Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Open tasks

    [edit]
    XFD backlog
    V Jun Jul Aug Sep Total
    CfD 0 1 39 15 55
    TfD 0 0 13 8 21
    MfD 0 0 0 0 0
    FfD 0 0 7 2 9
    RfD 0 0 40 22 62
    AfD 0 0 0 17 17


    RfC closure review request at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#RfC Regarding MOS:POSTNOM

    [edit]
    Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Post-nominal letters (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RfC closure in question) (Discussion with closer)

    Closer: S Marshall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    User requesting review: The ed17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at 22:29, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Notified: [1]

    Reasoning: In 2023, a RfC found consensus to modify MOS:POSTNOM so that post-nominal letters would be disallowed in lead sentences. This year, another RfC was opened ostensibly as a referendum on the previous RfC. The latter is the closure I'm appealing today.

    The new RfC was closed by S Marshall as having no consensus to proceed with any of the presented options. I agree on that point. However, S Marshall's close found that 'no consensus' in this case meant that the current consensus is invalidated.

    Putting that more simply, the proposal was to change a guideline's status quo wording. It ended in both no consensus and changing the wording.

    S Marshall pointed to WP:BARTENDER as their reasoning for closing the RfC in this way, which HouseBlaster has separately questioned, as well as what he saw as a weak consensus in the 2023 RfC.

    COI note: I have an explicit viewpoint on this topic, as I proposed the 2023 RfC and participated in the new one. Ed [talk] [OMT] 22:29, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Closer (S Marshall)

    [edit]
    • Well of course I hadn't predecided the issue, no matter what Alanscottwalker thinks. The absolute worst thing about closing the contentious stuff, on Wikipedia, is the constant accusations of misconduct and supervoting as soon as people don't get their way. It's not OK.
    Of course, it happens because "I think you're wrong" always fails, but "You're INVOLVED" or "You're in bad faith" sometimes succeeds. We need to find a way to make close reviews better. It's got to be ok to say "Wrong outcome" (which is about the issues) and not ok to say "Wrong closer" (which is ad hominem).
    At issue here is the question of whether the rule currently written in the MOS should stand or fall. I noted that the previous discussion close was marginal, and I noted the number of experienced editors who were saying that the rule isn't working for them or is causing more strife than it prevents, and I noted the relatively low level of support for Option 2.
    We need to decide whether the community really thinks "No postnominals in the first sentence" is the right rule. If the community doesn't think that, then it shouldn't be the rule.—S Marshall T/C 22:53, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    [Much later] And here are my two questions for the closer of this close review.

    1. Across all of the discussions we've had, I see a slight and tepid majority for "no postnominals in the first sentence". Significant and quite impassioned dissent from experienced editors exists (reading Peacemaker67's "overturn" as an "endorse", which seems to be a widespread approach among those who've analyzed this debate). I've taken the view that this slight and tepid majority doesn't amount to a consensus, and after all this debate, I still think it doesn't. Was I wrong? Where is the threshold of consensus?
    2. When closing a RfC, is the closer confined to the one debate they've been invited to close, or should they read around and across other related discussions including historical ones to try to understand the community's view as a whole? I'm really bothered by this question because if it's the former, then everything in User:S Marshall/RfC close log about Israel/Palestine, India/Pakistan, and post-1932 US politics is potentially unsafe, so I'd appreciate the clearest and most specific answer you can formulate.

    Thanks in advance for taking this on.—S Marshall T/C 08:30, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Non-participants (POSTNOM)

    [edit]
    • Overturn Having already reviewed the closers talkpage and the RfC, I feel I can stick my oar in now. I agree with the objectors. I also note, that the closes, "our society can convey" gives the appearance of impropriety, as a thumb on the scale of a partisan who already pre-decided the issue. I also think it is improper to use a close to in effect be a review of the prior close. The closer should have brought personal concerns about the prior close to review. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • In response to the closers new comment, above: No. SMarshall nothing I wrote is ad hominem. Having endorsed your closes before, I can assure you, I reviewed and commented on your close not you, and this is review of your close, so it invites me to say what I think of it, whether you care, what I think, or not. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:05, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • Adding, and whatever you don't like about what I said, see the Dan Leonard comment below[2], it is your close that is the problem, because it chose to view it through some kind of "nationalist" cast, which was completely unfair to serious consideration of the participants statements and analysis. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • My understanding is that Mr. Marshall finds that no possible MOS guideline on postnominals can enjoy community support at this juncture and is therefore scrapping it. This devolves the question of what to do about postnominals to local consensus at individual articles. This is gutsy (one might even say bold), not what I would have done, and will probably exacerbate tensions in the short term, but will (one hopes) push editors to agree on something to get it back in the MOS. Honestly, I like it, but I've not yet decided whether I can endorse it. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:03, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn the quashing of the previous RfC - I became aware of the close last night, when I saw a string of edits citing MOS:POSTNOM in the edit summaries and so I went to read the RFC to see what happened. My view is that the close overstepped the mark when WP:DETCON to determine that no consensus in that discussion overturned consensus in a previous discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 23:11, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn - A finding of no consensus in a new RfC means the status quo ante bellum is maintained. It does not mean that a previous RfC's consensus is overturned or invalidated; to do that you'd need a new consensus, which a finding of no consensus is, explictly in its very definition, not. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:53, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • A bartender argument is theoretically fine: if there's explicitly a consensus against the existence of WP:POSTNOM, even if no agreement on what should replace it, then it's within closer's discretion to say that section of the guideline is vacated as not having community support. IMO that'd be the correct close. I don't know whether that applies to the discussion.
      Respectfully, IMO SM's closes are long but the bulk of them is a summary of what the RfC question was, what policies are relevant to consensus-decision-making on Wikipedia, etc. It makes closes accessible to non-Wikipedians, but there tends to be little detail on how the consensus determination was actually made (which is typically only about two sentences of the multi-paragraph close). So it's hard for me to assess, just reading the close, how SM came to the determination he did. I presume by default that he saw all arguments as equally valid, and that option 1+3+4+5 editors collectively had a consensus. If that's the case, then I'd stay this close is correct and should stand. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hate most close challenges; they have a way of becoming RFC 2.0 with a side of ganging up on the closer. I can recall many vexatious challenges of S Marshall's closes. That is not okay. I am really sad that I find myself on this side of the close review. But in this one instance, overturn the quashing of the previous RfC, keeping the rest of the close intact, per The Bushranger. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:39, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn. The no-consensus close of the most recent RFC seems reasonable enough. That doesn't mean the result of the prior RFC gets quashed; instead the guideline should stay as it was before to the most recent RFC. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 14:35, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse The question of whether or not to retain the the existing wording was clearly implicitly on the table. RFC's with more than two choices are problematic unless you also understand and recognize the common themes of the various options and the input on them. IMO the closer did this and the result was to not keep the current wording. This is also observed by the bartender essay but the essay itself was not the basis, it merely observes & discusses the logical principle. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:44, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reluctantly overturn. I do agree with S Marshall on a theoretical level regarding the contentious 'no consensus overwrites previous weak consensus' (to paraphrase), but this isn't how STATUSQUO works (somewhat unfortunately). Ie I agree that previous weak consensus transforming into no consensus should result in no consensus (as SM described); but this isn't how our policies work, and that would be another discussion to amend STATUSQUO, rather than this close setting a precedent to do so. Had SM elaborated on the consensus to no longer maintain the status quo, per BARTENDER and as ProcrastinatingReader describes, then I would instead likely endorse. But this did not occur, not in the close nor on the talk page (as far as I understood). Therefore I am unable to endorse for that reason alone, but it's a very close call. I otherwise entirely reject accusations of a super vote or otherwise, this close was clearly in good faith with good rationale, but has slightly strayed from policy being the only issue I see. Overall I find SM's closes well structured and complete, have learnt a lot from them, and has inspired me make closes myself. So to !vote overturn here is very much based on putting my positive biases towards the closer aside, similar to others it appears, and I hope this won't discourage them from further closes. CNC (talk) 11:47, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn. No policy-based rationale for unilaterally voiding the previous RfC. Generalrelative (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse If there's no consensus for any of the options, but there is a consensus for "current wording shouldn't stand", you have to make that call. (See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive706#Rename through protection.) