Jack Sebastian (talk | contribs) |
Jack Sebastian (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 189: | Line 189: | ||
:::::: I would disagree with that assessment. There is a concern that nationalist flexing is taking place to change a commonly recognized word to one less so. Perhaps your immersion in this topic since 2008 has influenced your perception of the issue. - [[User:Jack Sebastian|Jack Sebastian]] ([[User talk:Jack Sebastian|talk]]) 18:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC) |
:::::: I would disagree with that assessment. There is a concern that nationalist flexing is taking place to change a commonly recognized word to one less so. Perhaps your immersion in this topic since 2008 has influenced your perception of the issue. - [[User:Jack Sebastian|Jack Sebastian]] ([[User talk:Jack Sebastian|talk]]) 18:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC) |
||
:::::::If the only thing that the new editors are changing is the spelling of a single toponym, I would not worry about their nationalist motivations. The trouble begins if they start making POV additions to the text. [[User:Dimadick|Dimadick]] ([[User talk:Dimadick|talk]]) 18:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC) |
:::::::If the only thing that the new editors are changing is the spelling of a single toponym, I would not worry about their nationalist motivations. The trouble begins if they start making POV additions to the text. [[User:Dimadick|Dimadick]] ([[User talk:Dimadick|talk]]) 18:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC) |
||
:::::::: At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, I am sure that Europe felt that allowing Germany to annex the Sudetanland would satisfy them. - [[User:Jack Sebastian|Jack Sebastian]] ([[User talk:Jack Sebastian|talk]]) 17:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
==== Mass Kyiv disruption ==== |
==== Mass Kyiv disruption ==== |
||
There was a Kiev/Kyiv discussion a few days ago on [[WP:ANI]] that might be relevant to this thread. It got archived recently so I am providing a link to it for convenience: [[WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1047#Mass_Kyiv_disruption]].--[[Special:Contributions/67.175.201.50|67.175.201.50]] ([[User talk:67.175.201.50|talk]]) 01:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC) |
There was a Kiev/Kyiv discussion a few days ago on [[WP:ANI]] that might be relevant to this thread. It got archived recently so I am providing a link to it for convenience: [[WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1047#Mass_Kyiv_disruption]].--[[Special:Contributions/67.175.201.50|67.175.201.50]] ([[User talk:67.175.201.50|talk]]) 01:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:18, 8 October 2020
Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators. |
---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)
Start a new discussion
|
Open tasks
V | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 11 | 43 | 54 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 5 | 26 | 31 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
- 0 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 11 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 3 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 6 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 155 sockpuppet investigations
- 32 Candidates for speedy deletion
- 1 Fully protected edit requests
- 0 Candidates for history merging
- 55 requests for RD1 redaction
- 48 elapsed requested moves
- 3 Pages at move review
- 17 requested closures
- 140 requests for unblock
- 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
- 26 Copyright problems
Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection
Report
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Unban me
I remember I was banned for creating useless redirects on 24 March 2020 (link) and was directed to use WP:AFC/R. Now, 6 months are passed since then and I realised how cheap and costly the redirects really are. Therefore, I will only create redirects when necessary. Therefore, please unban me. Thanks. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 18:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- Your math is off. 6 months would be on the 24th of this month. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- Absolutely not, and I would strongly advise a wider ban to cover all redirects, broadly construed, so Soumya is no longer able to be disruptive at WP:RFD and WP:AFC/R. Besides the blunt "unban me", the request does not show that Soumya understands WP:CHEAP and WP:COSTLY. Looking at Soumya's contributions at RfD lately, we find: a RENOM violation for a redirect already hashed to death, asserting without evidence that WPJ is an abbreviation for WikiProject, asserting without evidence that Sprache has multiple meanings, misunderstanding of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, a weird obsession with J947 (this is the best example of many), etc. Soumya also has several low quality AFC/R submissions, including: Shampooing, Honkong, and constantly trying redirects with "He", including: He Spaceship Company and He Origin of Species several days after being explained why the previous one was no good. I can keep going if necessary, but I'm exhausted only going back to August 20th. -- Tavix (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- As long as we are here, per Tavix, continue current ban and broaden to cover all redirect matters, broadly construed, including WP:RFD and WP:AFC/R. There are millions of articles in need of improvement. Surely Soumya-8974 can find constructive edits to make that don't involve redirects. I urge them to edit constructively in non redirect areas for another six months before asking to be allowed to come back to redirects. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- I mainly find spaceflight, rocketry, aircraft, and solar system-related articles interesting, and performing page moves, which form redirects, violates my current ban. So I would have to perform WP:RM/TR instead. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- Addendum – I have recently joined at WP:WPREDIRECT to discuss about redirects, in order not to disrupt Wikipedia's redirect system. If someone topic bans me on redirect, then it will prevent me to do such discussion. Also, I am suffering in Wikipedia vaguely similar to the Pandavas in the Mahabharata. They spent 13 years in forest and 1 year in disguise. If Kauravas found them in this period, then they would spent 13 years in forest and 1 year in disguise again. In my opinion, it should be best to open WP:AFC/R at least. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 17:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- I concur with Tavix and Deepfriedokra. Soumya-8974's participation at RfD, while occasionally helpful, has not been a net positive, and has generated a lot of busywork for others. I think that an expanded topic ban could be worded to allow for page moves and for the creation of articles at former redirects, although as Deepfriedokra suggested, an editor could easily spend the rest of their lives productively improving articles by adding content, copyediting, or fixing categorization without once touching a redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 21:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, this nomination IMO is a clear sign that we need a wider ban. I'd propose a topic ban covering all redirect matters including RFD and AFC/R, but not including redirects created inadvertently as the result of a page move or the creation of new articles at existing redirects. It probably doesn't need to be said, but just to be clear any attempt to game those exceptions to create redirects by moving pages back and forth or creating a new article and then redirecting it should be considered a violation of the ban. signed, Rosguill talk 18:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, you beat me to it. I came back to this discussion to link the Serbo-Croatia RfD as a clear failure of WP:CIR. While I'm here, I also wanted to point out a very immature comment at the RfD for European+Union. -- Tavix (talk) 22:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, this nomination IMO is a clear sign that we need a wider ban. I'd propose a topic ban covering all redirect matters including RFD and AFC/R, but not including redirects created inadvertently as the result of a page move or the creation of new articles at existing redirects. It probably doesn't need to be said, but just to be clear any attempt to game those exceptions to create redirects by moving pages back and forth or creating a new article and then redirecting it should be considered a violation of the ban. signed, Rosguill talk 18:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- (comment from non-admin who no-one would ever consider admin-worthy) - I support this. See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_September_19#Wikipedia:FAMOUS; an RFD nomination with no real rationale explaining why the proposed action was necessary. The European+Union comment linked by Tavix is another problematic one. However, I support an exception allowing them to move pages. I've seen no issues indicating that this user has page-moving problems, so I see no reason to keep them from that. Hog Farm Bacon 23:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- I think there's a fairly clear consensus here around needing a broad ban for redirect matters so we should wrap up this discussion. Tavix, Deepfriedokra, any objections to the wording I suggested about allowing an exception for page moves and article creation? signed, Rosguill talk 23:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- That sounds reasonable to me. -- Tavix (talk) 23:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Okay. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced an extension of the ban to all types of RfD activity is a good idea. Yes, they sometimes cast !votes without giving reasons, yes, they occasionally make nominations that get quickly snowballed, and yes they should absolutely stop taunting J947 (here I would support a one-way interaction ban). But there have been plenty of constructive nominations as well: 1, 2, 3, 4. I don't think it's a good idea to ban an editor from a venue unless they've been very disruptive or a substantial majority of their nominations have failed. I'm not seeing that here. – Uanfala (talk) 16:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Uanfala, I think a further complication here is that a fair amount of their constructive nominations have been for redirect changes that wouldn't need to be brought to RfD if it weren't for their originally ban on changing redirects directly. While these changes are nominally helpful, they're being made in a way that is more costly to the project. I wonder if it would be a more productive solution to keep the original ban, but have them file requests for target changes through edit requests rather than through RfDs (at least for uncontroversial suggestions). signed, Rosguill talk 15:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Rosguill, their original ban is for creating redirects [1]. This doesn't prevent them from editing existing redirects. – Uanfala (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Uanfala, hm, I had assumed it covered changing targets as well based on Soumya's behavior (and I feel like I remember seeing them claim the same when someone asked them why they were starting RfD discussions for trivial changes). signed, Rosguill talk 17:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- I would agree with the addition of a 1-way IBAN against interacting with J947 due to their seeming inability to desist from taunting them. I came across yet another instance today. signed, Rosguill talk 19:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- And why the ban from AFC/R as well? I don't see anything remotely resembling disruption: Tavix brings up four examples: two of them (the "He" redirects) are indeed bad, but the other two are OK: "Shampooing" is a good redirect and it was accepted, "Honkong" was declined though in my opinion should have been accepted as well. – Uanfala (talk) 10:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- I would agree with the addition of a 1-way IBAN against interacting with J947 due to their seeming inability to desist from taunting them. I came across yet another instance today. signed, Rosguill talk 19:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Uanfala, hm, I had assumed it covered changing targets as well based on Soumya's behavior (and I feel like I remember seeing them claim the same when someone asked them why they were starting RfD discussions for trivial changes). signed, Rosguill talk 17:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Rosguill, their original ban is for creating redirects [1]. This doesn't prevent them from editing existing redirects. – Uanfala (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Uanfala, I think a further complication here is that a fair amount of their constructive nominations have been for redirect changes that wouldn't need to be brought to RfD if it weren't for their originally ban on changing redirects directly. While these changes are nominally helpful, they're being made in a way that is more costly to the project. I wonder if it would be a more productive solution to keep the original ban, but have them file requests for target changes through edit requests rather than through RfDs (at least for uncontroversial suggestions). signed, Rosguill talk 15:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- I support the extended topic ban with the proposed by Rosguill with the 1-way IBAN regarding J947. I've seen far too many instances from them of failure to do a basic WP:BEFORE and !votes that indicate they don't understand redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 10:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- I concur with Uanfala. I'm quite skeptical of "topic" bans from processes (as opposed to topics). If someone is so disruptive as to justify banning from using a process like RfD, it indicates to me that a more general measure is warranted. Here, I don't think it rises to either yet. To me, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 19#Wikipedia:FAMOUS reflects a lack of sophisticated understanding of the consequences of retargeting redirects (i.e., I think "FAMOUS" is a better shortcut for...), not malice or disruption. --Bsherr (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Soumya is definitely acting in good faith, issue here is of training which can be addressed by WP:Mentorship for young editors. I agree with Uanfala and Bsherr, extension of ban will be unproductive and demotivating for inexperienced editors.भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 14:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'm surprised to see this hasn't been resolved yet, but the disruption is still ongoing and evolving. Soumya-8974 has now attempted to close an RfD discussion, which was a WP:BADNAC that I had to revert. Tallest mountain in India was a direct creation as a disambiguation page. I have since converted it to a rather obvious redirect, but I feel like this is indirectly sidestepping the topic ban since I believe a redirect would have been created if Soumya were able to do so. Another interesting situation was when Soumya tried to "fix" an RfD nomination by closing it and then recreating it the "right" way, which effectively created two nominations of the same redirect on the same page. However, that just resulted in more clean-up (which I fixed here) since the way Soumya fixed it was messy, potentially confusing, and ultimately undesirable. -- Tavix (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- In light of the above, I would support a ban on clerking and closing RfD discussions. Unlike with posting comments or !votes (which, if unhelpful, can be ignored by the eventual closer), closing discussions, if not done well, can be disruptive. – Uanfala (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
MR close
I closed the move review for Parasite at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 September. Since this is my first use of the move review close process as documented, I'd be grateful if someone could look and make sure I did things correctly. Thanks. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- I've fixed your title as you closed a move review, not a requested move. This closure however is a clear vote count that goes against the 2019 RFC that explicitly allows for PDABS in certain circumstances. As I said in the move review, most of the Opposers in the RM were re-litigating that RFC instead of arguing why the standard hadn't been met in this case, and thus the RM closer was correct to give them little to no weight. Iffy★Chat -- 08:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- (Moved my earlier comment at JzG's talk): Not that the underlying matter is gravely important (really, who gives a fuck whether a disambiguator contains a year?), but I think that it's ironical to close a complex, divided, 20-participants Move Review discussion with a supervote of your own. FWIW, the headcount in that MR was 12:9 for overturning by my count, making it dangerously close to "no consensus". I don't think that anyone in that MR was re-litigating the RM, on the contrary, it was all about merits of policy vs. practice, and principles of NOTAVOTE. I'm not really requesting that you reverse that close, but I find it... lacking. No such user (talk) 11:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- No such user, so you want me to expand on my reasoning. Happy to do that. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- @JzG: you used an uppercase for Result meaning the template didn't work [2], I've fixed it for you [3]. You may want to check either a preview or the final save to ensure it produces the desired result to reduce the risk of such errors. BTW, are move reviewers supposed to modify the close in any way when overturning and not relisting? The text of Wikipedia:Move review#Closing reviews doesn't seem to mention anything. But the table does say "close RM" for cases when the page wasn't originally moved (which doesn't apply here) although in such cases the RM was already closed albeit incorrectly. It doesn't say that for cases like this where the page was originally moved but it's also seems a bit ambigious since it's partly referring to cases when you relist. I had a look and found this no consensus overturned to moved where the closer only noted the result in the template (and carried out the necessary moves) and this move overturned to not moved where the closer did amend the close to note the change. Which is sort of the opposite of the table. The second one was highly contentious so that could be one reason. The MR does provide the rationale so maybe it's not considered necessary to amend the move? But at a minimum, I think it may be helpful to note what overturn means in the template i.e. overturn to not moved/moved. P.S. I haven't notified either of the other MR closers since this isn't about them and I'm not suggesting they did anything wrong. If people do start to discuss such things please notify them. Nil Einne (talk) 14:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Nil Einne, Thanks - I did wonder why it didn't change visually. I honestly don't know about the original close - the instructions only mention adding a parameter, not amending the close. The instructions also don't mention courtesy-notifying the original closer of the MR close, which I did anyway. I feel bad for Sceptre as this was a valiant effort. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- So discussion are just votes now? -- Calidum 17:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Suppose I'd better put my two-penneth in: I don't begrudge Guy for making the close at all; as long as you're taking the mission seriously, I've always found him to be one of fairest admins on the encyclopedia (sure, he's abrasive at times, but don't confuse not suffering bullshit with bad behaviour). I think that his closure of the move review is fine, and whilst I still maintain my closure was correct, I also accept that, at least, there wasn't a consensus to endorse; it's not like the other controversial MR close of a move I made, because I can tell Guy has the humility to admit he's new to the process. That said, I hope he won't mind me slightly refactoring the close template so the longer rationale is above the hide button, as we normally do for contentious MRs. Sceptre (talk) 06:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
The MR was closed too soon. While MRs with a clear consensus can be closed after one week, most remain open much longer. The August ones, for example, were all open 3-5 weeks each. This one in particular was still very active and evolving when it was abruptly closed after the bare technical minimum of a week. One editor weighed in just nine minutes before it was abruptly closed. Knowing how long MRs stay open I usually only check MR once or twice a month, so I, for one, didn’t even get a chance to participate in this one at all. I suggest the community would be best served by reverting the premature close of this MR and letting nature take its course. —-В²C ☎ 13:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Born2cycle, it was closed after a week. Per the guidance. I would remind you that the status quo ante is not the move but the previous title. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- The written guideline is one thing, which, btw, says at least seven days, reflecting the fact that MRs often are open much longer, especially when consensus is not clear after only seven days. I’m pointing out the unwritten conventions to usually allow much more than the minimum seven days before closing, conventions that have been followed for years at MR. I can’t recall a close/active MR ever being closed so abruptly, so it’s likely to rarely be an issue, hence no need to clarify actual convention in the guideline any further. Until now, apparently. But it really shouldn’t be necessary since you can revert your premature close. Thanks. —-В²C ☎ 14:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Born2cycle, at least a week, and a close against overwhelming numbers. Reverting to status quo ante seems reasonable to me. As to what next, see below. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Whether that particular close “against overwhelming numbers” needed to be reverted to status quo ante was of course the topic of the discussion (and not for you to decide in a super vote close of the MR) which you closed abruptly and prematurely, before consensus could develop on that question either way. Please revert your close and let it progress where it’s supposed to continue, at MR, not in some obscure subsection of this AN. —В²C ☎ 16:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Born2cycle, at least a week, and a close against overwhelming numbers. Reverting to status quo ante seems reasonable to me. As to what next, see below. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- The written guideline is one thing, which, btw, says at least seven days, reflecting the fact that MRs often are open much longer, especially when consensus is not clear after only seven days. I’m pointing out the unwritten conventions to usually allow much more than the minimum seven days before closing, conventions that have been followed for years at MR. I can’t recall a close/active MR ever being closed so abruptly, so it’s likely to rarely be an issue, hence no need to clarify actual convention in the guideline any further. Until now, apparently. But it really shouldn’t be necessary since you can revert your premature close. Thanks. —-В²C ☎ 14:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I see both the RM and the MR as a local-consensus-v-global-consensus issue. In the RM, local consensus to not have pdabs cannot override the global consensus that pdabs are OK. Thus, Sceptre's discounting of !votes that did not apply global consensus was proper. Similarly in the MR, many people said it was a supervote based on the numbers, but global consensus is that we don't count heads. The close of the MR should have discounted overturn votes based on numbers. Also, I think involved/uninvolved !votes should have been taken into account. Given that the consensus at the time of close wasn't overwhelmingly clear and it had been open a week, probably the easiest/best solution is to reopen the MR and let more people !vote in it; give it 2-4 weeks total or until participation dries up. Lev!vich 06:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
On the underlying issue...
