Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

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

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

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

Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Total
CfD	0	0	0	25	25
TfD	0	0	0	11	11
MfD	0	0	0	1	1
FfD	0	0	1	6	7
RfD	0	0	9	60	69
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 7 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 2 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 2 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 3 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 30 sockpuppet investigations
• 8 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 3 Fully protected edit requests
• 1 Candidates for history merging
• 1 requests for RD1 redaction
• 51 elapsed requested moves
• 2 Pages at move review
• 35 requested closures
• 47 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 7 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (16 out of 9047 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin User talk:Durgaprasadpetla 2024-12-27 05:17 2025-01-03 05:17 move Editor moving their User talk page to main space Liz Manmohan Singh 2024-12-26 17:55 2025-01-02 17:55 edit Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts; after expiration this needs to be restored to indefinite semi-protection; requested at WP:RfPP BusterD Aryan Hasan 2024-12-26 15:07 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD List of Bengali films of 2025 2024-12-26 12:56 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Spillover of the Israel–Hamas war in Syria 2024-12-26 00:14 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles Callanecc Daniel Larson 2024-12-25 18:58 indefinite edit Repeatedly recreated by sock puppets NinjaRobotPirate Draft:Ayaz Syed 2024-12-25 17:34 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated under this and several other titles DoubleGrazing Minneapolis 2024-12-25 01:00 2025-05-15 17:15 edit Upcoming TFA (bot protection) TFA Protector Bot Talk:List of countries by age at first marriage/Archive 2024-12-24 14:28 2024-12-31 14:28 create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Draft:Aryabhata International Computer Education 2024-12-24 12:22 2025-01-07 12:22 create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Matt Gaetz 2024-12-24 11:05 indefinite edit Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Fela Akinse (entrepreneur) 2024-12-24 03:35 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: attempt to bypass salted Fela Akinse Rsjaffe Spetsnaz 2024-12-23 22:20 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:RUSUKR Ymblanter Module:Location map/data/Slovakia 2024-12-23 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2523 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Draft:Yasir Arafat Rahim 2024-12-23 15:48 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated DoubleGrazing Egypt 2024-12-23 07:55 indefinite edit Highly visible page Callanecc

Review of RfC close by User:Cunard

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

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

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

• Looks like the two "versions" he was referring to side by side are seen here. It's easy to compare two "versions" as a single diff, so I'm confused as to why he would present them as separate diffs in which you could not actually see the specific changes, nor expect your average RfC respondent to figure it out. Setting that aside, the line of questioning itself seems to be in violation of RfC guidelines. RfC questions must be "brief" and "neutral". "Version 1 or version 2?" is a brief and neutral question. However that's not how the decision was posed. Instead, users could choose between version 1 by simply taking the position statement that it "is preferable" to version 2. On the contrary, the only way to prefer version 2 was to agree with the a specific, predefined argument written out by the OP, who favored version 1. In other words, your choices were to choose the OP's preferred version or be pigeonholed into making a specific argument written by the OP. There was no option presented to choose version 2 in any other way. This seems like a gamey tactic, whether it was intentional or not. So, given the confusing way the diffs were presented, in addition to the non-neutral way the question was presented, I would move to strike the reading of consensus in favor of version 1 from the close. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 17:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• Doc, it's surprising that you didn't see what the RfC was proposing, because you are the person who asked for it. Specifically: I boldly made a series of changes to the lead, after which the article looked like this. You rejected the majority of the changes and, when challenged, you suggest I try a RfC. I begin the RfC you asked for on the same day, and Cunard closed it 41 days later. You have subsequently claimed that you thought I'd begun a full RfC about a pipe link, but it's hard to reconcile that with the sequence of events. Swarm's allegation that I was gaming the system is ludicrous.—S Marshall T/C 17:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) In terms of closing the questions as presented, there is unanimous consensus in favour of statement 1 and against statement 3. Statement 2 was also unequivocally supported but less strongly. I would have said there was no consensus regarding statement 4 but I can see why the closer did find consensus for it. As for presentation of the diffs and understanding of the questions, the only person commenting who seems to have had any issues was Doc James, who failed to explain his issues in a manner that anyone else seems to have understood. I agree the RfC was not brilliantly worded (and was also not brilliantly attended) although it was possible for editors to oppose both statements 3 and 4 if they preferred version 2. I don't see a need to rip this up and start again, but rather use it as a starting point for a better discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

  +1 -qedk (t 愛 c) 18:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• @S Marshall: I did not claim that you "gamed the system", I highlighted an obvious, straightforward procedural failure in your wording of the RfC, in violation of the RfC rules, and said that it appeared to be a gamey tactic, whether or not it was intended to be. Rather than becoming defensive, a good faith user should presumably understand the concern of gamey or non-neutral RfCs in a discretionary sanctions area, and acknowledge the problem and pledge that it will not happen again. The concern is rather straightforward, as I explained, and why you would go straight to attacking it is confusing. Regardless, I think it's something that you should take seriously. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

  You did say This seems like a gamey tactic... any editor would assume you're trying to implicate them if you say it like that. --qedk (t 愛 c) 06:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

  Exactly. The RfC was perfectly neutrally-worded; only one participant had any trouble following it; and I categorically reject the allegation that any "tactic" was employed.—S Marshall T/C 08:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• I found a clear consensus for position #4 to reinstate the article version #1 referenced in the RfC. Here are what RfC participants said about position #4:
  1. S Marshall wrote, "Support positions 1, 2 and 4."
  2. EllenCT wrote, "I've already stated I prefer the newer revision of position 4."
  3. Jd4x4 wrote, "I've voiced my opinion for Version 1 in the RfC but the entire reason I involved myself here is because the 'stable' version was painful to read" and "To clarify my position, I agree with Position 1 at the time the RfC was raised, disagree with Position 3, and currently agree with Position 4 should it be decided to revert the lead from what it currently is."
  4. Darwin Naz wrote, "I am opposing position 4, primarily for the Nicotine part in Article 1's lede. This is an encyclopedia and not an editorial or an essay written to persuade readers against smoking."
  5. Yrwefilledwithbugs wrote, "I think I like 4 also, but it's because I believe it has more info which isn't a bad thing; it just needs to be consolidated and/or broken apart some. It's a massive amount of info though which is really difficult to get through"
  I gave significantly reduced weight to the comment by Yrwefilledwithbugs since the account was created on 12 March 2020 and participated in the RfC on the same day. Out of the remaining four editors, three supported position 4 and one opposed it. These editors provided reasonable arguments for their positions. Regarding article version #1, editors liked its readability (S Marshall and Jd4x4), its use of more recent MEDRS sources (EllenCT), and its discussion of nicotine being highly addictive (Jd4x4). Darwin Naz, the only opposer of article version #1, raised a reasonable point about the nicotine part that this is not "an essay written to persuade readers against smoking". Despite this valid concern about article version #1 possibly needing revisions, there was a clear consensus among the RfC participants that article version #1 was a significant improvement over article version #2 (the version of the article when the RfC was created). I therefore closed the RfC as reinstate article version #1. I also noted in the close that more improvements can and should be made to the article. I agree with Thryduulf that "I don't see a need to rip this up and start again, but rather use it as a starting point for a better discussion."

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

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

• I did find the RfC a bit hard to wrap my head around--I think it tried to do too many things at once. But once I got there, it made sense and it looks like the participants (all?) got there. I'd probably have called "4" no consensus, but I think Cunard's reading is also reasonable and maybe better actually. endorse close. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit (talk • contribs)

• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 07:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

  Just let it be. --qedk (t 愛 c)

Help needed with some moves

• See in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests&oldid=950645337 , the section "Moves needing help from someone with oversight". I tried to obey the first move, and it refused "took more than 3 seconds, ran out of time", and it asked me to move the page and its talk page and all its subpages one at a time. So, as a start, I moved Wikipedia:Introduction by itself, and it worked, Then I moved Wikipedia talk:Introduction by itself and it refused "ran out of time" and system fault, several times. So, to restore to the starting setup, I tried to move Wikipedia:Introduction (historical) back to Wikipedia:Introduction by itself, and it refused "ran out of time" and system fault, several times. So, to make the page and its subpages work, I copied the current edit of Wikipedia:Introduction (historical) back to Wikipedia:Introduction by itself. It looks like it needs someone with oversight to obey these moves. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why you're asking about oversight. But if you're getting database errors, you might need help from a system administrator. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
• The original requested moves were:

  • - - - - - - - - - - - -

  • Wikipedia:Introduction (currently a redirect to Help:Introduction) → Wikipedia:Introduction (historical) – per Wikipedia talk:Introduction#Proposal: Redirect this page and WP:Tutorial to Help:Introduction. Requester Sdkb also requested original target point to Help:Introduction. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Tutorial (currently a redirect to Help:Introduction) → Wikipedia:Tutorial (historical) – per Wikipedia talk:Introduction#Proposal: Redirect this page and WP:Tutorial to Help:Introduction. Requester Sdkb also requested original target point to Help:Introduction. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• I asked about oversight because some of the involved pages had over 3000 edits. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• Anthony Appleyard, oversighters don't have any special rights except hiding and un-hiding edits. Nyttend (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Martin Urbanec: Any chance that you might be able to lend a helping hand with these page moves (that is, in your capacity as a sysadmin)? Or would a Phabricator ticket be the preferred way to go? OhKayeSierra (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • @OhKayeSierra: I can surely help. Do you want me to try to move Wikipedia:Introduction to Wikipedia:Introduction (historical) and Wikipedia:Tutorial to Wikipedia:Tutorial (historical), right? --Martin Urbanec (talk) 09:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Introduction appears to be already moved through... --Martin Urbanec (talk) 09:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
• @Martin Urbanec: Yes. It seems that Wikipedia:Introduction was moved without any issues, which only leaves Wikipedia:Tutorial to Wikipedia:Tutorial (historical). Anthony Appleyard, Does that sound about right? OhKayeSierra (talk) 10:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
• @OhKayeSierra, Martin Urbanec, and Rotideypoc41352: See Wikipedia talk:Introduction#Implementation for a history of what has happened. What needs doing is:
  • 1. To restore the status quo ante and bring everything back together that should be together, move Wikipedia:Introduction (historical) back to Wikipedia:Introduction by itself, and not any talk pages or subpages with it :: it has at least 15000 edits :: no wonder that trying to move it causes snags and system faults.
    2. Move Wikipedia:Introduction to Wikipedia:Introduction (historical) and all its subpages, if the system lets you do it. Wikipedia's difficulty in handling pages with a very long edit history (say over 5000 edits) has been a nuisance to me for a long time.
  • Or, directly move all of Wikipedia:Introduction's subpages and talk pages etc to be subpages and talk pages etc of Wikipedia:Introduction (historical), but do not move Wikipedia:Introduction itself. For a list of the subpages, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex?prefix=Introduction/&namespace=4 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex?prefix=Introduction/&namespace=5. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
• Making things even worse, Wikipedia:Introduction (historical) was moved to User:Wikipedia:Introduction (historical). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Introduction page move

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T250551

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

Here's how it currently looks:

• Wikipedia:Introduction is at Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Introduction (historical) (blame me for forgetting to remove the "Wikipedia:") - needs to be at Wikipedia:Introduction (historical).
• All of the original revisions to Wikipedia:Introduction are located at User:Wikipedia:Introduction (historical). These need to be histmerged with Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Introduction (historical).
• Everything else is at the same place as it always was.

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

At this point I think we should ask meta:System administrators to handle this request. I tried moving Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Introduction (historical) which only has a handful of revisions, but even that raised a database error. — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I got it as far as Wikipedia:WIntroduction (historical) through intermediary steps (and lots of leftover redirects) but it keeps throwing errors after that. I've filed a Phab task. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Revision history sitting at User:Wikipedia:Introduction (historical).--Moxy 🍁 11:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I've just now tried to move Wikipedia:WIntroduction (historical) to Wikipedia:Introduction (historical), since the extra "W" obviously doesn't belong long-term, but even doing that produces a quick database error. Nyttend (talk) 13:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

However this gets resolved, please leave a redirect upon your page move. Yesterday, I undid about two dozen page redirects that were broken and in danger of being deleted. If you leave a redirect with your page move, than those original redirects can get corrected by one of our helpful bots. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Good point. There's no long-term reason to retain the intermediate redirects, like WP:WIntroduction, so I would be inclined to move without redirect, but I wouldn't have thought of the redirect-fixing bots. Nyttend (talk) 10:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

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

 Done Not being an enwiki admin, but I was asked to help to handle this. Seems to be where it is supposed to be now. Lmk if I missed sth, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 09:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Account recovery for non-existing email

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

I am afraid it is lost. I have heard that some accounts have been recovered though if the owners could have confirmed the identity, so that it would be useful to wait for more knowledgeable people than me.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Unless you were an extremely prolific editor or an administrator this is very unlikely to go anywhere - however you can just register a new account and take up where you left off. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Create a new account and label it as a continuation of your old one, perhaps using {{User previous account}}. Labeling the accounts will help prevent misunderstandings. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

So even though I can provide proof that account is linked to my real life identity, my best option is to register create a new one (e.g. oldAccount2)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A311:8044:B380:34A3:2874:A973:9858 (talk) 22:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not that we won't give access because we don't believe it's you, it's just that passwords cannot be retrieved from the server. Jimbo himself could forget his password and not have email enabled and he would be required to open up a new account. Primefac (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Understandable, but damn it's frustrating. Every half a year or so I get an urge to contirbute, but original account was registered on and old email in 2010. Wikipedia must have been single account that I forgot to migrate. I assume changing email associated with an account is not an option either (especially for user with no contirbutions)? If so, I guess it was worth a shot and the discussion can be closed. Thank you for your help. 2A02:A311:8044:B380:34A3:2874:A973:9858 (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