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn WP:BARTENDER closes are for when there is a strong majority in favour of making a change, but no consensus on precisely what that change should be. They are not for cases such as this, where there seems to be a large number with a stronger argument based on WP:PAGs arguing for no change, and an overall numerical majority arguing for some change. This didn't come through in the close, because it doesn't appear that the closer analysed the strength of arguments at all. I applaud that the closer had the guts to attempt such a BARTENDER close, but in my judgement, in this situation, a no consensus decision must retain the status quo ante bellum. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn narrowly the section voiding the previous RfC. Status quo means status quo, not a repeal of a prior existing RfC. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse. If we were talking about an article, then the overturns would be correct; the result of a no-consensus outcome in an article is to retain the previous wording. But I believe PAG pages are different. A PAG page isn't an encyclopedia entry, it's a summary of the community's consensus on a topic. When there is no consensus, a PAG should say nothing. Therefore, I've always been of the opinion that a lack of consensus in an RFC on a PAG page should result in removal, unlike on an article - the MOS requires active consensus. The alternative would cause chaos. What happens when someone attempts to implement this recommendation on a talk page where it has not previously been implemented, and another editor objects? The discussion will likely reach no consensus (since there is, in fact, no consensus supporting that entry in the MOS), and their attempt to implement it will fail, leading to inconsistency, frustration, and conflict between people who believe they have a consensus to continue implementing this in articles and people who oppose them and can clearly demonstrate over and over that they don't. For articles, our primary concern after a no-consensus RFC is stability, leading to WP:QUO; but PAGs are different - for the encyclopedia to run smoothly, they need to reflect actual consensus and practice. --Aquillion (talk) 13:28, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Makes sense. This reminds me of WP:NOCON for BLPs which goes against QUO. Ideally this should formally include PAG pages based on the same logic that if it is controversial, it shouldn't be included without consensus. CNC (talk) 13:45, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Sure, this is a valid interpretation of how Wikipedia PAGs should work. But this would imply removing MOS:POSTNOM entirely from the MOS, or perhaps stating that there is no consensus on whether they should be included and it should be decided on an article by article basis. The close effectively introduces a guideline which, as you say, does not have firm consensus. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:18, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      That's the exact opposite of what it does. It deletes a guideline that does not have firm consensus, and replaces it with no guideline.—S Marshall T/C 21:27, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Option 1—that they may be included—has no consensus. The forced-compromise guideline says they can be included if they are used by the subject, which was found to have no consensus in two RfCs. Being silent would entail removing that from the guideline (which would be silly IMO, but being silly is not a reason to supervote). HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse The way this RfC was framed invited the review of the prior RfC by asking whether the language should be overturned, maintained or revised. As there was no consensus there was also no consensus to maintain the text in its initial form. I will note that, had I participated in the RfC, I likely would have !voted to maintain the text as-is since I do think postnominals in the lead sentence do introduce clutter and may have problems with creating arguments from authority on controversial BLPs however I didn't participate and all I can really say is, based on a review of the close, the arguments made in the RfC and the original framing of the RfC, this was a good close, even if I personally disagree with the implications of it. Simonm223 (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse. The RFC was well attended and although the status quo was presented as an option, it failed to get majority support with 55% of participants supporting options that would weaken the current no-exceptions bar to postnominals in the lead sentence. The overwhelming majority of those supported either a total or near-total repudiation or taking it case by case. Both sides made well-reasoned points, but if we did have to weigh arguments, I think the position that there are never any situations that postnominals can be helpful for readers is a weaker position than one that accepts that some such scenarios exist. In any case, there is still guidance warning against adding lesser postnominals and that concision is a guiding principle. I think the close elides the difference a bit between there being a consensus against the status quo and there being no consensus for a specific replacement. It's within acceptable WP:BARTENDER close territory and it's reasonable to choose an option that did have once have consensus (i.e. the pre-2023 version) instead of unilaterally imposing one that never did. However, the best course of action would be discussions and then a new RFC on what uses have consensus as the close suggested. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:59, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn quashing of the 2023 RfC (so in effect, leave the no consensus close intact but with no change to the prior status quo). My thoughts are largely aligned with the comments made by the nominator of this review, The ed17. The substance of the rfc close was reasonable, in particular the finding of no consensus – given the even split of opinions and an absence of concrete policy/guideline arguments that might cause one or other view to be given more weight. But the conclusion from that no-consensus decision that the 2023 RfC should be overturned is IMHO really a case of adding up 2+2 and concluding the answer is 5. To be absolutely clear, the 2023 RfC was the established view of the community before this RfC and, despite some grumbling, there was never a challenge to it and it has now stood for over two years as established guideline. That's the baseline under which the 2025 RfC operated, and revising the 2023 close by the back door was not and should never have been part of the new RfC's remit. Given the absence of consensus, the only option under longstanding Wiki convention is to maintain the prior status quo, which in this case is to keep postnoms outside of lead sentences. So overall, I think there's a concrete case for overturning. Addressing a few of the issues raised elsewhere in this thread, while I have no doubt that the closer here has acted in good faith, and is an experienced and prolific closer of RfCs, I have to say I find some of their conclusions a little strange. Firstly, they appear to have been unduly swayed by comments in the RfC saying the previous consensus was "overreach" or "poorly thought out". No doubt that's how those participants feel, but that shouldn't give them extra weight in their !votes, and it sends a worrying message that you can get your way in future simply by moaning extra hard about the status quo. And secondly, S Marshall had several times said that the prior RfC was closed incorrectly, calling it "marginal" and declaring without evidence that it "wouldn't have survived close review". That is not only rather insulting to the 2023 closer, but also out of process. If you want a close to be reviewed then review it, don't end-around it by WP:SUPERVOTEing a close on a subsequent RfC. As before, this is a comment about the close, not the closer, so I hope it won't be taken as an ad hominem. Anyway, that's probably about all I need to say on this. Anecdotally, as a British person who watches football and cricket and goes to the pub – sometimes even after work – I can honestly say I don't feel strongly about whether letters are included or not included after someone's name, and I concur with the view expressed below that the average British person, even those educated enough to read or edit Wikipedia, would not be too fussed about the issue of letters after someone's name one way or the other. The "transatlantic dispute" angle seems overblown. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      My position is that this is erroneous. My position is that you absolutely can have a RfC to review a RfC. Whether you should depends on how long it's been. If it's been two weeks, then re-running the RfC is likely to be disruptive and you ought to go to close review. But if it's been two years, then holding a close review isn't useful and you ought to run a fresh RfC.—S Marshall T/C 14:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn. The point of an RfC is to come to agreement that enables us to write an encyclopedia. (In fact, the whole point of everything we do outside article space is to enable us to write an encyclopedia.) Sometimes RfCs can't reach that agreement... but they shouldn't make things worse. This took a rule that we could all follow, whether or not we agreed with it, threw it away, and didn't replace it with anything. That strictly made the situation worse. There needs to be strong agreement that the current rule is just completely unbearable before we replace it with chaos. There wasn't that here. There was no consensus - fine, in that case the status quo stays. Not: no consensus, therefore the status quo gets thrown away.--GRuban (talk) 13:25, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Participants (POSTNOM)

