Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Paul Barlow (talk | contribs) at 19:41, 10 July 2015 (→‎Proposal to Invite NinaGreen Back to Editing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Template:Active editnotice

    "WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction.
    "WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

      You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

      Shortcuts

      Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

      Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

      Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

      Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

      On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

      There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

      When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

      Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

      Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

      Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

      Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

      Technical instructions for closers

      Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

      If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.


      Other areas tracking old discussions

      Administrative discussions

      ANI thread concerning Yasuke

      (Initiated 39 days ago on 2 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1162 § Talk: Yasuke has on-going issues has continued to grow, including significant portions of content discussion (especially since Talk:Yasuke was ec-protected) and accusations of BLP violations, among other problems. Could probably be handled one sub-discussion at a time. --JBL (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Closure review of The Telegraph RfC

      (Initiated 33 days ago on 9 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues's discussion seems to have died down. Hopefully I've put this in the correct section. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Doing... —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This discussion is a huge headache. I'll keep working on it as I have time, but if somebody else wants to close this before I do, I won't complain. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 02:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      you could put the draft on the discusssions about discussions page, WP:DfD? Tom B (talk) 09:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Nah, I know what the result should be, I just need to write an explanatory statement. That will happen this weekend, Lord willing. Thanks for the resource though, I had no idea that existed. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi Compassionate727. I want to make sure this is still on your radar. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, and it's very nearly done. There's no reason I shouldn't finish it tomorrow, if not tonight. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      {{Done}}. I fear I'm going to ruffle some feathers with that, but I do believe it both the correct outcome and the most inoffensive one. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      ...why do you think the most inoffensive option is to re-close the original RFC to Option 1? What's your evidence that was the consensus of that original RFC? Loki (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      eraser Undone per WP:BADNAC#2 by another user. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      The close has since been rescinded by the closer, so is very much due for closing again. CNC (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

      Requests for comment

      RFA2024, Phase II discussions

      Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

      Many thanks in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Doing... reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Partly done reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      If re-requesting closure at WP:AN isn't necessary, then how about different various closers for cerain section(s)? I don't mind one or two closers for one part or another or more. --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      During Phase I of RFA2024, we had ended up having multiple closers for different RFCs, even the non-obvious ones. I think different people closing subparts of this should be acceptable Soni (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Bumping this as an important discussion very much in need of and very much overdue for a formal closure. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Doing... designated RfA monitors (at least in part). voorts (talk/contributions) 16:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Partly done designated RfA monitors. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      For recall, @Sirdog: had attempted a close of one section, and then self-reverted. Just in case a future closer finds this helpful. Soni (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for the ping. For what it's worth, I think that close was an accurate assessment of that single section's consensus, so hopefully I make someone's day easier down the line. Happy to answer questions from any editor about it. —Sirdog (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree. I also think closing some sections at a time is pretty acceptable, especially given we have only been waiting 2+ months for them. I also have strong opinions on 'involved experienced editors' narrowing down a closer's scope just because they speak strongly enough on how they think it should be closed. But I am Capital-I involved too, so shall wait until someone takes these up. Soni (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Gaza genocide#RfC on the inclusion on the BU Today article in the lede

      (Initiated 50 days ago on 22 June 2024) nableezy - 17:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Titles of European monarchs

      (Initiated 49 days ago on 22 June 2024) - I thank the Wikipedia community for being so willing to discuss this topic very extensively. Because 30 days have passed and requested moves in this topic area are already being opened (For reference, a diff of most recent edit to the conversation in question), I would encourage an uninvolved editor to determine if this discussion is ready for closure. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      (Also, apologies if I have done something incorrectly. This is my first time filing such a request.) AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There is ongoing discussion there as to whether a closer for that discussion is necessary or desirable. I would suggest to wait and see how that plays out.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This is dragging on ad nauseam. I suggest an admin closes this, possibly with the conclusion that there is no consensus to change. PatGallacher (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Anti-Defamation League#RfC: Wikipedia reliability section

      (Initiated 41 days ago on 30 June 2024) - Note: Part of the article and talk page are considered to be a contentious topic, including this RfC. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 447#Reliability_of_Thomas_Lockley

