestinians. It does this because its agenda tends to collapse core distinctions between demonstrating on behalf of human rights (in Israel/Palestine) and anti-Semitism defined as anti-Zionist disavowels of the legitimacy of Israel as a state. In its practice, advocacy for Palestinian human rights should be subject to criminalization. (Alice Speri, How the ADL's Anti-Palestinian Advoacy Helped Shape U.S. Terror laws, The Intercept 21 February 2024) For its director Jonathan Greenblatt, opposition to Israel/anti-Zionism (by which he appears to mean criticism of Israel’s human rights record) is intrinsically ‘antisemitic’. His position was so extreme that even ADL staff protested at the equation of critics of Israel with those white supremicists groups which the ADL has distinguished itself in exposing. (Jonathan Guyer, Tom Perkins, Anti-Defamation League staff decry ‘dishonest’ campaign against Israel critics The Guardian 5 January 2024). (Justin) Sadowsky (of the Council on American–Islamic Relations), who is Jewish, characterizes some of ADL’s actions as part of a pattern of deliberate intimidation to make it “very difficult for Palestinians to talk in a forthright way about what’s going on”, (Wilfred Chan ‘The Palestine exception’: why pro-Palestinian voices are suppressed in the US The Guardian 1 November 2023). And they do distort information, because their lists of antisemitic incidents do not discriminate between normal protests and serious incidents of antisemitic behaviour. Spitting on Christian priests in Jerusalem is commonplace and the ADL has protested the practice regularly, but, if that is noteworthy for them, the same cannot be said for protesting extreme human rights violations by Israel against Palestinians, which are endemic and yet, it appears, not noteworthy. Option 4 the simple fact is that ADL is an aggressively pro-Israel organization which considers even questioning the legitimacy of Israel (a very young state founded under circumstances that are extremely dubious to day the least) makes it inherently biased. I’m not trying to wade into the “let’s use Wikipedia as a proxy to argue about Israel/Palestine” fight but the rough equivalent would be an Afrikaner advocacy group saying questioning the legitimacy of European colonization in South Africa is racist. it's a pro-Israeli lobbying group, not scholarship or journalism, and equates criticism of Israel or anti-Zionism with antisemitism ... Later comment responding to the fact that the advocacy group the SPLC is a reliable source: The ADL very explicitly lobbies on behalf of Israeli (foreign) interests. The sources clearly demonstrate a severe bias in matters AI/IP, inclusive of weaponizing charges of antisemitism for political purposes in this area. The ADL has shown itself to be far too pro-Israel in their ongoing war against Hamas and have used their platform to attack people who have protested against Israel's actions. They are at the forefront of groups who try to equate even the slightest criticism of Israel's policies with anti-semitism. They also have recently been providing incidents of anti-semitism without evidence. An article they released recently conflated anti Israel protests on last weekend as being exclusively protests praising the actions of Hamas and included descriptions of signs yet did not provide photographic evidence of the more inflammatory signs they alleged to have seen. They have also called Jewish activists who do not support Zionism or Israel's policies as anti-semitic or useful idiots for anti-semites such as when they said that Jewish Voice for Peace was "[using] its Jewish identity to shield the anti-Israel movement from allegations of anti-Semitism and provide it with a greater degree of legitimacy and credibility." Additionally, they've repeatedly denied that American police officers travel to Israel to train in spite of the fact the ADL themselves have routinely paid for these very programs that they deny. Since October 7th, they've increasingly squandered their credibility as an authority on racism and hate in support of an increasingly unpopular foreign conflict that the international community has grown to condemn, even among governments that have supported Israel such as the United States.This one explicitly states that the ADL has fucked its credibility as an authority on racism and hate—not the I/P conflict. ADL is an explicitly biased pro-Israel advocacy group and its claims are not at all reliable regarding Israel-Palestine conflict. I'd support deprecating this source if some editor can demonstrate that this group promotes zionist or republican/neo-con conspiracy theories. Option 3, very clearly a strongly pro-Israel biased organization, shouldn't be used as a source. There's a theme here of "the ADL as an organization suuuuucks", and even "the ADL is biased", in the absence of "the ADL's factual reliability as a source suuuuuucks". Many of these comments, including others which included links to supposed inaccuracies, were criticized by other participant editors as not pertaining to the I/P subject area and not supporting unreliability, only bias. One editor voted 3 and acknowledged Obviously it is a highly WP:BIASED source on that and could never be used on the topic without attribution, but that alone wouldn't make it unreliable, and then proceeded to cite three sources that are all about the ADL's handling of facts about antisemitism, and not about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Someone pointed out: Almost none of the comments above actually relate to ADL's claims about I/P but rather to its claims about antisemitism, the topic of the survey below. A lot of these rationales were then cited by later voters. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC) mispresenting all pro-Palestine protestors as "wanting all zionists dead" has historically been engaged in espionage and defamation campaign against pro-Palestinian activists, and its broadened definition of antisemitism. Their reliability on the topic has been put into question by the Guardian and the Nation consistently misidentified critics of Israel as anti-Semitic, has proven credulous to disinformation that supports Israel and has experienced negative reputational outcomes from its engagement on the topic tends to collapse core distinctions between demonstrating on behalf of human rights (in Israel/Palestine) and anti-Semitism defined as anti-Zionist disavowels of the legitimacy of Israel as a state For its director Jonathan Greenblatt, opposition to Israel/anti-Zionism (by which he appears to mean criticism of Israel’s human rights record) is intrinsically ‘antisemitic’. His position was so extreme that even ADL staff protested at the equation of critics of Israel with those white supremicists groups which the ADL has distinguished itself in exposing ... And they do distort information, because their lists of antisemitic incidents do not discriminate between normal protests and serious incidents of antisemitic behaviour it's a pro-Israeli lobbying group, not scholarship or journalism, and equates criticism of Israel or anti-Zionism with antisemitism (hey, I recognize that one! :-P) They are at the forefront of groups who try to equate even the slightest criticism of Israel's policies with anti-semitism. They also have recently been providing incidents of anti-semitism without evidence. An article they released recently conflated anti Israel protests on last weekend as being exclusively protests praising the actions of Hamas and included descriptions of signs yet did not provide photographic evidence of the more inflammatory signs they alleged to have seen. They have also called Jewish activists who do not support Zionism or Israel's policies as anti-semitic or useful idiots for anti-semites ... they've repeatedly denied that American police officers travel to Israel to train in spite of the fact the ADL themselves have routinely paid for these very programs that they deny its claims are not at all reliable regarding Israel-Palestine conflict I see the above quotes as being policy-based arguments, rooted in WP:RS, addressing reliability, not bias. Levivich (talk) 00:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC) See my above comment on the factualness of assessments of antisemitism. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC) And again, a lot of these comments make no argument about unreliability in the Israel/Palestine topic area. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC) Literally every single bullet point has the word "Israel" or "Palestine" in it. Anti-Zionism is about Israel/Palestine because Zionism is about Israel in Palestine. Levivich (talk) 00:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse - A user page should have little to no bearing on the outcome of the RfC, and the closure was non-controversial (in the sense that the margin of support for the decision was very clear). An admin closure would almost certainly come to the same decision, as Levivich said, and this contestation doesn't provide any argument that the outcome should have been different. The consensus was overwhelmingly in favor of option 3. As an aside, I have noticed a pattern of users in this topic area relying on userpages to get others into trouble. I don't want to cast aspersions, and I am trying to avoid any generalizing or unfair statements. I know that @BilledMammal, who makes a userpage based argument here, was involved in a similar effort to contest the content on @JDiala's userpage, which was ultimately put forth as an argument in a later procedure which saw them topic banned. I know that this was not the first time an editor has been dragged to one noticeboard or another over pro-Palestinian sentiment on their userpage. As someone who likes having a userpage, and likes reading the userpages of others, I worry about the chilling effect these efforts have on Wikipedians' self-expression, which is a fascinating and valuable part of the editing and community experience of the website in my opinion. Unbandito (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse and overturn. I agree with the closure, and I agree that the closure represents consensus, but for a discussion as gigantic and heavily controversial as this one, in the interest of propriety it should be closed by somebody who is beyond question uninvolved; as much as the tripartite panel closes can be groan-inducing, this seems like a good case for one. jp×g🗯️ 23:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Close the entire RfC, rather than a section by uninvolved administrator(s). I think this should be an admin closure per guidelines [4] #2, i.e. "The outcome is a close call ... or likely to be controversial." Saying that Anti-Defamation League was a "generally unreliable source" is controversial. Commenting on the closure itself, the 3:1 description was fair, but the "strength of the argument" was not. To say that the source was generally unreliable, one should show it was not just biased, but publish incorrect information on a regular basis. I believe this is not at all the case for this source after looking at the entire discussion. That's why I think this RfC should not be closed "by parts". My very best wishes (talk) 02:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  Please do not misrepresent the close; it held the source to be "generally unreliable" for a narrow topic area than for everything under the Sun. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse: This RFC needed closing, and if a piecemeal approach is the way it occurs, so be it. The close was sound and perfectly adequately reasoned. As has been noted elsewhere in the subsequent discussion, closing it any other way would have required a supervote. The closer was meanwhile not an involved participant by any standard reading of the guidelines. Never before have I seen the notion applied whereby "having an editorial compadre in the discussion" qualifies as being involved. Given how many Wikipedia editors are well familiar with each other, that would be a ridiculous bar to apply across the project (and this is probably why it doesn't exist). Iskandar323 (talk) 05:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse This was a difficult decision on a contentious RfC but clearly closed in GF and within the bounds of reason. Chetsford (talk) 05:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse The coverage of the ADL is obviously vary varied (anti-Zionism vs. other content vs. hate speech database) and it is unsound to group them altogether and put coverage advocating against genuine (albeit from, in my opinion, a flawed organization) and horrifying manifestations of antisemitism in the same category as ideological drivel used to racism-jacket those who oppose what is credibly accused as a settler colonial state formed on ethnic cleansing that is currently committing genocide. Furthermore, the RfC has obviously gone on far too long and should be closed at this point, even if it is broken apart. GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 05:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse (as closer) - To repeat what I wrote at my t/p, 3 of 4 participants [almost none of whom were flyby SPAs or the like] were convinced that Option 3, at the very least, was necessary. There is no way that the discussion could have been closed differently by someone else, short of supervoting. Now, I can append a paragraph on why, notwithstanding the numbers, the argument offered by the numerically superior side carried the day but I doubt it would have convinced anyone to not relitigate it. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse per NOTBURO, there's no point in wasting time reopening the discussion in orde for it to be reclosed the same way (which is all that would happen); policy does not allow for closers to be dictated by parties external to the project; and while the topic may be controversial, the discussion was not. ——Serial Number 54129 11:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Non-participants

Overturn. I agree that this is such a long and potentially impactful RfC that it'd better be closed by an admin—and I echo BilledMammal's assessment here that an editor who has partisan quotes about an RfC's topic area (especially a quote from one of the RfC's participants) is just not the right person to close the RfC in question. I don't know if partial closes ever happen, but I've never seen one before, and I'm not a fan—it'll certainly have an impact on the unclosed discussions and their outcomes. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Seriously? The very point of creating three RfCs was to allow the possibility of different resolutions to be reached on different aspects and, that you have never seen one before, please consult Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah man, seriously. I'd never seen one and I think it was a bad idea. I'm not saying that's your fault, and if it's moot then it's moot—my stance on the close still stands, considering the scale of the RfC, your apparent passionate POV on the topic, your one-sentence summary, and my reading of how that discussion went. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps then, you can present me with a multiple-part-RfC whose components were closed by the same admin/non-admin/panel simultaneously? And, no, I do not have a "passionate POV" on the topic. As to "your reading of the discussion", you claimed to Levivich about "ofcourse" not having read the entire discussion; so, yeah. In any case, feel free to have the last word. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Don't talk to me like that. I brought points raised by several editors to the appropriate venue, where a number of editors are taking the stance that your close ought to be overturned. We're not all bad-faith actors who deserve to have such limp jabs thrown our way as feel free to have the last word. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn. I didn't participate in the RFC (and aren't an admin myself) but anything that long and controversial should be closed by an admin (barring a WP:SNOW case which is clearly not relevant here). Full stop. This is especially the case for radioactively controversial topics that editors have strong views on to avoid them becoming polls of "Which side of this conflict rallies the most supporters". SnowFire (talk) 22:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse This is pointless. No one would've closed it differently, and it has been open for two months, for gods sake. The idea that expressing SYMPATHY for Palestinians somehow makes you unfit to close such a landslide RFC is frankly ludicrous. This is bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy and the only way someone should overturn this is if they commit to closing it themselves. If not, we're just admitting why no one is stepping up to make this obvious close. Parabolist (talk) 23:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  we're just admitting why no one is stepping up to make this obvious close