    [edit]
    • I was a bit perturbed by the closure implying this was an ENGVAR issue, of Americans not understanding the concept and Commonwealth editors wanting to preserve their national culture. The best arguments expressed in the RfC were not in that style at all: see for instance Celia Homeford's comment comparing the styles of many encyclopedic biographies written in multiple English dialects, or the many arguments based on due weight, original research, and clutter concerns. I actually see very few ENGVAR-related comments at all. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 22:58, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse If something lacks community support and there is no consensus, then it should not be in the MOS. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:17, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • While a detailed close is appreciated, and any closure would attract scrutiny as it's certainly true that there's dissension in every direction, and some informality & humor is good even in closing statements... I will echo what Dan Leonard said. Disclaimer: I was and am in favor of the 2023 version ("Option 2" in the phrasing). But I don't think the "There's a tension between some (predominantly American) editors, who seem astonished that anyone could possibly make sense of a long string of alphabet soup after someone's name." line in the close comes across well. Nobody is surprised that some people can make sense of such alphabet soup. The question is whether this is a good idea to stick in the lead, the most generally accessible part of an article, and the most laser-focused on relevancy. Per Dan Leonard, there was strong evidence provided that the 2023 version was a good idea judging by usage strictly in Commonwealth countries. Not an AmEng issue, in other words. (Maybe the closure should stand for other reasons, but not this one, IMO.) SnowFire (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I am not involved in this RfC in question but in another one that User:S Marshall closed and I am not in one hundred percent agreement with his closing statement. Logoshimpo (talk) 01:03, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn the quashing of the previous RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:19, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with everything HB has said. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:55, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      No consensus means no consensus. You can't find there's no consensus to change the status quo and then revert back to something before the status quo. The close is internally inconsistent. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:17, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • @ProcrastinatingReader: I might gently point out that options 3 and 4 proposed more restrictive wordings than this close enacted. Even if we ignore that, the closer said nothing about 1+3+4+5 making up a consensus; they instead found "no consensus about what to do" (their words). Ed [talk] [OMT] 02:25 and 6:01, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
    • Overturn. The close contradicts itself by saying there's no consensus and then imposing Option 1. DrKay (talk) 05:42, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse The 2025 RfC clearly showed that the community was divided and did not support any one option including maintaining the previous guideline from the 2023 RfC. In that context, I think it was reasonable for the closer to conclude that the earlier consensus no longer stood and overturning the closure decision effectively reinstates a version that no longer enjoys broad support. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 06:26, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The current close effectively reinstates a version which no longer has broad support. Therefore, by Wikipedia convention, we go to the status quo, which in this case was no post nominal in the first sentence. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:00, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Given that the 2023 RfC was contentious from the outset and its outcome was repeatedly challenged, I’d argue the appropriate status quo is the version prior to that RfC. The 2025 RfC showed no clear consensus for any new direction, and while it didn’t explicitly reaffirm the earlier version, it also didn’t endorse the 2023 guideline as a lasting consensus. In such cases, Wikipedia convention leans towards the last stable version with broad acceptance, which would be the pre-2023 wording. Therefore, I believe reinstating that version aligns more closely with both policy and precedent. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 01:25, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      "Repeatedly challenged" is a stretch. Certainly there was expressed unhappiness from some folks who fell on the opposite side of the well-attended 2023 consensus—that happens when people's opinions are strong, divided, and numerous. And yet no one ever filed a formal AN appeal (even when invited to), and no one kicked off a new RfC for two full years. Ed [talk] [OMT] 02:26, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      But it was hardly a resounding consensus in the first place, was it. That was a marginal call that wouldn't have survived close review, and in closing this new discussion, I took note of the experienced editors who called it "overreach" or who said it was causing problems. The community doesn't love the status quo and it isn't working for us. In those circumstances restoring the status quo isn't the best idea.—S Marshall T/C 07:20, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      S Marshall: It's not up to you to decide that it wouldn't have survived close review. When closing a discussion, your job is not to place yourself above the participants but rather to summarize the consensus that they formed –– and if you think a prior close was done poorly, to follow the guidelines for overturning it. If you felt strongly that the status quo ... isn't working for us and that restoring the status quo isn't the best idea, what you should have done was !vote in the discussion and let someone else, someone capable of summarizing rather than deciding, perform the close. Generalrelative (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Of course it's up to me. That follows inevitably and necessarily from the process.
      When you close a discussion, you're assessing the community consensus. That means reading the whole matter under discussion including any previous RfCs referred to. And particularly so when the purpose of a discussion is to confirm or refute a previous consensus. When closing, you have to weigh how strong that previous consensus is.
      Whether that previous discussion was accurately closed or not, it was a pretty marginal call. That's a material fact that a responsible closer of this discussion would absolutely take account of.—S Marshall T/C 15:42, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Your remit as the closer of a 2025 RfC is to determine that RfC's consensus. In the absence of a consensus, there is no leeway given for unilaterally overturning a consensus found in a 2023 RfC. Challenging a RfC closure is done at AN so multiple people can weigh in. You, or literally anyone else, could have filed such a challenge in a couple minutes (just like I've done here with your close), but no one ever has despite the repeated claims of a weak consensus. In a situation like this, our standard practice is to stick with the status quo until a new path forward is agreed upon, and that status quo is the 2023 RfC. Ed [talk] [OMT] 16:09, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      No, it isn't! That's completely wrong and in fact if it was true, it would undermine your whole complaint here.
      When you're closing you're not confined to that one discussion at all, and in fact you need to have a clear grounding in community consensus more broadly. You have to identify all the relevant policies and guidelines, and apply them correctly. You have to understand community custom and practice. Your complaint specifically, Ed, is that you think I didn't follow custom and practice. So, yes, I absolutely do read and reflect on community consensus, and that absolutely does include the previous discussions that are specifically flagged up to the closer.
      I didn't file and wouldn't have filed a close challenge, because I'm disinterested and uninterested in any of this. I don't write or watchlist articles about the kind of person who has nonacademic letters after their name. But I'll look you in the eye and tell you that previous close was a marginal call.—S Marshall T/C 17:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Unfortunately, you're putting words in my mouth that I didn't say. Let me try to be more specific: you found that there was no consensus for options 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, as well as no consensus on any path forward. You then personally decided that the path forward will be option 1, overruling a previous consensus/status quo in the process, because you personally view the never-challenged determination of that consensus as "marginal". That's the problem. Ed [talk] [OMT] 18:13, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      While it’s true no formal AN appeal was filed, there were repeated challenges to the 2023 outcome, both on talk pages and via continued objections from experienced editors on MOS over the two-year period. The absence of a formal process doesn’t erase the consistent pushback that clearly signalled ongoing dissatisfaction. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 21:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse. Unsurprisingly, I see no issues with the close and S Marshall's comprehensive and well-throught-out explanation of it and I entirely agree with Nford24's comment above. I also need to reiterate my big worry, which is that editors have been citing MOS:POSTNOM (as it stood since the previous RfC) to remove postnoms from the lead when there is no infobox. They are therefore deleting information in the name of dogma, which we should never, ever do. I do realise that many Americans don't understand the value we Commonwealth people put on postnoms, but to us it is extremely useful to see an individual's correct style. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I do realise that many Americans don't understand the value we Commonwealth people put on postnoms, but to us it is extremely useful to see an individual's correct style. I highly doubt the average British person who goes to the pub after work to watch some cricket or football cares about the proper style for The Right Honourable Sir John Doe DM FFS BS, or could tell you what their post-nominals mean. I also don't think anyone is seeking to delet[e] information in the name of dogma. I just think we should remove long strings of inscrutable letters that only a very small group of people (with an oddly large number of them on Wikipedia) actually care about. That's a matter of style, readability, and how we convey information, not dogma. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:54, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      To be honest, I think this belies a major flaw in the RFC to begin with: it didn't emphasize the use–mention distinction aspect of this. While it might be useful sometimes to be able to find how someone styles themselves and/or read about the notable honors they received, using that style in wikivoice in the lead is altogether different. The RFC question really didn't go into this at all and just emphasized "LEAD SENTENCE" and infoboxes. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 02:05, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      We have post nominals in articles on Catholic members of religious orders and that's normal for those biographies. Secretlondon (talk) 05:15, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      To side fork your questioning that you don't think anyone is seeking to delet[e] information in the name of dogma- That concern has been raised and discussed elsewhere: By the very user you were replying to (and another experienced editor) here and by two users, including the originator of the 2023 RfC here (search for the bit referencing "gnomes"). ~~ Gecko G (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I highly doubt the average British person who goes to the pub after work to watch some cricket or football gives a monkeys about anything we do on Wikipedia! Not really much of an argument. And certainly not an argument to remove information. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:37, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I was repsonding to your assertion that Commonwealthers writ large care about these things. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:59, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse the closure: there was no consensus for change across the two RfCs, so a return to the previous position is justified. PamD 17:08, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn. HouseBlaster and The Bushranger are correct. Adumbrativus (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps calling it a "Bartender close" was inappropriate (first I had ever heard of that), but I otherwise support the close. There was no consensus, just like in the 2023 predecessor (where I maintain that consensus was inappropriately determined). Wiki Editors have been debating the underlying issue periodically since at least 2008 (the earliest reference I found). The closest to a "Stable Status-Quo" was the pre 2023 version. The controversial 2 year version shouldn't somehow become fait-accompli just because I personally was offline and didn't have time (then or now) to figure out the intricacies of Wikipedia procedures. Gecko G (talk) 11:15, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse — (hesitantly) — allow me to preface by stating that I was the RfC initiator, and I also supported some version of permitting post-nominals in the lead. I believe I supported a total reversal, though in-hindsight, I think a restrictive policy (only permitting 1-3 post-nominal combinations, and consensus should be achieved on a per-article basis if there is any issue... I would also endorse only permitting it on articles of subjects' whose nationality places a strong emphasis on such letters; For the record, I am an American). Regardless, I feel that S Marshall was placed in a precarious and difficult position. I think it's obvious from the RfC(s) that the community is not currently happy with the total exclusion (from the lead) policy and I would hardly call support for such a policy broad. That said, I understand opposers' concerns with this closure. However, I would also take-issue with the reading of the prior RfC (though not necessarily with its closure). This was a relatively long RfC and I believe S Marshall did a fantastic and deep analysis of all of the concerns, and thoroughly explained their position. Given the relatively unique nature of this situation, it's relatively wide-reaching consequences (either way), and the amount of participation, I feel that the closure should be endorsed, and further refinements to the policy should take place via RfC.MWFwiki (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn this is overreach, pure and simple. Discounting the cultural divide and imposing a blanket ban based on that was always a poor decision. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      If I'm reading your comment correctly, I think you may want to "endorse" the closure, then. The closer did indeed reverse the "ban." I apologize if I misread your comment. MWFwiki (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with that assessment of endorse vs. overturn, and I've let Peacemaker know on their talk page. I also moved this to the participants section per their comments in the RfC in question. If anyone has an issue with this (as I obviously started this AN discussion in the first place!), please feel free to revert me. Ed [talk] [OMT] 04:29, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse. Good close. There is a cultural disconnect on this point which affects many people's thoughts on this matter and we should be wary of simple vote counting by way of a decision-making process. Given the split nature of the community and the lack of consensus on the matter over two RfCs, basing a decision on the initial status quo seems to be the right call. - SchroCat (talk) 06:42, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn the quashing of the previous RfC. This 2025 RfC wasn't about the 2023 one; if the consensus of that 2023 RfC was "inappropriately determined", then whoever disagreed with it should've started a closure review, well, two years ago. Also WP:BARTENDER (first time I've heard of this essay) is just that, an essay that has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some1 (talk) 14:54, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      BARTENDER is a long-standing essay that is cited with some regularity in deletion discussions. I've never seen it cited in an RfC to support the overturning of an old RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:03, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      How can you argue that This 2025 RfC wasn't about the 2023 one? Option 1 overturned the 2023 RfC (...Reversal of the Exclusion), Option 2 maintained it, Option 4 effectively overturned it but with the added emphasizing of the limits which were already in the pre-2023 version, Option 5 effectively would of overturned it as well but via deleting all mention whatsoever from the MOS (Option 3 was the only new, unconnected option).
      Your own post in the set-up/background of this RfC asked to ping all the editors involved in the previous one, and in one of the intervening discussions, in response to an editor disagreeing with the 2023 RfC you yourself suggested a new RfC about it.
      (I'm ignoring what appears to be a borderline attack on myself because I had RL issues at the time and wasn't online and wasn't able to follow up, and then didn't because I was advised that too much time had passed) Gecko G (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn the quashing of the 2023 RfC. The close statement was well-articulated, but the result contradicts it. SM is correct in concluding that there was no consensus on what to do, but that means a return to the status quo that the RfC sought to change. I participated, obviously, so I see the arguments on one side as stronger, but even setting aside any weighting the numbers do not shake out in a manner that allows calling consensus for option 1, which is what SM did, even if they didn't state it that way. In fact a clear majority opposed option 1. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Noting that this is not about the Commonwealth versus the US, or some such notion. At most this is a cultural artefact of the far smaller Commonwealth realm, though far from universal even therein, versus common practice everywhere else. Defending postnominals on organizational and informational grounds is perfectly reasonable, even if I disagree, but claiming this is US cultural imperialism is wide of the mark. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn The RfC question was whether to "overturn, maintain, or modify" the POSTNOM language. Concluding "no consensus" but then choosing one of the options to change the language seems contradictory. – notwally (talk) 22:01, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn the quashing of the 2023 RfC. The closing summary seems at first like an expression of no consensus, but looks like it was attempting to re-evaluate the previous discussion as well as consider the current one. The closer seems to have decided to throw out the previous closure without showing that there is a current consensus to do so. I have somewhat vacillated over whether this was a not-so-well-expressed correct closure that found a consensus to overturn the previous consensus declaration or an incorrect closure of a 'no consensus' outcome in the new discussion that reached beyond its mandate, but I've settled on the latter interpretation. (I wasn't sure whether to classify myself as "involved" or not; I made a couple of brief clarifying and questioning comments in the discussion, but didn't express a clear position on the matter. Ultimately, I think I should consider myself involved.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn the quashing of the 2023 RfC. Option 1 in the RfC was to "overturn the [2023] guideline", which is how the RfC has been closed despite everyone (including the closer) agreeing that there was no consensus in the 2025 RfC. Option 1 has been imposed through sophistry and what looks like a supervote. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:34, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion (POSTNOM)