The original RM is unfinished business. Experience indicates that move requests rarely go away, and IMO Sceptre may well have been right on the merits. I'd like to suggest we reset the RM to "closing" and invite Sceptre to lead a panel close, to remove any appearance of supervoting. Does that seem equitable? Guy (help! - typo?) 10:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- @JzG: Good idea. Overturning this close does not mean that the Sceptre's result when applied to the RM itself was wrong. The arguments in favour of moving do appear stronger, and opposition is mainly from those who don't believe in partial disambiguation under any circumstances, despite the fact that the community has repeatedly said it's OK on occasion. — Amakuru (talk) 10:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Amakuru, Yes. I focus here also on a specific comment from the MR: "The conflicting guidelines and intrinsic subjectivity of what constitutes WP:PRIMARYTOPIC". I think that is correct, and the lack of any single objective standard clouds the issue here. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Amakuru, the policy page at WP:PRECISION shows examples of Wikipedia projects setting naming conventions to follow. Leeds North West and M-185 are primary topics yet have parenthetical disambiguation per the related naming conventions. Since these exist through an endorsement of policy, the general guideline of WP:DAB cannot be applied to strip these of their parenthetical disambiguation. In the same vein, WP:INCDAB is part of WP:DAB and cannot be applied to override naming conventions for films. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Erik: - thanks for your reply, but I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. WikiProjects and their regular contributors do not have a privileged status when it comes to determining article titles, and furthermore a particular naming convention guideline is only useful as long as it is supported by arguments made in RMs and Wikipedia's overarching policies. And the community decided through a sitewide RFC that primary topic has higher priority than INCDAB, in this RFC (albeit that the bar for determining such a PTOPIC is higher than it usually would be). There is no special carve-out for films, which means we are allowed to use the name Thriller (album) but not allowed to use the name Parasite (film). The Leeds North West example isn't really the same as this one, because it wouldn't be obvious to a casual observer what "Leeds North West" referred to - it might just be an area of the city. Whereas "Parasite (film)" would overwhelmingly refer to just one topic as primary. CHeers — Amakuru (talk) 13:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that they are not the same thing, but they are similar. Policy at WP:PRECISION is indisputable that there can be "exceptions... by Wikipedia projects". If these are exceptions for UK Parliament constituencies and highways as examples, then such exceptions are not limited to these instances. The casual-observer argument cannot apply because these are not particularly special sets of topics than other ones on Wikipedia. At this time, we are not an encyclopedia that disambiguates every title to make sure even casual observers understand. Furthermore, even the "Leeds North West" example arguably has an overly detailed parenthetical disambiguation term where it could easily be Leeds North West (constituency). If policy has tolerance for this kind of lengthy detail for this specific subject matter, then disambiguating by release year is relatively minimalist. Furthermore, release years are key grounding details throughout film resources, databases, and articles. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- That is conflating WP:PRECISION with the following subsection, WP:ATDAB. PRECISION allows for exceptions to the general naming conventions, such as for settlements in the U.S., for parliamentary constituencies or for highways. But Bothell, Leeds North West and M-185 are all WP:PRIMARYREDIRECTs; the parenthetical is not for dab purposes. WP:ATDAB (which references WP:D, which includes WP:INCDAB) governs disambiguation and cannot be overruled by incompatible narrower guidelines. Station1 (talk) 05:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that they are not the same thing, but they are similar. Policy at WP:PRECISION is indisputable that there can be "exceptions... by Wikipedia projects". If these are exceptions for UK Parliament constituencies and highways as examples, then such exceptions are not limited to these instances. The casual-observer argument cannot apply because these are not particularly special sets of topics than other ones on Wikipedia. At this time, we are not an encyclopedia that disambiguates every title to make sure even casual observers understand. Furthermore, even the "Leeds North West" example arguably has an overly detailed parenthetical disambiguation term where it could easily be Leeds North West (constituency). If policy has tolerance for this kind of lengthy detail for this specific subject matter, then disambiguating by release year is relatively minimalist. Furthermore, release years are key grounding details throughout film resources, databases, and articles. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Erik: - thanks for your reply, but I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. WikiProjects and their regular contributors do not have a privileged status when it comes to determining article titles, and furthermore a particular naming convention guideline is only useful as long as it is supported by arguments made in RMs and Wikipedia's overarching policies. And the community decided through a sitewide RFC that primary topic has higher priority than INCDAB, in this RFC (albeit that the bar for determining such a PTOPIC is higher than it usually would be). There is no special carve-out for films, which means we are allowed to use the name Thriller (album) but not allowed to use the name Parasite (film). The Leeds North West example isn't really the same as this one, because it wouldn't be obvious to a casual observer what "Leeds North West" referred to - it might just be an area of the city. Whereas "Parasite (film)" would overwhelmingly refer to just one topic as primary. CHeers — Amakuru (talk) 13:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- If we're rolling things back, the RM should be opened for a time for further comments. The interpretation of the new guidance in INCDAB is an area where consensus is still evolving, and its clear that the issues on which the move will be decided did not get an airing in the move discussion.--Trystan (talk) 14:11, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- I’ve been asking Guy to revert or reverse the MR, but I don’t think reopening the RM is appropriate or would be useful at this point. No one in the MR even suggested that, which I think is telling. It’s the MR that was closed abruptly and prematurely, not the RM. —В²C ☎ 20:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Born2cycle, no, not the MR, the RM. We don't default to whichever process gave the preferred outcome of the minority of participants. I have no objection to reopening the RM or re-running the close with Sceptre leading a panel, to protect her from accusations of supervoting. Either is fine. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- The only issue is at your premature and abrupt close of the MR which prevented me and countless others from participating. If you won’t reopen the MR to let more of the community weigh in, we can take this to ANI, if that’s your preference. Up to you. —В²C ☎ 14:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Regarding not defaulting “to whichever process gave the preferred outcome of the minority”, that’s completely irrelevant because majority/minority is irrelevant since we don’t count !votes when evaluating consensus. That’s a key policy issue you ignored when you closed the MR and continue to do so here. So, JzG, I’m done with your obstinacy. AN/I? —В²C ☎ 21:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Born2cycle, I weigh the opinion of generalists higher than those of obsessive page-movers. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Wonderful. When all else fails, go argumentum ad hominem (“a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself”). LOL. —В²C ☎ 23:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Born2cycle, you misspelled "track record". --Calton | Talk 03:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- That’s just another ad hominem argument. One’s “track record” has nothing to do with the veracity of their independently-verifiable argument, and name-calling them as “obsessive page-mover” or referring to their “track record” while not even acknowledging the argument, much less addressing it, is just a cheap disruptive dodge. I know you two can do better. —-В²C ☎ 05:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Is "ad hominem" the only counter-phrase you know? Your history as a long long long long-time edit warrior regarding page naming is the OPPOSITE of "ad hominem" -- being, you know, evidence of the accuracy of JzG's description as "obsessive" -- your attempt to rationalize your (sadly common) behavior notwithstanding. --Calton | Talk 14:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- You don’t seem to understand the meaning of ad hominem. It has nothing to do with whether the accusation about the person making an argument is accurate or false. It’s about the fact that accusations about the person are irrelevant to the strength of their arguments. My history - for better or worse - is irrelevant to the validity (or lack thereof) of my argument, which is that JzG closed an active and contentious MR prematurely, not allowing consensus to develop one way or another, and therefore they should reopen it. That has nothing to do with my behavior or history. I, like countless others, didn’t even get a chance to weigh in at the MR. Bringing up my history or behavior as a rebuttal to this argument is the epitome of an ad hominem fallacy, by definition. —-В²C ☎ 16:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC) I should add that there may very well be valid counters to my argument, and I’m open and welcoming to that possibility, but attacking me, my history or my behavior are not that, and when only such ad hominem attacks are presented in rebuttal, it suggests there are no valid counters. —В²C ☎ 16:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Is "ad hominem" the only counter-phrase you know? Your history as a long long long long-time edit warrior regarding page naming is the OPPOSITE of "ad hominem" -- being, you know, evidence of the accuracy of JzG's description as "obsessive" -- your attempt to rationalize your (sadly common) behavior notwithstanding. --Calton | Talk 14:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- That’s just another ad hominem argument. One’s “track record” has nothing to do with the veracity of their independently-verifiable argument, and name-calling them as “obsessive page-mover” or referring to their “track record” while not even acknowledging the argument, much less addressing it, is just a cheap disruptive dodge. I know you two can do better. —-В²C ☎ 05:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Born2cycle, you misspelled "track record". --Calton | Talk 03:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Wonderful. When all else fails, go argumentum ad hominem (“a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself”). LOL. —В²C ☎ 23:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Born2cycle, I weigh the opinion of generalists higher than those of obsessive page-movers. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Born2cycle, no, not the MR, the RM. We don't default to whichever process gave the preferred outcome of the minority of participants. I have no objection to reopening the RM or re-running the close with Sceptre leading a panel, to protect her from accusations of supervoting. Either is fine. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- I’ve been asking Guy to revert or reverse the MR, but I don’t think reopening the RM is appropriate or would be useful at this point. No one in the MR even suggested that, which I think is telling. It’s the MR that was closed abruptly and prematurely, not the RM. —В²C ☎ 20:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Okay, so what is to be done here? Want to thank Guy for coming here to question what happened. Guess I'm also an "obsessive page-mover" because I agree with В²C that the MR was closed way too early for its own good. I have removed the headers, but that can be easily reverted to reopen the MR, which I believe should be the ultimate outcome at the present time. Can we please have a decision, preferably a closure withdrawal by Guy so that the MR can be revisited in order to give other reviewers a chance to participate? P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 04:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Closure of this discussion has been requested at Wikipedia:AN/C. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 08:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Kiev/Kyiv
Mass edits by user: AndriiDr
I was just gnoming about and noticed a few edits pop up from the user, who was altering the English spelling of "Kiev" (the city in Ukraine) to the Cyrillic-phonetic of 'Kyiv.' Upon further investigation, these 200+ edits look like bot edits, as indicated by the user's
contributions on 22 September alone. Apparently Discospinster tried to address this on the user's page(1), and the user acknowledged (2), but has failed to undo themselves.
I don't know how to undo mass bot edits, except one by one; I am presuming there is a better tool to accomplish this? Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- It was decided that it is possible to use Kyiv in modern context, and the article was renamed.(1) But Jack Sebastian revert my change, which is correct, in my opinion. (2) Сan you explain me what's wrong with this cite wich you cancelled; to gov.ua, where it written Kyiv, not Kiev, please? You can switch the language of the website in the upper right corner. I make all my changes by hands, not by a software. Sorry for my google translate. --AndriiDr (talk) 06:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- I am not going to re-address the nearly 300 edits made every few minutes over the course of 9 hours; that's for someone more familiar with these sorts fo things to sport out. Kyiv is the Cyrillic spelling for the far more common "Kiev". I think that this sort of wholesale editing (be it bot or user initiated) seems inappropriate. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Both spellings are romanizations of Cyrillic. The spelling Kiev is Russian. The spelling Kyiv is Ukrainian. The city is in Eastern Europe, and any dispute over the spelling is subject to ARBEE. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think the matter is settled. In this [4] edit most of the changes in the lead were quite inappropriate as the replaced names fit the ones the cities had in the 1930s.--Jetstreamer Talk 12:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- This is questionable as well and likely will be reverted after the current discussion have been completed.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Why is it questionable? Sikorsky is a modern company. This is not a “historical article.” —Michael Z. 14:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- The edit however refers not to the modern usage but to the place Sikorski was born, which is a pre-1900 usage. There is for the time being no consensus to make such edits, and the discussion is ongoing.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- No, the proposal under discussion regards naming and spelling in pre-1991 historical articles. This is not one. You are implying using mixed spelling within all articles, or prioritizing the dated spelling in all articles, or something else not under discussion. —Michael Z. 15:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- The edit however refers not to the modern usage but to the place Sikorski was born, which is a pre-1900 usage. There is for the time being no consensus to make such edits, and the discussion is ongoing.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Why is it questionable? Sikorsky is a modern company. This is not a “historical article.” —Michael Z. 14:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- I am not going to re-address the nearly 300 edits made every few minutes over the course of 9 hours; that's for someone more familiar with these sorts fo things to sport out. Kyiv is the Cyrillic spelling for the far more common "Kiev". I think that this sort of wholesale editing (be it bot or user initiated) seems inappropriate. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- It was decided that it is possible to use Kyiv in modern context, and the article was renamed.(1) But Jack Sebastian revert my change, which is correct, in my opinion. (2) Сan you explain me what's wrong with this cite wich you cancelled; to gov.ua, where it written Kyiv, not Kiev, please? You can switch the language of the website in the upper right corner. I make all my changes by hands, not by a software. Sorry for my google translate. --AndriiDr (talk) 06:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
The Kiev/Kyiv issue is a matter of spelling, not a name change like Burma/Myanmar or St. Petersburg/Leningrad/St. Petersburg. The difference is that the name change has historical significance. A spelling change... not so much. In other words if Ivan Doe was born in Kiev in 2010 or 1910 I don’t think it’s a problem to say he was born in Kyiv. It’s the same name of the same city, just spelled differently. —В²C ☎ 00:11, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- It does matter. It is a spelling difference that has to do with two countries with two related East Slavic languages that are at war. And in Kyiv, the accepted romanization is Kyiv. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- There is a discussion currently about it at Talk:Kyiv#Related articles--Ymblanter (talk) 05:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Let me add that AndriiDr (talk · contribs) keeps making these changes, blatantly ignoring this thread.--Jetstreamer Talk 12:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- As well as administrator Mzajac and probably a few more users. Their defense line is that since the article has been moved all instances of the name of the city and the derivatives everywhere in Wikipedia must be replaced as a result of RM.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Had the RM taken into consideration all the questions that were raised here and at Talk:Kyiv#Related articles?--Jetstreamer Talk 00:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- In my opinion, no, it had not, it was only discussing the current name of the city and has not even mentioned historical context (other than the fact that Kiev was earlier userd more often than Kyiv). However, there is a fraction of users who read the RM as a blanket permission to move all instances, in titles and bodies of the articles, where the city is mentioned.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Had the RM taken into consideration all the questions that were raised here and at Talk:Kyiv#Related articles?--Jetstreamer Talk 00:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- As well as administrator Mzajac and probably a few more users. Their defense line is that since the article has been moved all instances of the name of the city and the derivatives everywhere in Wikipedia must be replaced as a result of RM.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Let me add that AndriiDr (talk · contribs) keeps making these changes, blatantly ignoring this thread.--Jetstreamer Talk 12:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- I have asked the user to demonstrate where consensus was formed to make these changes en masse, and to stop making the changes until this thread is resolved (Special:Diff/980071406). If they continue, they may be blocked from editing the article namespace (see MOS:VAR/MOS:ENGVAR). –xenotalk 12:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Is it too heavy-handed to undo the body of edits making this change and urging the user to discuss some of these edits before undertaking them? They have claimed they have made all of these edits without automation, and while I am not keen on undoing that level of personal dedication, I am concerned about the lack of discussion regarding the changes. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
I was just curious if any action is going to be taken on this. I would undertake the mass undo process, but if there is an automated tool to undo the (what appear to be nationalist, bot) edits, that would make it a lot easier.- Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
I think action should be considered. A new Wikipedia has been investing significant work into improving Wikipedia, and he has been criticized for his first language, labelled a “bot” and a “nationalist” (is the use of this undeserved stereotyping an example of anti-Kyiv bias or anti-Ukrainian?), and having his work discounted because someone doesn’t like the current spelling of the city’s name.