      (Initiated 39 days ago on 2 July 2024) - The original topic (Lockley's book, "African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan") has not been the focus of discussion since the first few days of the RFC when it seemed to reach a concensus. The book in question is no longer cited by the Yasuke page and has been replaced by several other sources of higher quality. Since then the subject of the RSN has shifted to an extension of Talk:Yasuke and has seen many SPA one post accounts hijack the discussion on the source to commit BLP violations towards Thomas Lockley almost exclusively citing Twitter. Given that the general discussion that was occuring has shifted back to [Talk:Yasuke] as well as the continued uptick in SPA's committing NOTHERE and BLP violations on the RSN, as well as the source in question is no longer being used - I think closure is reasonable. Relm (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Hermann_Göring#Rfc_for_Herman_Göring's_Lede_Image_(2024)

      (Initiated 38 days ago on 4 July 2024) Discussion is ready to be closed. Nemov (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity#Nikola_Tesla_birthplace_,_review_after_10_years

      (Initiated 36 days ago on 5 July 2024) This is a contentious issue, so I would like to ask for an uninvolved editor to properly close. Please have consideration to each argument and provide an explanation how each argument and source was considered. People have strong opinions on this issue so please take consideration if their statements and claims are accompanied by quotes from sources and whether WP guidelines are followed. We need to resolve this question based on sources and not opinions, since it was discussed multiple times over the years. Trimpops2 (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter_manager#RfC about the status of this page

      (Initiated 35 days ago on 6 July 2024) Discussion is fairly simple but as this is a policy discussion it should likely receive uninvolved closure. EggRoll97 (talk) 04:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Done. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:La France Insoumise#RfC: How should the political position of La France Insoumise be described?

      (Initiated 34 days ago on 7 July 2024) Discussion has already died down and the 30 days have elapsed. Uninvolved closure is requested. Thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election#RfC: Inclusion of parties in the Infobox

      (Initiated 34 days ago on 8 July 2024). Ready for closing, last !vote was 12 July by looks of it. CNC (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: National Post

      (Initiated 33 days ago on 8 July 2024) Discussion has mostly died down in recent days. Uninvolved closure is requested. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Seems like a pretty clear SNOW close to me. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Didn't need a formal closure, but  Done anyway. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Proposal to revise CSD R3

      (Initiated 32 days ago on 9 July 2024) Poster withdrew the RfC but due to the language used, I think a summary by an WP:UNINVOLVED editor would be preferable. Nickps (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Hosni_Mubarak#Rfc_for_lede_image_for_Hosni_Mubarak

      (Initiated 31 days ago on 10 July 2024) This is ready to close. Nemov (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:List of South Korean girl groups#RfC for whether there should be an "end date" on active groups just because they don't have activity

      (Initiated 31 days ago on 11 July 2024) Participants requested for proper closure. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 18:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

      Deletion discussions

      XFD backlog
      V May Jun Jul Aug Total
      CfD 0 0 3 25 28
      TfD 0 0 4 0 4
      MfD 0 0 2 1 3
      FfD 0 0 0 3 3
      RfD 0 0 75 17 92
      AfD 0 0 0 0 0

      Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

      Other types of closing requests

      Talk:There was no such thing as Palestinians#Merge to Golda Meir?

      (Initiated 255 days ago on 29 November 2023) Discussion started 29 November 2023. Last comment 25 July 2024. TarnishedPathtalk 00:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Twitter_under_Elon_Musk#Requested_move_24_May_2024

      (Initiated 78 days ago on 24 May 2024) Originally closed 3 June 2024, relisted following move review on 17 June 2024 (34 days ago). Last comment was only 2 days ago, but comments have been trickling in pretty slowly for weeks. Likely requires a decently experienced closer. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 01:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 194#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

      (Initiated 75 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Frostly Just checking, would you like someone else to help with this? Soni (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:You Like It Darker#Proposed merge of Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker

      (Initiated 73 days ago on 30 May 2024) Contentious merge discussion requiring uninvolved closer. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation

      (Initiated 63 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      If the closer finds "no consensus", I have proposed this route in which a discussion on merger and RM can happen simultaneously to give clearer consensus.VR (Please ping on reply) 20:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:List of common misconceptions#Split proposal

      (Initiated 34 days ago on 8 July 2024) – Editors would feel more comfortable if an uninvolved closer provided a clear statement about whether a consensus to WP:SPLIT exists, and (if so) whether to split this list into two or three lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Kaunas#Split section "Coat of arms" into individual article

      (Initiated 374 days ago on 2 August 2023) – the request to split Kaunas#Coat of arms into a separate article was started more than one year ago and so far it received no support from other users, while two users opposed it. Consequently, I think it is pointless to leave this discussion open and it should be finally closed. -- Pofka (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Done. I would say this was unambiguous enough that an involved close could also have been done. Soni (talk) 07:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

      Closure Review

      This is a request to review the close at Talk:Grand_Theft_Auto_V#Merger_proposal to determine whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. I discussed this with the closer at User_talk:SNUGGUMS#Closure_Of_Merger_Discussion.