    [edit]
    • I'm unsure about where I'd fit regarding participation so I'm putting my views on the matter in this section until told where they'd be best placed. Just thought I'd drop by and (since I'm semi-retired) let it be known I'm open to clarify any aspect of my 2023 closure if and where pinged — with the note that it's been two years so my memory might be vague. — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 16:43, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I heavily disagree that my closure was in any way "marginal". If I had thought that at the time, I would have included wording to signify the close nature of the arguments. My view of the discussion at the time, from what I gather based on both my closure wording and consequent discussions on my talk page, is that those supporting the use of post-noms in the lead sentence failed to provide strong counter-arguments to the points raised by those advocating for their removal. I did mention that the 2023 proposal divided the community, but as I clarified on my talk page that was (to my eyes) just a numeric division, not one of guideline-based strength of argument. If the latter was the case, I would have said there was weak consensus and not just consensus. — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 16:59, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I would appreciate some further clarification on why finding no consensus results in de facto finding consensus for option 1 rather than keeping the status quo, S Marshall. I think that's where me and some others are a bit confused regarding your closure, particularly since WP:BARTENDER refers to situations where there is a clear consensus to make a change from the status quo but you do not mention finding "clear consensus against option 2". — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 17:39, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      As the creator of WP:BARTENDER, I see nothing wrong with its application here. There are very clearly substantially more participants in the discussion favoring options other than option 2 than there are favoring option 2. BD2412 T 22:19, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because of the sheer quantity of criticism.
    1. SMcCandlish: The exclusion was basically well-meaning but very poorly thought-out and has led to problems and strife...
    2. MWFwiki: Total expungement from the lead [sentence] is not appropriate and is overreach...
    3. Nford24: The previous RFC was a massive over reach...'
    4. Peacemaker67: The existing MOS on this is a significant overreach.
    5. Schwede66: I had missed the previous RfC and was quite aghast when I saw what had been decided...
    6. SchroCat: I missed the original RfC and was horrified to find out about it too late.
    I'm an extremely prolific RfC closer, and please take it from me that this kind of comment, in this kind of numbers, is not normal in RfCs. It's diagnostic of a rule that experienced editors are having a lot of trouble with.
    At that time, Ed was trying to enact a change of rules, and he got it through because you directed yourself that it was for the opposers to provide "strong counterarguments" to the rule he was trying to pass, or else it should pass.—S Marshall T/C 17:54, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    S Marshall, what is the context of these comments? Are they from the 2025 RFC or elsewhere? Thanks for the quick reply btw, hope you're having a nice summer all things considered ^u^ — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 18:02, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't mind me replying to my own comment, I'm confused as to what the issue is with my approach to the proposal. Ed and other supporters of his proposals provided meaningful arguments based on the PAGs that backed his suggested MOS changes, while the PAG-based arguments opposers countered with were not strong enough to balance them. Cultural tradition or whether one nation uses post-nominals prolifically and others do not are not PAG-based arguments, which is why I discounted the American-British cultural divide-based arguments entirely. I imagine, based on the votes from the editors cited in your comment mentioning the Commonwealth, that this is one of the factors in my closure these editors felt was overreaching. I didn't direct myself to anything other than closing based on how I saw the consensus in the discussion based on the balance of arguments. Is there another alternative approach to the closure I should have taken that is rooted in our closing guidelines that I overlooked? — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 18:49, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Calling it an overreach is an incorrect reading of the RFC I closed, by the way, if they feel me determining expungement from the lead sentence is an overreach when the RFC explicitly mentions the lead sentence and uses MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE as the reasoning for why the proposed change (of indeed, expunging the postnoms from the lead sentence) was necessary. — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 18:52, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A small note on the above, Ixtal—I haven't checked the full statements, but as quoted here they are unhappy with the consensus of that 2023 RfC. That's fine; we've all grumbled at one time or another when consensus hasn't gone our way. But these quotes do not assert that your 2023 close was a "marginal" or an incorrect reading of that RfC, as S Marshall is alleging. Ed [talk] [OMT] 18:58, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I was hardly trying to imply the closure was improper. I suppose I could see how one might read that, but instead of simply asserting that is what I meant, perhaps one could ask for clarification. That being said, I do understand why the previous RfC was overturned and would hesitantly support it. MWFwiki (talk) 19:46, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What is PAG is an acronym for? Gecko G (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Gecko G, WP:PAG is a shortcut to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 19:34, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for explaining the acronym.
    I can see the argument in that one specific component (namely ENGVAR arguments) perhaps wasn't "PAG" based, but I disagree that the rest of the oppose arguments & counterarguments from back then weren't (part of what I was trying to get more info from you in-order to understand your viewpoint with my "strength of arguments" mention in point #2 way back in our 2023 discussion on your talk page)- but that's a 2 year old debate, this is not the time nor place for that particular discussion.
    Because the community never sorted out "the can of worms" (which me and Ed, opposing sides both agreeing needing to be done, back in 2023 on your talk page) in the intervening years it led to repeatedly being challenged or decried and finally to a new RfC in 2025, which was unfortunately multi-option and confusing (in small part due to changes to the MoS between the 2023 RfC & the 2025 one). It is the closure of the 2025 RfC by S Marshall which is being RfC closure review'd here and now by Ed (What I would of done with your closure in 2023 had I been online at the time). Speaking for myself, and I think many here, I find that both yourself and S Marshall both acted in complete good faith and I commend you both for willingly stepping into such a long and potentially heated discussions, however you both made some errors. I still believe you didn't WP:DETCON correctly and it seems that S Marshall either directly or indirectly agreed about the DETCON in 2023, but as a technicality perhaps S Marshall shouldn't of labeled it a "Bartender close".
    Wikipedia has been arguing the underlying merits of POSTNOMs and when, how, where, and even if, to include them, since at least 2008- but now we really seem to be drifting close into badgering with policy and procedure minutiae and rules lawyering... Cheers. Gecko G (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the decision to entirely discount arguments based on the American-British cultural divide is a key reason this issue has remained contentious for over two years. Style and naming conventions are inherently tied to cultural context, and excluding those perspectives may have unintentionally introduced systemic bias into the outcome. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 20:56, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Closes should be based on the strength of the argument, not hyperbole. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The dismissal of the cultural divide on this is exactly why there is still a problem here, and with this close. The burgeoning policing of minutiae and US-centric policy creep is driving experienced editors to distraction. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:40, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Peacemaker67, I dismissed the cultural divide in my closure because this is a global encyclopedia and our readership is meant to be all English speakers regardless of culture. The MOS guides us to write articles using straightforward, succinct, and easily understood language. Editors should structure articles with consistent, reader-friendly layouts and formatting [...] (from WP:MOS). The lead sentence, which should be written in Plain English (from MOS:FIRST) is meant to be understood by this global readership, whether it be a British well-educated reader or a villager from Peru or a young girl from Nairobi. The editors in the discussion failed to show why the supposed cultural importance of post-nominals within the UK was, in this context, encyclopedically essential to [telling] the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is (from MOS:FIRST). This was pointed out by editors in the discussion who supported the proposal.
    For what it's worth, I'm not a USAmerican. — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 22:24, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Slight aside- I don't believe the "Plain English" mention in MOS:FIRST was brought up at all back in the 2023 RfC (and I don't find anything using a couple of different search variations). It only got brought up for the first time with this 2025 RfC. So I suspect the recency of reading about it here has colored your memory of back then (very easy to have happened - something similar happened to me trying to recall back to "what was the point of the 2023 RfC? - removing postnomials entirely or only about removing it from the lead/lead sentence"?). Gecko G (talk) 02:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The 2023 version of the MOS that was discussed in the RFC did include that language diff, Gecko G. — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 17:28, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The MOS did, but that point was never brought into the 2023 discussion, nor did you mention it in your closing summation as any sort of additional/outside "PAG" being applied at the time. When it came up in the 2025 discussion I mentally noted that it was a potentially valid minor counterpoint from the other side (albeit tangential/weak). Gecko G (talk) 01:47, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gecko G: I think(?) you've missed that MOS:FIRST and WP:LEADSENTENCE go to the same place. Ixtal used the latter shortcut in their close. And multiple people in the 2023 RfC commented on how post-nominals complexify lead sentences, even if they didn't use the exact phrase "plain English". Ed [talk] [OMT] 02:56, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A) I didn't realize they were the same, however B) Ixtal linked that in reference to the ENGVAR component, not in reference to any "clarity" component(s) (and as an aside to the aside, a quick ctr-F doesn't find either "complex" nor "plain English" anywhere in there, so neither term was used). But we are not supposed to be rehashing (or "relitigating" as you phrased it) the underlying arguments here, here we are supposed to be discussing if the closure was or wasn't proper. I went to lengths to stay out of the merits in the 2025 discussion (beyond my lone !Vote post) unlike the 2023 one which I was heavily involved in. In the 2025 one I limited myself to attempting to clarify what precisely the previous RfC was about to get us all on the same topic. Gecko G (talk) 06:45, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, Gecko G, but ctrl+F doesn't find phrases like "an incomprehensible jumble of letters". Nor, evidently, does it find where Ixtal referenced WP:LEADSENTENCE a second time in their close. But you're right that we aren't relitigating the 2023 consensus in this discussion, which is why I was so surprised to see S Marshall unilaterally overturning it without a consensus for that action. Ed [talk] [OMT] 06:56, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A) That phrase, and "Incomprehensibility" ≠ complexity (maybe borderline connected to "plain english", but even that's a stretch to then use that tenuous connection to retroactively argue that the editor in question° was arguing in the 2023 RfC about "plain english") so I fail to understand what you are arguing nor why, and B) That second pipped reference by Ixtal was in respect to the clutter component, so still not in reference to "plain english" nor "Complexity".
    °= and to preempt something else, that same editors elsewhere linking to LEADSENTENCE was in a separate side component arguing about narrow/specific "PAG" vs. Broad/high-level PAGs, so was also not about "Complexity" nor "Plain English". Gecko G (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Gecko G, I do appreciate you trying to clarify the 2023 RFC and agree on not relitigating it. I am trying to limit my comments on this thread on replying to points where opinions on the 2025 are given based on the editor's thoughts on the 2023 close if I feel they are misunderstanding or representing the wording in that closure. I think this discussion is harder for the fact that it is challenging not to rehash issues from the 2023 closure that were never formally reviewed even if it needed to have been (to improve the wording, since it staying as status quo for over two years suggests community endorsment of its result) when a core aspect of S Marshall's reasoning in his closure relies on interpreting the 2023 closure as inadequate and as having a guaranteed overturning. — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 13:45, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to appeal my (User:Jax_0677) topic ban in its entirety