I have not reviewed all his edits, but if the “evidence” presented here against his “misdeeds” is representative, I wish we had more like him. Some experienced editors need to think before they wp:BITE. —Michael Z. 14:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Note: It bears pointing out that a) "Michael" is admin Mzajac and b) Mzajac has been strongly advocating the name change in most of their contributions in the Wik-en since their very second edit in 2004.
- In other words, the admin has a deeply vested interest in the outcome of this discussion - almost as deeply as they were invested in the initial 'Kiev to Kyiv' discussion that prompted our recent Ukranian 'invasion' of new contributors making Ukraine-related edits. Of course Mzajac/Michael is going to approve of the mass, bot-driven changes to Kiev-related articles; from an outsider's perspective, this would appear to have been the user admin's goal for over 16 years. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Jack Sebastian, why don’t you muster up the stones to ping my user name when you slander me, here and elsewhere? And do better research, because your accusation is inaccurate. —Michael Z. 00:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Mzajac: I didn't ping you because you were deeply involved in this conversation, and were likely seeing comments in real time. Additionally, I wasn't necessarily addressing my comments to you; I was pointing out your deep involvement in the subject material. 'Kiev' was your 2nd (and 3rd) edit to the Wiki-en, back in '08, right? That - and a number of edits thereafter reinforce your interest in the subject (not to mention your multiple posts here and in the Kiev article). Might you point out to me the slander that you feel has occurred on my part? All I did was point out that - based on the available evidence - you are deeply invested in this topic, and not quite a neutral party in evaluating behaviors regarding the subject. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Jack Sebastian, why don’t you muster up the stones to ping my user name when you slander me, here and elsewhere? And do better research, because your accusation is inaccurate. —Michael Z. 00:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- This is not a newbie. This is an agenda editor who came here from the Ukrainian Wikipedia. They do not speak English and have no interest beyond replacing Kiev with Kyiv.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Newcomer here, sixth edit in this wiki ten days ago. On your talk page you clearly stated you want to force him off. You are taking advantage of other administrators being unfamiliar with what is and is not being discussed at talk:Kyiv to criticize his perfectly good edits. You assume bad faith and your blatant disrespect is uncivil and disruptive. —Michael Z. 15:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Look, this really becomes annoying. There is Kiev/Kyiv disruption going all over the place. And this user is an active participant of this disruption, because his almost entire contribution is to replace Kiev with Kyiv, in many cases in an inappropriate situations. And the rest of his contribution is to vote for Kyiv at talk pages. And he is not capable in contributing in any other way, because he does not speak English and uses Google translate. Not biting newcomers is not about agenda editors, this is about new users who genuinely want to help but have some difficulties understanding policies. What the move has attracted to the English Wikipedia are a bunch of users who are only interested in disruption, not in creating encyclopedia. This is an enormous time sink, and I still have to see positive contribution of these "newcomers" in the articles, for example improving the Ukrainian topics which are in a pitiful state because only a handful of editors here - accidentally, including me - care about these topics.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- I am in agreement with Ymblanter on this; this is not the simple case of us getting snarky with a neophyte. AndriiDr is new to our wiki, but is an established user of our Ukrainian project. It is not a simple matter of an over-excited editor making a bunch of edits to a bunch of articles because they do not know better.
- Assuming Good Faith is not a suicide pact; we are being gaslighted here. As indicated by a similar discussion about Ukraine-related edits (see below), there appears to be a lot of Ukrainian 'reframing'-type edits occurring. As well, the user that prompted this discussion has continued to make these same sorts of edits, despite being warned by no less than three other editors to stop and discuss.
- I hate going there, but I think some blocks and RfPP for Kiev-related articles is in order - they are not going to stop unbalancing articles unless we make them stop. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Look, this really becomes annoying. There is Kiev/Kyiv disruption going all over the place. And this user is an active participant of this disruption, because his almost entire contribution is to replace Kiev with Kyiv, in many cases in an inappropriate situations. And the rest of his contribution is to vote for Kyiv at talk pages. And he is not capable in contributing in any other way, because he does not speak English and uses Google translate. Not biting newcomers is not about agenda editors, this is about new users who genuinely want to help but have some difficulties understanding policies. What the move has attracted to the English Wikipedia are a bunch of users who are only interested in disruption, not in creating encyclopedia. This is an enormous time sink, and I still have to see positive contribution of these "newcomers" in the articles, for example improving the Ukrainian topics which are in a pitiful state because only a handful of editors here - accidentally, including me - care about these topics.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Newcomer here, sixth edit in this wiki ten days ago. On your talk page you clearly stated you want to force him off. You are taking advantage of other administrators being unfamiliar with what is and is not being discussed at talk:Kyiv to criticize his perfectly good edits. You assume bad faith and your blatant disrespect is uncivil and disruptive. —Michael Z. 15:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- If an evidence-free anecdote is worth anything, I confirm that we are obviously being played for suckers by virtual single-purpose accounts whose only interest is promoting their point of view. The careless bot-like Kiev/Kyev editing has hit my watchlist and some error tracking categories I monitor. My conclusion was that editors involved are here only to achieve a fait accompli after ultimate victory in their move campaign. Johnuniq (talk) 00:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Clearly, these Ukrainians didn't get the memo regarding WP:CABAL. @Levivich:, I think that every single one of us here can recall at least two instances of nationalist editing in Wikipedia. My pops dealt with the utter clownage that followed the release of 300, and I myself have witnessed the anti-Islamist sentiments pervading certain articles. Every time is occurs, it is corrosive and whittles away at our ability to stay above the fray.
- This is why it seems pertinent to address this a bit more seriously. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Jack Sebastian: We're spelling it WP:KYBAL now But what is the "this" that needs to be addressed more seriously? When India changed Bombay to Mumbai it was called "shedding colonialism"; why is it when Ukraine changes Kiev to Kyiv, it's "nationalism"? When we get a group of people together to edit articles about the place where they live, we call it an "edit-a-thon"; why is it when Ukrainians write about Ukraine, it's called "POV pushing"? Obviously Ukrainians will edit Ukrainian topics as Indians edit Indian topics, but that doesn't mean it's only Ukrainians, or that we should assume that everyone editing the topic is Ukrainian (just as it's not only Indians editing Indian topics). Obviously after moving Kiev to Kyiv, we will have thousands of places where we will need to change, or consider changing, "Kiev" to "Kyiv" (there are thousands of inbound wikilinks to Kyiv, just for starters), but that doesn't mean that doing so is agenda-driven POV pushing. It's crowdsourced editing. We already have DS to deal with the problematic examples, and we already have a good number of editors blocked. What else do you want to do? What else can we possibly do? We can't stop people from changing the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, that changes three times a second; that would be counterproductive. So back to this thread, 300 edits isn't a lot of edits when you consider we're going to have to change "Kiev" to "Kyiv" probably more than 10,000 times. It's hundreds of articles, we can't protect them all, that would be counterproductive, it would stunt the natural growth of the topic area. Though it's anecdotal, so far I've seen more bad reversions of good edits than I've seen bad edits when it comes to changing Kiev to Kyiv, and those changes that have been challenged, when put to consensus (RMs), seem to be supported... just look at how much has already been moved at Talk:Kyiv/cleanup, and look how the currently-open RMs are trending. Bottom line: I don't see a solution proposed here to any demonstrated problem. It's like complaining about rain: it's inevitable, it's necessary, and even if it does suck, what do you want us to do about it? Also, may I note the irony of complaints about Ukrainians changing the spelling of a Ukraininan city on Wikipedia, when the other giant Wikipedia scandal going on right now is Scots Wiki having too few Scots speakers? We need more diversity in our editor base, not less, and complaining that editors from Ukrainian Wikipedia are editing Ukrainian topics here at enwiki is not going to help us develop a more diverse editor base. Lev!vich 06:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Levivich:, hmm, that's all quite fascinating, and I appreciate the parable about how a concerted action by Ukrainian to alter every mention of Kiev to 'Kyiv' whether its appropriate or not is as inevitable as rainfall.
- Clearly, I disagree, and I think I have made my reasons for doing so pretty clear. Maybe I failed to mention a few, like how the Kiev to Kyiv newly-found "rough" consensus might not endure even a short test of time. I get that some folks have been working this angle since 2008, but it took 12 years to even get to a rough consensus. It might not last. Undoing the thousands of edits made after the orgasmic afterglow of getting what you want isn't going to be at all fun - most will just evaporate, leaving others to undo their surge of edits. That sucks more.
- Clearly, you have wanted this, and have thought through all the angles. I am just an ordinary wiki editor, looking at a massive number of edits made by someone in love with the idea of changing the nature of a thing to that which they feel is important - its clearly a nationalism thing. Yet....I don't recall a similar crush of edits to change indiscriminately change any mention of Bombay to Mumbai. Then again, I am not editing Indian articles.
- As well, I think its weird that while the rough consensus seems to agree that Kiev started pushing to be re-spelled in '95. Yet, the edits alter any mention of Kiev, no matter what date the name was used.
- For me, the idea that "interfering" with these massive edits is stifling "diversity" is the reddest of herrings. Quite bluntly, Wikipedia is open to all, so long as you follow the basic rules and work collaboratively; the collaboration is rightly interpreted as editors working to find common ground from disparate viewpoints. The editors changing all the articles are working from a common interest and a common goal, without discussing their edits and hoping the simple crush of them all will stifle complaint.
- That isn't working collaboratively; that's working towards a fait accompli. If you are perhaps unaware of ArbCom's view on the subject, you can check it out here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Yet....I don't recall a similar crush of edits to change indiscriminately change any mention of Bombay to Mumbai
- Talk:Kolkata/Archive 1 reads very similar to the discussions around Kyiv. In fact, Kyiv is mentioned in the Calcutta discussion. Both cities (Mumbai and Kyiv) BTW changed their names/spelling officially in 1995. Bombay was moved to Mumbai on Wikipedia in 2005. It's taken another 15 years for us to catch up with Kyiv. But the reason I know about this isn't because I've been doing this for a long time (I've only gotten involved in Kyiv in the last month or so), but because I am helping to track these changes at Talk:Kyiv/cleanup. There are 20,000 instances of "Kiev" in mainspace right now; hence, thousands, possible 10k or more, changes that will be required. As I said, there are thousands of inbound links to Kiev, and under our existing policies, those should be changed to Kyiv. So someone changing 300 of them is not a surprise to me. I would expect many editors will have to make hundreds of changes each in order to get it all done. What I see, though, is that you are coming from a place where you disagree with the change, and you seem to think it's even possible that it will be changed back and we'll have to revert the subsidiary changes. This will not happen, I can assure you. 0% chance of us ever going back to calling the city "Kiev", just as there is a 0% chance we will move Mumbai back to Bombay. Lev!vich 16:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- (ec) The problem is not Ukrainians editing articles on Ukrainian topics. This (and also non-Ukrainians editing articles on Ukrainian topics) must be welcome. It is just not happening or happening very little. What we are discussing here are Ukrainians or non-Ukrainians or whoever whose only interest in the topic area is replacing Kiev with Kyiv, most often without looking at the context (which is not surprising, since some of them do not speak English). I do not see how this editing is net positive for Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Jack Sebastian: We're spelling it WP:KYBAL now But what is the "this" that needs to be addressed more seriously? When India changed Bombay to Mumbai it was called "shedding colonialism"; why is it when Ukraine changes Kiev to Kyiv, it's "nationalism"? When we get a group of people together to edit articles about the place where they live, we call it an "edit-a-thon"; why is it when Ukrainians write about Ukraine, it's called "POV pushing"? Obviously Ukrainians will edit Ukrainian topics as Indians edit Indian topics, but that doesn't mean it's only Ukrainians, or that we should assume that everyone editing the topic is Ukrainian (just as it's not only Indians editing Indian topics). Obviously after moving Kiev to Kyiv, we will have thousands of places where we will need to change, or consider changing, "Kiev" to "Kyiv" (there are thousands of inbound wikilinks to Kyiv, just for starters), but that doesn't mean that doing so is agenda-driven POV pushing. It's crowdsourced editing. We already have DS to deal with the problematic examples, and we already have a good number of editors blocked. What else do you want to do? What else can we possibly do? We can't stop people from changing the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, that changes three times a second; that would be counterproductive. So back to this thread, 300 edits isn't a lot of edits when you consider we're going to have to change "Kiev" to "Kyiv" probably more than 10,000 times. It's hundreds of articles, we can't protect them all, that would be counterproductive, it would stunt the natural growth of the topic area. Though it's anecdotal, so far I've seen more bad reversions of good edits than I've seen bad edits when it comes to changing Kiev to Kyiv, and those changes that have been challenged, when put to consensus (RMs), seem to be supported... just look at how much has already been moved at Talk:Kyiv/cleanup, and look how the currently-open RMs are trending. Bottom line: I don't see a solution proposed here to any demonstrated problem. It's like complaining about rain: it's inevitable, it's necessary, and even if it does suck, what do you want us to do about it? Also, may I note the irony of complaints about Ukrainians changing the spelling of a Ukraininan city on Wikipedia, when the other giant Wikipedia scandal going on right now is Scots Wiki having too few Scots speakers? We need more diversity in our editor base, not less, and complaining that editors from Ukrainian Wikipedia are editing Ukrainian topics here at enwiki is not going to help us develop a more diverse editor base. Lev!vich 06:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
"Kiev" vs. "Kyiv" disputes
There are persistent moves and rename of title Kiev to Kyiv. In the article "Kiev Day and Night", there is editors warring around the renaming customs whether it should be "Kyiv" Day and Night despite the enlisted sources/citations verify the article name should be Kiev Day and Night. This situation encountered recently with Ukrainian-related topics. As such, they were coronary to sources, not their customs, as because of the title of the series implies "Kiev Day and Night" in several ways in accordance with existing sources. The Supermind (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- The only editor I see repeatedly moving that title is The Supermind. All the sources in the article Kiev Day and Night are Ukrainian or Russian language. So what reliable English source calls this 2018 TV show "Kiev Day and Night" instead of "Kyiv Day and Night"? The answer should probably be posted on the article talk page instead of here. This is a content dispute and it's already being adequately coordinated at Talk:Kyiv and Talk:Kyiv/cleanup, where bold moves and RMs are being tracked. Lev!vich 16:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- This might be a fairly recent trend that has emerged. On this same noticeboard, there is another discussion ongoing about this very topic. I am not seeing this as an isolated incident, and I am starting to believe that undoing these edits is going to meet with substantial pushback from our Ukrainian visitors. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- This is not a new trend, it's a natural consequence of the recent rename from Kiev to Kyiv. Some of the workings-out are quite straightforward, others are more complex or controversial. As long as everyone follows the bold, revert, discuss method of establishing consensus we'll get through it eventually. – bradv🍁 20:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- I searched for the name before I edited the article, and the Kyiv version seemed to appear in more results that resembled real sources, news sites, CVs of professionals linked to the show, etc. But very few overall. The official site seems to have no English at all; defaults to Ukrainian and includes Russian. Since this is not a “historical article,” our own uncontroversial translation would be “Kyiv Day and Night,” following the main article and current English standards.