  I am missing the implication here. Why is that? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  Because so many of the closes in this topic area are subject to tedious bureaucratic objections. Parabolist (talk) 23:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  Gotcha, thanks. I have a feeling that an uninvolved admin providing a detailed summary in their close wouldn't have their close brought to any noticeboard, but I don't know for sure. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe we could get a panel of admins, then? They could set up a discussion, take a week or two because of their different time zones, and then we could get the same close, but we would've wasted hours and hours of editor time in the process. Parabolist (talk) 23:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  Or we can just get one uninvolved admin to do the herculean task of sensitively reviewing this gigantic RfC and providing a detailed summary to explain the consensus to the community and how it was reached—something that nobody, including this non-admin closer, has done yet. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  So are you claiming they didn't read the discussion, didn't read the discussion "sensitively" (What does this mean?), or didn't provide enough detail? Because if it's just the latter, why aren't you simply asking them to just flesh out the close? You started this discussion claiming that the problem was that they were less qualified to close this discussion than an admin (Why?), but all of your replies since then have made it clear that your issue with the close is actually that you think they chose the wrong option. You need to pick a lane, here. Parabolist (talk) 00:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  I ask you, with love in the air, to please be a little more chill with me.

  I brought this here because it had been raised in three separate places, and directed twice to AN. My opening comment is just a summary of events and quotes from other editors with none of my own input.

  My personal view is that the RfC was not apparently well-read enough by the closer, who wrote a one-sentence, totally non-specific summary citing a rough vote ratio and made no acknowledgement of the most prominent counterarguments to the apparent consensus vote, which is that a lot of them had nothing to do with reliability in the Israel/Palestine topic area, but were instead related to the topic of antisemitism. This may be due to the closer's bias on the topic, as the original complainants have raised. I don't care so much about that; I care about votes being satisfactorily read for policy-based substance and treated with apparent care, which in this case (I think) they were not. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn The responsibility of closing an RFC in such a sensitive, controversial area should be done by an admin, ideally one with a great deal of experience closing RFCs. It's not pointless bureaucracy; the more people respect a process, the more people will respect the result, which is something necessary on this topic. If only the end results of the process, not the justice of the process, mattered, then there would be no reason to care about insults, harassment, etc. beyond their impact to the content. I'm not in favor of a trout for the closer, not even a minnow; they made the closure in good faith, I just think it was unwise. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn, per others here (especially CoffeeCrumbs). But also because there were many !votes for option 1 (or rarely 2) that expressed the fact that no evidence of unreliability has actually been presented, which I broadly agree with - the evidence that was presented was evidence of bias - but we're yet again dealing with the question "does bias = reliability" on RS/N right now for the Telegraph. And it seems that the consensus on WP still is, as evidenced by that discussion, that bias does not equate to unreliable. A closure by an uninvolved, experienced administrator which adequately takes into account the fact that at least a significant minority (if not majority) of option 3 !votes were based on the users' opinions rather than verified proof of deliberate inaccuracies in their reporting would be merited for such a controversial topic. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse largely per Parabolist and Levivich. I'd first like to emphasize the point that there is nothing magical in and of itself about an admin close. No disrespect to any admins, but I have no doubt that there is some subset of experienced non-admins who are 'better' closers than some subset of admins. Still, I understand that there's a certain value to the optics. Beyond that, while Wikipedia is not a court of law, I find an analogy here irresistible: in common law systems, procedural problems generally do not constitute reversible error unless some prejudice can be shown to a litigant. That's what I see here. It's difficult to see how a reasonable closer (admin or not) would come to a substantially different conclusion. Was it wrong for TrangaBellam to close? No, I don't think so. Was it suboptimal? Yes, I would say it was. But Wikipedia does not demand perfection--the crooked timber of humanity, and so on. I do not doubt Zanahary's good faith, and I honestly don't mean this as a criticism, but this feels a bit like a relitigation rather than a challenge to the close. As ever, reasonable minds can certainly differ. Cheers to one and all. Dumuzid (talk) 00:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  Rerunning a legal process due to some marginal procedural error can be prohibitively costly and overall terrible and inhumane, while reclosing this RfC in specific is either a trivial expenditure of community resorces if the close was materially fine or it is simply needed regardless of cost if the error is not procedural and is in fact material. So it should just be done, since people are complaining now, and they're doing an acceptable job complaining frankly. There's a perception. Path of least resistance is quickly vacating. —Alalch E. 01:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  That's a fair point, but I guess I have an innate bias against the elevation of form over substance. As such, we will simply have to agree to disagree, though I certainly won't make a fuss. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Vacate. This RfC should be closed by an administrator who is at the same time an editor who seems less involved, and if the close challenged here was a correct finding of a relatively obvious consensus, as claimed by some, it will be especially easy for a less-involved-seeming administrator to close it, meaning that the expediture of volunteer resources will be especially low and worth it, because avoiding this sensitive RfC remaining closed for perpetuity by a closer who is not such a great editor to close due to a perception of being involved is worth said very low cost of reclosing, and if the close was not a correct finding of consensus, then the outcome needs to be different, and an average admin is a bit more likely to find consensus correctly than an average non-admin and to deliver an appropriate closing statement, as needed. I recognize that per WP:NACRFC, a non-admin close of an RfC should not be overturned if the only reason is that the closer was not an admin, but the closer not being an admin is not the "only reason" as said reason is compounded by there existing a perception of them being involved so my recommendation is consistent with the spirit of Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Closure procedure: Generally, if you want to request closure by an uninvolved administrator, it's expected that the discussion will have already been open at least a week, and that the subject is particularly contentious or the outcome is unclear. (The subject is inherently particularly contentious; some editors are subsequently requesting a close by an uninvolved administrator as they have concerns about the close by the not-fully-uninvolved-seeming non-administrator). Worth the extra bother. Vacating and reclosing shouldn't be seen as a big deal.—Alalch E. 01:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Vacate I like Alalch E.'s term here. Looking at the numbers suggests 3 is the correct answer but the analysis of the arguments was extremely superficial. It's not just about the answer, it's about the process as well. It should be followed. Springee (talk) 01:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn Having a good process is important (regardless of whether or not the decision was correct) and this wasn't such. North8000 (talk) 03:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse Per User:Unbandito statement above. The vote and arguments in favor were strong. A profile quote in no manner outweighs the clear consensus reached through the discussion. Detsom (talk) 04:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Closing statement too short. The RfC, according to my device, is approximately 600 million scrolls long. It was closed with a statement of thirty-three words. What did people say? What were the arguments made? I don't have an opinion on the propriety or practicality of the close, but the quality of the close is very poor. Folly Mox (talk) 06:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  Just fwiw, this was a three-part-RfC, only the first of which was closed. As to the content of the RfC: multiple editors presented multiple evidences of ADL's unreliability on the topic; most of the participants were convinced by this evidence but a minority claimed that atleast some of the evidence — if not all — can be, at worst, re-classed under "bias" (which I didn't find convincing, even ignoring the numerical strength) and hence cannot be perceived as grounds for unreliability. Nothing more, nothing less. Now, appended to the RfC close. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 06:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn This is basically equivalent to the Fox News RfC, due to its political contentiousness. It cannot merely be judged based on numbers alone. It needs to be closed by (preferably a panel) of non-partisan administrators. As the person who originally opened the first ADL RfC, I don't have a strong enough opinion about whether the result was correct, but the justification is way too short. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse, but only because I can't see that anyone else would have closed it any differently. Such a contentious RfC should have been closed by an admin, and it should have been closed by someone who couldn't be accused of bias in the CTOP area. It was a poor idea for TB to close it; but the actual result is correct. Black Kite (talk) 11:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Warning of meatpuppetry

Potential meatpuppets incoming: Article in Israeli website --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• This discussion falls under ARBPIA, so any comments from non-ECR accounts or IPs can be removed. Black Kite (talk) 11:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  It would be useful (and minimally bitey) to put a template or other note at the top of this discussion noting that fact. Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

A quick job for someone?

At Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates, the entry under June 15 for Kevin Campbell has been marked ready for over two and a half days now, even while other stories have been posted. I can't post it myself as I nominated it. Could someone do the honours? Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 10:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done WaggersTALK 10:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 11:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)