    [edit]
    NOT OVERTURNED
    Discussion on this seems to have petered out, so going to go ahead and close this. There is no consensus to overturn the topic ban of Jax 0677. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:39, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I would like to appeal my topic ban in its entirety. There are articles from October 2024 that I would like to recommend for {{history merge}}. I have been unable to do so due to this topic ban. WP:HM states that following a cut and paste move, "the page history of an article or talk page can be split among two or more different pages" and "this is highly undesirable, because we need to keep the history with the content for copyright reasons". I know I made mistakes in the past, but I have had few to no incidents for over one year. Thank you! --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:18, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous appeal in February. —Cryptic 23:29, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Define "few to none" with diffs, please. Seeing these examples might help determine how the IDHT and CIR concerns that were raised when you were topic banned in the first place. It's fine to appeal after a year, but I think most are going to want to see more information about how you've handle disagreements over the past year. And yes, you should have included the previous appeal in your request from 6 months ago for full disclosure. I'm not inclined to support at this time, btw. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:30, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I have asked for guidance here about what I should and should not post. I have participated in an appropriate manner at this Redirect for discussion. I apologize for not including my February 2025 appeal. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a convincing appeal so far, but copyright is IMO serious enough that I wouldn't mind carving out an exception for histmerge templates. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:20, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      More or less where I stand too. Sergecross73 msg me 02:28, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I imposed the topic ban but am fully neutral on this request as I haven't been able to assist Jax on their Talk due to limited on wiki time. The question I ask though is the same one I did last time - Jax should make a case why they need to be the one applying these tags vs. either letting someone else do it, or complete the action rather than just tagging. I am not opposed to the carveout C727 suggests avove. Star Mississippi 02:14, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I am guessing that people might not know about some articles that need to be history merged unless I notify someone about the specific pages, as noted below. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:14, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think there's a reasonably clear difference between using templates like {{history merge}}, {{edit template-protected}}, or {{db-move}} that require permissions that Jax 0677 doesn't have, and the templates people were complaining about in the original discussion; so like Star Mississippi, I'm not opposed to a carveout for them. But I'm very wary of rescinding the ban completely - people had, for example, been complaining about the part that personally irritates me the most - the opaque, idiosyncratic template redirects - for more than a decade (see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 27#Template:Wpcy and the following seven nominations; also several more nonconsecutive ones on that same daily subpage) without a hint of behavioral change right up until the ban was imposed. —Cryptic 03:00, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I would be agreeable to a "carveout" for templates that require permissions that I do not have. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:02, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Additionally, there are multiple albums by Seventh Day Slumber that are unnecessarily disambiguated, which I cannot fix due to this topic ban. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Making requests at WP:RMTR would not be a violation of the topic ban as I read it. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I simply wish I had better definition of which templates I am and am not allowed to use. On my talk page, StarMississsippi said "I'd stay away from the latter two as you're telling others to do a certain thing". --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I see opening a discussion different to dropping a tag on an article even if tagging it is part of opening an RM. Like @Pppery, I don't think this would be a violation. It's certainly not one I'd block you for. Re: which templates you're able to use and not, what you still haven't answered unless I missed it is why you need to patrol this. Opening a discussion for a Requested Move is probably fine. But is there a reason you can't move the articles? Or leave the articles for someone else? That's still the open question Star Mississippi 00:01, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The 7DS album articles have been at incorrect titles for months, and AFAIK, I cannot even ask others to move articles. I cannot move Fractured Paradise (album) to Fractured Paradise. "The page could not be moved, for the following reason: The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists". The same is true for Closer to Chaos (album). I am sure that there will be cut and paste moves that require history merge. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:18, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I mean it was you who created Fractured Paradise and Closer to Chaos (without the dabs) so you could have requested G7, which would be allowed as you cannot delete an article. That said, I've deleted the redirects and moved the articles because process for the sake of process is annoying-but also does it matter that they're at incorrect titles? Does it impact the project at all? Star Mississippi 00:28, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:CONCISE does want shorter titles, but I guess they can be long. I would prefer to use WP:RM instead of {{dbg7}}. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I would strongly advise that if you do go that route you avoid flooding RM with unnecessary requests. We do not have the bandwidth in general right now. Not to say you can't, but be mindful. Star Mississippi 02:22, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which articles, specifically, would you like to tag? Can you list three or four please.—S Marshall T/C 08:50, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • User:Jax 0677/Histmerge. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:31, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        Thoughts on that list as a regular histmerging admin:
        Rajput (surname) and Rajput (disambiguation) have WP:Parallel histories that make history merging not practical in my opinion
        Sravanthi (given name)/Sravanthi is technically histmergable but seems like a rather low-priority history merge since the content being merged isn't copyrightable in the first place (nobody's attribution is lost) and it would require a delete/undelete and the attendant mess that entails to do right. I most likely couldn't be bothered to do this, but if another admin wants to do this I wouldn't complain.
        This doesn't mean that I oppose this proposal; histmerging is notoriously arcane with few of its conventions documented and they often differ from admin to admin, so I can't really expect Jax 0677 to know them all. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:23, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        I just saw it listed here so I think I should point out that the Rajput articles have been the target of extensive ideological sockpuppetry and likely have hijackings in their history. That page may be a case where a histmerge would be more harmful than helpful. I haven't actually reviewed just now to get up to speed but please proceed with caution. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:31, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        Would you say these are candidates for the "list of contributors" approach? So we can get into strict compliance with the terms of use without doing heavy duty reconstruction of unhelpful edits in the page history, I mean.—S Marshall T/C 22:53, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        It seems these aren't the target articles I'm thinking of. Probably I'm thinking of other articles that the socks have tried to hijack to insert their Rajput POV forks into those pages; hard to find but not relevant here anyway. For the (surname) and (disambiguation) pages that have parallel histories, I don't think anything should be done really. It's basically the same small group of contributors, and very little of the content (maybe none) is sufficiently creative to warrant copyright treatment anyway. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:05, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose any narrowing or overturning of the topic ban; the proposed examples of histmerge tagging fail to make their case so I'm not convinced them histmerge tagging would be useful. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:07, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - I'm sorry, but I really think it's a case of the topic ban working, not something that is no longer necessary. I'd rather let some of these relatively trivial things go addressed than Jax bog down the community with endless discussions from their confusing or poorly thought out template usage. Sergecross73 msg me 23:32, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Consistent page creation spam: Jack Massey Welsh