If it's the inaccessible account that has no contributions, then there's some hope once you've made some contributions and become established. —Cryptic 14:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

HTTP => HTTPS in Template:MathWorld

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

---

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

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

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

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

On second thought, maybe it's a good idea to make a systematic review of all templates. Check whether external sites are being sent via HTTP vs HTTPS. 64.246.159.246 (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

IP 64, if you had tried to edit the template, it would have provided you a page that said you could not edit it due to the protection, and provided a link to request an edit on the talk page from there, which would have put it in a queue for processing. I'll take care of fixing it now. --Izno (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Security issues with the software (not the case here) can be reported at phabricator.wikimedia.org. Information for developers is linked in the footer, labelled "Developers". I'm afraid a more prominent "security issue" report link would cause people to create phabricator tasks for http links in templates. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Request reconsideration of topic ban

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

---

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

Hello Almaty. I am an administrator whose previous involvement with the main coronavirus articles has been minor, so I don't think I am involved, but if anyone disagrees I will step aside. I knew nothing about this particular dispute until now. I am very concerned about you saying that you were "aiming to get a forced block when I did an intentional edit war which led to the topic ban and a 72 hour block". That indicates to me a very recent inability to deal with the stress of editing highly important articles about current life-or-death matters. That is perfectly understandable, but if you want to resume editing in that topic area, I think you need to do a better job of explaining how we can be reassured that your editing will not be similarly disruptive going forward. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I can explain that. I am a doctor, and I was working far too hard simultaneously on wikipedia, and the edit war occured at 4:30am in Australia. I am no longer doing that and I needed to sleep, which is why I wanted the block. I went about it the wrong way. I now have familiarised myself with all the recommendations around wikibreaks and how to get a block wikicoded. As I state on my talk page, I no longer have the opinion that any of the COVID-19 articles require bold edits, and as you would note from my edit history, I did many bold edits which were stressful. I will not be doing so again. --Almaty (talk) 04:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Also please note that during the edit war my only comments were "many people disagree" and "there is no time" on Doc James' talk page. I think it is relatively clear from this, considering I know to a limited extent many wikipedia policies, that I was aiming to get a block. I also asked for the ban, but what I really wanted was an enforced wikibreak. (I didn't understand the difference between blocks, bans, topic bans and wikibreaks, properly at the time). I didn't know how to go about it at the time, and now I do. Having said that, I think this unlikely to occur in the future due to the amount of consensus that has been achieved around the mode of transmission, both prior to and during my much enjoyed (and if i may say so deserved) wikibreak. Thanks User:Cullen328 --Almaty (talk) 05:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Almaty, which I appreciate. I am going to wait for other editors to comment before coming to any conclusions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Ping User:Doc James (if he has time to comment, he already has done so on my talk) and User:FeydHuxtable who as my "wikiotter" both support me returning. --Almaty (talk) 05:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

After reading recent posts on your talk page, Almaty, I am reassured that you have been a long time positive contributor and have the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart. I cannot possibly understand the stress that frontline health care workers like you are experiencing. I hope that we can come to an agreement that allows your topic ban to be lifted. Be well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support. I hadn't been aware of I'd forgotten about* this issue until today, but having examined it (including Almaty's talk page), I'm happy to supporting lifting the topic ban. I can only imagine what the stress is like for front-line workers, and I thank you Almaty for your efforts (and everyone else working to halt this thing). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

(*Memory of a goldfish. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC))

• Unsure - the firmly positive comments by Doc James on Almaty's talk page factor very highly in ending a TBAN way earlier than I would normally support, but obviously everything that @Bradv: said at the time was accurate (indeed, I'd probably have used somewhat stauncher language) - I see he was pinged on the talk page but hasn't yet commented further - I'd be interested in hearing his viewpoints before making my final position. (Addendum): in line with being preventative, a major concern is that which has already been somewhat discussed above about whether Almaty will fall afoul of the same issues again. He (?) clearly knows how to avoid it going forwards, but it's a question of whether the methods will be utilised in the heat of moment. @Almaty:, could you cover that? Nosebagbear (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support, with some hesitation. You need to learn to back away and go outside some and smell the roses a bit, mow the law, anything that isn't work or Covid related. With Doc James's blessing, as well as your own clearly stated understanding of the problem, I'm willing to support. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

  Dennis Brown, I strongly support mowing the law...oh, wait, that isn't what you meant. S Philbrick(Talk) 23:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support I was aware of this dispute at the time and it seemed specifically focused on mode of transmission of COVID-19 which is a subject that, as far as I know, has been resolved. It was pretty heated and involved threats of "going to the media" which give me pause. But I support this if Doc James does (and I'd like to hear from him). Almaty has made a lot of contributions in this area and if the dispute was singularly focused on this one disagreement which has been resolved, I think he should be able to return. Just be aware, Almaty, in the future, any threat to go to some public venue about an editing disagreement on Wikipedia will not be resolved in your favor. Remove yourself from a dispute if you reach this level of stress in the future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support Am happy to see User:Almaty return to editing the topic area. How to appropriately cover the spread of COVID is definitely complicated and not something that only we have struggled with. Reassurances that they will take a break when needed are sufficient. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment A couple of weeks seems very short compared to most topic bans. I'm concerned that issue seemed stress related (and there's nothing wrong with that!). But what has been done to reduce that stress? I hoped to see some examples of the user editing fruitfully in other areas, or on other Wiki's, but since the block, I don't see much other mainspace activity. My inclination is to think that if it is stressful to edit in this area, then don't edit in this area. (now off to hit the whiskey, so I can sleep properly ... ). Nfitz (talk) 03:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
• Lol. In all honesty, the whisky you refer to may have been a factor. As it has been for many doctors on the front line - tough times! No whisky for me going forward --Almaty (talk) 10:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: clearly knows how to avoid it going forwards, but it's a question of whether the methods will be utilised in the heat of moment. The heat of the moment was when I was medically unwell, terrified about the pandemic reaching Australia soon (luckily it hasn't, the lucky country) and trying to do the best I could for wikipedia. But then I realised it was very late at night, with work tomorrow, and all my edits were being reverted, i was stressed for numerous reasons, and starting to become medically unwell. A consensus of them now stand. But the last edit war leading to the topic ban really wasn't about a content dispute from my end, it was intentionally getting the block due to wikistress as I said. Still, a "spectacularly bad idea". A better idea would have just been to go for a walk. (I had been self isolating myself too). Thats higher than our rules here. --Almaty (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• Per my discussions with Almaty on their talk page, Doc James' support, and the comments here, it's clear this topic ban is no longer necessary. I will go ahead and lift it. – bradv🍁 15:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Self-requested closure review: RfC on race and intelligence

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To address the three concerns raised:

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

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

• Anything that has gotten this much traction at Arb and everywhere else should have been closed by three people. Not necessarily admin, but three very experienced editors. That says nothing of the closing rationale, which I haven't poured over, but as a matter of procedure, closing it unilaterally was bound to cause problems. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree to disagree. I think three people would have caused more, in addition to likely causing the RfC to be prolonged for a significant length of time because no one wants to touch it. I've been involved in panel closes before, they don't add much and I think we've become over-reliant on them recently, which is why I don't mind doing it. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• Tony, thanks for taking this on. It is really very much appreciated. And you're right - your word, or any admin's word, stands on their own. As far as I know all admins are equipped for a job like this. It all depends if they mind doing a job like this. Maybe brand new Admins would not be ready - this I don't know. I just assume any Admin who is willing to close an RFC is probably equipped to do so. And there are very sharp non-admins who could also do this. (copied my comment from Toni's talk page).

Hey, maybe that is what you should call your talk page - Toni's talk page - and then in parenthesis you can add (fah-get about it!) ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• I think any RfC closed by an experienced admin adheres to policy. Now, it's one thing to ignore an emerging panel and then closing unilaterally, anyway, as was the case recently. But seeing as no such panel was likely to form any time soon, the closure seems like an appropriate action to me. Having written WP:BLOCKNAZIS does not make TonyBallioni involved, in my view. El_C 01:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• There was a rough consensus that a 3 admin panel was required to close this RfC, see this archived discussion here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure/Archive_29#Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#RfC_on_race_and_intelligence. Why did Tony not consider this? My other concern was did Tony just skim over the RfC because he made no attempt to summarise the core arguments. The RfC included a 2020 survey of experts published in Intelligence (journal) that found that only 16 percent of experts regarded I.Q. gaps between races to be fully explained by environmental factors, with 43 percent saying mostly genetics and 40 percent saying mostly environmental factors explain the gap. TonyBallioni has now stated that the the minority academic viewpoint is the majority viewpoint and the majority academic viewpoint is the fringe viewpoint. If Tony is going to do the close then at least consider the arguments alongside WP policies in his close.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• (I !voted "yes" in the RFC.) This was a long discussion and thanks again to Tony for diving into it. I think it was a good close. I strongly disagree with the notion that this RFC either "required" or "had consensus for" a panel close. We don't require panel closes for difficult RFCs; there are difficult RFCs every day; we don't have the resources for it; there's always a backlog at ANRFC; and finally, if it's not important enough to list at WP:CENT then it's not important enough to take up the time of multiple closers. I also strongly disagree with the suggestion that an editor is involved or biased because they edited an essay about Nazis or racism. If the title of the essay was WP:NOHEREDITARIANS, then it might be a different story. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• I do think TonyBallioni is involved as he commented on the talk page of the No Nazis here saying: racist POV pushers will be blocked, but quickly blocking someone for being a nazi is somehow on a different level than your standard race and intelligence POV pusher (or insert other racist POV pusher here). This sounds a lot like he is saying Neo Nazis are worse than the type of editors who have the “wrong” POV on race and intelligence (like the ones who voted no in the RfC he has closed) but both should be blocked. I do not know how much more involved or even COI you can get that this comment.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• I don't see how any of that makes TonyBallioni involved — and I, myself, am uninvolved with regards to this subject. El_C 01:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• This doesn't seem to make Tonyballoni involved. Also, it seems to be an attempt to impugn Toni as an Admin to claim that he is involved more than once. Toni's track record about being policy minded should suffice and override any concern that he has BIAS. I really don't see a consensus for a three admin panel in that discussion. I see a bunch of participants and I see ancillary conversations about a discussion at RSN. I see claims of WP:BIAS that will automatically occur if only one admin closes. I see what appears to be an IP contacting some admins on their talk page about closing the RFC. I also see some editors essentially delineating requirements for the closing admin. I know what I would call this type of behavior - but I'm not going to say it here. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• TonyBallioni is involved because he has edited in the topic area and has articulated a clear POV, ignored a rough consensus that a 3 admin close was required and did, in my eyes, a substandard close that did not address the sources, arguments against policies. The close actually shows no proof he did anything more than skim read the RfC. I am not saying that is what he did but the close gives no evidence one way or the other. It is not a high quality close which is what this topic area really requires.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Editing the topic area does not make one involved with respect to this singular topic of dispute. The close does not need to address the sources, "show proof," or anything of the sort. It is supposed to evaluate the consensus (or lack thereof). Also, you continuing to imply that they "skim read" the discussion is an unwarranted aspersion. A panel close was not required — you repeating that it did does not make it so. El_C 01:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think Tony has ever edited Race (human categorization), Intelligence, Race and intelligence, or History of the race and intelligence controversy, so I'm not sure that he's even edited the topic area at all. Diffs? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) See my response to the IP user whose claims you are repeating. I am one of the few administrators still willing to be involved in the race and intelligence topic area. I have blocked people in it before, and yes, there are racist POV pushers who show up there and they are blocked. It's not a surprise that as one of the more active administrators in policy areas, that I've written my views on what policy requires in one of the areas I am active. If you look at the actual conversation being cited, I am arguing that we should not lump people together with nazis and block them.
  One of the criticisms I have made of that essay is that people are too quick to discount the views of others as racist and use accusations of racism to stifle discussion. I wrote WP:CRYRACIST in response to that. The idea that someone should be blocked for having a good faith disagreement on sourcing is something that I've actively argued against both in writing and in my decisions at AE, and yes, I've blocked people for calling other people racists without good cause. There are many valid criticisms of me, but I'm pretty evenhanded and consistent on this one. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Then why did you not address the core point of dispute in your close that the RfC question had this year already been asked in a survey of experts in a reliable source (which came to the opposite conclusion of your close)? How are we meant to implement the RfC without you addressing the source and declaring the source to be acceptable or not? Are you saying only reliable sources that agree with your close are reliable? There were lots of reliable sources that dispute your close and you ignored all the evidence in your close which is deeply unfair to the editors who spent many hours and all they asked in return was a fair weighing of the arguments. Your close was not a normal close, it looks like a duff close quickly put together, with no analysis of several core points of dispute against policy.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• I explained that in my close: policy guides us on principle and we trust the participants of the RfC who are versed in policy and how to apply it and sourcing requirements on Wikipedia to come to a conclusion. The underlying question was one of what met WP:FRINGE's definition. You argued strongly for one position. Some others agreed with you, but many others didn't, and also gave their views on the sourcing and what the scientific consensus was. Ultimately, the other side had consensus on the genetic question. People can and do disagree in good faith, and it isn't the job of the closer to decide who is right. It is not the job of the closer to evaluate the reliable sourcing. It is the job of the participants in the discussion. On the whole, they disagreed with your analysis.
  Anyway, I've responded to the concerns here in a manner that I think is in accordance with WP:ADMINACCT, and I've already written quite a lot, so I think it's best that I step back and let the community review. I'd suggest you do the same. The discussion was so intense and no one wanted to respond or close because of the length and the response to every argument. Let's try not to repeat that here. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• This was not a normal RfC, but the close was appropriate. You cannot dictate the terms by which it is closed, Literaturegeek. That is not a recipe for a successful WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. El_C 01:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• I just want to be assured that a WP:SUPERVOTE has not occurred like what happened only two months ago in the AfD (where a duff close was written that did not address the arguments against policy) in this topic area that a 3 admin panel (appointed by a deletion review) overturned it from delete to keep. So there is history for my concerns.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• There is no indication that a SUPERVOTE has taken place here. As an uninvolved observer that is my assessment. Hopefully, that reassures you. El_C 03:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Well, I read that RfC from top to bottom and numerically the yes side won by a small margin but most yes voters argued from an original personal opinion, they produced no survey of experts that the no side produced, the no voters had two surveys that supported their view. I can’t help but think if you had weighed the strength of the arguments in your close they would not support your close and I would like a 3 admin panel close to ensure a fair close which was a consensus you also did not pay attention to before taking on this role. If you gave a strong high quality close I would better be able to accept it. Anyway it is what it is.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• I've already expressed my opinions on this matter here, so instead of repeating myself I'd like to call attention to TonyBallioni's comment, "I expected someone would bring it here since it was very heated". This is similar to Spartaz's initial "delete" close in the AFD, in which he stated, "There is, however a lot of heat, and its seems pointless enacting the consensus until the inevitable DRV." In Spartaz's case, the community strongly objected to the discussion being closed in a manner that the closer knew full well would generate additional drama instead of a resolution.