      The closure appears to have been made based on the opinion of the editor that closed it rather than the actual consensus. As I said when talking to the editor that closed it, I am aware that consensus is not determined simply by counting heads but there are significantly more editors in support of the merger than against it, and neither side cited any rules. Mainline421 (talk) 11:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Overturn and merge as per consensus - and I will tell you for why: The closer concentrated mainly on sourcing/notability of the re-release, however that was addressed clearly by the support voters. Demonstrated notability means that a subject *can* have its own article, not that it *should* have one. In this case the support merge group clearly demonstrated that a re-release of the game for a later console can easily be incorporated into the original article. Its just not that different a product *its the same game*. There are differences but if we had different articles for re-releases of all media.... At best it merits two paragraphs with a list of the major changes and its reception. Secondly a number of the oppose votes are along the lines of 'otherstuffexists' which is not a valid reason for not merging. Lots of other stuff exists. Often those articles have their own reasons, or often, no one has got around to propose merging/deleting them. On the whole, the support merge group had both stronger arguments and none that are against policy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      ANI is not the place for this. As I previously stated, the closure isn't something I made based on my own opinion. If you look again, another editor did cite that the re-release meets WP:GNG, and WP:Article size was also brought up (even if indirectly). Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      According to Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures this is exactly the place to bring a challenge, I'm not making an opinion on the close but just pointing that out. Kharkiv07 (T) 13:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Snuggums, as a general rule, whenever someone makes a claim like "ANI is not the place for this", they should specify where they think the right place is. Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures says "If you are unable to resolve the issue through discussion with the closer, you may request review at the Administrators' Noticeboard". I am also a bit uncomfortable with the claim you made at User_talk:SNUGGUMS#Closure_Of_Merger_Discussion that "one compelling reason can override multiple weaker reasons". While technically true, and often invoked when there are a lot of "I llke it/don't like it" !votes, in this case it appears that those who opposed the merge were well aware of the "compelling reason" and did not find it compelling, even if you did. In such cases the opinion of the majority should not be disregarded. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd endorse that, because the only real alternative is "overturn to no consensus", and "no consensus" means the status quo ante should continue, so it has exactly the same effect as endorsing the close. I can't see any way to get to "overturn to merge" based on that discussion.—S Marshall T/C 23:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Use of statistics on responding editors to try and sway a RFC