    [edit]

    Roughly 5 years ago, a Youtuber, by the online alias of Jacksucksatlife, otherwise known as Jack Massey Welsh, came onto Wikipedia on a video and edited the Bishop Auckland article, to include a reference to himself (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tZmf4qywZA&t=147s). While there was already some vandalism to the page at this point, thanks to his audience, his inability to see consequence here, led to continued vandalism, even this day.

    Whilst his behaviour on the topic majorly calmed down, his audience's didn't, leading to a nonstop attempt to get an article created. We had previously already deleted a page for this Youtuber in 2018, so too in 2020, after his video.

    His audience claims him to be notable, noting that he has a world record, and has over 4.5M subscribers, which us on Wikipedia have disagreed with in several A/MfD discussions, as our policies (WP:GNG) mean he is not notable, as he has not recieved significant coverage in reliable sources. I've personally reached out to some of his viewers, off wiki, to explain our policies and our stance, which met mixed reception. However, due to the incidents over the years, several variations of his handle/name have recieved salting, and several more drafts are currently in creation, including several I put foward for MfD several days ago.

    There are more draft articles, outside of this MfD, which, I would argue has already met consensus for deletion, thanks to the consistency of our voice against this behaviour to try and brute force and article onto Wikipedia, seemingly for clicks.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?go=Go&search=Draft%3AJack+Massey+Welsh&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1

    Unsure of what action could be taken here, however, I'm bringing this to the attention of Administrators as clearly the current attempt to handle this situation on wikipedia is not working, and is wasting time of dedicated users. NeoJade Talk/Contribs 16:50, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I hadn't realised that Jack or his viewers were trying to get a Jack sucks article independent of the Bishop Auckland article, where there has been constant attempts to make him a notable resident, resisted by many editors. Having lotsa subscribers doesn't make you notable. Our normal procedures have kept this under control at BA - Roxy the dog 17:05, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah.. I'm pretty sure however, at BA, you still have users clearly making edits for clicks, and an attempt to be recognised, for example, a user recently added a reference to Jack, then swiftly deleted it themselves, which IMO is adding to issues, and is something that possibly needs addressing.
    Obviously, we can't change the internet, but, with how these individuals are coming and using Wikipedia for clicks in their social circles, or trying to get recognision. It's a problem that needs addressing. NeoJade Talk/Contribs 20:59, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps this is a job for an edit filter? - The Bushranger One ping only 01:25, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, though, I'd be inclined to disagree as there is some use cases of his name in reference to other people, such as on the TommyInnit article. So I'd be unsure exactly of how the edit filter should apply, as outright disallowing the edits, whilst would be helpful, would also hinder some wikipedians.
    Other than that, most the other settings wouldn't do anything, as this group has already been warned several times about the malicious nature of their edits, and obviously, the issue is that this group is, in my opinion, abusively using wikipedia as a platform for clicks and causing a more than warrented amount of hassle for the good faith wikipedians involved. Additionally because this group has been gaming the name already, I'd be inclined to believe that this would cause further issue.
    In an ideal world, we would just contact Jack, both to educate him, and get either the involved videos removed, or an edit made to make it clear the action is not condoned, to hopefully stop new people seeing the videos and coming here. It very much seems to be a case of, the times its mentioned in his videos, or in some form of media related to him, we get an influx of people deliberately trying to add his page again. But, I doubt that it is a truly possible solution. NeoJade Talk/Contribs 15:45, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair this isn't the place for Youtubers to spread their fame on so this nonsense needs to stop, one person commented on the video and said it was nonsense, well I hate to be rude to that person but it is not nonsense they should read this essay at What Wikipedia is not. I watched the video before. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe we need to create a new filter for this type of behavior, this JackSucksAtLife disruption behavior is getting persistent and annoying. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I find quite a few things on Wikipedia annoying (and even a PITA) but maybe some of the possible solutions, apart from boring old blocks and saltings as things occur, would be even more annoying. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with this, wouldn't want to create a more annoying solution for editors trying to add good faith edits.
    Perhaps, however, an edit filter to warn users, just to try and urge them to stop, and tagging the entry. With administrators checking, working on presumed consensus could go through and delete relevent edits, or perhaps even oversight edits, to attempt to curb the behavior. Additionally, sanctioning repeat offenders who create these pages, perhaps? It's, I'll admit, somewhat annoying for those who have to check through, whilst however doing something more to make it clear we do not want this behaviour on this platform. Would that be something we can gain consensus agreement on, and something that both handles the situation, while also being relaxed enough to allow rule-abiding edits to be made?
    Additionally, perhaps administrators, or the WMF could contact Jack, and just explain how his behaviour has led to an annoying amount of trolls on various pages on wikipedia, in a completely educational sense, could help curb his mentions of Wikipedia in his videos, which might also curb some of the waves we recieve of these edits. NeoJade Talk/Contribs 20:22, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit filter I requested is said to disallow, not warn. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 21:27, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure why you jumped the gun when we didn’t have consensus, especially when you incorrectly made the request as well.. 🤷‍♀️ NeoJade Talk/Contribs 21:45, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I just want this nonsense of JackSucksAtLife to stop, I hate this Youtuber now and won't even subscribe to him for feeding the trolls for 6 years. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies if this sounded rude to Youtuber himself, but this stuff is making me angry, I just need some time to calm down right now. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 21:51, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your opinion, but, we don't just jump the gun on stuff like this when its making us angry. Especially because there is another side to this, even if its completely against our policy. There is a large group of a few hundred, if not thousand people, who dislike that their favourite creator is not on Wikipedia, and believe, especially given there are "articles" on him, that he is notable. Remember, we on wikipedia try to always assume good faith.
    Personally, as much as our time is being wasted here, and as much as I personally believe they are behaving in bad faith, I think the bottom line we need to stand for is educating, as from what I have seen of the creator, both him and his audience are clearly misinformed of our procedures and standards. Hence why I came to AN to ask for an administrative opinion and guidence. As clearly current methods of handling this aren't working, and as of recent videos from the creator, he is still somewhat misinformed as to why an article of him currently doesn't exist. NeoJade Talk/Contribs 22:12, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies I just don't want the name of that Youtuber being mentioned anymore, he is a bad influence on the project, and thus should be disallowed by the filter. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 22:15, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Then.... stop bringing him up and dragging him back into this. The sooner you forget he exists, the sooner you can stop feeling oppressed by his existence and his stans' idiocy. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:01, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll stop then, thanks for the advice, apologies if I sounded a little too angry. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 23:03, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @NeoJade: Massey has apologised for his fans' actions when they first spammed him on Wikipedia; telling him to knock it off is both going after the wrong person and closing the barn door after the horse has bolted. Battle for Dream Island is in a very similar situation to Massey's, where stans ignorant of Wikipedia's policies and unwilling to bother learning them spam their obsession-of-the-moment and refuse to understand what we're telling them because their fandom trumps all other considerations. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:12, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While I would agree. He has made videos more recently, which are poking at the bear quite significantly.
    https://www.youtube.com/clip/UgkxKQ32BSQo667IUOlTgUVuBB4qzyJ4LRBn
    https://www.youtube.com/clip/UgkxnCrxsUF8lLqzbFp3Ehr-cAZpt5Cqm9V_
    He has, in addition, had a 5 second monologue somewhere that I can't since find, saying to his fans "give wikipedia a break" but, surely he would know saying nothing is better for getting this to stop, right? NeoJade Talk/Contribs 23:27, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It depends on if his fans are pestering him over it. And even if he said nothing, the horse's already bolted from the barn. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:57, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    NeoJade, I think we have successfully handled this over the past few years through deletion of drafts and putting protection on some page titles. I'm not sure why there is urgency at this particular moment in time and I have no idea of what kind of alternative solution you thought would emerge from a discussion on AN. It's not like any of us has a direct line to the article subject and can ask him to not encourage his fans and we definitely have no control over the thousands of viewers of his videos. We have limited means to deal with the articles and drafts that get created and while it might be a "waste of time", all vandal-fighting could be considered a waste of time but it's also necessary. We can discuss the possibility of a new edit filter but I see no magic antidote to protect the project from new editors creating dumb new drafts that just end up getting deleted. It's annoying, sure, but it's something we all try to address when we run across them. Liz Read! Talk! 02:20, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you do prove a point about all these "JackSucksAtLife" events. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 10:51, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I have title blacklisted the strings "jacksucks" and "jack massey welsh". Unfortunately both Jack Welsh and Jack Massey are names used by unrelated people so there's a limit to what title blacklisting can do without false positives. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:37, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Internet Celebrities and Phenomena and Fan Clubs

    [edit]

    Maybe this discussion should continue at the Village Pump. What we are seeing with Jack Massey Welch or Jacksucksatlife is the same as we have seen at Battle for Dream Island. That is Internet fan clubs of people and phenomena who are widely documented by unreliable sources, and the fan clubs are determined to get a Wikipedia article for their person or game. These clubs try to get the article into Wikipedia by the stealth maneuver of changing the spelling of the title in various ways. This does not work, because Wikipedia volunteers are not stupid.

    What may eventually happen is that someone looks for reliable sources that have documented the person or phenomenon. By this time, the fans have become their own worst enemy because most of the volunteer reviewers react negatively to any version of the name.

    I don't have any particular advice here. The Wikipedia system is working in preventing the creation of article with unreliable sources and in blocking attempts to game the title. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Babyshark2

    [edit]

    I created a talk page thread (not edit) at the Hamas talk page to address a simple procedural error that shouldn’t be of controversy (a country is improperly colored on a map). This user not only reverted my TALK page thread, immediately insulting me, but has continued to childishly revert what should be an objective situation. A look at his editing history shows that he has a history of inflammatory attacks on other edits and overall appears to be fairly unstable. 41.189.250.10 (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Did you mean User:Babysharkboss2? jellyfish ✉ 22:15, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Notified, as Special:Contributions/41.189.250.10 did not do so. jellyfish ✉ 22:20, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP's edit request which I denied simply read; Hamas is a TERRORIST organization not a political resistance, and I denied it on the grounds of that being a very controversial statement, and per my interpretation of WP:TERROR. They made a second thread stating: Paraguay has designated Hamas as a full terrorist org and should be designated as such without providing a source. I leave it at that (1/3 due to not being fully in-the-know on all the political guidelines, 1/3 due to being in school, and 1/3 because of an ANI rightfully filed against me). Coming back to it, they stated This isn’t arbitration. It’s a miscolored map. I believe that it seems there was a misunderstanding. ☩ (Babysharkboss2) 22:27, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Babysharkboss2, you reverted the IP's talk page comment 3 times (with unhelpful edit summaries) before finally explaining that extended-confirmed status is required to discuss on that CTOP article. If you'd done that on the first revert, that would have been more effective. Schazjmd (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I created {{welcome-arbpia}} for situations like this. That looks like a legitimate edit request as there is a a map that shoes what nations have declared Hamas a terrorist organization. Should have come with a source, but I don't see it falling foul of WP:ECR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:54, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I should note that the article itself, in that very same section of a edit-protected article, with sources, states verbatim that In April 2025, Paraguay expanded its designation of Hamas as a terrorist organisation.” My request doesn’t need sources. It’s something any second grader can read and comprehend since it’s only sentences away from the map. In fact it’s the only reason I knew that the map was wrong. 41.189.247.4 (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that you know the rules, what is your excuse for violating the ECR restriction (here of all places)? M.Bitton (talk) 18:22, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Meh. I'm with SFR. Its a simple fact with easy sourcing (already in the article as pointed out by the IP) that could have been handled at the map page but we're blowing it up into a five alarm fire just because its an IP (not everything has to be a battle). The IP doesn't seem to have a history of this and they now aware of CTOP. I've made the request at the map talk page for a color change since I have no clue how to edit a SVG file. If it doesn't happen in a few days, I'll figure it out. I think this can be dropped at this point unless we want to make it a bigger deal than it needs to be and spend more time on this. spryde | talk 20:41, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    One more thing, unless Verizon Business has a point of presense in Djbouti, I don't think those two IPs are the same (ALL CAPS TERRORIST IP vs Paraguay Map IP). spryde | talk 20:45, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    1. There is no edit restriction on this page, so I’m not sure what you’re implying. I’m not breaking any rules “(here of all places).”
    2. Even after going back and reading the template that I literally couldn’t see because I’m clearly on a mobile device, I was still well within my rights to do what I did. “You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive).” My edit request can’t be disruptive, as it is literally a restatement of sourced material that I didn’t put on the page and had no say in. 41.189.250.10 (talk) 10:20, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Posting here, on AN, is not making an edit request, and thus the ECR restriction, which applies to all edits...related to the topic area, broadly construed, applies, and thus you did, in fact, break it by posting about it here. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:07, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BANEX permits banned users to engage in dispute resolution at appropriate noticeboards. On what grounds should we impose a stiffer standard on IPs in this topic area? In this situation, the point of ECR is to prevent people from doing disruptive things; it's absurd to use ECR-as-applied-to-Israel-Palestinians to object to someone engaging in good-faith dispute resolution at this noticeboard. Nyttend (talk) 07:48, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, as far as I can see 41.189.250.10 has done nothing wrong here. User:Babysharkboss2, on the other hand, deserves at least a WP:TROUT. WaggersTALK 10:11, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Troutwise, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1199 § Disrespectful language in reference to a murder victim, from the same day as this thread. I think my close there applies here as well. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 11:15, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I missed that part and stand corrected - have struck my earlier comment. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:19, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Third admin opinion requested at Requests for permissions/New page reviewer