- P.S., it seems that editors who know Ukrainian topics have to defend their every contribution on Ukrainian topics because they know Ukrainian topics. This feels like a hostile environment. —Michael Z. 01:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- I would disagree with that assessment. There is a concern that nationalist flexing is taking place to change a commonly recognized word to one less so. Perhaps your immersion in this topic since 2008 has influenced your perception of the issue. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- If the only thing that the new editors are changing is the spelling of a single toponym, I would not worry about their nationalist motivations. The trouble begins if they start making POV additions to the text. Dimadick (talk) 18:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, I am sure that Europe felt that allowing Germany to annex the Sudetanland would satisfy them. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- If the only thing that the new editors are changing is the spelling of a single toponym, I would not worry about their nationalist motivations. The trouble begins if they start making POV additions to the text. Dimadick (talk) 18:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- I would disagree with that assessment. There is a concern that nationalist flexing is taking place to change a commonly recognized word to one less so. Perhaps your immersion in this topic since 2008 has influenced your perception of the issue. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- This is not a new trend, it's a natural consequence of the recent rename from Kiev to Kyiv. Some of the workings-out are quite straightforward, others are more complex or controversial. As long as everyone follows the bold, revert, discuss method of establishing consensus we'll get through it eventually. – bradv🍁 20:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- This might be a fairly recent trend that has emerged. On this same noticeboard, there is another discussion ongoing about this very topic. I am not seeing this as an isolated incident, and I am starting to believe that undoing these edits is going to meet with substantial pushback from our Ukrainian visitors. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- The only editor I see repeatedly moving that title is The Supermind. All the sources in the article Kiev Day and Night are Ukrainian or Russian language. So what reliable English source calls this 2018 TV show "Kiev Day and Night" instead of "Kyiv Day and Night"? The answer should probably be posted on the article talk page instead of here. This is a content dispute and it's already being adequately coordinated at Talk:Kyiv and Talk:Kyiv/cleanup, where bold moves and RMs are being tracked. Lev!vich 16:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Mass Kyiv disruption
There was a Kiev/Kyiv discussion a few days ago on WP:ANI that might be relevant to this thread. It got archived recently so I am providing a link to it for convenience: WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1047#Mass_Kyiv_disruption.--67.175.201.50 (talk) 01:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
RfC: Community general sanctions for Kiev/Kyiv
Should we put general sanctions on articles relating to Kiev/Kyiv? 20:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
It appears that the Kiev/Kyiv naming dispute will not settle down anytime soon, so I propose this general sanction to be applied to all articles related to Kiev/Kyiv:
Any article about Kyiv/Kiev or otherwise containing its name in the title shall have all proposed moves to them discussed through the requested moves process before being moved, broadly constricted. Any moves to the articles subjected to this sanction done without discussion, including reverting successful requested moves, may be reverted without being subject to the normal restrictions on edit warring.
Goose(Talk!) 20:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. We already have ArbCom aithorised discretionary sanctions in this editing area.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Is User:Ymblanter implying that Ukraine is in Eastern Europe as normally defined? If so, is there any advantage to be gained by adding community general sanctions to a more expansive area of ArbCom sanctions? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, Probably - my contact with this indicated a single person spending more than nine hours editing over 300 articles to change 'Kiev' to 'Kyiv' suggest that either they are using a bot and lying about it, or are supremely dedicated to making these changes; both options are disturbing. Perhaps more disturbing is the fact that these edits are continuing despite requests to pause until an agreement can be found, which is destabilizing and messes with the idea of collaborative editing. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- While I imagine many have been dealt with already, a renaming of this scale would become inordinately slow were RM to be required throughout. I also feel that DS would seem to cover it already. As a distinct second choice, make it so that after the BR steps, the discussion must be in the form of RM with no additional move permitted. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Meh. This shouldn't be necessary. I proposed a simple rough guide to naming on talk:Kyiv; if that is adopted and works out then the problem would go away. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. Topic is covered by the ArbCom E-E DS. Hence, any individual administrator is already empowered to enact the sanction described, if they believe it is necessary for the smooth running of the topic area. I already noted some weeks ago that technically, if desired, an edit filter could be created to log/warn unilateral page moves of Kyiv/Kiev. Though, I think this is just part of the normal editing process, nothing so egregious here that it cannot be solved in the usual manner. General sanctions should only really be enacted for chronic, diverse conduct/behavioural issues I think, this doesn't seem to be that. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose as redundant, per ProcrastingReader. Also, movewarring over a name isn't really a sufficient issue to give rise to unique general or discretionary sanctions anyway. If it comes to it, the page can be move-protected. If there really is ongoing, repetitive dispute about this, one could do a WP:RM (again) and this time list it at WP:VPPOL and even WP:CENT to attract sufficient editors to get a firmer consensus (perhaps also for a moratorium on bringing up the issue again for a year or whatever). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Wow, this just started out as me asking how to undo a large number of bot-type edits; its now a multi-page discussion and the subject of at least one (very long) ANI complaint. Maybe the smart thing here is to realize that the very rough consensus that emerged from the Kiev/Kyiv name change discussion isn't enough of a consensus to warrant the sheer number of ripple changes now occurring - and disrupting - the Wiki-en.
- As at least one editor has pointed out that a similar wholesale change appears to have happened when 'Bombay' articles were changed to 'Mumbai'. I think this consensus probably needs to be revisited and that the arrangement of edits need to be undone and redone under the aegis of a taskforce or something. I am deeply concerned about unintentional possibility of canvassing and meatpuppetry occurring, as a lot of these changes are occurring as a seemingly coordinated effort by visiting Wiki-Ukraine contributors unfamiliar with our guidelines and protocols.
- I'm just spit-balling here. I literally have no horse in this race, and am only involved because it appears the edits are happening indiscriminately (like a hit-and-run) and without individual article discussion. That's pretty disruptive and that's what triggered my involvement. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment (Summoned by bot) It sounds like a good idea, but I suggest that the person initiating this conversation flesh out his request a bit. Coretheapple (talk) 13:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose – Just enforce the existing WP:ARBEE sanctions. Don't add on another layer of bureaucracy. RGloucester — ☎ 13:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Are those sanctions being considered in this matter by an admin capable of imposing sanctions based upon them? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- If there is a problem with an editor's behaviour, notify them of the EE sanctions. If they continue to cause problems, report them to AE. If it's a problem with an article, appeal to an uninvolved administrator for intervention. Seems pretty simple to me. RGloucester — ☎ 16:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- @RGloucester:, I understand that those are my options, but I have had my own civility issues in the past that make me hesitant to take action for behavior that might not be what I am thinking it is. Is the massive renaming of articles from a generally-accepted term to one with nationalist overtones a dick move, or is Mzajac & Co. being Bold, and I am being a jerk for telling them to discuss before renaming per article? My perceptions are colored by my tendency to assume the worst. I would prefer that my deductions should be confirmed by others. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Jack Sebastian! Sorry for interrupting your conversation here with RGloucester! I stumbled upon this discussion after seeing your comments on Talk:Kyiv and noticing that you were visibly upset in that discussion (and you do sound upset in this discussion too). After seeing you comment above about "massive renaming of articles [...] to one with nationalist overtones" (I'm assuming you got the "nationalist overtones" vibe from the word "Kyiv itself :) ) followed by another comment about "Mzajac & Co.", I kind of got curious and deciding to do some "Google-digging". So I typed "site:wikipedia.org nationalists ukrainian mafia conspiracy" into Google and on the first results page there was a link to "List of fictional gangs" where I found a sub-section "Ukrainian mafia" that, among other things, listed "Petrenko mob" from TV series "24" (you should read it - some of those "mobs" have hilarious Non-PC-yet-funny names; I laughed REALLY hard when I saw that "Petrenko mob" thing - it is just too funny, because "Petrenko" is like THE MOST COMMON Ukrainian surname in the world (think of Smith or something in English-speaking countries) and there are A TON of anecdotes about "Petrenko doing XYZ"). I did not stop there, and next googled "site:en.wikipedia.org nationalists clique prejudice" and on the first results page there was a link to Wikipedia:Don't be prejudiced - it was kind of boring, but at the bottom of it I saw a section called "Humorous essays" and there (after clicking around for some time) I stumbled upon Wikipedia:The first rule of Wikipedia (you should read it too - it is a hilarious reference to Chuck Palahniuk's (who btw, interesting fact, has Ukrainian heritage!) brilliant Fight Club novel); however, what really stuck with me me on that page (and why I am writing this) is that on top of that page there was a message that said "This is a decree by the Supreme Cabal Regime of the English Wikipedia" which upon clicking brought me to Wikipedia:List of cabals (again, you should read it too - some of it is boring, but some of it is HILARIOUS). Anyways, long story short, after spending some time on that List of Cabals page, I ultimately stumbled upon a description of a "Polish Cabal". This is when a LIGHTBULB turned in my head - when reading the discussion on Kiev/Kyiv usage/non-usage in historical context post-1995 on Talk:Kyiv, every second editor referenced the infamous "Ukrainian nationalists"; so I thought to myself - maybe all these people are onto something? So I went ahead and (please don't burn me like a witch for this) created a "Ukrainian Cabal" there. You should read it - hopefully, it will make your day a bit less stressful (and if you don't find it funny feel free to delete it!).--RogueRickC137 (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- JS is way ahead of you. —Michael Z. 19:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- @RGloucester:, I understand that those are my options, but I have had my own civility issues in the past that make me hesitant to take action for behavior that might not be what I am thinking it is. Is the massive renaming of articles from a generally-accepted term to one with nationalist overtones a dick move, or is Mzajac & Co. being Bold, and I am being a jerk for telling them to discuss before renaming per article? My perceptions are colored by my tendency to assume the worst. I would prefer that my deductions should be confirmed by others. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- If there is a problem with an editor's behaviour, notify them of the EE sanctions. If they continue to cause problems, report them to AE. If it's a problem with an article, appeal to an uninvolved administrator for intervention. Seems pretty simple to me. RGloucester — ☎ 16:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Are those sanctions being considered in this matter by an admin capable of imposing sanctions based upon them? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, @RogueRickC137:; I really do appreciate you trying to lighten my mood, and I acknowledge that the Kiev/Kyiv stank was getting to me a bit, for reasons that are probably all just imagined, like the perception that Mzajac was like, 'fuck whatever y'all want, we're doing whatever we want'.
And that seems pretty much the opposite of what I was taught and have learned what Wikipedia is about. You want to make massive choices, you talk about it. In each article. If its important enough to you, you take the time to seek consensus, and not secretly hope that its easier to ask forgiveness than permission. And seeing the latter in play - Ukrainian editors swarming onto the Wiki-en to change any and all references of Kiev to Kyiv while using a wobbly consensus as warrant and Mzajac (an admin, no less) totally down to get snarky while dodging any questions to explain his actions (in a weird kind of a parody of current American politics, itself a parody).
So, I knew I was losing my patience with Mzajac and these edits, and decided I should instead trust the Project to deal with the problem - they are by and large smart folk who can see the forest AND the trees. So I took a break from it. I think I've done okay in pointing out my concerns regarding this, and either the community will see them as unacceptable as I do, or they won't. After all, its not like I'm getting paid for this gig, and I'm nowhere nearly as emotionally invested in this as Mzajac clearly is.
So that's why I have been kinda avoiding this discussion. I only post now bc you were nice enough to try and lighten my mood. Fist bump to you, bub. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Theresa Greenfield
- Draft:Theresa Greenfield
- Theresa Greenfield
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theresa Greenfield - redirected to 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa
- Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 June 4#Theresa Greenfield - endorsed
- Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 June 15#Theresa Greenfield - no consensus to overturn
- Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 July 11#Theresa Greenfield - no consensus to overturn
This article has had a rough history. It was nominated for deletion and redirected back in May this year, citing notability concerns. The deletion result was challenged at deletion review three times, as noted above. Meanwhile the article was recreated in place (in good faith) by several editors before the redirect was protected by Muboshgu in June. It was then created as a draft in July, which was submitted to AfC and has been declined three times by two reviewers (Robert McClenon and Bkissin). The draft was significantly reworked since the last decline in August and a third reviewer (UnitedStatesian) decided to accept the draft and made a request at RFPP to unprotect the redirect, which is how I came across the situation.
I declined to unprotect yesterday, suggesting that the draft should pass review first and not realizing that UnitedStatesian's request was an attempt to do so, and because they had already asked Muboshgu and they declined, so I said it should be reviewed one more time. In the midst of that one of the draft's editors pinged Robert McClenon, who again said that he would not accept. While discussing that on the draft's talk page and still not realizing that UnitedStatesian was an AfC reviewer trying to accept, I suggested someone else should review (since Robert McClenon had reviewed twice, or three times if you count the comment today, and was clearly becoming frustrated). Two things happened then more or less simultaneously: UnitedStatesian made a new unprotection request at RFPP explicitly stating they were accepting the draft, and Bkissin chimed in on the talk page that they also would not accept. It's currently marked as "under review".
So basically I've dug this hole as deep as I'd like it to go, and would like someone who hasn't already been involved in this to go get a ladder. Everyone's actions here have been in good faith, but we're clearly stuck. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- I am uninvolved, and I do not see any issue. If the article is significantly different from the deleted version (which I have not checked yet) it must be restored (unprotected and moved from the draft); if there are users who doubt notability they can nominate it for AfD. This is how consensus is supposed to work.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Ymblanter, it's in the AFC process, and has been declined a few times. It's under review again now. If it's approved, then you are indeed correct. But what if the draft is declined? Should we move it to mainspace regardless of the AFC review? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- I am the reviewer, and I have made the third WP:RPP request, at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Theresa Greenfield, precisely so I can accept the draft. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- UnitedStatesian, is this a good idea? You've been quite vocal about wanting this to be published. I would hope the AFC review was done by someone uninvolved in this process. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- My only involvement has been in the review: only edit to the draft was adding {{draft article}} to it, no participation in the AfD or DRVs. Of course, the review has required discussion on lots of different pages, as is occasionally the case, so I guess that makes me vocal. That said, as in all cases, if my review is stopped by community consensus that continued page protection is warranted, there are plenty of other drafts that need reviewing and I will of course move on to them. UnitedStatesian (talk)
- UnitedStatesian, is this a good idea? You've been quite vocal about wanting this to be published. I would hope the AFC review was done by someone uninvolved in this process. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- I am the reviewer, and I have made the third WP:RPP request, at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Theresa Greenfield, precisely so I can accept the draft. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- I know that in a situation like this, some editors will say that the answer is clear. I think I see at least two questions where policies and guidelines are not clear, and where perhaps they should be clarified.
- The first question is the role of Deletion Review. The redirect has been salted to enforce a Deletion-like decision. The question is: Should it simply be unsalted in response to a request at Requests for Page Unprotection, or should there be a (fourth) appeal to Deletion Review. The instructions for Deletion Review say that it considers situations where the circumstances have changed since the deletion; but some of the DRV regulars get annoyed at such requests and say just to go through AFC without going to DRV.
- The second question has to do with the interaction between political notability and general notability. It is usually the rule, including at AFD, that political candidates who do not meet political notability are also not considered to meet general notability solely on the basis of their campaign. This is such a case. Greenfield was not generally notable before she began running for the US Senate. So is this an exceptional case where she is generally notable based solely on her campaign? Questions of general notability are decided at AFD. Since this draft is currently in AFC, the instructions for the AFC reviewers are that a draft should be accepted if it is thought that there is a better than 50% chance of surviving AFD.
- A third question, which is not one of unclear policies and guidelines, is whether the reviewer is neutral.