      I am unable top find a policy or guideline that specifically addresses the behaviour in this section of a contentious RFC [1]. The closest thing I can find is here [2] and it does not appear to be consistent with this intent. Another editor has tried to hat the section[3] only to have it removed.[4]. I am not 100% sure this is the best place to bring this, so if another board is more appropriate please direct me to it. Thanks AlbinoFerret 00:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Getting uninvolved opinions (as well as involved ones) is one of the points of a RFC, and helping identify who might count as "involved" in a discussion is common, though less commonly with this rigor. It's odd, but why is it wrong? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      It appears to be skewed in a number of ways, statistics can be formed to say whatever the person creating the way data is presented wants it to. It only counts edits to talk pages. The terms searched for are chosen by one person. Those terms were pages outside of the one the RFC is addressing. The comparison is to total talk page posts, so someone who posts a lot can have a large involvement but be counted as uninvolved. This is also not geared towards consensus building as the RFC page recommends, but to exclusion. That it is being done by someone very involved in the RFC is another problem. Lastly, it may sway late comers to the RFC to jump to whatever side they think is "winning" by these statistics. I think the whole uninvolved section should be hatted as inappropriate for an RFC, and it has been, but the person who created the skewed information reverted it. AlbinoFerret 02:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      It's wrong because the one doing the calculation is an involved editor and it is a non-neutral approach with skewed results. I'm sure the opposition could have managed something equally as skewed but that wouldn't be the right thing to do. The stats should have been hatted and stayed that way. Bias, inadvertent or not, is still bias and it effects neutrality. Atsme📞📧 02:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      As another involved editor: correct me if I'm wrong, but the conclusion you seem to be inviting people to draw is that Kingofaces manipulated the statistics deliberately (and unethically) to give their "desired" result. Is that the intention? Sunrise (talk) 03:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Its not hard to draw that conclusion because of the choice of how the data was designed and is presented, but it is possible it may not have been a conscious act. Editors with more than 50 posts on the subject that oppose are more likely to be "involved" whereas its the opposite for uninvolved. Favoring the presenters desired outcome. In fact one editor with 220 posts on the subject is in the uninvolved sections. This is not a complaint on my personal designation, its uninvolved. But the skewed presentation, because the presenter chose not to look at posts but percent of posts, from a editor that is involved in the RFC is inappropriate in any case. As the person bringing this here, all I am looking for is this be hatted with a "inappropriate" label and a warning not to remove the hat. AlbinoFerret 12:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, so you're suggesting that good faith is unlikely on their part. In that case, I suggest making it explicit and providing evidence.
      Also, are you aware that reordering the table based on number of posts leads to the same conclusion? You can easily verify this for yourself in a couple of minutes - the greatest amount of support came from the editors who were least involved. I would certainly object if it was solely a votecount, but it's more than that (and even votecounts don't typically get hatted in any case). Sunrise (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) This would probably have been better brought up at ANI or WT:RFC because the discussion doesn't affect administrators. Since we're here... I'm not seeing a problem with the table. The table doesn't violate policy and the closer doesn't have to use it. It may be useful to know who hasn't commented much on the issue in that and related articles when determining what the broader community thinks. If so, the table provides a single clearly-defined method for determining who is in that broader community. That there are other ways of determining the data doesn't make the table wrong or biased. What matters is that the method for creating it is clearly-defined: that way, all entries can be compared to each other, and the closer can decide whether the table is of use to them based on the criteria for inclusion in the table. The existence of the table is also unlikely to sway RfC respondents any more than the survey and discussion will; the possibility of people being swayed is always present when votes (or !votes) are public. Full disclosure: I !voted in the RfC. Ca2james (talk) 04:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      I see various editors are attempting to kick up drama here now that have been involved in the RfC. I explained rather transparently how I gathered those numbers, and anyone can use the edit contribution tools to verify that [5]. Instead we have various editors slinging around accusations. The only intent was to provide the two different sets of numbers showing involvement for the closer to use however they see fit and not for any RfC respondents (including myself) to make any interpretations themselves. The methodology itself is neutral and picks up on involvement in the general related topics regardless of support/oppose votes at the RfC. If someone is trying to say I skewed those results somehow, we'd see a much less even number of heavily involved editors on either side that show up in that first summary table (which I'm included in even). I went out of my way to make sure the process was extremely even handed to all editors involved. Obviously some people are not happy with the results, but that's what they show. The rest of the conversation that has occurred there should dismiss that various aspersions editors above are making about me on what I actually did: [6].