After this had previously happened just two months ago, how could TonyBallioni possibly have thought it was a good idea to do the same thing? Like Spartaz, he clearly knew that his closure was going to be disputed and generate additional drama, but chose to go ahead anyway, even with the benefit of hindsight looking at the fallout that resulted when Spartaz did this. Whether or not TonyBallioni is truly biased or not is somewhat beside the point - if he knew from the start that he was going to be accused of bias, he should have withdrawn as a potential closer and let someone else handle the task, just as SilkTork previously withdrew for the same reason.

So now we're back in the same situation we were in two months ago with the AFD. And I think the outcome that's needed is the same outcome that eventually happened last time: for the discussion to be re-closed by an admin (or preferably, team of admins) who trust themselves, and are trusted by the community, to assess all of the arguments presented in the RFC, and to close it in a manner that won't be suspected of imposing their own personal opinion(s) on a community discussion. 2600:1004:B103:626E:68A2:83EC:91F:A19 (talk) 02:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40 the two situations are not the same, that discussion had a {{closing}} on it, and the logistics of the team close were in the works. There was no evidence that any specific admin was even considering volunteering to be part of a team close in this case. Any admin that closed this in a way that certain participating editors didn't like was going to be accused of bias, that's more or less inevitable in contentious cases like this. There is no credible evidence of involvement or other reason to suspect lack of suitability as a closer.Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 02:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Tony's close accurately reflects those !votes that were based on substantive analysis of the sources. Those that are seeing his closure as challenging the notion that intelligence has a hereditary component have either not understood the closing statement, or have not understood the contemporary sources present there. I see no reason why a three-person panel would do any better here, and I see no evidence that the need for such was established beforehand. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• I just don't see the consensus that he came to. By my count it is some 24 Yes votes to 20 no votes (discounting 3 in-between, who supported some of the RfC's statements but not all and discounting some 8 SPA accounts). By and large most of the 'Yes' voters cited almost nothing to support their assessment, instead seemingly relying on gut feeling. The close does not address the source currently under discussion at RSN (about which a large amount of the RfC was spent discussing and which most directly answers the RfC's main question). This in particular should have been discussed in the close. This should have been a clear No consensus close, but somehow Toni saw it as a "yes". I'm not really sure why. I think that it was pretty clear that everyone asked for a three admin close beforehand, though I notice now that the "yes" !voters are perfectly happy with a single admin close in their favour... hypocrites. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 02:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

  Insertcleverphrasehere, that last part is inaccurate and uncalled-for. Both "yes" and "no" !voters were on both sides of the panel-close issue. I was a yes voter who was always against requiring a panel close. This was discussed at WP:ANRFC and in the RFC thread. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

  Levivich, then I wasn't referring to you. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 19:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

  Insertcleverphrasehere, really, hypocrites? It is unwise to engage in personal attacks on the Administrators' noticeboard, to say the least. You can take that as a formal {{uw-npa4}} warning, by the way. El_C 03:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

  El C, I made this more clear at User_talk:Insertcleverphrasehere#Change. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 19:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

  If you want to go the number route, "weighing of opinions by established editors familiar with policies and guidelines" gets you somewhere around 25-17/18 with several more nuanced comments that don't easily fall into a group. Nose counting is hard which is why it's never done on it's own. That's around 58%, which isn't so overwhelming it automatically passes by our general numeric standards, but is well within the range where it could pass. The arguments from the "in-betweens" seemed to acknowledge a scientific consensus while also arguing for nuance. That nuance can occur on talk pages still, and the Wikipedia definition found in FRINGE is explicitly stated as broad. Given the rough consensus that you have a scientific consensus one way where the opposite position is far outside the mainstream, and that the policy is intended as broad, I think we have the level of support needed to make a close in a content RfC that isn't trying to establish a new policy or guideline but rather implement an existing one. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

  TonyBallioni, That depends what you consider as the group that it is fringe to. Your close does not make this clear. Are we saying it is fringe amongst intelligence researchers? That simply isn't true and isn't backed up in the sources that we have. Are we saying that it is fringe when compared to all psychologists and other scientists that just happen to want to weigh in despite no qualifications or background in the subject? In that case, perhaps it is fringe, but then, in that case you need to define the entire field of intelligence research as fringe. Can you please clarify your close? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 19:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

  I was using the definition cited by WP:FRINGE in my close, which is intentionally broad. It is up to the participants in the discussion, not the closer, to determine how broadly they want to define the field they are looking at. The participants in the discussion as a whole determined that the scientific consensus had established that this was fringe, and many on the "no" side even recognized it as a minority view, meaning even those opposing it did not find the analysis of sources cited claiming it to be a majority viewpoint to be convincing. The question was whether or not it was minority enough to be considered fringe. The general agreement of that discussion was, yes, as a part of the overall academic and scientific consensus, it was indeed minority enough to be fringe. I hope that clarifies. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

  TonyBallioni, It does. Thank you. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 01:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  TonyBallioni, The quote you took from FRINGE says, "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." Amongst intelligence researchers there simply isn't such a preponderance of the view that genetics plays no role. in fact, all evidence (cited in the RfC) indicates that the opposite is true; that it is a common and widespread opinion amongst intelligence researchers that genetics likely play some role. Now if you want to say it is fringe because all of the other scientists in academia generally don't hold that opinion, fine, but don't take a quote from FRINGE that says "in its particular field" to justify it. It seems like your close is saying that "Amongst academics who study intelligence, this is a fringe view", when that simply could not be further from the truth. FRINGE clearly states that we should be looking for the views from the field, not from all of academia in general, which includes a lot of people who simply don't know what they are talking about but simply want to not be seen as "un-PC" and make uninformed comments. I can understand your close, but I'm dissatisfied by the way you wrote it up, as it leads to a misleading interpretation. I, as well as others, would be happier if you made it more clear how broadly you are interpreting "its particular field", with regards to the close, and clarified your closing statement. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 03:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• Regarding the claims that Tony violated ADMINACCOUNT because the close required three admins; [he] shouldn't have discounted new accounts that are SPAs; and that because [he] wrote WP:BLOCKNAZIS, I do not find support in the listed discussions or relevant policies and guidelines. I'll leave the analysis of the RFC-proper to those uninvolved others who have already commented. --Izno (talk) 03:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Izno, Nobody has stated Tony should have included SPAs, that is just silly. I am afraid that TonyBallioni seems to be misrepresenting the comment on another board. The IP editor never mentioned he should not have discounted SPAs, the IP editor just mentioned SPAs in the context that the close appeared to be based on a numerical count rather than an analysis of the strength of the arguments. Tony should strike that anyone is arguing for SPAs to be included in his analysis and he should add to his first post the core concern here to his above first post and that is that there is a concern he did not weigh the strength of the arguments in his close, otherwise this community review is tainted by reducing the quality of those disputing his close. I would ask Tony to strike and reword his above message to fix what appears to be a misrepresentation.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that's tweaking verbiage to get to the point that everyone's argument should be equal, which isn't what WP:NHC says, nor is the concept that numbers are completely irrelevant what that says either. The idea is what does the bulk of informed, established editors who are aware of the policies and issues at hand agree on, and the closer doesn't decide who is right, which appears to be what you're going for. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
      • Not sure if you are implying, by your “going for” wording, that I am pushing for a biased outcome to the RfC review. I consistently wrote, long before you did the close, that I wanted a 3 admin panel to guard against a biased close WP:SUPERVOTE that this topic area has recent history of. I hope I did not misinterpret your ”going for” comment. You don’t have to reply. You are correct that numbers are not irrelevant (they are important) but the quality of the arguments against policy carry the most weight.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The vote from Sinuthius is a good example of why I think there is a problem with your approach. Sinuthius was tagged as a SPA, but he also quoted a source that directly addresses hereditarianism's level of support in academia (the Areo Magazine article), and no one else in the RFC had previously mentioned this source. Two non-SPAs who subsequently voted "no", Jweiss11 and Tickle Me, said "per Sinuthius" in their votes. But you seem to be saying that since Sinuthius was a SPA, this source mattered less than it would have mattered if the person who originally posted it had been someone else.

The reason Jweiss11 and Tickle Me said "per Sinuthius", instead of citing this source directly, might have just been because Sinuthius voted before they did, and they did not want to repeat what he had already said. It isn't reasonable to discount certain sources based on who originally posted them, especially when later comments from others are indirectly referring to those sources. 2600:1004:B10C:92A0:FD9F:20BD:FBCF:9414 (talk) 04:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Looking through the discussion, I think Tony's close accurately assesses the rough consensus there. Writing an essay on a barely-related topic doesn't make someone involved. Nothing there makes me think a panel closure is required and honestly I doubt you could find 3 people who would touch this in a reasonable time frame anyway. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse As a long-time WP:FT/N regular I have been observing this gnarly RfC while choosing not to get involved. I do not think the arguments that TonyBallioni is involved have merit (and ironically, seem to come exclusively from involved participants in the RfC). Fair close, and TonyBallioni is to be commended for grasping this nettle. Good admin'ing. Alexbrn (talk) 05:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse This was a good close. Closers are not supposed to decide the issue for themselves as some of the above commenters that seek to re-litigate the issue appear to believe, but to assess where the rough consensus of the participants is.

1. The concerns of the first point seem to be based on the mistaken premise that it was incorrect/abnormal for a close to assign minimal weight to the !votes of SPAs, but it isn't at all, in fact that's the way we usually do things. Further, the relevance isn't particularly high in any case as the arguments presented were for the most part considered anyway as essentially everything stated by the SPAs was also repeated by others.
2. The second point of concern appears overwrought. Would it be nice to have panel closes on all contentious RFCs, absolutely. Is it necessary, no, and there is nothing in policy to suggest otherwise. Maybe if the logistics of a panel were in the works and volunteers had stepped up it would be different, but there was no evidence for that here. Doing a proper close is time consuming. Anyone who's glanced at the backlogs recently knows that we lack sufficient experienced closers to handle the volume our processes demand. Honestly, kudos is in order for stepping up and sorting through that mess of a discussion to reach a well-reasoned close.
3. The third point is grasping at straws. I agree wholeheartedly that involved should be construed broadly, and that it is important whether using tools, closing contentious discussions, or taking similar actions to avoid the appearance of impropriety, but the connection that objectors are drawing between edits to those essays and this close is so oblique that if a similar standard were universally applied no one would be able to close anything. Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 06:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Even without evaluating WP:INVOLVED, the optics are not good when the OP of that RfC first dissuades SilkTork from closing it, then there is a discussion about a three-admin close but TonyBallioni goes ahead and closes it before that. TonyBallioni has a history of administrative actions in the topic area, atleast dealing with Captain Occam, who primarily was a "race and intelligence" editor. ANI had an unblock request for Captain Occam in January 2020, in which I thought TonyBallioni's comment constituted a personal attack. TonyBallioni stated that the appealing user is a pseudoscientific racist without presenting any diffs. If he's resorting such attacks when discussing his administrative actions in the topic area, then it's also likely that he has strong feelings about it, fulfilling WP:INVOLVED to the letter as well. --Pudeo (talk) 07:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Briefly adding: I don't think TonyBallioni shouldn't do administrative actions in the topic area, but closing the RfC like this was a poor idea especially from him, after SilkTork had backed off and three admins were discussed. RfCs/AfDs are always a farce when closure becomes playing musical chairs. Fundamental changes to a topic area that has had discretionary sanctions for 10 years shouldn't happen like this. Overturn to no consensus would be an acceptable result, which would still allow classifying specific authors as fringe case-by-case. --Pudeo (talk) 08:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus per Insertcleverphrasehere. If anything, putting aside the optics and inevitable controversy in this, the points made by those in opposition seem slightly stronger than those in support, as they were more evidenced and contained details of reputable publications and authors expounding the theory. Nobody is arguing that the theory is a majority one or that it should be promoted in Wikipedia's voice, and I don't personally think there's any link between race and intelligence, based on my understanding of the science. But I wouldn't have closed the RFC this way myself because the case that it is an outright WP:FRINGE theory rather than a minority theory was not conclusively made in the discussion, and many eminent Wikipedians argued otherwise. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 07:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• TB was perfectly entitled to do a single admin close. The only required exceptions are spectacularly rare, where the wider community has decided beforehand it will be required. Their actions re SPAs were also reasonable. I'm not really aware enough of their actions in the field to make a judgement on involved. Fringe is indeed broad (some might say overly so), but I'm not sure whether this falls into it or just about makes it into being a minority opinion (not one that I share, to note). Certainly one side were making much better arguments, so I think at worst it would be NC, and might well be suitable either way. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Nosebagbear - Given that consensus is determined by the strength of arguments, if one side were making much better arguments, then shouldn't the RfC have closed with consensus in their favour? A no consensus close makes no sense where one side has the weight of arguments heavily on their side – although you haven't articulated which side had that advantage. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude:, was about to say you were taking my paragraph out of context until, thanks to your note, I realised I that I forgot the fairly fundamental addition of "better arguments on average". If no removals were occurring, then the weight of justified !votes would lean to the current close position. I haven't, however, reviewed how that holds up after SPAs are removed (in effect, to avoid double removing them), so that's why I went for a fairly ambiguous position. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Nosebagbear by the sounds of things I think you should consider reading the RfC from start to finish and discount the SPAs who are clearly marked (one or two were disputed but you can read that as well there) and then make a decision of no consensus or decide if you feel that the ‘yes’ or ‘no’ side carried the RfC.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse close as the backbone of the argument against the close—WP:INVOLVED and the SPAs—completely miss the point of what has been argued. Also endorse per Nosebagbear (Certainly one side were making much better arguments, which is, all things being equal, the sole arbiter of consensus at those discussions. Not per Nosebagbear's other suggestion that at worst it would be NC, and might well be suitable either way, however, which would be, in the colloquial, a cop out in the face of consensus. After all, AfD closers are not in the business of making the majority happy. Or anyone, for that matter—as this discussion indicates  :) FWIW, very few editors from the AfD itself seem to be overly concerned by the close, although not that the concerns raised are of course lessened by that—more of an observation. ——SN54129 13:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