- Those, in my opinion, are three questions that are applicable. I am finished reviewing, but I am not finished expressing an opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- The notability question can be decided only by community discussion, and the only applicable mechanism we currently have is AfD. The article has failed AfD and DRs, and therefore should not be reinstated - unless there are significant changes which can make it notable, or unless it has been significantly changes with new sources added so that notability can be reasonably considered on basis of these sources, which have not been presented to AfD. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, the only relevant question is whether significant enough sources have been added as compared with the AfD. If yes, the article should be accepted, and a new AfD can be opened. If not, AfD should not be accepted (with the understanding that if she makes it to the Senate in a month, the draft immediately gets moved to the main space - but this is irrelevant for the current discussion).--Ymblanter (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Since the old version was redirected, not deleted, the history is visible, and any editor, not just an administrator, can see the version at the time the AfD closed: it is here, with 5 references. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Ymblanter, I see what you're saying, but I find it kind of ridiculously bureaucratic to accept the article just to nominate it for deletion again. At the same time I imagine the best we'd get from another deletion review is relisting the original AfD, which isn't much better neither in terms of bureaucracy nor in terms of moving forward. For what it's worth, this is the article prior to the deletion discussion, versus the current draft (diff, probably not terribly useful). You can see that the draft is expanded substantially from the deleted/redirected article, but does any of the added info address the notability concern? There was a strong sense in the AfD that US Senate candidates are not inherently notable, but do the 62 sources in the draft suggest she is an exception to that general rule? If the only way we can answer that is through a second AfD then I guess that's where we go from here. Can we simply create a new deletion discussion or relist the original and refer to the draft, rather than doing all the work of moving it around? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, indeed, my point is that some community discussion should happen somewhere at some point. It should not be happening here, here at AN at best we can have consensus of random admins whether it is time for that discussion to happen, but we can not seriously be discussing whether Theresa Greenfield is notable. We can only discuss whether enough sources have been added for the article to reasonably stand a chance at AfD. It superficially looks to me that we are ready for this community discussion, though at this point I do not see consensus. But it should not depend on a decision of one person who decides to remove or not to remove protection of a redirect. Administrators do not have any particular say in the content area, and the further process should not depend on whether a user accepting AfC is administrator or not. Concerning the process itself, a new AfD seems to me much better than MfD (for the reasons explained below) and reopening the May AfD (well, if the article is essentially the same, one AfD is enough, and if it is different the old arguments are not relevant anymore), but I am open to better solutions.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- The notability question can be decided only by community discussion, and the only applicable mechanism we currently have is AfD. The article has failed AfD and DRs, and therefore should not be reinstated - unless there are significant changes which can make it notable, or unless it has been significantly changes with new sources added so that notability can be reasonably considered on basis of these sources, which have not been presented to AfD. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, the only relevant question is whether significant enough sources have been added as compared with the AfD. If yes, the article should be accepted, and a new AfD can be opened. If not, AfD should not be accepted (with the understanding that if she makes it to the Senate in a month, the draft immediately gets moved to the main space - but this is irrelevant for the current discussion).--Ymblanter (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Ymblanter, it's in the AFC process, and has been declined a few times. It's under review again now. If it's approved, then you are indeed correct. But what if the draft is declined? Should we move it to mainspace regardless of the AFC review? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
For consistency, perhaps we should treat this the same as Draft:Rishi Kumar, another "local" candidate for a Federal office whose article name redirects to a similar place as Theresa Greenfield. The deletion discussion, as well as AFC comments, determined that the article should reside in draft space until after the election. The same should be applied here. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- The current draft for Greenfield's article lists significantly more coverage in both regional and national newspapers than Kumar's draft. To support analysis (because the current draft lists a somewhat daunting number of sources, some of which are fairly minor), I pulled out a list of ten example sources that contribute to notability at Draft talk:Theresa Greenfield#Greenfield draft status, and I added a couple more here: Draft talk:Theresa Greenfield#Two additional sources. To me, this kind of discussion supports Ymblanter and Ivanvector's points that we need to figure the right way to get to an AfD -- I believe that a better venue for a robust and organized discussion about notability thresholds would be AfD. I believe that even though it'd be a bit bureaucratic to create the article just for somebody to nominate it for AfD, it'd at least be a logical process. Dreamyshade (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- There's always Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, which is where Draft:Rishi Kumar was discussed. I have doubts that this candidate was notable before becoming this candidate, and I am concerned that the existing coverage is nothing more than routine for any federal-office candidate. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see the relevance of MFD. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the draft should be deleted. Draftifying the article until after the election is a possible outcome of an AFD. I don't see the relevance of MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- There's always Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, which is where Draft:Rishi Kumar was discussed. I have doubts that this candidate was notable before becoming this candidate, and I am concerned that the existing coverage is nothing more than routine for any federal-office candidate. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
FWIW, if I saw this Draft article in mainspace I would AfD it. Lots and lots of sources, but zero coverage of her outside of her political candidacy. Obviously, should she win the election... Black Kite (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I just took a brief foray into the draft and right off the bat removed some citations that seemed to have no point other than to make the reflist look impressive. Such articles, if they appear in mainspace, tend to get moved immediately to draft space. There it should stay until the reflist is cleaned up. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- I am involved in the sense that my wife and I have donated to Greenfield's Senate campaign (and about a dozen similar campaigns) recently. But I do not support accepting this draft before the election. We have quite a few years of precedent that we do not accept biographies of otherwise non-notable unelected political candidates, but instead cover these people in neutral articles about the election campaign. In this case, the redirect to 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa is correct. I think that the description of Greenfield in that article could be expanded in the interim. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'll add, as an administrator, that I am not comfortable unprotecting the main space title so the draft can be moved there. I am not getting the sense that the other three admins in this discussion (User:Ivanvector, User:Muboshgu, and User:Cullen) are comfortable with that either. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- What about User:Ymblanter? UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'll add, as an administrator, that I am not comfortable unprotecting the main space title so the draft can be moved there. I am not getting the sense that the other three admins in this discussion (User:Ivanvector, User:Muboshgu, and User:Cullen) are comfortable with that either. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
collapse tangential thread
|
---|
|
- This is not nearly as complicated as you are making it out to be. You come across an unprotection request, you check whether you would WP:G4 the draft if it were in mainspace. If you would, you decline to unprotect. If you would not, you unprotect. If you don't know, leave the request alone. If everyone leaves it alone, the filer will start a discussion somewhere to achieve a consensus that admins will be comfortable acting on. It is irrelevant how many admins would AFD it or !vote delete. There is no set>=n, where n is the number of admins that can dictate without a need for community consensus whether or not a topic deserves an article. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Let me emphasise: if you would not G4 the draft as soon as it got to mainspace but would require an AFD, you have no authority to stop an editor who has the ability to accept drafts from doing so. G4 is more or less an objective measure. You just have to read the AFD and compare the two articles. Everything else is irrelevant. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- This is related to a concern I've expressed earlier in this process: WP:PROTECT describes protection as being appropriate when there is "a specifically identified likelihood of damage resulting if editing is left open". I haven't seen any threat of edit warring or other damage here -- everyone involved in this discussion has been acting in good faith, being civil, and making efforts to interpret WP:GNG and WP:NPOL in constructive ways for an encyclopedia. The draft article can definitely be improved further, but we don't have a requirement for articles to be excellent before they get created. I don't see a policy basis for using full protection in this way. Dreamyshade (talk) 04:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- The redirect was repeatedly expanded into full article contra AFD consensus between the AFD and the full protection. So, that's the threat. WP:SALT, which is policy, says in its first sentence, that admins can prevent creation of pages. That is what this full protection does. It keeps the redirect (which doesn't have consensus to delete, and also doesn't need to be edited anyway) and stops the full article from being created. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- This is related to a concern I've expressed earlier in this process: WP:PROTECT describes protection as being appropriate when there is "a specifically identified likelihood of damage resulting if editing is left open". I haven't seen any threat of edit warring or other damage here -- everyone involved in this discussion has been acting in good faith, being civil, and making efforts to interpret WP:GNG and WP:NPOL in constructive ways for an encyclopedia. The draft article can definitely be improved further, but we don't have a requirement for articles to be excellent before they get created. I don't see a policy basis for using full protection in this way. Dreamyshade (talk) 04:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see how one AfC reviewer gets to overrule the numerous prior discussions on this. The consensus in the AfD was that the subject isn't independently notable as an unelected candidate for office and should be covered in the article about the election. This is a very common outcome. The issue was taken to DRV three times, each time by someone who had found more news sources which cover her in the context of the election, and each time the discussion declined to reinstate the article. The draft which we now have still doesn't attempt to address this fundamental problem. Yes, there are plenty of news articles, but that's because competitive senate elections always generate news coverage. Essentially all the sources cited still cover her in the context of the election. I suggest we wait until the election, which is just over a month away. If she wins then she will be unambiguously notable, if she loses then I suspect the fuss will die down. Hut 8.5 07:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- This is probably the best outcome we can now come up with.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see "competitive senate elections always generate news coverage" as a counter-argument by itself for WP:GNG - a campaign like this generates significant news coverage because it's "worthy of notice" to a lot of people, because it's important and of interest to a lot of people. I believe a person primarily covered in the context of an election can still meet the notability standards, especially if there's a lot of national reporting and in-depth reporting over a couple years or more. The question to me is whether the current draft Greenfield is there, and AN still doesn't seem to be the right venue for that -- there are a lot of comments here that are essentially AfD-style comments, without being at AfD (including mine). Dreamyshade (talk) 22:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- One key point I feel that I should note is that AfC reviewers don't (and aren't supposed to) act off a "guaranteed to be notable" standard. Instead, if something is likely to pass, we should accept it, and then let the Community review it. Likewise, unprotection requests should work off that basis. Now whether people think it should wait until after the election, I discourage that, but it's viable as a second choice. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- I will restate a few policy and procedure issues that I think are touched on by this case:
Here are three issues that are involved in the question about Theresa Greenfield:
- Should candidates for politically notable offices be considered to meet general notability on the basis of significant coverage of the campaign, if the candidate was not previously considered notable? It has in general been the practice of Wikipedia that candidates are not considered to satisfy general notability on the basis of election coverage, and therefore do not qualify for articles before the election if they did not have them before the campaign. This question arises frequently, and it would be a good idea either to address it on a general basis or to decide that it is always addressed on a case-by-case basis.
- When should a single AFC reviewer be allowed to accept a draft if the same title was previously deleted by AFD? When should Deletion Review be required? The instructions for DRV say that DRV can review deletions when the circumstances have changed, such as new sources or new activities. However, the DRV regulars normally tell applicants not to go to DRV but simply to submit the new draft for review.
- When should a single AFC reviewer be allowed to request that a title be unsalted if the same title was previously create-protected? This question is related to the above, but is not the same.
Robert McClenon (talk) 23:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- *Gets up on soapbox* I think Wikipedia is grossly irresponsible in our election coverage for the role we play in promoting incumbents over challengers. We should have some level of information about candidates for people seeking information about an election. This doesn't need to be done through a full article but could happen through reasonable coverage in an election article. The incumbent will still get a full article as opposed to say a paragraph (or two, maybe three) but our readers deserve to know more about Greenfield than
Theresa Greenfield, businesswoman, candidate for Iowa's 3rd congressional district in 2018
which is what we're saying now.*Gets off soapbox*Why do we create protect articles (SALT)? Because repeated discussions are a drain on the community's time and attention. DRV has said three times that this isn't ready for mainspace. Robert is right that DRV also frequently says "don't bother us go to AfC or just recreate it" but that's after substantially new information or reasonable time has passed. Neither is true in this case. I am all for consensus changing but repeating the same discussion regularly is a form of disruption. This salting should hold. I am thankful that I got the chance to levy one of my biggest systemic criticism of our content in a public forum but other than that don't think repeated discussions are helpful. Waiting until after the election is not so cop-out or thwarting of our process. It is being respectful of the time, energy, thought, and collaboration that has already occurred about this topic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC) - The rule should be that challengers who receive significant national or international coverage (that is, non-local coverage, or coverage outside of the area where they are running) are notable enough for a page. Greenfield would meet that test (most general election US Senate candidates would), but not every candidate for every office would. Lev!vich 01:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- I have some thoughts about this. If we were looking at an open seat, with both candidates not previously having held elected office, we would not advantage any incumbent. Furthermore, the idea that we are giving an advantage to the incumbent because they have an article disregards to an extent the possibility that their article itself may prove less-than-flattering (as people with opposing views often try to insert as much negativity as they can, while those with supporting views try to keep that sort of thing out). We have articles for all U.S. Senators because that is a reasonable barometer of notability, given the power and influence they wield. This includes articles for senators who or elected for a single term and did not run for re-election, so incumbency over an opponent was never an issue at all. We can't treat articles on U.S. senators any differently based on their possibly being challenged by somebody who does not fall into any other bucket for notability. That said, I do think there is inherent notability in a major party nominee for a U.S. Senate seat garnering national attention due to their perceived possibility of winning that seat (or, sometimes, due to other behaviour in the course of the campaign). This, of course, raises a question that has not yet been addressed, which is whether we should then create articles generally on historical losing major-party U.S. Senate candidates who garnered such attention during their candidacy. This is a discussion perhaps best left until the current silly season passes. If we do enact such a standard in the future, than Theresa Greenfield will merit an article at that point even if she has lost her Senate bid. BD2412 T 03:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- A problem with this suggestion is the phrase "major party candidate," which inserts a bit of political favoritism into which candidates may receive articles, and does not account for the fact that the relative strength of a party (or its nominee) varies from state to State. Even if we defer to the political jurisdictions themselves of who is a major party nominee, the Legal Marijuana Now Party is a major party in the State of Minnesota and I don't think that its nominee is notable. --Enos733 (talk) 04:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Let me throw these two things into the existing discussion. A 2019 Centralized Discussion on candidate notability was closed with No Consensus, so this is an issue that we have been contending with for years now. Additionally, a candidate not having an article is not shutting out that candidate. In the United States context, we have articles for each state's congressional and state elections. Information about the candidate can easily be added there without creating a separate article. In Parliamentary contexts (Canada more specifically), we have created list articles with basic information about a party's candidates. How many of these losing candidates pass the ten year test in terms of their long-term relevance? Bkissin (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- This is trivial. Does the topic meet the GNG? Yes? Have article. We don't expect coverage of baseball players outside of baseball, why does anyone expect coverage of a politician outside of politics? Hobit (talk) 01:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- What he said. The existing policy to routinely reject articles on as-yet unelected politicians seems absurd to me. If a person gets coverage, I don't care who they friggin' are, or what the context is, if they get stuff like national coverage, then my God shouldn't we have an article on them? Why do politicians get assigned a different standard than other people? You pass GNG, you get an article. End of discussion. You don't pass GNG but you do pass a subject-specific guideline, boom, you get an article. That's how it works for everything else on Wikipedia. That is exactly how it should work for politicians. Anything else is following a rule because it's a rule. WP:IAR is a POLICY! A loose necktie (talk) 02:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Just to respond to the above comment from an WP:AFC perspective (and not as a response to this particular draft), we tend to view such things like "running for a political office" as akin to WP:BLP1E; i.e. if the only coverage of a person is because they ran/are running for office, then they could have dozens of references but it's all about the same event (and is somewhat reflected in WP:NPOL). A notable example I can think of is from earlier this year, where there was a trans politician who (if they won) would have been the first trans politician from somewhere like Maine (or the USA, can't honestly remember); they didn't even make it past the primaries, so despite the relatively large body of coverage the article was deleted ("they ran for office that one time" isn't something that makes notability). You might think we hold this ridiculous standard for aspiring politicians, but we have tons of special exemptions (going in both directions) to either raise up "hidden" groups like educators or keep the veritable flood of bit-playing actors or potential-politicians who never get elected from having one-paragraph permastubs. Primefac (talk) 09:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- I would agree in the case of a candidate who runs once, but after the first time there is a point when they become a perennial candidate, maybe hoping to eventually reach Lyndon LaRouche-level. 2020 is this candidate's second campaign (as is referenced in the draft via significant coverage in reliable sources). Separately, the reference above to the WP:10Y test above is interesting, since there was a Senate election in this same state exactly 10 years ago, and guess what, we have an article on the losing candidate. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- UnitedStatesian, the two cases are not comparable. Roxanne Conlin was a U.S. Attorney confirmed by the Senate, and was also the first woman president of the American Trial Lawyers Association. She is notable for those reasons. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Of those two reasons, neither has an inline cite to an independent source. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- UnitedStatesian, the two cases are not comparable. Roxanne Conlin was a U.S. Attorney confirmed by the Senate, and was also the first woman president of the American Trial Lawyers Association. She is notable for those reasons. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- And how many articles do we have on football players, who all qualify for standalone permastub articles based on subject specific guidelines and whose articles will never, ever be expanded in 10 or even 100 years but also never, ever be deleted, while wringing our hands over allowing people to create articles on as-yet unelected political candidates with ample national coverage and lots of published information, whom we disqualify from having articles because "we just don't do that"? If we cared about permastubs, we'd address it in other contexts. We don't. And we could all stop caring about the politicians if we just followed our own policies regarding what makes a subject notable, and stop applying different rulers to different topics as a means to delete or remove articles on those subjects— I'm all for using them to include, since that is how they were meant to be used. Think of the headaches that wouldn't have to happen! Of the discussions we wouldn't have to waste time on! Like this one! Yay! A loose necktie (talk) 17:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- "We don't expect coverage of baseball players outside of baseball, why does anyone expect coverage of a politician outside of politics?" Unless and until she is elected she hasn't done anything in politics. She's basically stood up and said "please, please, please let me do something in politics, I would really appreciate it, I have such great ideas", but she's done zip. Giving her an article is not the same as giving a baseball player an article for playing baseball, it's the equivalent of giving anybody who ever wanted to be a baseball player an article. --Khajidha (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- What he said. The existing policy to routinely reject articles on as-yet unelected politicians seems absurd to me. If a person gets coverage, I don't care who they friggin' are, or what the context is, if they get stuff like national coverage, then my God shouldn't we have an article on them? Why do politicians get assigned a different standard than other people? You pass GNG, you get an article. End of discussion. You don't pass GNG but you do pass a subject-specific guideline, boom, you get an article. That's how it works for everything else on Wikipedia. That is exactly how it should work for politicians. Anything else is following a rule because it's a rule. WP:IAR is a POLICY! A loose necktie (talk) 02:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- This is a good discussion, and I have to get up on my own soapbox here and echo Barkeep49's grand concern above that we're generally irresponsible in our election coverage, but for me it's in the opposite direction of Barkeep's argument. We cover elections in far too much detail. We're supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a newspaper: we're supposed to write basically academic summaries of things that already exist or have already happened, after all the discussion is had (so we're not the ones having it; WP:OR, WP:NOTESSAY) and when things aren't constantly changing, based on reliable sources that review those subjects in retrospect, not as they happen. We're incredibly poor at providing balanced coverage of anything that is ongoing because we're not set up to be objective to current events. We should not write about elections at all until the ballots are counted, in my ideal world, and certainly not while the propaganda machines are in full swing. Maybe this gripe is neither here nor there with respect to this discussion, but since it was brought up now you all get to enjoy my opinion. (/soapbox) There are a lot of quality arguments here on what our guidelines should be, and those are good discussions to have, but there's pretty clearly not a consensus here to restore the article or to do anything with the protection. I think Cullen328's advice to expand her content in the Senate election article is the way forward. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- I agree we cover many ongoing events in more coverage than an encyclopedia strictly would. In an abstract sense the idea of saying "we're not going to cover something until X months/years after it happens" makes sense to me given NOTNEWS/the first pillar. However, that's only in the abstract sense; I can't imagine if we had only begun covering COVID or if we couldn't reference someone's death because not enough time had elapsed. If we're going to start drawing lines about where we need to be careful about covering ongoing events the idea that we're covering elections too much seems like a strange place to start drawing that line. Our articles on elections are poor and serve our readers poorly - they become lists of endorsements and other things that fit nicely in tables rather than prose. But the fact that we do a poor job of it now isn't to say we're over covering it; it's to say we should do a better job of covering them with-in our encyclopedic mission. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- For most topics, a deletion review is final. On this particular matter, we've had several successive deletion reviews and now we've got an appeal to the administrator's noticeboard. As this is purely a content decision, it's simply not open to administrators to overrule DRV here. I suggest that this is closed without result and referred back to DRV.—S Marshall T/C 01:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'll just say it again: there can be no dispute as to if this meets the GNG. And the SNG says: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." We have a huge number of high-quality sources that cover her in massive detail. So from a guideline viewpoint, this is open-and-shut. The problem is that people are trying to create a new SNG and even though they have failed to do so, somehow we still pretend like that SNG exists and has consensus. It's a bit maddening frankly. Hobit (talk) 13:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- You missed a bit: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article --Khajidha (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Certainly. And we'd done things like not have articles on things like "Donald Trump's hands" on that basis. But a person with this much coverage? I can't think of any such case. The GNG is a bit more clear "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." This is clearly way over the bar of the GNG. And yes, we can merge articles still for organizational reasons. But AfD doesn't normally address *that*. The simple fact is, this person easily meets every relevant guideline we have for inclusion. Her case is not unusual. If we don't want articles like hers, there should be consensus that can be found for the general case. But no such consensus exists. Hobit (talk) 16:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- You missed a bit: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article --Khajidha (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
POTUS and FLOTUS test positive for COVID19
I'm requesting extra eyes on COVID19 and Trump-related pages. My current concern is the unsupported suggestions that Hope Hicks is the source of the infection, despite RS only saying that she tested positive and prompted the Trumps to get tested and quarentine because they traveled and worked together. The Trumps' tests then came back positive. Super duper BLP concerns there. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Yep...this will go sideways soon. I recommend a temporary page protection.--MONGO (talk) 06:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- @MONGO: already did go sideways it seems! I semi protected for 4 days and revdelled an ip edit. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- This is the situation we have COVID GS and AP2 and BLP DS sanctions for (plus source restrictions like MEDRS), and thanks in advance to all the admin helping to keep the relevant articles as stable and policy-compliant as possible. Lev!vich 06:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- MONGO, will? Soon? Dude, whatever you're smoking, I'll have some! ;-) Guy (help! - typo?) 22:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- No clue what you mean at all.--MONGO (talk) 05:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- It's a light-hearted way to say that covid in the White House is bound to be a magnet for trolls and other misguided contributors, and the topic will immediately go sideways. Johnuniq (talk) 07:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- I have to admit, when I read "Yep...this will go sideways soon" I immediately thought "everything about this went sideways a long time ago; this is just more of the same". I hear[Citation Needed] that the international league of dumpster fires is demanding an apology for being compared to US politics. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- For those admins watching for disruption in this area, here are some areas to watch: Misinformation spikes as Trump confirms COVID-19 diagnosis --Guy Macon (talk) 11:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Guy Macon, yeah, that's what I meant, but I phrased the humour badly. Apologies to MONGO for any offence caused or taken. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- I have to admit, when I read "Yep...this will go sideways soon" I immediately thought "everything about this went sideways a long time ago; this is just more of the same". I hear[Citation Needed] that the international league of dumpster fires is demanding an apology for being compared to US politics. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- It's a light-hearted way to say that covid in the White House is bound to be a magnet for trolls and other misguided contributors, and the topic will immediately go sideways. Johnuniq (talk) 07:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- No clue what you mean at all.--MONGO (talk) 05:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
What to do with an editor who has the key principle "I don't discuss "history" with Persians and Turks" - & another calling an editor a fascist - all in the same dispute
This is a new editor, User:Key Mîrza, see User talk:Key Mîrza#October 2020 where I told him it was unacceptable to say that to User:HistoryofIran at Talk:Medes#Kurds and Medes referring to another new user, User:Armanqur who yet another new user, User:Resource sharing, has been busy calling a vandal although this is clearly a heated content dispute. Ah, while writing this I had a notification from User:Austronesier that Resource Sharing has called Armanqur a fascist.[5] I think at least two topic bans might be in order. Doug Weller talk 08:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- The earlier parts make me inclined to think TBAN, coupled with the facist reference, I'm not sure TBANs stop you stating other editors are facists Nosebagbear (talk) 08:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- I support topic bans for both editors. Personal attacks can be prevented with blocks on top of the topic bans, and comments like Special:Diff/981378594 are not promising. — Newslinger talk 08:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Topic ban is not enough for them. Another new user Special:Contributions/Dirokakurdi has joined them with similar nationalistic rants.[6][7][8] All of them use the talk page like a forum plus ignoring WP rules. Also look at this. It's a WP:BATTLEGROUND case in my opinion. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Dirokakurdi is Technically indistinguishable from Armanqur. For the moment, I have blocked Armanqur for a week for sock puppetry. However, I am tempted to indef the lot of them for violating WP:BATTLE. Key Mirza, certainly, needs be to indeffed. Salvio 09:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Wait... Armanqur created Dirokakurdi? Why? They hold opposite POVs. Who creates a sockpuppet to argue with? Mr rnddude (talk) 09:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Mr rnddude, it surprised me as well, as I was expecting the sock to belong to someone else, but they cannot be distinguished technically. Salvio 09:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Some sockmasters and LTA cases use WP:GHBH and friend and foe tactics; debating, arguing, and edit warring with their own sockpuppets. --Wario-Man (talk) 14:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Wait... Armanqur created Dirokakurdi? Why? They hold opposite POVs. Who creates a sockpuppet to argue with? Mr rnddude (talk) 09:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Dirokakurdi is Technically indistinguishable from Armanqur. For the moment, I have blocked Armanqur for a week for sock puppetry. However, I am tempted to indef the lot of them for violating WP:BATTLE. Key Mirza, certainly, needs be to indeffed. Salvio 09:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- I do not see any benefit for us of continued possibility for Key Mirza to edit Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed. I'm not sure about Resource Sharing either, among other things they seem pretty clueless, and their claim here "you do not have the right to delete a resource previously accepted by admins and staff." is dubious and they haven't explained it to me. They also made a bad report of User:TU-nor to AIV[9] that was declined[10] by User:EdJohnston. Also note there the comment by User:OhNoitsJamie about them possibly creating an account to get around sp at Medes. In fact the whole section on block evasion. That must refer to the edits made by user:178.241.138.115 as Resource sharing implicitly admits it on User:Oshwah's talk page.[11]
- While writing this Key Mirza has posted to my talk page saying "Who do you think you are? My father? Stop acting me like a child. I do NOT talk history issues with Persians and Turks. Rather you or Wikipedia like it, or not. What's your problem? Are you okay? Key Mîrza (talk) 11:48 am, Today (UTC+1)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 10:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Resource Sharing continues to call other editors "vandals"[12]. The pattern of personal attacks already started even before they had registered an account, cf. this edit summary[13] by an IP which obviously links to Resource Sharing. Resource Sharing admitted previous editing in their very first registered edit[14]. –Austronesier (talk) 13:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Looking closer at their edits, I would say that in addition to personal attacks and edit warring, there is a fair amount of WP:CIR problems. --T*U (talk) 13:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- After reviewing his edits, I have just indeffed Resource Sharing for tendentious editing. Salvio 14:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
ECP for draft space admin-create articles
Just as a followup to this thread, now archived, I've been given a list of sysop create-protected articles that have a corresponding draft. If there is no opposition, I am going to p-batch these down to ECP from full protection so that if/when the drafts are accepted at WP:AFC the reviewers can actually move them without waiting for an admin's approval. Primefac (talk) 09:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Primefac, makes sense. Glen (talk) 11:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree. I use full salting because I want to be asked when someone wants to move a draft into mainspace for WP:BEANS reasons. MER-C 11:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- MER-C, I can see both sides of this, but my gut feeling is we can trust the AfC reviewers to exercise good judgement. Can you provide some specific examples of pages on this list where ECP would be inadequate, so I can understand the issue better?
- More generally, WP:ECPP2 (overwhelmingly) allowed use of ECP for salting, noting that
administrators should choose the appropriate one at their discretion
. I suspect most admins just instinctively go for full protection because that's what they're used to, but the general principle is that the least intrusive level of protection required to prevent disruption is what we should be using. So, ECP should be the default for salting unless there's specific reason to believe it won't be (or hasn't been) effective. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)- The issue is not with individual pages. I am more concerned about UPE spammers, such as Mar11, ImSonyR9, Isingness, Lihaas, Ceethekreator, Meeanaya, Siddiqsazzad001, Mgbo120, Mredidiongekong and TheImaCow reviewing pages for undisclosed payments. Getting EC is a prerequisite for getting an admin to hand over patrolling rights. MER-C 16:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- MER-C, OK, thanks for the deeper explanation. I'm going to go with being opposed to this. In practice, this isn't that big a deal. I still suspect that many (of not most) of the admin-only protects could be reduced to ECP with no harm, but doing them all en-masse without review is sub-optimal and the effort to review them all would outweigh the benefits.
- I'd encourage all admins going forward to be more selective about which level of protection they use (and maybe we could socialize concept more widely), but for the ones that currently exist, we can live with a day's delay to unprotect after an AfC reviewer makes a request. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- The issue is not with individual pages. I am more concerned about UPE spammers, such as Mar11, ImSonyR9, Isingness, Lihaas, Ceethekreator, Meeanaya, Siddiqsazzad001, Mgbo120, Mredidiongekong and TheImaCow reviewing pages for undisclosed payments. Getting EC is a prerequisite for getting an admin to hand over patrolling rights. MER-C 16:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Strong support. Most of that list are bad protections. Some likely won't make it through AfC, yes, e.g. Draft:ConnectPay, but that's a bad reason to sysop create-prot ConnectPay. Per protection policy:
Administrators should choose the appropriate level of create protection—autoconfirmed, extended-confirmed,[2] or full.
Spam/promo articles created by new editors is almost never a good reason to sysop create protect. Protection policy should be amended to make this even more explicit. If an ECP editor is intentionally creating spam, we can deal with that through various venues. No reason "permission" should be required for them to create, though. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- I suspect a significant fraction of those have been salted before ECP was introduced, so I would not call them bad, but indeed in most cases ECP does the job. Accidentally, the above example of Theresa Greenfield shows that the situation is more complicated and probably should be treated on case-by-case basis.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- 250 were after ECP was introduced and supported for create protection. At a spotcheck of 15, all were for notability/promo reasons, created by non-ECP editors, some with AfDs, some not. No evidence of LTA abuse or anything, not that it would matter as much when the bar to creation is ECP. I suspect the reason is just unfamiliarity / conservative views towards protection. I recall a few articles where editors have created articles with improper titles (e.g. dashes, or slightly awkward names) to get around the salting (in these cases, articles later kept). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- I suspect a significant fraction of those have been salted before ECP was introduced, so I would not call them bad, but indeed in most cases ECP does the job. Accidentally, the above example of Theresa Greenfield shows that the situation is more complicated and probably should be treated on case-by-case basis.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm also uneasy about this. Of course we can trust AfC reviewers in normal circumstances, but if someone decided to salt them with full protection rather than ECP, there was probably a good reason. E.g. the title is associated with a long-term abuse account that a regular editor might not necessarily spot. It could be that many of them are from before ECP was introduced, but that seems an unsteady assumption for a mass-downgrade of the protection level. Wouldn't it be better to check through them manually first? There aren't so many. – Joe (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- I second or third the caution against mass-downgrading. Looking through the list, I see a number that were self-promotional or otherwise repeatedly deleted for complete lack of notability, (e.g., Aayush Sharma, Adam Dahlberg, BiglyBT and those just three that I'm familiar with from the first page of listings). These should remain sysop-salted to prevent further disruption. The mass-downgrading of these to any level of protection that is achievable through gaming will just encourage bad-faith editors who have already proven their persistence. Downgrading without examining these individually is asking for future disruption. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Sushant Singh Rajput again
Just a heads up but the Indian CBI is due to announce tomorrow (Saturday) whether or not they are treating the death as a murder case. Doubtless there will be a flood of edit requests that we change the article forthwith. Nthep (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit drinking. Fair enough, and hopefully if they do NOT declare it a murder case, this can be done with once and for all. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Think I'm gonna go back to sniffing glue if they do. Btw, due to the semiprotection, probably won't be too many edit requests that get through. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- To quote Dr Phlox: "OPTIMISM, CAPTAIN!" (I'd link a YT-clip, but the last time I did that I got a COPYVIO-template on my talkpage). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think this is calming down anytime soon [15] Nil Einne (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Understandably some people are going to want to look into how on earth conspiracy peddling was promoted for months. But that shouldn't necessarily cause continued page disruption on Wikipedia; I think it should calm down, after this report just released, or after the police report that should shortly follow. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Having seen how articles and their talk pages like the 2020 Delhi riots have been treated, since this seems to becoming even more political and a point of pride for extreme Hindu nationalists, I'm not personally hopeful of that. Would glad top be wrong though. Nil Einne (talk) 07:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Understandably some people are going to want to look into how on earth conspiracy peddling was promoted for months. But that shouldn't necessarily cause continued page disruption on Wikipedia; I think it should calm down, after this report just released, or after the police report that should shortly follow. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think this is calming down anytime soon [15] Nil Einne (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
EllenCT global ban discussion
Due to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nrcprm2026 and m:Meta:Requests for CheckUser information#James Salsman, I have to make a correction to my previous notice. Nrcprm2026 would be better recognised here as EllenCT who still has an ongoing active global ban discussion. Apologies for the inconvience. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Wow, EllenCT was a sockpuppet? She/He had 1600 edits to Jimbo's talk page. I am out of the loop these days. Liz Read! Talk! 03:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Also shocked. Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 04:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- They are clearly a contender in the nomination "an individual which created the most harm to Wikipedia ever". Not the only one though.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Somewhat surprised by this as well. I found some of EllenCT's comments etc a bit odd and did I think at the back of my mind wonder once or twice if they were a returning editor. Didn't expect it to be a prolific sockmaster though, although I don't particularly recognise any of their accounts other than EllenCT. Nil Einne (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't find it at all surprising. Anyone who makes 1600 edits to Jimbo's talk page is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. I suppose we have to start a new competition to find Wikipedia's wokest editor now. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- MJL, well, I did not expect that. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for posting this. That editor was a genuine problem and I'm glad it is being solved. Softlavender (talk) 10:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Disappointed to see this, It's a shame people have to repeatedly sock and it's a shame people want to knowingly mislead the community ..... –Davey2010Talk 15:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Holy moly!! 😳 Excellent work, TonyB...quite impressive! Atsme Talk 📧 13:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I am aware of the need to set out points neutrally here, so if my words are a bit stilted, forgive me.