      I'm seeing no policy violations in my post as there is no uncivility in simply listing the numbers, and everything was done in good faith. As RfCs are intended to mainly bring in uninvolved editors in addition to those already involved, it's very difficult to figure out who's who in larger RfCs like this. That's especially the case when involved editors tend to dominate the conversation. This was a good-faith attempt to follow the spirit of WP:RFC. Looking at the various comments in the subsection at the RfC, I'm getting the feeling a few editors are looking for insults or something nefarious rather seeing what is was intended as. I'd be fine with someone uninvolved simply closing the section rather than hatting if it continues to be a such distraction and source of wild speculation for other editors (oddly those who would appear to be heavily involved from the support side don't have issues with their involvement shown). In the end, it was only meant to be a tidbit for the closer in addition to everything else that is considered in an RfC. Either way, I for one intend to enjoy my 4th of July weekend largely away from the computer. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      The issue with the analysis is not incivility. The primary issues are (1)the focus on edit counts/contributors rather than content, (2) the sidetracking of an already lengthy discussion into meta-discussion without clear justification. Such a section is inherently a distraction and hatting it was appropriate. There may be issues with the methodology; even if the methodology is totally transparent, the primary problems with such a table stand.Dialectric (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      ^I agree 100%. Will comment further. David Tornheim (talk) 21:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Once again Tsavage said it well:
      By the fact of it being posted, it is intended to influence the RfC outcome. And as I pointed out, it is not raw data, it is your novel construction, beginning with your selection of which articles to categorize as GMO-related (what was the set of keywords you used to identify GM articles?) to arrive at your GMO-related percentage. Meanwhile, "uninvolved editors" simply means fresh eyes to the discussion, it doesn't invalidate or devalue any other editors' comments: in principle, at least, it's all about the substance of the discussion.
      And regarding the discussion, it focuses on a pro-GMO interpretation (SYNTH/OR) of the science on GM food safety and a supposed scientific consensus. What is disturbing is that after much examination, the sources that have been used to support this statement across many GM-related articles on WP for a number of years, turn out not support the claim at all. After throwing out advocacy sources, not only did no RS claim a SC exists, but the RS cited (like the WHO) was misrepresented. It is disturbing that any editor(s) would be more interested in constructing or defending this chart than in addressing this serious problem and signs of advocacy editing in biotech-related articles as evidenced by the RfC. petrarchan47คุก 21:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      ^also Agree, and especially with the quote from Tsavage David Tornheim (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      The only intent was to provide the two different sets of numbers showing involvement for the closer to use however they see fit and not for any RfC respondents (including myself) to make any interpretations themselves.
      But if you look at the introduction it is clear he has indeed interpreted the results in such a way to try to bolster his position (support):
      At this time of posting, we have 20 supports and 14 opposes overall, but when you look at the number of edits under 10% (where I start to see names I don't really ever see here at least), we end up with 65% supporting and 35% opposing as far as definite responses go.
      The creation and use of the table is not neutral as he is claiming. There can be no question he is attempting to skew the iVote interpretation of the RfC, to show a 2:1 super-majority (65%) support of iVotes (by arbitrarily excluding "involved" editors), rather the slight majority 59% considering all iVotes. What's worse, many of the people identified as involved are not involved as I proved at the section here. To suggest editors such as GrayDuck156 here, 66.169.76.198 here, Tsavage here, TypingAway here are more "involved" in GMO articles than Jytdog here is ludicrous (which can be easily verified by clicking the links I provided here). What is strange is that he says that "but when you look at the number of edits under 10% (where I start to see names I don't really ever see here at least)". That is hard to believe, since the editors I have named as less involved than Jytdog have not participated in any way in the GMO articles until only very recently at about the time this RfC was created. The table is bogus and misrepresents the concept of "involvement" and I think the section should be hatted. David Tornheim (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC) (minor revisions David Tornheim (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC))[reply]
      and... i am not complaining. This thread is dramah. Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      We are all grownups here and we all know that statistics or their interpretation can be manipulated/stated in very subtle ways to bias thoughts and therefore !voting. ("Lies, damn lies and statistics") This table and it's discussion should be hatted to avoid such a possibility. I did this, and the hat was reverted by the creator for the second time, without justification (is unhatting by an involved editor allowed?) I am sure we can trust that the closer will also be a grown up and will deal with the matter according to the strength of arguments, rather than a table of statistics (even though this may or may not be considered). However, in the mean-time, it should be hatted to avoid biasing non-involved editors.DrChrissy (talk) 23:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      David, you're now fabricating ideas about what I intended (i.e., creating strawmen to misrepresent someone). I already stated that an editor like TypingAway would not fall into the same grouping as someone like me or you in terms of involvement. That's only how the numbers turn out. There's more to consider than just looking at the table blindly. Again, please don't misrepresent me when I've already addressed a certain point. Doing so only creates drama. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't be bothered to read this, does anyone have aTL;DR version? From the names I assume an RFC went against the narrative of GMOs as the Antichrist, and the usual suspects don't like it? Guy (Help!) 23:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • It seems rather unusual (irresponsible perhaps?) behaviour of a user to admit they have not read a thread, but then to post their opinion of it. How would this posting be included in the disputed table of statistics I wonder?DrChrissy (talk) 23:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      There you go again reading incorrectly between the lines. I didn't venture an opinion, I stated my assumption. If it's more than that then I hope another admin will post a short, neutral summary (the original request is neither short nor neutral). Anti-GMO activists view Wikipedia as the front line in their battle to influence popular opinion against the current scientific consensus, and this sometimes requires admin action, whereas the usual kvetching by the usual suspects usually does not. Guy (Help!) 16:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      @User talk:JzG"There you go again reading incorrectly between the lines." Please provide diffs to support this accusation.DrChrissy (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I repeat - @User talk:JzG"There you go again reading incorrectly between the lines." Please provide diffs to support this accusation or consider striking your personal attack.DrChrissy (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      @User talk:JzG Ok - I must assume you are unwilling to engage in this dispute. Your behaviour is very unbecoming of an admin.DrChrissy (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I'll just chime in Guy and say the RfC hasn't been closed yet. What you see here is just the result of my posting a table showing the how much each editor in the RfC has posted in the general topic to help the closer tease out who's generally uninvolved vs. someone who's pretty entrenched in the topic in some way since it's tough to determine who's an uninvolved editor in a large RfC. Many of the above editors ran with that table well beyond what I intended it for and are kicking up drama trying to claim many things I never intended. If I really was going to try to interpret who's involved if I was a closer, I do see some really interesting trends, but I'm not commenting on my thoughts at the RfC for obvious reasons. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I think it's pretty obvious who's who, from the comments they make, but whatever. I do hope nobody relied on the infamous Séralini paper: [7] Guy (Help!) 18:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Guy, here is a relatively neutral summary of what is being discussed: Kingofaces43 recently posted a set of tables which he created to Talk:Genetically modified food; the tables cover each editor voting in the current rfc on the 'consensus' statement used in the genetically modified food article. The goal of the posting was apparently to quantify 'editor involvement' in the area of gmo's.The discussion here should focus on Kingofaces43's conduct and whether such tables are appropriate for an article talk page/rfc discussion. This noticeboard posting is not about sourcing, Séralini, or a disputed rfc closure. The rfc is still open with a number of votes and policy-based arguments from both sides.Dialectric (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      If I were closing that RfC (which I would not of course) I would simply ignore that table. I am old and wise enough to check contribution histories for myself, and also to read the arguments based on weight of policy-based support. I suspect that whoever does close it will be of much the same bent. It would be silly to act surprised when a discussion on GMOs becomes heated and is dominated by the usual suspects. Our articles on GMOs have been a battleground for a long time, largely because the anti-GMO brigade are by now fighting a losing battle in the real world, with GMOs being increasingly mainstream and the apocalyptic predictions of the early days failing to materialise. Science is moving away from their viewpoint, which is why crap studies like the Séralini become the focus of such bitter dispute. Like homeopathy, only worse because a few scientifically literate people still believe anti-GMO tropes. Guy (Help!) 19:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • In a nutshell, when an editor breaks in the middle of an RFC to do an analysis of the other people participating, this is offtopic. Tagging SPA is one thing, but breaking down a chart with percentages of participation, etc. is a method of trying to convince the closer to discount or consider votes based on something besides the merits. Graham's hierarchy of disagreement covers this well as one of the lower forms of argument, as you are speaking about the editors, not the merits. Whether the charts was right or wrong, had I participated, I would have hatted it myself as it has no bearing on merits and is cluttering up an already long RFC. If I were closing, I would not have considered it and done my own homework. It isn't sanctionable, but it is improper, thus hatting is reasonable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Dennis Brown fwiw, the RfC has timed out, I've requested a close, and there has been lots of polishing/preparing for the close. So in terms of time, it was not added to the middle of an RfC. And the table was placed at the bottom of the RfC, under the discussion section. So not in the middle physically, either... Jytdog (talk) 12:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Doesn't matter when or where. It isn't the place of the participants to try to persuade the closer with anything except merits. Regardless of intent, it should be avoided. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for replying! I hear you. I've recently become aware of Template:Spa - do you find use of that template to be legit? Seems like it is used in somewhat the same way. Jytdog (talk) 13:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      One actually could have gone and tagged some accounts as SPA's in that RfC, but I would have seen that as even more invasive and interjecting too much on editor behavior in the main part of the RfC. If inserting an SPA template is fine, there shouldn't be any issue with something even less pointed like this after the RfC has mostly wrapped up. The whole point of an RfC is to get opinions from uninvolved editors. In long RfC's, it's difficult to tease out how involved someone has been in the topic, so that's all that table was there to address. The table shows general involvement of editors regardless of which side they are on, so it's very difficult to say it was intended convince the closer one way or another. It's only intent was to show involvement in the topic and nothing beyond that. One can argue that is within the scope of WP:RFC when done right, which is bit different than normal talk page discussion. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Edit filter request