SN54129, are you sure that you're correctly understanding Nosebagbear's statement that "one side were making much better arguments"? The comment immediately before his, from Amakuru, made the point that "the points made by those in opposition seem slightly stronger than those in support, as they were more evidenced and contained details of reputable publications and authors expounding the theory". When Nosebagbear said that one side was making better arguments, he might have been referring to Amakuru's preceding statement that the "no" votes were generally better justified than the "yes" votes, although Nosebagbear's statement was ambiguous so it could be interpreted either way. 2600:1004:B10F:2086:59A4:D34C:4402:41E8 (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

My comment was deliberatey nuanced. Please sign in under your original account. ——SN54129 13:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't have an account, and it isn't possible for me to use one. Can we please not get sidetracked? This discussion is about whether TonyBallioni's closure of the RFC was appropriate. 2600:1004:B10F:2086:59A4:D34C:4402:41E8 (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• The close probably causes more problems than it solves, it's too vague to provide any guidance for article content and assigns weight to a bunch of biased and opinionated arguments. Also gives a pass to those with poor conduct during the RfC: a great deal of bludgeoning and focus on contributors rather than content. Should never have been closed as either Yes or No, there are prominent and qualified critics who directly address the merit of research in this area and separate the sheep from the goats. Their views are what should help establish content for the article, not some mythical "consensus" of editors. The close is generally what I argued in the RfC, that FRINGE has some application, but it's disappointing in the lack of specific guidance. The expectation that we look to the policies and guidelines for principles to define how we act, and we trust our editors who are familiar with them to reach their conclusions based on that is belied by the RfC itself and unlikely to prove correct. fiveby(zero) 14:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The RFC close seems properly elucidated to me. It undergirded the policy known as WP:FRINGE and the closer described that policy. Saying the closer "assigns weight to a bunch of biased and opinionated arguments" is a huge mischaracterization and is an insult to participants from both sides of the issue, who put a lot of time and effort into this RFC. In fact, that is really a demeaning comment. Also, I didn't notice any poor conduct worth mentioning. Yet the above makes it seem like "poor conduct" was a central attribute of the discussion, with editors back and forth pillorying each other with personal attacks (and the like). This did not happen.

RFCs are created and function, based on support for the question or proposal or lack of support. Each response has its rationale. So, yes, it is binary simply because that is the most effective way to present an issue to the community. This results in an organized discussion based on policy. This is not a "yes" or "no" vote, or a, thumbs up or thumbs down vote. Also, the issue being discussed in the RFC was not about research on sheep. Likewise, no research on goats was taken into consideration.

Lastly, I noticed a good number of editors did state their positions based on policy, apparently meaning they reached their conclusion based on policy. For the record, I was a participant in the RFC. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Close seems fine. I'm not involved with this discussion; just commenting because while I agree with most of those endorsing the close here, I want to defend the idea of a panel close in general (this is not an argument to overturn). A panel close isn't because a single admin can't do the job or even because the close would be any better or different at all. The point of a panel close is to cut down on this, and what I'm sure will be several more threads in various venues related to this subject. It's to cut down on relitigating, as well as attempts to attack any particular admin's background. The WP:INVOLVED comments are way off the mark, but regardless of whether Tony is ok fending them off, in a panel close those comments don't go as far because the whole close isn't at one person's feet. In sum: close is fine, but with a hotly contentious, high-participation RfC, panel closes are very useful to cut down on hassles afterwards (for the community and for the closers). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse close. An exemplary closure, IMO. Guy (help!) 17:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse close. Agree with Guy above. Good close. The objections raised are dreadful. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 19:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • JzG/Guy was involved in the RfC (as was myself and Steve Quinn). Not sure if you are aware of that when referencing him. If you are already, I apologise.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
    • As are you. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 20:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

    Literaturegeek, and the outcome was not what I advocated. But it's extremely well reasoned. Guy (help!) 14:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn close per the issues raised by Pudeo and Fiveby above. Regardless of whether the closing party is biased or involved, a contentious RFC like this one should be closed in a manner that will help to resolve conflicts rather than exacerbate them, and this closure does not seem to be reducing conflict. I agree with the arguments that it should have been closed by a panel of three admins. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • What policy lays out when a panel close is required? There's a difference between something we'd like and something that is required. If no policy requires a panel close in this instance, the lack of a panel close is not sufficient justification to overturn the close. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Also "if the side that didn't get their way are whining about it, then the close should be overturned" is obviously not a viable principle, either. Also also, people who participated in the RfC (as Ferahgo the Assassin did) should identify themselves so as not to give the misleading impression that they don't have a preferred outcome. (I !voted yes.) --JBL (talk) 22:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself, but if the RFC had been closed by a panel of three admins who all had no prior involvement in the topic, with a closure summary that addressed all of the major arguments presented there, I'd have accepted the outcome even if it wasn't in my favor. (I voted "no".) I suspect this is true of a lot of the other "no" voters as well. When an admin knows ahead of time that his closure is going to be contested, as TonyBallioni clearly did, it's essential to make the closure as rock-solid as possible in order to avoid the type of situation that's happening now. This is the same point that Dennis Brown was making (who, incidentally, did not participate in the RFC). 2600:1004:B109:A549:E918:2939:512:DF4A (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Are you the person who spent several days insisting that it was necessary for you personally to select a closing admin to ensure closure was "fair"? Or was that someone else? --JBL (talk) 23:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Panel closes are not panaceas. I team closed Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices and got pinged in follow-ups for weeks. I also agree with Dennis that a panel closure would have been better, but in the absence of a requirement that's not a reason to overturn a close. The problems Tony raises with panel closes are reasonable and should not be dismissed out of hand. A three person close at minimum triples the workload of the project since three people need to take time away to read and analyze it, and there's still no guarantee that the closure will not be challenged. The best way to prevent disruption is for people to accept the results of an RfC based on the merits of the closure, not on who or how many people closed it. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I think people also would not be objecting so much if TonyBallioni's closure had clearly addressed the major arguments presented in the RFC, in particular the source that was being discussed at RSN, which was pivotal to the RFC's outcome. (See the comments by Amakuru and Insertcleverphrasehere). So the problem here really is twofold: it appears to have been a low-effort closure, and as a result of that people are questioning TonyBallioni's impartiality with respect to this decision, which is precisely the type of situation that a three-admin closure hopefully could have avoided. It also would have been very easy to predict this outcome beforehand, because there was a similar result from Spartaz's initial low-effort closure of the AFD. 2600:1004:B109:A549:E918:2939:512:DF4A (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

In the above discussion the RfC no-voters' claim that they had good sourcing relies primarily on a "survey" conducted by Heiner Rindermann. This IP-editor is referring to that source, which was discussed at length during the RfC, and then a no-voter initiated a parallel extensive discussion at another forum (WP:RSN). That so-called "survey of experts" was conducted by a strong advocate of theories of genetic differences in intelligence along racial lines who recently (2017) published in the white-supremacist journal Mankind Quarterly. The survey was published in Intelligence, the mouthpiece of the International Society for Intelligence Research, which actively promotes theories of genetic racial differences in intelligence. Among other things, Rindermann's survey claimed that Richard Lynn has a higher reputation as a scholar than Stephen Jay Gould, which is absurd. This was not a reliable source. (Disclosure: I was the OP for the RfC.) NightHeron (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Rindermann was not the lead author of that 2017 paper and thus it probably wasn’t his decision to publish it there in Mankind Quarterly. Much like if a doctor accepts drug company money for a single research project one time doesn’t make them corrupted by the drug companies in all other areas of their work.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

You're wrong. Rindermann's coauthor David Becker had a Master of Arts in political science and was Rindermann's Student Assistant, see [1]. Rindermann was the senior author. It obviously wasn't the student assistant who decided to publish the article in the white-supremacist journal Mankind Quarterly. NightHeron (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict x2, reply to anon) It is not the job of a closer to weigh the evidence, it is to assess how participants weighed the evidence. If the source brought up by the opposers was so ironclad, it should have persuaded the supporters. It did not. The supporters' views were backed up by policy, specifically the part that Tony quotes: we interpret fringe viewpoints "in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views" (emphasis added). No one in that discussion argued that this was a majority viewpoint, so the opposers were already starting on weak footing. The discussion, as Tony accurately summarized, focused on "whether or not being a minority position within academia corresponds with being fringe", and the conclusion was that editors generally agreed that the genetic theory was "enough of a minority viewpoint in the scientific consensus that it falls under Wikipedia's definition of a fringe theory above". His line of reasoning is very clear, and I don't see this as being a low-effort close.

It's for this reason I don't find ICPH's rationale convincing, and Tony gave a similar explanation in response. Amakuru's reasoning is more nuanced, but I disagree with their criteria for overturning. Based on my understanding of their comment, Amakuru's rationale relies upon their own interpretation of the evidence's weight rather than how participants weighed the evidence. If the evidence on the "no" side was in fact "slightly stronger" as they claim, we should have had more "no" opinions and certainly we shouldn't have had a "yes" majority because participants would have weighed those comments strongly without us as the closer needing to decide whose evidence was better.

The point of a closure review is not to reargue your case and hope you find a more favorable audience. In review we must be especially careful to stick to how participants weighed the evidence and not substitute our own opinions on who had the stronger argument. Let's call a spade a spade: people are not concerned about whether Tony is INVOLVED because they have a deep concern for the sanctity of the administrative process, people are critiquing Tony because they don't like the outcome and getting it overturned gives them a do-over. Even if I agree that Tony's close was low-effort (I don't) and that he was not impartial (I don't), per WP:NOTBURO I would want some evidence that his close was completely unreasonable before concerning myself of procedural questions. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The evidence is the RfC itself, and Wugapodes you will have to read it from top to bottom. I doubt many people here voting endorse close have actually read the RfC from top to bottom. There were many problems with NightHeron’s sources including misinterpreting them, being very old, being discredited by experts in the field, but these issues only were discovered and highlighted towards the end of the RfC which biased some people’s votes and the RfC was bludgeoned severely by NightHeron so that new voters did not read the rebuttals as they were drowned out. Repeated personal attacks of being called a racist no doubt scared some editors from commenting against the RfC for fear of such personal attacks. I read the RfC from top to bottom and most of the yes voters relied purely on original research when voting yes for fringe whereas no voters clearly had reliable sources on their side. But sadly the RfC is so long no one will read it and realise how badly TonyBallioni handled it and people who never read the RfC will just endorse the close and that is that, There were actually no sources that said it was a fringe theory, just original research and misinterpretations of an old source, but you need to read the RfC and weigh the arguments to see that. This is what I thought after reading the RfC: the yes voters have mostly only original research to stand on for fringe label and their arguments have been refuted with sources and the only way the RfC can go in their favour is if a SUPERVOTE occurs and for that reason I advocated for a 3 admin close to guard against a supervote scenario. I expected the close to treat the genetic contribution as a significant minority viewpoint to be governed by WEIGHT not FRINGE as fringe means we are compelled to pseudo scientifically misrepresent the WEIGHT in reliable sources and label major academic views as fringe.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I had read it. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

It is not the job of a closer to weigh the evidence, it is to assess how participants weighed the evidence. If the source brought up by the opposers was so ironclad, it should have persuaded the supporters. It did not. Something that clearly happened in this RFC is that the discussion became so long, people were voting without having read the existing discussion or examining the evidence that others had presented. This happened somewhat among both the "yes" and "no" voters, but it especially happened among the "yes" voters. Around half of the "yes" votes are only one or two sentences, without citing any sources or commenting on any of the sources that were cited by others. Ironically, some of the single-purpose accounts whose votes were thrown out, such as AndewNguyen and Sinuthius, showed far more evidence of having read the entire discussion than many of the "yes" voters did.