This is an oddly heated MFD, so I think it might benefit from a few extra admin eyes on the closure. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 04:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- I've taken the liberty of fixing the link in the header so it will work properly when the discussion is off the main MFD page (by changing a "#" to a "/"). I am not getting involved in this discussion any further. Graham87 05:52, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- I have closed it. I looked at all the arguments, but in the end there isn't really any doubt about where consensus lies in this discussion. Black Kite (talk) 11:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Black Kite, good close. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Review closure of ITN nomination on Trump's COVID-19 infection
Kindly review the closure of this "In the News" nomination. The thread was closed after only an hour and a half of discussion, so several editors requested it be reopened in the related talk thread. I requested a reopening with the closer, but have not heard back. Qono (talk) 06:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- It's already been closed by two different admins. If the linked talk page discussion develops a consensus to re-open it, it would make sense to, but edit warring over the close would not. Certainly at the time, the close was obvious, though as the situation progresses, it might change. WilyD 06:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Backlog at WP:RM
There are a few dozen pages that have been in the "backlog" section for two weeks (so, open for 3 weeks without relisting). While you don't have to be an admin to close RM discussions, it doesn't hurt. Can admins take a look? power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- I've tackled a few of these, which I feel are obvious moves (or not). I've tagged them all with the NAC status. If anyone thinks I've made a mess of any of them, please drop me a note. There were several others I was going to close too, but noted I'd voted in them, so I've left those. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Request for review of non-admin close at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic#RfC: Misinformation visual
I would like to request a review of the non-admin close made at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic#RfC: Misinformation visual, a discussion about whether to remove the video clip of Donald Trump suggesting that disinfectant injections might help treat COVID-19, which had been used as the visual element of the article's misinformation section. The closer, The Gnome, found consensus for removing the video; following close challenges on the talk page, they suggested earlier today that the matter be brought here for review. Copying my objection from the talk page:
Given that there was already discussion at the bottom from a potential closer (Usedtobecool) who observed weak consensus for keeping the video but for one outstanding issue, this is very much not the expected result, and the closer's extended rationale comes across in large part as a WP:SUPERVOTE. If the closer is going to weight arguments, it is necessary to do so using guidelines and policies (MOS:IMAGEREL, presumably), but instead, the closer brings up only the essay WP:NOTYOUTUBE (which was not once mentioned in the discussion itself) and does a bunch of math about how much room the visual takes up that was also not part of the discussion. Further, per the closer's own rationale, the arguments made by some remove !voters that Trump was not spreading misinformation were completely unsupported (
[It] is accepted, per overwhelming consensus of sources, that what President Trump is suggesting or supporting in the video clip constitutes misinformation), but they did not discount them at all in their count, so the tally is actually a numerical superiority for keeping, not a tie. To find from that not just no consensus but consensus for removal is an implausible reading.
How do you all read consensus at the discussion? Regards, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Weak endorse asI think the outcome is correct. However, I think The Gnome's rationale doesn't adequately address the arguments brought up in the discussion and should be revised or clarified. To Sdkb's point, I appreciate Usedtobecool's perspective--and I admit they've likely read the discussion more thoroughly than I have--but it looks like a no consensus outcome at best. Proponents of option 3 (no illustration) raised serious NPOV concerns along with concerns about whether we should present any illustration of misinformation since it could still mislead despite our best efforts. Proponents of option 1 note that it's an accurate and verifiable example of misinformation, but seem to neglect those two major points brought up by option 3 proponents. Participants never came to a consensus on how to weigh those competing concerns which leads to no consensus. While I don't think it was explained correctly, I do agree that there may be merit in weighing the option 3 opinions more: WP:NPOV has strong consensus behind it while no policy or guideline requires illustrations be used in articles. I don't think that's the right call--I'd prefer to call it no consensus and punt the issue to a later discussion--but it's reasonable. I don't see these as substantially different outcomes though, because given the discussion comments, especially by Barkeep, I think the status quo was no illustration and no consensus should default to option 3 anyway. — Wug·a·po·des 05:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC) Edit: Strike bolded !vote. While I stand by my rationale, I think my choice of bolded text misrepresents my stance especially given subsequent comments in the thread. — Wug·a·po·des 22:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)- Wugapodes, Barkeep's judgement about the status quo was based on the assertion that
The May discussion which justifies its inclusion was inconclusive
, and that the nearly four months in which the video was present should therefore not count as establishing a status quo. Looking at that May discussion, it never received a formal close since this was long before the issue escalated to the point of having an RfC etc., but I don't think it was at all improper to read it as a perfectly solid consensus for adding given the context at the time. I count 5 editors in support of adding (Moxy, Doc James, Acalycine, myself, and -sche), compared to only one opposed (David A) and Iluvalar suggesting caution in writing the caption but not otherwise weighing in. A 5-1 discussion on a talk page seems a perfectly valid justification for adding a video to a page, and when the video then remains for months in one of the most heavily watched pages on Wikipedia (with upwards of 100,000 views per day), it becomes the status quo by any reasonable definition of "status quo". - Are we really going to say that, because a 5-1 discussion was never formally closed as "support" way back in May, everything after is tainted and we should therefore take a highly atypical approach to defining the status quo now in October? That just seems rather absurd. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Sdkb: The May discussion to add the video was an informal discussion that lasted a few hours, so it is not on its own robust consensus per WP:CONLEVEL. As Hzh pointed out in the discussion, the caption RfC was about the caption, not the inclusion of the video like was discussed here. While longevity gives the presumption of consensus, the article has been semi-protected since March and the vast majority of those 100,000 daily readers cannot challenge your claim through WP:BRD no matter how much they disagree with it, and this presents a danger of false consensus. Even for those who can edit the page, discretionary sanctions have been in effect for months, and it's obvious that discretionary sanctions are meant to intimidate editors into being more careful by placing a sword of Damocles over their head. Certainly some editors would not want to risk reverting an edit no matter how much they disagreed with inclusion.Following the May discussion, it was completely reasonable to add the video given the comments, but with time and context it's not clear whether it ever truly had consensus or was accidentally a fait accompli. The best way to test this is through sustained discussion with widespread participation, and we got that in this RfC. Not only was it the most robust discussion of include/exclude, participants explicitly discussed whether the status quo was include or exclude and that ended with the modification of the RfC statement to strike out "status quo". Even the policy at WP:NOCON suggests that when a discussion is explicitly about whether to include or exclude material, the WP:ONUS to develop consensus is on editors seeking to include disputed material. Given the discussion in the RfC and our policy at WP:ONUS, I simply don't think there is sufficient consensus that a no consensus result should end with inclusion. — Wug·a·po·des 07:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- So here I am having largely been inactive and as I read AN, I see my name with no ping in this discussion. After having refreshed myself on this situation, let me try to underline something. It's not just that the article was semi-protected as Wugapodes points out making it hard for the caption to be challenged. It's that the short inconclusive May discussion was then used to insert the following comment into the article
INCLUSION OF THIS VIDEO HAS BEEN AFFIRMED AS CURRENT CONSENSUS (ITEM 13). DO NOT REMOVE OR ALTER CAPTION WITHOUT ATTAINING CONSENSUS AT TALK.
Given that the article is/was under GS, if consensus had truly been reached an attempt to do BRD could have been disruptive and might have resulted in sanctions for the editor who attempted to remove it. I recognize the value that such lists of consensus can provide in preventing repeated discussions especially in fast moving controversial topics. However, such consensus should be robust - which doesn't have to mean an RfC but does have to mean more than a few editors, out of many participating in editing/discussing the topic, in agreement and ideally over enough time that those who were busy for a few days (like I've been) don't miss out on the chance to form that consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- So here I am having largely been inactive and as I read AN, I see my name with no ping in this discussion. After having refreshed myself on this situation, let me try to underline something. It's not just that the article was semi-protected as Wugapodes points out making it hard for the caption to be challenged. It's that the short inconclusive May discussion was then used to insert the following comment into the article
- @Sdkb: The May discussion to add the video was an informal discussion that lasted a few hours, so it is not on its own robust consensus per WP:CONLEVEL. As Hzh pointed out in the discussion, the caption RfC was about the caption, not the inclusion of the video like was discussed here. While longevity gives the presumption of consensus, the article has been semi-protected since March and the vast majority of those 100,000 daily readers cannot challenge your claim through WP:BRD no matter how much they disagree with it, and this presents a danger of false consensus. Even for those who can edit the page, discretionary sanctions have been in effect for months, and it's obvious that discretionary sanctions are meant to intimidate editors into being more careful by placing a sword of Damocles over their head. Certainly some editors would not want to risk reverting an edit no matter how much they disagreed with inclusion.Following the May discussion, it was completely reasonable to add the video given the comments, but with time and context it's not clear whether it ever truly had consensus or was accidentally a fait accompli. The best way to test this is through sustained discussion with widespread participation, and we got that in this RfC. Not only was it the most robust discussion of include/exclude, participants explicitly discussed whether the status quo was include or exclude and that ended with the modification of the RfC statement to strike out "status quo". Even the policy at WP:NOCON suggests that when a discussion is explicitly about whether to include or exclude material, the WP:ONUS to develop consensus is on editors seeking to include disputed material. Given the discussion in the RfC and our policy at WP:ONUS, I simply don't think there is sufficient consensus that a no consensus result should end with inclusion. — Wug·a·po·des 07:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Wugapodes, Barkeep's judgement about the status quo was based on the assertion that
- Overturn - Closer stated the !votes were a numerical tie, and that they were weighing based on strength of arguments. However, weighing "strength of arguments" simply means identifying and rationalizing in your closing statement that one side is more in line with policy than the other side. Reading the close, I see no such rationalization as to why the side they found a consensus for was notably backed by policy whereas the opposing side was not. There's a lot of irrelevant personal assessment which seems inappropriate and little to no discussion of any policy implications that back or disagree with either side. Concerningly, the only real policy invocation was this bizarre assessment of "meta-arithmetic", where the closer came to the conclusion that the image was "without a doubt" undue weight based on the the percentage of article text discussing it. Due weight means including content relative to the extent it's discussed in reliable sources. It has nothing to do with arbitrary percentages of article text. I mean, that doesn't even make sense. So to see a closer make a personal assessment that something is unequivocally undue weight, when their rationale isn't even rooted in the policy, that's just not a legit close. When a closer purports to be weighing strength of arguments to give one side the consensus, and doesn't even rationalize how that side is rooted in policy where the other side is not, that's just not a legit close. I will usually err on the side of endorsing a justifiable close, even if it's debatable. But this one seems to have given additional weight to one side without providing any real policy-based justification rationalizations for doing so. That makes it a textbook supervote, even if it was not intended to be. Let someone else have a go at it. ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Overturn. The closing rationale explains why the clip should be included, then decides that it shouldn't. At best it's no consensus, but the policy arguments in the close actually favour inclusion. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Overturn if you're going to close a discussion on strength of argument, as the closer did here, then either one of the sides in the discussion should have been more policy-based than the other, or there should be something flawed in the arguments of one side (being logically fallacious, convincingly rebutted, etc). I don't see that here, the points made by the closer are more the sorts of things which should be brought up by a participant rather than a closer. The supporters of option #3 feel that including the video constitutes undue weight and that the video doesn't add much to the section, whereas the supporters of option #1 don't think it's undue weight, do think it adds value and note that Trump is arguably the most prominent purveyor of coronavirus misinformation. Those are both reasonable positions which were evenly balanced in the discussion, so I don't see a consensus for either alternative. Hut 8.5 15:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- FYI I have not gone back to look at the exact details but as far as I remember, Option 3 arguers raised concern wrto. WP:NPOV and it was addressed in the Option 1 !votes that followed. The Option 3 !votes afterwards asserted NPOV but did not address previous rebuttals. Rest of the reasons given against inclusion were weak (there must be better options (Nirvana fallacy, more or less), this doesn't add much but will cause disruption (more about maintaining the peace), gives platform to misinformation and might harm readers (self-censorship), etc.). Those favouring inclusion, represented by Sdkb for the most part, made a strong case addressing all policy-based concerns that were raised, I thought, and the numbers, I felt, were balanced enough to decide on the strength of arguments. However, I noticed an issue that put the degree of informedness of all Option 1 !voters in question. So, I raised it, that another more-experienced closer may have better explanations or discussions to help them. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Overturn because it was no consensus, clearly, and the closer was a WP:SUPERVOTE --Investigatory (talk) 07:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- This account has just been indeffed, FWIW. Hut 8.5 17:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Overturn - At best, a poorly executed and worded close that only tangentially interprets the consensus. At worst, a supervote. In neither case a good close.--WaltCip-(talk) 11:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Consider, please - wasn't that clip more about relative to uv light and light treatment and making layman suggestions directed to whoever was off-camera on his right. Where's the misinformation? The disinfectant terminology has received widespread mention for COVID. For example, this article states: Thus continuous airborne disinfection with far-UVC light at the currently regulatory limit would provide a major reduction in the ambient level of airborne virus in occupied indoor environments. In this article there are instances of new UV disinfection system, and a sign that reads “Coronavirus Disinfected Here!” According to the FDA: For more information see "Q: Where can I read more about UV radiation and disinfection?". The headline reads: UV Lights and Lamps: Ultraviolet-C Radiation, Disinfection, and Coronavirus What is the context of that video relative to what's in the article? Can anyone iVote here or is it just for admins? If it's open, then I endorse the close.) Atsme Talk 📧 15:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- It's open but I don't think it's about rehashing the original disagreement to determine what's right. Rather, it's only about what the correct closure is for the discussion we already got, whether the closer got the close obviously wrong, and if they did not, whether their closing statement reflects that they walked the eightfold path to the correct close (there's always a one-in-three chance that a closure would be correct without being correct). Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- If I'd closed that, I would have given additional weight to the NPOV concerns, as the closer did. I think that extra weight is sufficient to tip the balance in favour of option 3, so I would endorse that close. I also really appreciate the full closing statement in which the closer shows his working in a lot of detail.—S Marshall T/C 12:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
CFD backlog
Could use some heads, as it's up to 200 nominations backlogged. I would try to help but I can't make heads or tails of the closing procedure (by contrast, WP:TFD is streamlined, especially with XFD closer). --Izno (talk) 18:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Convenience links: WP:CFD and CFD admin instructions — Wug·a·po·des 18:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Problematic Edit
I'm posting about this edit. Synthwave.94 deleted the archived edit-warring-discussion entitled, "User:Synthwave.94 reported by User:Evrik". The discussion went stale, but the edit warring continues. I would revert the edit to the archive, but am leery of doing so as this appears to be an extension of the long simmering edit war.