      Is there not an edit filter flagging variants of profanities somewhere? [8] seems like it would be an obvious candidate for ... something. Obviously, there are legitimate profanities in articles, but puerile vandalism like this seems like it would be relatively easy for a bot to auto-revert or an edit filter to flag. --B (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Pedigree Alsatian bitches can sell for a lot of money. DuncanHill (talk) 23:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I semi-protected it. There are too many possible variant, such that you would get false positives at times. SP seems the better choice since this has actually been going on a while there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ — Preceding undated comment added 20:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • People often add asterisked "fuck", "cunt", etc. as vandalism, and it seems that they always asterisk out the vowel; it's never "fu*k" or "cun*", for example. Is it practical to add those to the filter? I don't know if it's possible, since of course we would want the software to interpret the asterisk as an asterisk instead of as a wildcard. Nyttend (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      It would be possible to do a RegEx filter for stuff, but impractical I think. Honestly I don't think we need such a filter beyond what we already have. Just template the trolls and report anything egregious to AIV. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Proposal to Invite NinaGreen Back to Editing

      Hello. I propose that NinaGreen be unblocked and invited back to editing. NinaGreen has been a productive editor with a record of over 24,000 edits and numerous new articles. She is the subject of topic restrictions imposed by the ArbCom. More particularly, she may not make edits about the subjects of William Shakespeare or Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. Since receiving the restrictions, she appears to me not to have concentrated her edits on those subjects, though I could not say whether or not there was an instance when she subsequently edited in violation of those topic restrictions.

      On 12 February 2014, she was indefinitely blocked, in response to her making large posts (about 5kB each) to 14 user talk pages, mostly of ArbCom members at that time. The indefinite character of the block has bothered me since I first saw it. She since had her talk page access revoked. Before trying to have this reviewed, I decided to wait and see if NinaGreen would have this resolved on her own. She has still not been unblocked.