When this type of situation happens, it's essential for the closing admin to closely examine which side is presenting the stronger arguments. To do otherwise is to create a situation where bludgeoning to drown out the opposition is an effective tactic, as it seems to have been in this case. 2600:1004:B109:A549:E918:2939:512:DF4A (talk) 01:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Literaturegeek's sources are literally the first reply to the post and stated in bold. If editors would need to be completely incompetent to miss that. I don't buy it. I'm also not going to speculate about who may or may not have participated. Perhaps the discussion was being watched by right-wing trolls who would dox editors who commented "yes", and so some editors didn't participate? If I were to apply that reasoning, you would rightly call for my head, so I decline to speculate on what the people who didn't comment on the RfC were thinking about. The proper way to handle bludgeoning is seeking administrator intervention during the RfC, not using it as a post hoc reason to speculate about what might have happened. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Wugapodes NightHeron posted those sources on the 16th of March and I only replied to her message on the 11th of April after several no voters raised issues but got drowned out by bludgeon. Almost everyone had voted by the 11th of April. I thought about getting admin help for bludgeoning and personal attacks but figured it would be seen as me trying to sway the outcome of the RfC via GAME and also because I prefer to resolve drama through diplomacy rather than utilising admins.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Wugapodes I bolded the text 34 minutes before TonyBallioni did the close so you are misinterpreting the situation, I know it is a confusing large RfC so not criticising you. So yeah, my replies below NightHeron had little to no impact on the RfC voting because it was all done towards the end.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Look, I've spent more of my life reading that discussion than I care to; hell, at this point I could close the discussion. These arguments are straw-grasping nonsense, and every minute I've spent on this I regret. I don't think you understand how double edged these arguments are, and that to accept them in the way you want would mean ignoring how they apply to your side of the argument. You claim the yes !voters were bludgeoning; so then what do you make of this thread? You were afraid that seeking help for bludgeoning would be seen as trying to game the process, yet we should not take bludgeoning of this discussion as gaming the process? Should the closer of this discussion give extra weight to endorse not votes because they may have been scared off by this long thread, or downweight overturn !votes because they maybe didn't read this whole thread? How is it that sources brought up by "no" !voters were both unanalyzed and generated threads and threads of discussion? Even after nearly a month of discussion, your summary generated plenty of discussion and the comments that came after it such as Littleolive Oil's clearly show that they had read the prior discussion. Either the sources were ignored or they generated a lot of discussion. It is patently absurd to say that !voters came to the page, read absolutely nothing, and posted a !vote. It goes against WP:AGF and it goes against common sense. If an editor goes to that page, sees the forest fire and comes to the conclusion that there's no consensus on whether the sources you bring up are reliable, they can still come to a valid, informed, and reasonable conclusion on whether the opinion falls within the definition of WP:FRINGE without doing a point by point refutation of the sources. The opposition is not for a lack of understanding. I have heard you and understand your points. I do not find them convincing. Please stop throwing spaghetti at the wall; it is not sticking. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Of course I knew it would have been controversial. Any close would have been, and in my opinion a group close likely would have caused more disruption as it was also all but certain to have been contested in a closure review and you'd have three people having to defend something that one person largely wrote then the others helped adapt (which is how most team written documents work.) I also don't believe that this wouldn't have ended up at a closure review with a panel based on the reactions here. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The AfD where race and intelligence was nominated for deletion for the 4th time resulted in a super vote being cast by a closing admin, it caused enormous drama with the deletion review recommending overturn and reclose by a 3 admin panel. The 3 admin panel came to the exact opposite close to the supervote admin. Given the high emotions on this topic area pretty much every Wikipedian either hates racially offensive material more or pseudoscience more and so this constant battle to misrepresent academic opinion to be politically correct in the article or include potentially offensive views. It is a tough one and requires a high quality close that weighs the arguments in the close not in your head as we don’t know how you weighed them in your head. Once the three admin panel closed it there was zero drama, everybody accepted it because it was a high quality close where you could see the admins weighed the core arguments, determined points of consensus and where there was no consensus used policy to determine the outcome. I am afraid your close did little to none of that. The 3 admin panel close was a close that was accepted and there was zero protest or drama which was why I advocated for it. Compare the quality of the close here: wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Race_and_intelligence_(4th_nomination).--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, those of us who supported the AfD for Race and intelligence did not come here to complain about the DRV closure that ruled against deletion, but that was not because it was a 3-admin panel. Nor was it because the closing statement (which was no longer than TonyBallioni's closing statement for the RfC) carefully considered the arguments. Rather, the DRV closure invoked policy, basically saying that non-neutral or fringe content was not a reason for deletion. We understood the significance of the words in the closing statement that "non-neutral or fringe content can be fixed by editing." This was a road-map. Rather than trying to get the article deleted, what we should do is first get a community consensus that scientific racism is fringe, and then on that basis we could proceed to remove the false balance in that article and some other articles so as to bring them up to Wikipedia standards. That's why I started the RfC. NightHeron (talk) 01:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I can barely wait until this whole RfC close review process is over so I can move on from this toxic and impossible editing area.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Don't wait. You could stop participating now and no-one would think any less (or more) of you. The process will sort itself out, whether or not you continue to participate. --Izno (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn close. I concur with Dennis Brown's point: this discussion got an enormous amount of traction and thoughtful comments on both sides of the question, and to do fairness to all the participants, this close should be re-examined by multiple admins or experienced users. MaximumIdeas (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn and reassess. I would prefer to have a three-admin close with more nuance and detail, and would not preclude TonyB being one of the three. A more in-depth close by another single admin (probably best for acceptance level if it's one who's not an essayist on closely related topics) might work, though. It's not that the close was incorrect in what it said, it simply didn't say anything that needed to be said. In particular, the close ignored the central point of the RfC, which was not an attempt to conclude that the "there is a proven link between race and intelligence" narrative is a fringe position; we already know it is. It was an attempt, rather, to conclude that because that ultimate, synthetic, largely undefinable conclusion is fringe, then any research that purports to show any population differences in cognitive testing, or any potentially genetic performance deltas at anything cognitive, are also fringe research by fringe scientists and must be suppressed. That's just a politicized censorship putsch, and clearly is not actually permissible under policy or pillars. The close did not address this, yet it is the only part of the RfC that really matters.

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

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

  • The RFC was not asking whether any research that purports to show any population differences in cognitive testing, or any potentially genetic performance deltas at anything cognitive, are also fringe research by fringe scientists and must be suppressed. The RFC asked a single question: "Is the claim that there are genetic differences in intelligence along racial lines a fringe viewpoint?" It's asking whether a claim is fringe, not whether "any research" is fringe. The specific claim is "there are genetic differences in intelligence along racial lines". It's not about "any population differences in cognitive testing", nor about "genetic performance deltas at anything cognitive", it's about whether WP:FRINGE applies to the claim that there exist (1) genetic differences (2) in intelligence (3) along racial lines, and nothing else. It's very obvious that the RFC question was carefully written to not overreach; unfortunately, some of the arguments in the RFC extended it beyond what it's asking, and then argued against the part that it was never asking about (e.g., arguing that we shouldn't suppress any and all research into intelligence and genetics... well, of course not, no one ever suggested that)... I forget the word for that variety of straw man argumentation. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 04:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The RfC was very obviously not just asking about the narrow statement "[it is known/proven/established/scientific_consensus that] there are genetic differences in intelligence". The entire point, the stated point, the of the RfC was to circumscribe all material, including all the main published summaries of evidence for the hereditarian position, by Jensen, Murray, Lynn, Rushton, Gottfredson et al, as fringe-by-implication due to statements that "agree to some degree" with the narrow point. In fact it would be difficult to find examples of those people stating the narrow position. In print they invariably refer to it as unproven "hypothesis" and "theory" and discuss "evidence" and their opinions on what is more "probable" rather than dogmatic assertions about the state of nature (they also tend to discuss psychometric IQ or 'g', rather than intelligence, and statements like "genetically inferior" are unheard of). So the RfC, even if unanimously supported, would not have any effect on the race-and-intelligence page unless interpreted in the vague broad sense that SMcCandlish correctly calls politicized censorship putsch. This is a perfect, literal example of the motte-and-bailey technique in which a disputed assertion is claimed to be only the narrow, limited, incontestible point (who could possibly disagree with it?) when challenged, but interpreted in very broad terms when it comes to actual intention and application. The fallacy would be even clearer if you, the OP or the closer were to specify what the scientific consensus is, that stands in opposition to whatever the fringe view is supposed to be. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 04:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

"There are not genetic differences in intelligence along racial lines" is the scientific consensus. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll leave most of this for SMcCandlish to address, but I'd like to address this part: It's very obvious that the RFC question was carefully written to not overreach This is incorrect. It only appears that way because Barkeep49 modified NightHeron's original post to move his subsequent commentary into a separate section, due to the requirement for RFCs to be neutrally worded. This is something that Barkeep49 did at my request, and he explained his reason for doing so here.

Here is NightHeron's RFC question in its original form, before Barkeep49 modified it. Originally NightHeron's RFC question included his commentary that editors (those who would subsequently vote "no") were "promoting white supremacist views" on these articles, so it's very clear that categorizing all pro-hereditarian research as white supremacism is part of what he intended for the RFC to be about. And he continued to make that argument throughout the RFC, despite Barkeep49's modification to his initial post. 2600:1004:B11E:FE8D:F48C:6A63:5D35:30BB (talk) 05:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Your response is an example of the "straw man argumentation" I was talking about. You're talking about NightHeron's intentions, whereas what I said was, the RFC question was carefully written to not overreach. The RFC question was Is the claim that there are genetic differences in intelligence along racial lines a fringe viewpoint?, and those sixteen words were, indeed, carefully written to not overreach, regardless of what the author's intentions were. For all I care, NightHeron's intention in posting that RFC was to please their alien overlords or to fulfill an ancient prophesy and thereby ascend to heaven... I don't give a hoot what the author's intentions were, I'm talking about the RFC question. Because of the rearrangement you suggested, we can be sure that RFC !voters were responding to the question, Is the claim that there are genetic differences in intelligence along racial lines a fringe viewpoint, and not, as Smac suggests, to any question about "any population differences in cognitive testing" or "genetic performance deltas at anything cognitive", and that's true regardless of NightHeron's intentions or subsequent comments in the RFC. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 06:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

In the RfC as I originally posted it [2], the statement of the RfC is clearly separated from my arguments by a line that reads Yes as OP. The only change that Barkeep49 made was, at the IP-editor's request, to make the part after the RfC statement into a separate section. There was no intent on my part to include the material after "Yes as OP" as part of the statement of the RfC. I didn't think it was confusing for me to give my vote and explain it right after the statement of the RfC, but perhaps I was wrong, in which case Barkeep49's edit solved that problem. For the record, my motive, which I stated in a response above to Literaturegeek, was to get a definitive judgment from the community on the fringe nature of racialist conclusions about genes and intelligence so that editors would be on solid ground when removing false balance from relevant articles, per WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. Nowhere have I (or any other yes-voters) shown a desire to censor anything or prevent Wikipedia from covering research topics. NightHeron (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the Barkeep49 neutralizing modification to the original NightHeron opening came long after most of the responses, which were already by that point polarized and addressing mostly not the base question, but the source suppression idea. And TonyB would have known this, which is why I object to the close not addressing what the majority of the discussion was about, but only the base question. All this does is ensure that we're going to have to have yet another F'ing round of this internecine bickering to re-re-re-hash that part all over again. So, the close as it stands essentially serves no purpose. All it does is tell us that a fringe view is a fringe view, which we already knew.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

This is false. The separation into different sections by Barkeep49 took place 1 day and 3 hours after I posted the RfC, at 02:48 on 18 March, see [3]. The RfC lasted 35 days, that is, for 34 days after that edit, and the vast majority of comments were made after Barkeep49's edit. In their desperate efforts to delegitimize the whole RfC along with TonyBallioni's close, opponents of the RfC are making outlandish claims. NightHeron (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• You do realize that a "three-admin close" would just be two admins adding their sigs to the already-existing close? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 08:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Swarm: Then why did TonyBallioni close the RfC before the discussed three-admin close, and why did the OP dissuade SilkTolk from closing it? It's as if closing admins hold discretionary power to sway to the close in some direction... and that's why people are picky who gets to close. --Pudeo (talk) 08:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Uninvolved users do not "sway" a close, they simply close. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 08:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse close Based on my reading of the discussion, I believe Tony's close to be a fair and reasonable summary of the discussion. If an administrator publicly stating that they are opposed to literal Nazis is enough to make them INVOLVED in a different topic area, we'd have a lot of overturning to do. The argument that a panel of administrators should have closed the RfC also is insufficient for me. There is no policy or guideline that I'm aware of requiring or reccomending panel closes. While I don't think they're quite as unnecessary as Tony does, I agree that a panel close was not required in this case. Panel closes are most useful when there are questions about how existing policy affects the closure and when the RfC is on a complex topic. Neither of those are the case here: while the topic area is controversial, the RfC and the closure apply only to the application of a particular guideline to a particular topic. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed this: on a subpage of TonyBallioni's essay titled "Pages often edited by racists", the first article listed is race and intelligence. This list originally was part of the main essay, until it was moved to a subpage. It really seems disingenuous to claim that this essay only is about literal Nazis, and that it has nothing to do with this topic. 2600:1004:B121:24B1:68A8:B461:310A:D948 (talk) 13:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Listen, we understand, you think that someone who doesn't want Nazis editing wikipedia is biased against you. Why you think repeating this over and over again is to your credit is a mystery, but no one is at risk for not having seen then 800 other whinges about it. You lost; that's a shame; get on with your life. --JBL (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Clarify what you mean by this. I just pointed out that the essay's subpage gives race and intelligence as the #1 example of a page edited by racists, and you summarized this as "someone who doesn't want Nazis editing wikipedia." Are you saying you agree with his implication, that a large portion of the people who edit that article are actual Nazis? 2600:1004:B121:24B1:68A8:B461:310A:D948 (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the point that Joel_B._Lewis was making, anon, was that a) TB's close was a good close; b) that the RfC is going to stay closed; and c) that moaning about an essay isn't going to make the blindest bit of difference. Cheers! ——SN54129 14:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Intelligence researchers claim that Ashkenazi Jews are more intelligent than any other ethnic group (Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence), so it would be ironic if actual Nazis were furthering that theory in Wikipedia, given that it is in direct contradiction with the Racial policy of Nazi Germany. --Pudeo (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