    [edit]
    Request withdrawn. Black Kite (talk) 13:04, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hi all, we appear to have ended up with a bit of an impasse at Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/New_page_reviewer#User:Cactusisme, with myself hedging against conferring permissions and Sohom Datta hedging towards conferring. Given that discussion has stalled, I, and I suspect also Sohom, don't want to unilaterally overrule the other, so I'd ask that an additional admin step in and decide whether to confer or decline at this time. signed, Rosguill talk 16:57, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I assume this is now moot given [3]. --Blablubbs (talk) 12:51, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed (and for anyone confused, as I was, User:Plutus is Cactusisme renamed). Black Kite (talk) 13:04, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Administrators' newsletter – September 2025

    [edit]

    News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2025).

    Administrator changes

    readded Euryalus
    removed

    Interface administrator changes

    readded Ragesoss

    CheckUser changes

    readded AmandaNP
    removed SQL

    Oversight changes

    readded AmandaNP

    Guideline and policy news

    • An RfC is open on whether use of emojis with no encyclopedic value in mainspace and draftspace (e.g., at the start of paragraphs or in place of bullet points) should be added as a criterion under G15.

    Technical news

    Arbitration

    • The arbitration case Article titles and capitalisation 2 has been closed.
    • An RfC is in progress to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
    Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Why am I blocked?

    [edit]

    I am blocked and do not know why as I never post 2600:100E:B08F:1C37:455:FC71:C049:CC1 (talk) 11:18, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    If you can post here, you are not blocked. If you have an account that is blocked, your need to log in and post to your user talk page. If you never edit, though, you don't need to worry about it as blocks only prevent editing. 331dot (talk) 11:29, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Their range is partially blocked. 84.245.120.214 (talk) 11:48, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Since they don't edit, it doesn't affect them. Even if they did want to edit, the partial block does not prevent them from doing so to every page or article on Wikipedia but one. 331dot (talk) 11:51, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I do see that it prevents account creation- it could affect them if they just tried to visit from another Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 11:53, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They are blocked from a talk page. Secretlondon (talk) 11:52, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this discussion should be closed as the user is not blocked, at least from any page, except for User talk:Magnolia677 which they were partially blocked from in July. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 13:41, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This could just be collateral damage from a large rangeblock. The range blocked is a /43, which is quite large; there are over two million /64 subnets (which usually represent one individual user) in it. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reblocked removing the 'account creation blocked' part - honestly that should be disabled by default when pblocking an IP, IMHO. And I've seen cases before where rangeblocks somehow manage to stop IPs outside the blocked range from creating accounts. That said, if the OP was actually caught by the pblock here, the pblock is clearly working as intended. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:30, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you User:ClarkKentWannabe editing logged out? If so, you shouldn't be editing at all as that account is blocked. If you are not them, then why are you posting on their User talk page, out of all of the millions of pages you can successfully edit? Liz Read! Talk! 05:27, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ...so instead of the pblock on the range, they were caught in CKW's autoblock? That's a plot twist I wasn't expecting. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:04, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitration motion regarding Venezuelan politics

    [edit]

    The Arbitration Commitee has resolved by motion that:

    Following a successful appeal of their site ban to the Arbitration Committee, WMrapids (talk · contribs) is unbanned. The topic ban and interaction ban, which were passed at the same time as the site ban, remain in force.

    Further, WMrapids is subject to a one-account restriction. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this motion, and every twelve months thereafter.

    For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:49, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Venezuelan politics

    Page monitoring

    [edit]

    The page Talk:United States Department of Defense, has been heating up very quickly due to recent events. Requesting admin monitoring of the page and formal dispute resolution processes. Rc2barrington (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I just full-protected the article for 12 hours because of the edit warring and told the participants to work it out on the talk page. Unfortunately, quite experienced editors are edit warring. I'm off to bed in about an hour, and probably won't be on-line again for about 10 hours. The protection on the page will probably need to be renewed in the morning. Donald Albury 01:07, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Unblock request for Eni.Sukthi.Durres

    [edit]
    Appeal successful. CoconutOctopus talk 17:44, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hello,

    I'm porting over an unblock request from the talk page of User:Eni.Sukthi.Durres for review from administrators.

    Hello. I have returned to request another unblock for my account. I want to explain the reasons why my account was previously blocked: I added exaggerated and non-essential content, and when it was removed, I became frustrated and reacted poorly because I had spent a lot of effort on those edits and insisted on keeping them. I debated using inappropriate language, and in one case a comment I made was misinterpreted as a threat. As WP:NPA#First offenses and isolated incidents notes, “Sometimes personal attacks are not meant as attacks at all, and during heated and stressful debates, editors tend to overreact”, which perfectly describes my situation. I have reflected on my actions and worked on improving my English to communicate more clearly and avoid misunderstandings. I now understand the importance of adding relevant and verifiable content, following established guidelines, and engaging respectfully with other editors. If unblocked, I will focus solely on constructive contributions, carefully consider the relevance of my edits, and approach discussions calmly. My goal is to contribute positively, particularly to articles related to Albanian football and the national team, which I am passionate about.Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 02:10, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Personally, I feel the unblock request is a good one and I'd be infavour of an unblock here; however, as this user was blocked 2 years ago and has had a number of requests declined I believe it's worth getting further input. I was not around for the initial incidents so if administrators who were involved see issues that I'm not seeing I'll default to their judgements.

    Courtesy ping for involved administrators; @Deepfriedokra, @Kinu, @331dot.

    CoconutOctopus talk 12:41, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Account creation error

    [edit]

    I just singed up as a monthly contributor a week or two ago. Today when I went to check something on Wikipedia, I was surprised to get a request to contribute. Thinking I had to sign in , I created an account. And then I got an account creation error. What gives?

    (Redacted) 2001:56A:F002:1D00:D5C:BE48:2F3B:796 (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    What was the specific error message?
    Note that donating to the Wikimedia Foundation has nothing to do with your Wikipedia account. Donation records are not attached to accounts. 331dot (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Their range is pblocked and account creation is set to disabled. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 14:57, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've redacted the personally identifying information provided by the OP. I'll remove the account-creation prohibition from the pblock, but the OP is cautioned that if they are the same editor who was pblocked on this IP range from the article in question, a resumption of the behavior that resulted in the pblock will be frowned upon. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:58, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    What am I not understanding about page restriction editnotice?

    [edit]
    RESOLVED
    editnotice sorted Donald Albury 18:28, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I added a {{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} to United States Department of Defense at Special:Diff/1310238373 this morning, per the instructions for that template. This is the first time I have imposed a page edit restiction, and I tried to follow the instructions on the template page. The notice has now been removed from the article twice. So, is or is not a page restriction editnotice supposed to be placed on the page under restrictions? And if not, how are editors supposed to know about the edit restrictions? Donald Albury 15:40, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    As the instructions say, it's supposed to be placed as an editnotice, not in article text. See the article talkpage, where someone else explained this. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! All is sorted, now. Donald Albury 18:28, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    RFD nom left in limbo

    [edit]
    AN is not the place to request closes. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:56, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This RFD discussion regarding a controversial redirect related to the Annunciation Catholic Church shooting should have been closed or relisted 3 days ago. It is currently the only active discussion on its log page, being ten days old. I'm posting this here so that someone takes care of the issue. Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Changes to the functionaries team, September 2025

    [edit]

    At their request, the CheckUser permissions of Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) are removed. The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks Vanamonde93 for their service as a CheckUser and their continuing service as an Oversighter.

    For the Arbitration Committee,
    Daniel (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Changes to the functionaries team, September 2025

    Conduct of User:Sutyarashi on Ghulam Ahmad Bilour

    [edit]
    This isn't ANI. This is AN. Anyway OP has said they will open a thread on RSN. Given the tone of some of their posts in this discussion, OP is advised that using LLMs to generate discussions here is frowned upon. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:01, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    [[File:Afghan Kakezai Bilour TeamPage 2019.jpg|thumb|Evidence from the 2021 AKWT page showing Bilour’s role: Screenshot of the [https://web.archive.org/web/20190515022345/http://afghankakezai.com/team.php Afghan Kakezai Welfare Trust team page] from May 2019, featuring Haji Ghulam Ahmad Bilour and other members. The site also includes a dedicated "Kakezai" tab in the [https://web.archive.org/web/20190102041634/http://afghankakezai.com/files/directory.xls community directory], and states its mission as: “We work to improve the living standards of the identified displaced and underprivileged Afghan Kakezai communities through interventions such as quality education, vocational & skills training, protection, legal aid, health, enterprise development, poverty alleviation, and socio-economic development initiatives.” Ghulam Ahmad Bilour is listed as Chief Patron, indicating formal affiliation with the organization and the community it represents.]]