      I do not aim to assail the judgement of any administrator who has blocked NinaGreen. I am only advancing the idea that the block does not serve Wikipedia's interests at this time, and that it can be given fresh thought. Italick (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Has NinaGreen made any request to be unblocked? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I have no knowledge of such action or inaction. Her talk page access is disabled right now. Italick (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      To update, I recognize that she came back to edit after a ban lasting one year. I meant to say that I don't know whether she violated her topic restrictions after coming back from that ban. She engaged in significant editing activity since the ban, on other notable historic British persons. Italick (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      The ArbCom case name is "Shakespeare authorship question" [9]. I'm not expert at following ArbCom cases, but the year-long ban may have been one of the first remedies used against her. I think her ban was extended for her use of sockpuppets but I do not recall seeing that she was breaching the topic sanctions. Italick (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      One alleged sockpuppet is TurquoiseMountain. I am not about to look over the entire edit history of TurquoiseMountain, but the edits do not appear on their face to be concentrated on Shakespeare or Edward de Vere (17th Earl of Oxford). Italick (talk) 17:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Do you have any evidence that this is not a sockpuppet since because from what I see that user was not simply suspected buy was confirmed to be one by a Checkuser? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.254.210 (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't have a serious doubt about whether the account is a sockpuppet of Ninagreen. Italick (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      I think without an unblock request all we can do is return access to their user page and inform them of the standard offer. One of the reasons to get an unblock request prior to unblocking someone is to make sure they will not repeat the same behaviour. Chillum 17:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Could the same latitude to return that was given to Barney_the_barney_barney on 10 December 2014 be given to NinaGreen? Italick (talk) 18:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not in my opinion, Italick. The arbcom case is here. The arbitration committee sitebanned her for one year, and indefinitely topic banned her "from editing any article relating to the Shakespeare authorship question, William Shakespeare, or Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, all broadly construed."[10] She violated her one-year ban in 2011, using the socks TurquoiseMountain (talk · contribs) and NotRecommended (talk · contribs).[11]. I'm pretty sure she later used at least one sock to violate her indefinite topic ban, but I don't know where to look for them. It's my opinion that Nina Green was extremely disruptive, and that even after after her one-year siteban had expired she squandered a lot of second chances and assumptions of good faith. I'm not sure there should be any more, as I have little faith in a change of attitude, but I won't rule out that it's possible for anybody to change. I agree that she should apply for unblock herself, though. She doesn't need talkpage access for that: she can e-mail UTRS, WP:BASC, or Jimbo. There were good reasons for revoking her tpa. Bishonen | talk 18:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
      If her talk page access were restored, a new block would be cheap. Really cheap. It is only unblocks that are expensive. Then the appeals process would be transparent to the Wikipedia community, which no doubt engenders more faith in it. Italick (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      On second thought, I am not interested in her having WP:ROPE limited to her talk page, so that she could go on diatribes again and be reblocked. That outcome could make her less likely to be able to edit again. Italick (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • (Non-administrator comment) Do not invite her back, ferchrissake. I'd be unlikely to support accepting a request, either, but certainly don't invite her! She continued violating her topic ban after it was imposed, and refused to acknowledge that her behavior was improper. After she was blocked, she continued this refusal to acknowledge any wrongdoing, instead posting walls of text that painted herself as a victim of a corrupt system and claimed that admins didn't have the authority to impose sanctions on her. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not sure what you mean. Did you say that she should not appeal? Do you think that she is talking in this discussion, or even knows about the discussion? Italick (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I had made one small typo. But FWIW I meant she is more than perfectly aware how she can appeal if ever she wants to. And with that, I think we should let sleeping dogs lie. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was the drafting arbitrator in the Shakespeare case and suffice it to say that the sanctions the Committee imposed against NinaGreen were well-warranted. In my view, her deep commitment to the "Oxfordian hypothesis" makes it impossible for her to edit neutrally in this area, and she showed little interest in any other. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Again, I am not aiming to assail the judgment of administrators who blocked her or imposed sanctions. And arguing the ArbCom case here would not occur at my own bidding, as I only propose that she be unblocked. She has shown interest in creating articles that are not about any Shakespeare authorship hypothesis. That she is not interested in another Shakespeare authorship hypothesis is tangential to what I asked, and she may not edit on any of those hypotheses now. She should not continue to be blocked merely for her ideas. Italick (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Is there even any precedent for a request like this? It seems to me that there are very good reasons for requiring a person in such a position to request the restoration of his or her privileges rather than have it done by a third person, no offense to Italick intended. Dumuzid (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      I posted precedents that are here [12] and here [13] on 1 September 2014, using her talk page: Italick (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) She was blocked for her actions not her ideas. Could you provide a link or three showing where in interest has been expressed an "creating articles that are not about any Shakespeare authorship hypothesis" as you put it. MarnetteD|Talk 19:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Fine, she was blocked for her actions and not for her ideas. Would we entertain an argument against unblocking her because of her ideas? To find out her editing interests, look at the edit log of NinaGreen and TurquoiseMountain. Italick (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      OH yes, TurqoiseMountain, I forgot about that one. A cunning choice of name. How did anyone see though that? Paul B (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      She violated her topic ban on Greene's Groatsworth of Wit, but that just led to a block. She had violated it before, but most editors turned a blind eye because the violations were really just technicalities. She only "sockpuppeted" in the sense then she edited as an IP. But the main problem was her attempt to change policy and her bombarding of admins with emails. In the words of Shakespeare, I would hope the answer is "never, never, never, never, never". She is a highly disruptive editor. Paul B (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • (Non-administrator comment) Looks to me like a user who has a gripe with ArbCom and isn't interested in working constructively with the community to resolve their issues, but instead wants to soapbox through their block on their talk page and directly to the WMF after being repeatedly asked to stop in multiple venues. They don't listen when the community tries to explain things to them, and that's why they were most recently blocked. It would demonstrate that they're willing to understand our policies and procedures and willing to take responsibility to follow them if they take responsibility for this one and follow the community's process to be unblocked, by appealing to WP:BASC as they were instructed to do. Otherwise, no, we should not "invite them back": we have no evidence that the situation which led to the block has been resolved. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • What exactly are you proposing? Email the editor and invite them to come back, no one is stopping you from doing that. The editor can request unblock by email to Arbcom or the blocking admin if they want. At the very least, the editor can request restoration of talk page privileges. We aren't going to unblock someone without some input by the editor and especially not overturn an Arbcom-related block without some serious evidence about it. This is pointless navel-gazing until then. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Good point. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      MRV

      We could do with some more commentators over at WP:MRV (DRV's less attractive cousin, used for reviewing requested move closures). Although I'm posting this here on the admins' noticeboard, non-admins are also more than welcome. A lot of MRVs seem to languish for several months because of the simple reason that not enough people have commentated on them, especially people uninvolved with the original RM. MRV generally only gets a couple a couple of discussions per month, so even if you just drop in every few weeks you'd be a significant help in making the process run more smoothly. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=670873591"