For the final time, my contributions to that page were to include language stating that we block the types of people who think the holocaust didn’t exist but it would have been a good idea and who put swastikas and black suns on their user page. I explicitly argued that it was too broad in other ways on the talk page. I think my sole contribution to the “list of racist ideas” was listing genocide. If you want to argue that being opposed to genocide, holocaust deniers, and people using Wikipedia to display nazi swastikas makes me involved, fine, just don’t expect anyone uninvolved to take you seriously. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Tony for your time and efforts against neo-Nazis.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

It is a matter of simple fact that this article is frequently edited by racists. This is Wikipedia, you'd be hard pressed to find any admin who likes racists, or pretends they are anything other than what they are. Guy (help!) 14:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• I endorse a well-thought-out closure. There's no requirement for "panels". People are just upset with the outcome. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse close per IAR. Often a panel close is good for contentious RfCs , but here the RfC seemned so emotive it's doubtful it would have been more calming for the losing side. So a panel might have just tripled the work, and the exposure to a backlash. Tony is to be commended for stepping up and taking it on himself.

A case could be made that No votes were better grounded in scientific sources. So the thing is, very occasionally it's best to resolve matters on practical grounds, rather than the merits of the arguments. It looks like theres been contention on this Race & Intelligence thing for months, tying up the time and energy of valuable editors on both sides. Ideally the dispute would end with true consensus formation, where both sides converge on a common position. But that looks unlikely in this case, perhaps due to partially incompatible moral outlooks. A NC result might see heated contention carry on indefinitely, risking good editors on both sides getting banned or retiring in frustration. So it seems for the best to bring the dispute to a close, at least for a while, by strengthening the hand of one side or another. A close for Yes made sense as that side has a slight majority, and if you have to favour one side in a Nature v Nuture debate, then the fact Nature is more associated with harmful policies also favours a Yes. Having said all this, IMO it's not going to be sustainable for more than a few years to favour Nurture (=~Yes) like this, either on scientific or moral grounds. Mainstream science doesn't care about progressives feelings; exponential progress by AI aided labs is making the Gould position increasingly untenable, even among scientific journalists. Tech & sociological change is making what ones draws in the genetic lottery more important than ever in governing life chances & happiness. The enormous suffering involved here can't be adequately addressed with white lies. But these are issues for a few years down the line. For now, the Yes side have the upper hand. They might want to consider the SMcCandlish point that if they push the Nature = fringe view too strongly, they risk readers not finding the article credible, and having them turn to right wing sources.

PS - Im not suggesting TB closed in favour of Yes due to the tactical/political reasons I outlined above. This is just my opinion as to why it's the right result. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse closure: The closure by Tony was well thought out and showed careful consideration of the arguments. I'll note, I consider most people, regardless of race, to be imbeciles and thus consider myself to be fair and balanced when it comes to issues of race and intelligence. Nick (talk) 11:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Haha! :-)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. 3 admins are not required and plenty of people have explained the issue with SPA's. A well thought out closure, with reference to the relevant policies/guidelines. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Requested move by article subject?

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

There's an email address buried in one the bottom paragraphs of Wikipedia:Contact us/Article subjects. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

This was at WP:UAA (Special:PermanentLink/951789227, Special:Diff/951789295). I wouldn't object to an {{uw-ublock-famous}}. Ping Justlettersandnumbers. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I think my only contribution there was to ask if there's any reason to doubt that it's really him. If there is reasonable doubt then, yes, he should be asked to verify his identity; I'm not convinced that a block is the best way to make that request, but if that's the consensus then so be it. Since we're here, am I the only one to find at least one comment in the move discussion unacceptably close to PA/harassment? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

If you're referring to "probably a liar" I would say that's certainly a less diplomatic way of saying, "possibly an impersonator" and could be construed as a personal attack. User:ToBeFree, thanks for that background, and for informing the editor of this discussion as I forgot to. It could well be him, and he isn't being disruptive as after his one edit to the article was reverted he started the talk page discussion.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll invite Quale to the discussion as well. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The person reached out to verify the identity, see ticket:2020042110008891. I'll keep you posted. --MrClog (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• We should assume good faith, but not accept unverified claims. That means that we should not accuse anyone of being an impersonator but we should point anyone making such claims to OTRS so they can be verified. Why couldn't the people commenting in the move discussion simply wait for that to be done rather than accuse this editor of impersonation? Of course the subject's wishes, if this is verified to be the subject, are not final in article naming, but there was no need for such accusations. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

  Such accusations should not have been raised. There is some use of Vasyl in sources, but it is far outnumbered by Vassily, in the past year 142 for Vassily vs. 3 for Vasyl.--Bob not snob (talk) 05:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Pawnkingthree, ToBeFree, Justlettersandnumbers, Bob not snob, and LuK3: The user's identity has been verified. Those with access to OTRS can independently verify this by looking at ticket:2020042110008891. --MrClog (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Beetstra/Spam-whitelist

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have informed Beetstra of this discussion via ping, as well as here and here to cover all bases. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:15 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

Neutralhomer, please correct me if I am wrong: Are you currently spreading a link violation across noticeboards? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't spread a link violation, because it would be caught by the blacklist. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:42 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

Ah, sorry. Neutralhomer, we seem to disagree about what a "link" is. Your plaintext... "link", I'd say... seems to be problematic to me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I've mixed up "(hyper)link" and "URL". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

No, I followed directions. I've messaged you regarding this. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:58 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

It relieves me that the instructions mix up URL and "link" too. Well. You did not knowingly link to a copyright violation, so it was probably acceptable. That is, until now, when you became aware of the issue. I can't restore what I consider to be contributing to copyright infringement. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: and @ToBeFree (mobile): If it is indeed LINKVIO to put a URL/link there, as instructed by the pages own instructions, that should definitely be changed posthaste. Else that will continue to happen for other editors. I'll leave that up to you or another editor to take care of. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:38 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

Copyright renewals largely became irrelevant after the Copyright Renewal Act of 1992. Since it was published after 1964, this book still has copyright protection, at least in the US. - MrOllie (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

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

(edit conflict)Regardless of the merits of this in general (and I’d suggest that linking to this is, in fact a bad idea), the concept that anything which is out of copyright is easily available online is ludicrous. Qwirkle (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Qwirkle, I agree, but it becomes quite a bit more likely that you will find pieces. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Beetstra: you explained that Docroid.net is spam blacklisted because it hosts copyright violations. This is odd because the Meta Externals links policy does not even mention copyright. WP:SPAM or WP:BLACKLIST do not recognize possible copyright violations as spam either. The blacklist seems arbitrary, as for instance, the videosharing website Liveleak is blacklisted because it hosts copyrighted. Well, so does Youtube and Twitter. So exactly on what policy basis these additions are done? --Pudeo (talk) 15:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I was just about to reply and Dirk beat me to it. This reference is 100% in compliance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines without a link. Is online verification preferable? Yes. But it's not always possible and it is not required in order to source material. No whitelisting needed especially for something with COPYVIO implications. Broader discussions about the blacklist policy probably belong somewhere else. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Pudeo, there is no such "policy", but there is meta:Copyright, which discourages "Providing external links to material in violation of its copyright". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Pudeo, there is a difference between sites that contain the odd copyright violation left and right (youtube has some material in violation of copyright, but by far most of it is not; liveleak has some copyright violating material, but much material is not in violation of copyright). However, for docdroid.net it was reported as "This is pretty much all copyright violating uploaded papers and "leaked" sources." by one editor (user:Natureium), and blacklisted by another (user:JzG) with "Yup. Systematic WP:LINKVIO". If a site is in far majority copyright violations like likely the material that Neutralhomer wanted to link to then it is safer for Wikipedia to disallow linking to the whole site, and whitelist the specific material that is of use and can be shown not to be hosted in violation of copyright. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Beetstra:: Again, if a copyright exists. I can find no evidence of this Association Press. From 1977?! Kinda hard to do in a pandemic and the closest copy to me in about 110 miles away. Is this, indeed a copyrighted book or was it independently published without copyright? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:47 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

(edit conflict) x4: Neutralhomer, the "snarky post" was both helpful and correct. Per WP:LINKVIO, you may not link from Wikipedia to any page that you know or suspect to be a copyright violation, which is certainly the case here. Moreover, there's no need to do so; you need only to cite the book with proper bibliographic details including ISBN (if it has one, otherwise OCLC), and the page numbers for the material you are referring to. Our article on Copyright law of the United States may be worth a glance, too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Neutralhomer: If you write a text, you own the copyright unless you explicitly give it away. If you write a letter you own the copyright of that text. If you write a book you own the copyright of that text. Unless you explicitly sign away those rights (which some companies you work for ask you to do, whereupon the company owns the copyright) or you explicitly release the material in the public domain (like here on Wikipedia, still what you write needs to be attributed to you) you own the copyright. You here explicitly say that you cannot check whether that copyright is expired, and therefore we fall back to the default in copyright term (50-70 years after the writer dies) and reasonably assume that the copyright is still valid, and hence WP:COPYVIO/WP:COPYLINK applies: do not link to that material if you reasonably expect that the copyright is valid. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers:: So linking someone local libraries and telling them to "can find it in their nearest library" saying it's "utterly inconvenient that you have to actually go outside" during a pandemic is appropriate behavior for an admin? Also, what copyright? There is no proof of a copyright. <I wrote this, it's copyright. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:04 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

@Beetstra:: I linked to it on Spam-whitelist because that's what the directions (in the big green box) right beside "IMPORTANT" say to do. I followed directions. Can't call "LINKVIO" when the directions are right there on the page. Sorry. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:02 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

As others have pointed out, there is absolutely no need to link to an online scan of the book content, and all that is required is to furnish the full bibliographic details. The book is available at 11 libraries within a relatively short drive of where I live in Northern California. Yes, libraries are closed at the moment but they will reopen sometime fairly soon, and online used book sellers are still operating for someone who really wants to read a physical copy. Well over 1000 books have been published since 1888 under the "Association Press" moniker but I do not know if that represents one company or several companies using the same name. The pandemic is irrelevant to the fundamental point: we simply do not link to websites that exist to host copyright violations. End of story. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Cullen, my old "friend". Still stuck on the copyright that may exist. Where? Show the copyright. There is no proof that one exists. You yourself just said you don't know if that's one company or many. Someone could be piggybacking on that copyright.

Yes, the pandemic is relevant, because Beetstra tone deaf answers (ie: go to a library) show that he isn't up to making that determination. NorCal, from what I hear, isn't opening anything up "fairly soon" either. Not here in Virginia. They will remain closed until June 10 and probably after too. This is two fold. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:58 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

I confidently predict that libraries will reopen before the WP:DEADLINE. Guy (help!) 17:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: Not in Virginia they won't. :) At least not until June 10. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:40 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

Neutralhomer, as an uninvolved editor with an interest in copyright: the burden of proof here is on you. Just like how we can't accept text copied from a website even if that website doesn't have a copyright notice (unless that website is explicitly licensed in a compatible way), it is not okay for us to be linking to a possible copyvio because "it might not be copyrighted." Per MrOllie's comment above and the copyright office's page on this, works copyrighted from '64 to '77 automatically were renewed, so unless you have records indicating that it was not copyrighted or that unusual circumstances apply, we need to err on the side of caution. Please, just do a {{Cite book}}, it is not vital to the article that we provide this link. creffett (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Creffett:: So we can't accept it isn't copyrighted, but we can accept is? You see where I have probably with that. I'm just to take someone at their word "yeah, it's copyright", but you can't take me at my word "but what if it isn't?". See the problem here?

I've already done a cite book. That's not the problem. I like to have PROOF of what I am citing. I am citing quotes too. Since someone can't actively go out and see this for themselves, it's good to have an actual book link on hand.