Synthwave.94's removal of the passage from the archive is inexplicable. As an aside, Synthwave.94 refuses to discuss this on the talk page, but keeps reverting the edits. Please advise on the best next steps. --evrik (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- I restored the archive. But that happened a month ago. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- I just noticed today when the edit warring started again ... and it continues. I would appreciate suggestions on how to end this low grade edit war. Synthwave.94 barely comments on the talk page, and it is usually to misquote policy. @NinjaRobotPirate: you weighed in before, would you mind commenting here? We are now at two reverts in 24 hours, three in 48 this time around. --evrik (talk) 03:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
This article needs admin eyes. The talk page is almost unreadable, with accusations of vandalism, socking, racism, outing, and threats, some of them possibly needing permanent redactions. I have used hatting and redacting to improve the page in the meantime. I see that this page is no stranger to admin boards. Most recently (that I can find), there was Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1039#Repeated racism against ethnic Chinese. I would request an admin volunteer to keep this article on their watchlist, as this is a high-profile topic and what's happening on the article and the talk page doesn't reflect well on the project (I intend to watch too, but an admin would surely be more effective). Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- I've watched the page and will read through the talk page. I'll probably hand out some NPA warnings or DS alerts, and then we can see how things go from there. — Wug·a·po·des 17:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- On second thought, though the discussion needed some clean-up, Toby Mitches seems to be trying to mediate the dispute in the last few days. I think the best course is to let Toby do what he can, and just keep an eye on things in case those efforts break down. Looking through the talk pages, Liz left a level-1 NPA warning on User talk:Bablos939 yesterday, and Jorm left an AP2 sanctions alert on User talk:Vamlos a few hours ago. — Wug·a·po·des 18:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- I dropped it b/c they left a (confusing? meaningless?) comment on Talk:Black Lives Matter. It wasn't overtly racist but it was confusing b/c it wasn't clear what they were referring to or agreeing with. My expectation is that they meant "I agree that this article should talk about the 'violence' perpetrated by members of BLM" but I can't know for sure. Asking for the BLM page to focus on supposed violent incidents is a common tactic for the white supremacy/MAGA crowd.--Jorm (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks Wugapodes! Toby Mitches is new and isn't really sure about what they are doing or should do next. They are the one who sought help as they are afraid to make administrative reports without knowing the ins and outs of how it works here (see Wikipedia:Teahouse#Hello,_I_need_help_from_an_admin/someone_who_knows_how_to_help or one of the many other messages they seem to have left seeking help from everywhere, short of making a direct complaint to admins). Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Usedtobecool, unrelated, I do think that the movement and the non-profit should be different pages, as the page in its current state, seems to be talking about both. as for what Jorm is saying, I believe that stuff about any violence done by them/the groups/etc should go on a different page about what is being protested/the topic. e.g. ones about race, might go in 2020 United States racial unrest. but thats just my two cents. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 18:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- On second thought, though the discussion needed some clean-up, Toby Mitches seems to be trying to mediate the dispute in the last few days. I think the best course is to let Toby do what he can, and just keep an eye on things in case those efforts break down. Looking through the talk pages, Liz left a level-1 NPA warning on User talk:Bablos939 yesterday, and Jorm left an AP2 sanctions alert on User talk:Vamlos a few hours ago. — Wug·a·po·des 18:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protection of List of Indian child actors
This article have repeatedly been used for self promotion. --Trade (talk) 07:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. Next time, if you do not mind, please leave such requests at WP:RFPP, they are typically being dealt with swiftly, 24h delay is considered as a serious backlog.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
User edit warring photos
A user continues to edit war with photos on List of Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign endorsements. The user is User talk:Sthacker21 and they have been warned several times not to do this. Their edit summaries also show the intent to continue to edit war. I believe an indefinite block is in place or else they will continue to edit war. Please look into this. Thank you. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 08:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- I left the user a firmly worded warning, and plan to block if the edit war continues. Izno left a DS notice a couple hours prior. Sthacker21 doesn't seem to have edited since this report, so hopefully this will be the end of it. — Wug·a·po·des 18:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Disruptive Editing of 'Polygenism'
Hi, Uygur Brother (talk) has been adding the same uncited content to Polygenism which has been reverted by me and another editor. I was patrolling recent edits when I first came across this page. Some of the language used in the article appears to be offensive. There has been six warnings given on their talk page.
Cheers, AussieWikiDan (talk) 10:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked from editing mainspace for a week. Will go to indef if there's no constructive talkpage engagement. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Changes to functionary team
At his request by email to the committee, the CheckUser and Oversight permissions of Yunshui are removed. The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks Yunshui for his long service as a functionary.
Katietalk 14:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Protection of Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing
This page is protected, but when I looked up the protection log for it, it says "No matching items in log". Can someone deal with this please. --94.73.36.20 (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- It was protected without comment by Raul654 in 2008 with this edit. Something must have happened to the log entry in the last 12 years. I'm inclined to leave the protection as is, but I also don't really care if someone else decides otherwise. — Wug·a·po·des 22:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- It was this log entry when the page used to be User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing. I also don't really see the need to unprotect but I'm not averse to anyone else doing it. Woody (talk) 22:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Why did this page get protected without a comment? --94.73.36.20 (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- The specific section on user pages in the protection policy allow user subpages to be protected by request. This was a user subpage (ie someone's personal essay in their own space) that was protected. It has since been moved to the project space where the protection has remained. Given the content it has stayed protected presumably to prevent civil POV pushing. Woody (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Currently, when a page with any protection is moved, a protection log entry for the target is created. However, this wasn't always the case. I guess the page was moved to its current location before this feature was implemented. 93.173.239.14 (talk) 07:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Admin chat?
Hi,
Where's the place to network with administrators? This seems a bit formal Mladen Cooney (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- In the interest of openness and to the community accountability, this is probably the best forum unless you wish to contact an admin on their talk page. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks - Just to be clear, I'm after an informal, wide ranging chat and that seems different to other discussions on this page. Is that ok? Mladen Cooney (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- We are not a social network in that way. That said, there are places like WP:IRC where you can go to shoot the shit. --Izno (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks - Just to be clear, I'm after an informal, wide ranging chat and that seems different to other discussions on this page. Is that ok? Mladen Cooney (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
RevisionDelete Misuse
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I was looking at the history of the Katie Hill (politician) article, and noticed that quite a few of the edits made when her scandal broke(and a few since) have had their text and edit summary censored. From the looks of it, almost all were edits that Muboshgu reverted, and Muboshgu is a Wikipedia admin, so I assume that Muboshgu is the one who deleted those details.
From the rules at WP:REVDEL, this is an inappropriate use of revision deletion. The edits were basically true, and the spirit of them is included in the current article. Even at the time it didn't meet any of the listed criteria.
Full disclosure, I made one of the original edits that's been censored, on October 19th 2019. (I was curious about how I'd phrased it, hence me finding this a year later.) I can understand reversion of the edit, but revision deletion seems quite excessive.
Thanks. Alsadius (talk) 01:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Incorrect and way over-the-top. First, there are only a few revision deletions in the last 250 edits (which go back to October 2019). Second, the diffs, which can be seen by admins, are blatant BLP violations that should be revision deleted. One might argue about that but the four revision deletions that I checked were very defensible. The edit summary reverting the 19 October 2019 edit was pretty clear and any doubt about whether redstate.com should be used to attack a living person could be asked at WP:BLPN. Finally, concerns should be discussed with the admin on their talk before bringing it to a noticeboard. Johnuniq (talk) 01:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Apologies if the noticeboard approach was wrong. The guidelines for this stuff were really not clear, and it seemed like this was the correct place to bring this up. But yes, a message to the admin in question would likely have been a better approach, now that you mention it. Sorry. Alsadius (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- It was not INVOLVED editing because Muboshgu was removing a BLPVIO. The fact that it has since been reported on by reliable sources doesn't mean that the revdel was misued or improper when it was performed. I see no misconduct by Muboshgu. However, given what we know now I do think some of the edits/edit summaries which have been revdeled, including the one by Alsadius, no longer qualify as a BLPVIO and could be restored. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- For the benefit of non-admins, Alsadius' edit [16] inserts the allegations currently described in the article's resignation section, except it doesn't discuss them as allegations (they are presented as undisputed facts) and it doesn't cite any source other than RedState, a conservative political blog. This is a serious BLP violation, it's certainly not the case that the current article says the same thing, and RedState is not an acceptable source for highly contentious information about living people. Hut 8.5 07:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- RedState was the only primary source at the time. (I'm not even a fan of them, ironically, because they're too partisan for my tastes.) I'm sure my phrasing was imperfect, and edits are to be expected on Wikipedia, so I don't mind that part. But even taking all of that as granted, it doesn't meet the criteria in WP:REVDEL. That policy only mentions BLP violations as a valid use in the case of "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material", and specifically excludes factual statements. It also says "Especially, RevisionDelete does not exist to remove 'ordinary' offensive comments and incivility, or unwise choices of wording between users". Thanks. Alsadius (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- If you want to add this type of material to an article about a living person you must cite a high quality reliable source. This isn't complicated or subtle, it's one of the first things the BLP policy says. If you haven't got a high quality reliable source for something like that then don't add it to the article. These statements are not facts, even the RedState source you cited describes them as allegations, and even now the article describes them as allegations. This is a lot more serious than "imperfect phrasing", and frankly you should be apologising for adding it to a BLP. Hut 8.5 18:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hut 8.5, to piggyback on that being about more than "imperfect phrasing", the RedState source that we're talking about included the text messages and a nude image of Katie Hill. They published the revenge porn. I still have that image seared into my memory and cannot rid myself of it. I wish I hadn't clicked on that link and didn't see that image. It was absolutely necessary to use RevDel to keep revenge porn out of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think your characterization is kind of ridiculous, but I'll grant the principle that keeping revenge porn out of the edit history is a valid reason for RevDel. If you think that's what it is, and most other admins posting agree, then I might as well withdraw this request, to save everyone some time. (I'll leave the section up in case there's some formal process to close it, but if there isn't, just delete this with my blessings).
- If you want to add this type of material to an article about a living person you must cite a high quality reliable source. This isn't complicated or subtle, it's one of the first things the BLP policy says. If you haven't got a high quality reliable source for something like that then don't add it to the article. These statements are not facts, even the RedState source you cited describes them as allegations, and even now the article describes them as allegations. This is a lot more serious than "imperfect phrasing", and frankly you should be apologising for adding it to a BLP. Hut 8.5 18:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- RedState was the only primary source at the time. (I'm not even a fan of them, ironically, because they're too partisan for my tastes.) I'm sure my phrasing was imperfect, and edits are to be expected on Wikipedia, so I don't mind that part. But even taking all of that as granted, it doesn't meet the criteria in WP:REVDEL. That policy only mentions BLP violations as a valid use in the case of "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material", and specifically excludes factual statements. It also says "Especially, RevisionDelete does not exist to remove 'ordinary' offensive comments and incivility, or unwise choices of wording between users". Thanks. Alsadius (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- I also agree that the rev deletions here were proper. The deleted material stated allegations as facts in Wikipedia's voice, using an inadequate partisan source, and that was a clear BLP violation. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
On the page information for "New York Yankees", in one of the descriptions, there is "b*ttheads, cheaters who have won too many World Series". While I agree with that, is there a way to remove that stuff? Can someone take a look? I'm not perfect but I'm almost (talk) 05:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- That's coming from Wikidata (and has been there since March). I've fixed it there. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Why do we still transclude content from there at all? Most of it is complete garbage. Reyk YO! 07:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Normally, we should not be transcluding Wikidata descriptions in any situation. I assume this is this issue which is hopefully in the process of being fixed.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Why do we still transclude content from there at all? Most of it is complete garbage. Reyk YO! 07:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Talk:2012 Benghazi attack
Perhaps an admin can take a look at Talk:2012 Benghazi attack? I came across it after seeing WP:THQ#Talk page comments on Talk:2012 Benghazi attack. Maybe there's a way to discuss this, but the current approach seems more WP:NOTFORUM and WP:RGW than not and likely also includes some WP:BLP violations. I thought of going in and trying to sort things out myself, but that probably would just lead to more WP:EW; so, maybe an admin or some admins can take a look instead. In addition, given the contentiousness of the subject matter, I'm wondering why this isn't covered by WP:ACDS; maybe it should be? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Another editor stepped in and tried to resolve things; that, however, seems to have led to WP:AE#USERNAME, which is malformed and most likely was posted out of frustration. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- I tried to explain to them in that Teahouse thread; they don't seem to be grasping that talk pages are for proposing article improvements, not for ranting about political figures and accusing Wikipedians of a "cover-up". I don't think it took, though. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm concerned about the BLP violations and of course the edit-warring at the talk page. I don't think Peter Schaeffer should be editing anything to do with American politics, or at least the Clintons. Doug Weller talk 06:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Doug Weller. When I started this thread, I left out specific names in the hope that it might attract the attention of some admin who could then resolve things without creating lots of drama. I wasn't trying to assign any blame or request action be taken against any editor in particular. However, now that you've mentioned one of those involved specifically by name, I'm not sure whether I'm obliged to at least notify that editor of this discussion. The edit warring on the talk page seems to have stopped (at least for the moment) thanks to NorthBySouthBaranof and the malformed AE request is likely going to to declined as such as explained by another admin at User talk:Pschaeffer#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. I can notify those involved in this disagreement, but that might just keep cause things to start up again just as they seem to have cooled down. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm concerned about the BLP violations and of course the edit-warring at the talk page. I don't think Peter Schaeffer should be editing anything to do with American politics, or at least the Clintons. Doug Weller talk 06:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
WP:STATUSQUO on RfC
RfC on Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War was started on 12 August and the version during that time said "Indian victory" on result parameter since February 2020.[17]
RfC was closed as "no consensus".[18]
Per WP:STATUSQUO shouldn't we restore the version before RfC? Also see this discussion on talk page. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 13:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - The article has never been stable with "Indian victory" and has always been subject to edit-wars and disputes before the RfC began, [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]. The 12 August version had Indian victory just because the pro-"Indian victory" editors were more aggressive in the edit-wars. The most stable version has been "Bangladeshi-allied victory" before all these disputes started and would be the original statusquo, as explained by Slatersteven. During the RfC, an uninvolved admin Buckshot06 changed the result into "Pakistani defeat" after considering the discussion by neutral editors from WP:MILITARY which was also the version at the closure of the RfC on 30 September. This could also be deemed as a statusquo. Za-ari-masen (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Blocking a paid Wikipedia editor
I'm a paid Wikipedian and today I got a warning [28]: if I continue editing directly the Wikipedia articles, I will be blocked. I've made over 14,000 edits over ten years, most of them in Finnish and over 2,000 in English. I would estimate that about 95% of my edits have been paid edits so far. And yes, I've disclosed them all. I know that paid editors are not encouraged to edit directly, but it is still not totally forbidden, as long as one discloses. Right?
So I'd like to know more about this process now. If I edit any English article in the future, will I be blocked for ever? No matter how small the change is? How about the articles in other languages? Could I have a second (or third or fourth) opinion about this judgement or is this the final one? I'm also a Wikipedia trainer so this warning means that I cannot show how the English Wikipedia is edited in practice. Or can I do that by using an IP address? And am I allowed to review the edits made by the students on my Wikipedia workshops? Cheers, Jjanhone (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Unfortunately it looks like all of this user's edits and article-creations need to be gone through for possible clean-up; and no, she should not be editing or creating customers' articles directly. Softlavender (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Question: @Jjanhone: Were you paid to edit Cimcorp, Elematic, Raute (company), Molok (company) and Varma Mutual Pension Insurance Company? M.Bitton (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment 2: She has been warned repeatedly over the past two years not to edit paid articles directly [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], but has quibbled and evaded and continued every time. Softlavender (talk) 14:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict):When I read the conversation on the talk page, you weren't warned for adding commas. You were warned because you added non-neutral verbiage to the article, favoring the topic you are paid to edit. Even if you find multiple high-quality reliable sources that fawn over your topic, you shouldn't be modifying the article regarding these as a paid editor. You should request edits at the talk page. This is a prime example as to why, because you thought your additions were neutral when others clearly see them as promotional. Disclosing your paid editing indeed does mean you can edit here as a paid editor. However, disclosing your paid editing does not allow you to add what might be considered value judgements, and your COI makes it all the more difficult to discern what is a value judgement. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- What exactly can a paid editor do that is related to the reason for which they were hired but isn't inherently problematic or promotional? I feel like the practice should be inherently disallowed.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- I get that WP:PAID says "strongly discouraged" for direct edits to an article, but that is not the same as forbidden. Assuming the edit was not unduly promotional and made clear it was a paid edit I do not see an issue with them editing an article directly. Is there something I am missing? PackMecEng (talk) 15:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment (Non-administrator comment) to reply to
I'm also a Wikipedia trainer so this warning means that I cannot show how the English Wikipedia is edited in practice. Or can I do that by using an IP address?
: no. You can use the sandbox, or your own sandbox to do that, or even fix a typo in an article you are entirely unaffiliated with. Do not use an IP address. That will land you in very hot water. -- a lad insane (channel two) 15:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- So IP is not ok. Thanks. But let's say that I'm training a museum. So when they are paying me, I do have a COI. And if I then correct or typo or show them how to add wiki links I might be blocked. That's not a risk I'm willing to take. :/ Jjanhone (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- PS. There's only four Wikipedia trainers included on Wikimedia Finland's page: [37]. Jjanhone (talk) 15:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think the community has a contradictory / split decision on this, Generally speaking, you are strongly discouraged from making edits directly to the article you have a COI with rather you are advised to use the article's talk page to suggest the changes you are proposing but no where does it say you mandated to do so. Furthermore, No, making small edits such as typographical error/ tense corrections would definitely not get you in any kind of trouble. Celestina007 (talk) 16:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)