I'm still would like someone look at Beetstra tone deaf responses, but I don't think that's gonna happen. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:18 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

Yes, that's exactly right. When in doubt, we always assume copyright. In the absence of further info either way, that is by far the most likely. Plus is the safe assumption. It is always the burden of the person claiming there is no copyright to prove that claim. I've also looked at Beetstra's comments, and they are at most 5% more snarky than needed. Not gold standard, but certainly not a reason for bringing this to ANI. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, Beetstra is Dutch. His English is excellent but word choices may seem idosyncratic or blunt at times. He also spot-on: you bear the onus of proving that the link does not violate copyright, something your comments above would indicate that you may not have fully appreciated. Guy (help!) 17:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@JzG:: I'm American, my English is also excllent, my word choices are also blunt (I'm Autistic). Not sure how any of that (above) was needed to be brought up, but OK. Why are we stack on top of comments? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:34 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

Copyright 1977 (it's in field 260 – I hope the link works, otherwise you'll have to take my word for it). Yes, I know it wasn't necessary, copyright should have been assumed anyway, but I already had the library catalogue open in another tab. --bonadea contributions talk 17:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

So we can't accept it isn't copyrighted, but we can accept is? You see where I have probably with that. I'm just to take someone at their word "yeah, it's copyright", but you can't take me at my word "but what if it isn't?". See the problem here?

(edit conflict)By law in the United States, any published work is copyrighted unless the author specifically designates it otherwise. The author may choose to register the copyright, which provides additional legal protections, but it is not required. Therefore, the onus is on us to prove a work is not copyrighted, rather than the other way around.

Beetstra's comments were unnecessarily dismissive, but they may have just assumed you knew this fact about copyright status, and that led to the misunderstanding. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)That "automatically copyrighted" thing started in 1978, so it wasn't true in 1977 when this book came out; many things landed in the public domain by either not having their copyright registered or not having it properly marked on the work. However, this book did have its copyright registered, as you can find record of in the appropriate copyright catalog. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC) Added: This book is so absolutely impossible to find that... four used copies are available through Amazon right now. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@NatGertler: Find online. I'm not saying to buy, I'm saying in academic form (ie: Google Books, JSTOR). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:34 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

Utterly irrelevant. Wikipedia does not require that references be online. The idea that "in academic form" requires an online version suggests that academic studies did not exist prior to the Internet. My pointing out that physical copies are available is in response to various "but the libraries are closed" comments. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@NatGertler: Because I quote the document multiple times on the page, it helps the reader to see the document "in hand". Also, after the Pauley Perrette/Asexuality/User:NedFausa madness, I'm not taking any chances when it comes to anyone coming in any removing anything saying "oh, this can't be cited" or something similiar. I'm covering all my bases. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:44 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

If you are “covering your bases” with the online equivalent of extensive scholarly notes, you really shouldn't be doing that in the article, any more than we should be uploading extensive photocopies of copyrighted material to be used in the article. If this belongs at all, and I’m not at all convinced it does, it belongs on the talk page, not the article. Qwirkle (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Qwirkle: First, I didn't upload it. Second, if it keeps users from mass deleting things from multiple articles, I'll add scholarly notes everytime. Plus, it's a timeline, so scholarly notes are actually a good thing. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:16 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

Generic “you.” When writing an article or a book in real, non-online life, a researcher might conceivably copy the whole of a copyrighted work by hand or xerox at a library, toddle home with it, and use it, quite legitimately, to create a new work. But if he copied that whole work whole as an appendix, or added it as a running footnote, or what have you, his house might become the disputed property of his lawyers and the original copyright holder’s. A bluelink out to a dodgy source is pretty much the online equivalent of this. We are putting someone else’s work in ours, without their agreement, and without compensating them, right in the article. That is not the equivalent, so to speak, of a manila folder of clippings, scrawled notes, and photocopies. Someone might make the case that the talk page is. (It ain’t gonna be me, though.) Qwirkle (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

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

@Vermont: Tell that to The Internet Archive. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:34 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

There's been a few articles recently about whether what they're doing is legal. It is all quite uncertain; the only thing I can be sure of is that the WMF doesn't want to get involved in anything like it. If the copyright owner of that book sends a DMCA, it would be taken down, and we don't want to get to that point. Vermont (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

It’s worth noting that the IA position is bolstered by a large number of associated libraries who have physical copies which can not currently circulate. Except for current bestsellers, the number of copies physically held by libraries often covers the online access. Very different thing here. Qwirkle (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Qwirkle: I am so very aware of the physical copies, I even mentioned them to begin with. I am talking about a linkable, readable online copy. There isn't one. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:16 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

• This can be closed, right? Content question asked and answered, behavior evaluated and determined not to be a problem. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • @Floquenbeam: Yeah, go ahead. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:39 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

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

Unreferenced material being added after level 4 warning by IP user

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

---

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

@Naypta: That's garden variety date change vandalism, and violations of the biographies of living persons policy to boot, and massive nontrival unexplained changes are nearly always DE anyway. I reverted their current edits. In the future just report this to WP:AIV once they violate past final warning. Also for for reporting more complex cases requiring administrator intervention ANI is usually preferable to AN. (Non-administrator comment) 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D: I wasn't sure that it met the standard for WP:VD because it's not completely clear to me that the behaviour is designed to defeat the purpose of the project - it may simply be original research, and there are a few edits which seem to be genuine attempts at doing something good. Thanks for the note about ANI vs AN though - I'll freely admit I'm not fully clear on the difference. | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 16:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Naypta: No worries this is not always easy to identify, if it were just restricted to quibbles over dates active that would be one thing, although you could still report if they made mass-changes against consensus, but knowingly changing birthdates and places of birth to incorrect values when the reference is provided is a transparent attempt to defeat Wikipedia's purpose, AGF is not a suicide pact. As for attempts at doing something good, it is necessary to weigh the benefit vs harm to the project, as well as the degree to which a problematic user is willing to listen to criticism. This is further complicated by the fact that many IP addresses are shared, but if the bad outweighs the good a block is usually the best course of action to maintain the integrity of the project, hope this helps. (Non-administrator comment) Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 16:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

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

MOS:COLOR

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

---

Do people really not give a shit about MOS:COLOR? I can not read or see the heading of this template, Template:USM Alger, so I stripped out the colours so I can see and read it. However I got reverted twice over, so I ask at WT:FOOTBALL#Template:USM Alger for some help, yet the response I got was... well, lacking, and from two admins one giving of examples of templates when, some that violate some that don't and the other admin GS decides to tag my talk page for edit-warring when I clearly was not edit warring. So really, for someone like myself who can't read text on certain backgrounds, is it really fair of the response I got? Does anyone care for the MOS:COLOR policy? Govvy (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Govvy, I think you're right, but overreacting. In the WT:FOOTBALL thread you linked to, most of the editors agreed with you, so I don't know why you think no one cares about MOS:COLOR. I also agree with you: we need readable templates; we don't need templates that match team colors. But I'm not sure why this is at AN: what is it you want an administrator to do? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I think most would agree with you that there are ACCESS/COLOR issues on these sorts of templates, but I think fixing one template in a series is the main issue for those reverting you. The linked FOOTBALL discussion might get the footy templates updated, but I think it will take a wider VPP/similar discussion (hopefully not an RFC) to get folks to realize that we need to change all of these sports-related colour-coded navboxes. Primefac (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Govvy: firstly you need to notify editors when you mention them here (lucky I came across this in my watchlist), and FWIW you WERE edit warring as "an edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions" (which is exactly what happened!); my warning was therefore entirely valid. You then ran off to WT:FOOTBALL to whine, and when it didn't go fully your way you there then came here... GiantSnowman 20:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

GS, please look again, I was not edit warring, and you're an admin, you should have this noticeboard on your watchlist, no need to ping you, and I ask that you should apologies to me, also, I was posting here for more clarification towards MOS:COLOR, I've been wondering for a while if the policy needs a bit of an overhaul and wanted some opinions from other admins. Also GS, I don't want to be rude, but you're poor at this admin job at times, tagging me, without assuming good faith, pfft, I could say so much more but that would be going right off the topic for which I want to discuss. Govvy (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, except you were clearly edit warring, GS correctly warned both of you, you are required to notify editors, it is ludicrous to assume all admins must monitor ANi at all times, you're pointlessly casting aspersions, you're engaging in hyperbole, and your careless attitude about all this is detracting from the correctness of your actual point. By your actions, you are harming your cause. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I did not edit-war, please, I did an edit so I could see the text, then I reverted back to that twice, not three, only two, that's not a case of 3RR, nope, if you feel that's a breach of 3RR ban me then, but if you admins can't assume any good faith, and continue with this pointless exercise of avoiding the first detail, what's the point of being an admin when you want to void the first detail and simple ignore the first detail and continue on this pattern of calling someone a thief for trying to stop a thief. Such bad policing, Govvy (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Is it possible that you do not understand the difference between edit warring and 3RR? This is explained in WP:EW, and I think even in the template you removed (in bold!) from your talk page. You did not violate 3RR. You did edit war. So did the other person doing the reverting. GS gave a standard warning to you both. It's fascinating how many people demand others assume good faith, while in the same sentence refusing to do the same. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here is the definition of edit war, from the relevant policy: An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. It continues: There is a bright line known as the three-revert rule (3RR). ... The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to engage in an edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. Floquenbeam is correct and you should absorb their message. --JBL (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Great, rip on the colourblind dyslexic guy who can't read a that template with red and black, still can't read that template heading. I was trying to fix something I can't read or see, I still don't understand how that counts as an edit-war, it makes no sense why you call that an edit-war. Dam admins and their tags, lack of etiquette in some parts of wiki, now if you people don't mind, I've had enough, going to watch something on TV. Govvy (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

It's an edit war because you kept reverting after being reverted. You do not need to violate WP:3RR to edit war. I'm sympathetic to your plight re: the template being unreadable, and hopefully that gets resolved soon. But this was an edit war.

Further, you are still required to notify the involved parties. The fact one of them is an admin does not mean you can skip that step.

Hope you found something good to watch on TV, and again, I hope the template issue gets resolved to be legible soon. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of the edit war, Govvy is correct; it is nonsensical that usch templates should violate ACCESS purely because an owning editor wants pretty colours. I have normal vision and that template is difficult to read even for me. As I've just mentioned at WT:FOOTBALL, if there are others then they should simply be changed as well. Black Kite (talk) 08:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I have suggested a compromise that meets WP:ACCESS but retains the team colours at WT:FOOTBALL. Black Kite (talk) 09:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Black Kite, nice work, thanks. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Goodness, that template is atrocious. We're not a 1998 Geocities fansite. As well as being literally unreadable for people with certain forms of colourblindness, it is ugly as hell. Reyk _YO! 09:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The suggestion by @Black Kite: is, in my view, entirely sensible and accords with established practice at other templates (as I have said at WT:FOOTBALL. @Govvy: I hope you've had chance to calm down and reflect on your conduct last night. Numerous editors tried to help and explain to you and you were dismissive of most, and just plain rude to me. GiantSnowman 11:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Omg, reflect on my conduct? What about your conduct? I ask for help and you slap my talk page with some template because I asked for help. I've edited wikipedia for years and I have no respect for you what so ever, you are the worse kind of admin there is, you shouldn't be an admin, leave me alone. Govvy (talk) 12:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the issue has been resolved and this can be closed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Likely evasion of block by User:CollegeMeltdown

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

---

Several weeks ago, another editor (now blocked) raised questions about User:CollegeMeltdown being a potential sockpuppet or alternate account of blocked editor Dahnshaulis. In an SPI, Bradv couldn't make a connection between the two accounts because the blocked one is stale. However, the names of the two editors make it likely that the two accounts are linked. I don't know if revealing the connection falls afoul of WP:OUTING but the briefest of searches shows an immediate connection with one account being the name of a person and the other account being the name of a blog written by that person. Further, the focus of CollegeMeltdown's edits are the exact same topic of that blog. Further, a previous version of CollegeMeltdown's also makes it clear that he or she is claiming to be Dahn Shaulis.

Despite being directly asked if he or she is connected to the blocked editor, CollegeMeltdown ignored the question and ceased editing for a few weeks until that previous thread was archived. He or she has now resumed editing. The evidence linking these accounts seems to be incredibly obvious and absent a convincing response from CollegeMeltdown I recommend that he or she be blocked indefinitely. ElKevbo (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

(@RoySmith and Bradv: You were specifically involved in one or more SPIs for this editor so you might be interested in commenting. ElKevbo (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC))

ElKevbo, the Dahnshaulis account was blocked 5 years ago, and there hasn't been any reports of sockpuppetry since then. At this point we would easily unblock that account upon request, so whether or not this is technically the same person is rather irrelevant. Unless you have evidence of actual disruption or other blockable behaviour by CollegeMeltdown, I don't see anything actionable here. – bradv🍁 21:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

That is not in line with our current policy as I understand it. If blocked editors are allowed to resume editing using a different account but in the same topical area after several years and without having to link their new account to their old one(s), please edit the policy so this is clear for other editors. ElKevbo (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

It falls under WP:NOTBURO and WP:IAR. Unless you have evidence of recent disruption, I would oppose blocking a good faith contributor over a mistake made five years ago. I'm willing to meatball:ForgiveAndForget and unblock the previous account as no longer needed if that resolves your procedural concerns. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

+1 in avoiding unnecessary processwonkery. ——SN54129 17:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

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

!!!!!!!

I'm trying to make an article for Billie Eilish's intro "!!!!!!!" because it charted on the Canadian Hot 100 at number 79 but says only administrators can edit. What can be done about this? DarklyShadows (talk)

The article Billie Eilish is semi-protected but I'm not sure if this is what you mean. Which article do you want to edit?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I assume it's !!!!!!!, which is covered by the title blacklist. I've redirected it to When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go. Have at it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, "!!!!!!!" is the opening track of the album When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go? "!!!!!!!", is a short intro in which Eilish slurps saliva from her Invisalign aligners and announces that "this is the album," before she and her brother descend into laughter. You learn something new every day.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

If I ever become a famous singer, I'm going to make a song titled "music'); DROP TABLE ALBUMS;--". creffett (talk) 13:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to call my album Special:UserLogout just to annoy every webdev in the world. ‑ Iridescent 14:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I already created an album, and named it <!--, but no one can find it to listen to it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Gives new meaning to a "hidden track" creffett (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

You all are a bunch of nerds. Natureium (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Creffett, Ah, little Bobby Tables. Guy (help!) 14:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

"Talking Seattle Grunge Blues" redux.— Diannaa (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Salted article re-creation?

I was about to create a redirect to stub Abryanz from Brian Ahumuza, his real name, but found that the latter title had been salted byUser:RHaworth, who is not at present an admin, after repeated re-creation. Could an admin have a look perhaps, to see whether this article looks better than its predecessors? And if so, please unsalt so we can have a redirect? Thanks. PamD 17:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Has the article creator ever been advised of WP:PAID? ([4]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serial Number 54129 (talk • contribs)

Agreed, I'm suspicious that this is creation under another name to evade the salting. Note that we also have a draft at Draft:Brian Ahumuza. creffett (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

If the salting admin is unwilling (or unable) to unSALT, the next step is probably to ask for a discussion at WP:DRV, or possibly WP:RFPP, though the latter is generally unsuitable in my opinion, but that opinion isn't universal, apparently. WilyD 17:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, WP:RFPP is the place (there is a section for unprotections). --Izno (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• All the padded "awards" (none are notable) definitely make it look like paid spam, as does the quality of many of the sources. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• Brian Ahumuza was previously created by a blocked sock (more than one in fact); one of the other articles created by the same editor was previously created by a different blocked sock (but that was G4 anyway, so I've deleted it). I wouldn't be surprised if they actually came from the same sockfarm. Probably a bit pointless sending it AfC as all the socks were blocked longer ago than CU can stretch. Since it didn't go through AfC anyway, I would either drop it back to draft (which is what was done last time it was created) as it's better than the one there already, or alternatively go with WP:DUCK, and block and nuke per G5. Black Kite (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• I've blocked them for spamming and quarantined the articles in draft space. I think the sockpuppetry question is somewhat academic - I won't take any further action on this, but will not object to others doing so. MER-C 18:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

unban/unblock request of MagicJulius00

I am carrying over the unban/unblock request of MagicJulius00 from UTRS

MagicJulius00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User was CBANned for persistent socking under WP:3STRIKES. A recent check user check did not reveal any recent socking.

Despite of being blocked and banned in English Wikipedia, or before being blocked, I created 4 sockpuppet accounts, User:UnitedPhilippines02, User:GoodLife123, User:WowMagic18 and User:MagicJulius. I do not know why these three accounts; User:Agundolance0613, User:Bernilyn benesio and User:Mycadaniellabacar were included in Category:Confirmed Wikipedia Sockpuppets of MagicJulius00. Since I was blocked in 2018 and banned in 2019, I focused on editing and creating articles and pages in Wikidata, Tagalog Wikipedia, Simple English Wikipedia and in other Wikimedia projects. The reason why I created many accounts is because I want to edit more in Wikipedia. It breaks me when an administrator will reply to my appeal in UTRS and will decline it. They repeatedly said that I must wait 6 months and not appeal. I do not wish that I must be unblocked and unbanned. If this appeal will be denied, then I will not appeal again.

There are extensive talk page discussions to sift through.

Thanks, --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 10:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose unblocking. There's not enough here that demonstrates the user knows what they did was wrong. Yes, they created accounts because they wanted to edit here, but that is inappropriate. Yes, they are sad when they are caught by administrators evading their block, but that's their fault. They've repeatedly asked for an unblock while simultaneously evading their block. See for example, the unblock request from 2019-07-03. Note that there's no evidence of block evasion this time around, so my opposition is based on prior behaviour and no demonstration of understanding. --Yamla (talk) 10:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose unblocking - Although I believe in second chances, there's not enough in this appeal that they are ready for it just yet. In unblock requests, I look for indication that the user understands what they did wrong that got themselves blocked and a plan for how they want to contribute once they are unblocked. I recommend that this user takes contributing to this project seriously and that Wikipedia is not a game. They should also walk away from Wikipedia for a significant period of time (maybe 6 months or 1 year) and take this time to think about what they did wrong and figure out how they can convince us that they are worthy of getting unblocked. Interstellarity (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose unblocking - An extensive history of socking, and the unblock request does not show any understanding of why what they did was wrong. Wanting to edit Wikipedia is not enough: all Wikipedia editors want to edit Wikipedia, but when one has a history of abuse of editing privileges, some presentation of reform must be shown. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose unblocking: Per above, I also see a history of socking and a lack of understanding. That's enough for me to oppose. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 13:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

rangeblock needed

See User talk:24.244.23.23. This person has been doing this for years, (disruptive edits related to climate infoboxes on cities in northern North America, it's a very specific and therefore easy to spot pattern) but until recently seemed to stay on one IP. Now they are moving around, but they are all Shaw Communications IPs in Victoria, B.C.. If someone could formulate a rangeblock that'd be great. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, you’re looking at Special:Contributions/24.244.23.23/18. If you want to block I’d make it anon-only and allow for account creations. I didn’t see any accounts on it, just logged out disruption. I’ll leave to you if you think it’s worth blocking the range. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks Tony. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Bureaucrat activity

I have opened an RfC at: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC:_Bureaucrat_activity. All are invited to participate. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Walidou47

This user was just blocked for a long history of copy and paste issues by User:Diannaa. They have admitted to switching to this new account immediately after User:Lil heartthief. I have blocked this new account. Happy for others to review. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I have opened Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Walidou47. MER-C 16:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Endorse, blocks like these, especially when journals are involved, are unfortunately nessecary. Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 16:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The editor is also problematic when it comes to the accuracy of the text they are relaying and by not adhering to the WP:Preserve policy. The editor doesn't understand WP:MEDRS and rules as much as they act like they do. I've seen Doc having to revert the editor a lot, and I was planning to report the editor at WP:ANI within the next few days or next month. It takes time to build a well-constructed report that won't just come across as a content dispute or minor issue, and then one has to find the time to report. Anyway, I endorse the block. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Endorse. Checks out. Thanks for looking out, Doc James. El_C 08:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Fun admin script

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T251066

Hi all! Just wrote User:Enterprisey/link-deleted-revs, which links to Special:Undelete from the error page for deleted revisions. For example, this revision was deleted, but visiting that page with this script running will add a link to Special:Undelete with the appropriate timestamp. Shout-out to L235 for the suggestion. Enterprisey (talk!) 18:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Admins should install this script immediately – it is one of the most useful scripts I have come across. Major props to Enterprisey for this script! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Second, can confirm it is glorious. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thank you Enterprisey, this is extremely useful for CCI work. Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 21:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

This should be a MediaWiki core feature; I'd almost say this is a bugfix for a MediaWiki core bug. Phabricator, anyone? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

This is now tracked in phab:T251066. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Assyrian tribes page

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

---

Hello,

I am wondering if it is possible to lock up the protection on List of Assyrian tribes and revert it to its previous form. This page had over 60 000 words and has been decimated into a mere sentence by certain users. Assyrian tribes and settlements are closely linked together and many times interchangeable.

Best regards Ashurpedia (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Jhilr account and redirects, likely sock of Alarjar

Looking at Jhilr (talk · contribs) and how they are being problematic with redirects, this may be Alarjar (talk · contribs), also known as Lepintin (talk · contribs); see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1032#User:Lepintin being disruptive with redirects. In any case, the editor is a sock.

Pinging NinjaRobotPirate, who is familiar with handling Alarjar. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Blocked. They were already blocked as a sock on two other Wikipedias. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Unblock request by MustafaO

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

---

Copied from Special:PermanentLink/953308567 at User talk:MustafaO. Request timestamp is 2020-04-26T13:33:02. Paragraph breaks added to match the original formatting of the appeal, and where one seems to have been intended. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

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

---

Please copy this appeal to WP:AN on my behalf.

I want to make a request to be unblocked. My account was blocked for sockpuppetry in which I misappropriated my privilege as an editor. I made huge mistakes and I fully understand and acknowledge the reasons why I have been blocked. I understand the violations fully and take responsibility. I understand that sockpuppetry is misusing multiple accounts, which was a severe mistake that I committed. One that I truly regret. My intention in this unblock request is to guarantee that something like this would never occur again from me. I've guaranteed steps that I will take that would make sure this never happens again. I would do this by following these firm steps and commitments:

1. I'll be making sure that I do NOT have any other account other than my account and not to make edits from any other account or IP address.

2. Never creating a new account

3. To make useful contributions that enrich the encyclopedia, I will do this by not engaging in anything that would compromise the ideals of Wikipedia.

4. To positively contribute to other Wiki projects.

The admins on Wikipedia do not have to fear any disruptions or violations from me because it will never happen again. I've learnt my lesson the hard way. That I guarantee. If I'm unblocked, the admins will only see that I would be contributing positively. The way in which I want to contribute to Wikipedia is mainly checking and adding references and also improving articles by adding information which are always referenced. This has been my main contribution on Wikipedia since I became an editor. My edits were almost always solely dealing with affairs relating to the Horn of Africa region and if unblocked, my intention is to only edit a few articles relating to the Horn of Africa region that I wish to improve.

I really like Wikipedia, its been a safe space for me for a long time and I enjoy adding new information to articles that I'm interested in. I seriously regret everything that has happened up until now, it was a mistake followed by other mistakes and then here I am today. I promise you will not need to worry about me if I'm unblocked. Wikipedia is a big part of my life.

Thank you so much for looking into my case. MustafaO (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

---

• I'll just point to my decline of their previous appeal... two days ago. An excerpt: "You are not currently ready to be unblocked, and should wait at least six months before making a new appeal." ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

  (While this is not really relevant, I'll take this unique moment to note that blocking MustafaO and their sockpuppets was the very last administrator action before Bbb23's retirement. That was two weeks ago.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

  Regarding point 4, I'd like to add that the block does not prevent this, and that WP:SO explicitly recommends this to happen during the waiting period. It's a good idea; it just doesn't require an unblock. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• Weak support - I am almost completely on the fence here. There's no question that they created at least one account, they've admitted as such. However, they do tick my unblock boxes of "show us that you understand what you did wrong and how you'll make sure it doesn't happen again," and after reading their talk page, I would be willing to chalk this up to a genuine screwup/misunderstanding; what I've seen definitely sounds more like "confused about the rules" than "intentional disruption." My biggest issue is that it has only been two weeks since the block (and usually I'd prefer to see an SO appeal around the six-month mark). In the spirit of assuming good faith I'd support an unblock, but AGF is pretty much the only reason I'm on this side of the fence. creffett (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

  D'oh, I should learn to read. If this is a CU block, then no point in this request. creffett (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• oppose. Even if this were the correct place to appeal a CU block (it’s not), someone who just got caught with 6 new socks in the last month wouldn’t qualify for any sort of standard offer much less a sympathetic unblock. Praxidicae (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

  CU blocks can be appealed anywhere, like normal blocks, the only precondition is for the blocking CU or another CU to weigh in before any unblock. --qedk (t 愛 c) 20:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• @ToBeFree: Could you just give us a quick recap on how to lift checkuser blocks. Nick (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Praxidicae and Nick: Sorry, I forgot to add a {{checkuser needed}} to this request. I'll do so here: {{checkuser needed}}. Instead of copying the appeal myself, I should have used that template on the blocked user's talk page, asking a checkuser to have a look and copy the appeal instead of me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

  @ToBeFree: 24 days is not a helpful measure of "no evidence of socking". It's generally more useful when some time has passed since the last check , so that there is some weight to not socking in the *some amount of time* (not being exact because WP:BEANS) that is checked. --qedk (t 愛 c) 20:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

  QEDK, I had recommended six months. I'm not entirely sure if there is a standard procedure for dealing with someone who wants an AN appeal after two days, but I didn't feel like I'm in a position to decline that request. "Checkuser needed" might have been the best approach. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

  If someone wants it, sure, (since anyone can appeal anytime if not specifically restricted from doing so) but I doubt it'll be favourable. --qedk (t 愛 c) 20:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, just too soon. Ignoring ToBeFree's recommendation of waiting six months in favour of waiting two days is not a good look. Bishonen | tålk 21:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC).

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

Interaction ban request

• Guy Macon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sir Joseph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I would like to request a no-fault two-way interaction ban between myself and Sir Joseph as detailed at WP:IBAN. I have voluntarily avoided interaction with him since 2016, and we don't as a rule edit the same pages.

I am hoping that Sir Joseph will agree and that we can then move on without any further drama. If he does not agree I will leave it to him to explain why the interaction is needed. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, maybe if you don't generally edit the same pages why the iban is needed? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, I don't think it's needed, as he said we generally don't edit the same pages and I don't reply to him. Other than him posting in my TBAN request (which I think was a big "violation" of the unofficial IBAN), he is upset because I posted on the Signpost interview with him, but not about him. I stay away from him because I don't like him and I don't want anything to do with him. I just don't need more bureaucracy. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, you participated in my TBAN discussion. Did you forget that? I have kept to the unofficial IBAN for years. My first direct reply to Guy Macon was on the Signpost talkpage. I don't recall interacting with him prior to that. That being said, I have no problem with putting this being us and continuing on with our lives. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

File discussion needing prompt close

Please could somebody close this discussion, as the affected article is due to be on DYK in a couple of days. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)