    I am reporting User:Sutyarashi for repeated, unilateral removal of reliably sourced content from Ghulam Ahmad Bilour (see here and here and here), without consensus or policy-based rationale. Despite being challenged on the Talk page, they have:

    • Removed archive-backed sources (AfghanKakezai.com, Khyber News, The News) that support Bilour’s Kakazai and Bajaur lineage
    • Replaced them with an unsourced, polemical opinion essay from the Critical Muslim series (not peer-reviewed) under Oxford University Press imprint
    • Repeatedly refused to justify the reliability of that source
    • Accused me of edit warring despite clear edit summaries and sourcing
    • Invoked policies like WP:BURDEN and WP:CONSENSUS inappropriately to assert control over the article

    Their behavior raises concerns under WP:OWN, WP:GATE, and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. The full timeline of edits, diffs, sourcing rationale, and policy references follows:

    On 1 September 2025, Sutyarashi made this edit with the edit summary, "Ed, rmv WP:BLOG and WP:FRINGE, added sources" thereby removing

    • "Afghan Kakezai Organization". AfghanKakezai.com (Archived). Retrieved 2025-02-01. The Bilour family, including Ghulam Ahmed Bilour, is involved in community welfare for the Kakazai Afghan community in Peshawar, KPK, Pakistan. The archived page confirms their Kakazai lineage and their commitment to serving the community.[1]

    and instead adding:

    No consensus was sought or explanation was provided on the talk page as to why the original source was removed. When I re-added the source...

    • "Afghan Kakezai Organization". AfghanKakezai.com (Archived). Retrieved 2025-02-01. The Bilour family, including Ghulam Ahmed Bilour, is involved in community welfare for the Kakazai Afghan community in Peshawar, KPK, Pakistan. The archived page confirms their Kakazai lineage and their commitment to serving the community.[1]

    ...along with...

    ...as well as...

    • Ali Shah, Syed Inayat (2008-11-05). "Personifying the art of politics". The News (Pakistan). Archived from the original on 2011-07-28. Retrieved 2025-09-01. Known as Haji Sahib in Peshawar, Ghulam Ahmad Bilour hails from Bajaur Agency in the Federally-Administered Tribal Areas (Fata).[5]

    He left a comment on the talk page calling ""Afghan Kakezai Organization". AfghanKakezai.com (Archived). Retrieved 2025-02-01. The Bilour family, including Ghulam Ahmed Bilour, is involved in community welfare for the Kakazai Afghan community in Peshawar, KPK, Pakistan. The archived page confirms their Kakazai lineage and their commitment to serving the community." a blog under WP:BLOG and the video's description unfit for WP:RS under WP:CIRCULAR, calling them unreliable and obscure. When I gave a comprehensive rationale, he accused me of using verbose and LLM and asked me to repeat with less "verbosity." When I challenged his source

    • Sardar, Ziauddin; Yassin-Kassab, Robin (2012). Pakistan?. Oxford University Press. p. 77. ISBN 978-1-84904-223-9. ...Bilour clan, an old Hindko-speaking merchant family.[6]

    by pointing out:

    "Only one of the 20+ sources in Ghulam Ahmad Bilour’s article is from the book Pakistan?, which carries the imprint of Oxford University Press (OUP). Although published by OUP as part of the Critical Muslim series, the essay in question—“Peshawar Blues” by Muhammad Idrees Ahmad—is a polemical, unsourced opinion piece, not a peer-reviewed academic source. The Critical Muslim series is produced by the Muslim Institute and Hurst Publishers; it includes satire, polemics, and advertisements, and does not follow an academic peer-review process. The cited article (p. 77) offers no citations or scholarly sourcing for its claims about the Bilour family. Its tone is anecdotal, not ethnographic or academic, and it fails WP:RS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP for biographical or ethnological claims.

    The 2010 The News op-ed is by a non-expert (an accountant in Dublin), contains no citations, and uses slurs like “Khariaans”. It does not meet WP:RS or WP:BLP.

    The invocation of WP:FRINGE is misplaced. Ethnic origin is not pseudoscience. Both Peshawar and Bajaur are verifiably sourced and can coexist under WP:NPOV. Removing one fails WP:DUE. Attempts to suppress reliably sourced content while dismissing counterpoints raise concerns under WP:OWN and WP:GATE.

    He reacted strongly and immediately removed all of my edits with the edit summary, "Rmv non scholarly/tabloid sources per third opinion provided by WP editors and other concerns. Please don't add them back without establishing their reliability at talk page first. If you think OUP source is non-RS, feel free to take it to RSN"

    In a nutshell, User:Sutyarashi has repeatedly:

    • Deleted reliably sourced content without consensus,
    • Claimed the burden of proof is on me to prove sources are reliable — even for their own additions,
    • Refused to justify their favored source's reliability when challenged (see below),
    • Accused me of edit warring when I restored valid content with proper edit summaries.

    Here is the Timeline of Key Reverts:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghulam_Ahmad_Bilour&diff=prev&oldid=1309058751 – I restored the archived source and added another (Khyber News video), both supporting Kakazai/Bajaur origins. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghulam_Ahmad_Bilour&diff=prev&oldid=1310358666 – I added Latif Yaad’s book listing Bilour as Kakazai (Mamund), and a 2014 CRSS podcast where Ilyas Bilour directly says their family came from Bajaur Agency. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghulam_Ahmad_Bilour&diff=prev&oldid=1310363467 – Sutyarashi reverted all of it and accused me of edit warring.

    I also left a clear Talk page explanation:

    My statement (22:14, 8 September 2025) explains the sourcing in detail and challenges the claim that the opposing source — a polemical essay in Critical Muslim — meets WP:SCHOLARSHIP.

    Sutyarashi relies heavily on a piece titled "Peshawar Blues" by Muhammad Idrees Ahmad, published in Critical Muslim, and reprinted by Oxford University Press. However:

    • The piece has no citations,
    • It is an opinion essay, not academic scholarship,
    • Critical Muslim is not a peer-reviewed journal,
    • OUP publishes both scholarly and non-scholarly material.

    Despite all this, Sutyarashi insists that the burden lies on me to prove the source is unreliable, while refusing to demonstrate that it is reliable — even after I challenged it per WP:BURDEN and WP:RS.

    Relevant Policies Being Violated:

    WP:BURDEN – The burden lies with the editor adding or defending contested material to show it complies with sourcing policy. WP:SCHOLARSHIP – The essay being used does not meet the requirements for a scholarly source. WP:CONSENSUS – Removal of well-sourced material also requires consensus. WP:OWN – Sutyarashi is treating the article as their own, reverting others' contributions and gatekeeping sources. WP:GATE – They are blocking reliably sourced but inconvenient content from inclusion.

    I am requesting administrator attention on this matter. The user:

    • Refuses to justify their favored source's reliability,
    • Unilaterally deletes well-sourced content from newspapers of record and direct interviews,
    • Accuses others of edit warring for restoring legitimate content,
    • Misrepresents policies like WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BURDEN in a weaponized manner.

    I am not willing to take this to RSN, as I am not the one adding or relying on the disputed source. The burden lies with the person adding or defending it. This kind of selective enforcement is toxic. Administrators, please advise: What policy-based objection is there to the Afghan Kakezai Welfare Trust citation when it is used narrowly, under WP:PRIMARY and WP:DEADREF, to identify an organizational listing — not to establish broader ethnographic claims? Why is verifiable information about Bilour’s Kakazai heritage — including being Pashtun, Kakazai, or hailing from Bajaur Agency — being excluded, while an unsourced essay is retained without discussion or consensus? These identities are not mutually exclusive and are supported by reliable sources. Why can't they coexist under WP:NPOV? Why is having Hindko-speaking and hailing from the inner city of Peshawar more important than a Pashtun Kakazai hailing from Bajaur Agency? Why can't they co-exist, given that they are supported by the reliable sources? It is important to reiterate that these deletions occurred without establishing consensus on the article’s Talk page, despite active discussion and detailed counterarguments.I am requesting administrative intervention to stop User:Sutyarashi from continuing unilateral deletions of reliably sourced content, and to evaluate whether their conduct meets the threshold for WP:OWN or WP:IDHT. Thank you.

    References

    1. ^ a b "Afghan Kakezai Organization". AfghanKakezai.com (Archived). Retrieved 2025-02-01. The Bilour family, including Ghulam Ahmed Bilour, is involved in community welfare for the Kakazai Afghan community in Peshawar, KPK, Pakistan. The archived page confirms their Kakazai lineage and their commitment to serving the community.
    2. ^ Amir, Intikhab (26 April 2013). "A fortress under assault". Dawn. Retrieved 1 September 2025.
    3. ^ Sardar, Ziauddin; Yassin-Kassab, Robin (2012). Pakistan?. Oxford University Press. p. 77. ISBN 978-1-84904-223-9. ...Bilour clan, an old Hindko-speaking merchant family.
    4. ^ Eight Years have Passed Since the Death of Bashir Ahmad Bilour. Khyber News. 2020-12-20. Retrieved 2025-09-01 – via YouTube. Description states: "Bashir Ahmad Bilour...belongs to a prominent political and social Kakazai family of Peshawar," referring to the Bilour family's ethnic affiliation.
    5. ^ Ali Shah, Syed Inayat (2008-11-05). "Personifying the art of politics". The News (Pakistan). Archived from the original on 2011-07-28. Retrieved 2025-09-01. Known as Haji Sahib in Peshawar, Ghulam Ahmad Bilour hails from Bajaur Agency in the Federally-Administered Tribal Areas (Fata).
    6. ^ Sardar, Ziauddin; Yassin-Kassab, Robin (2012). Pakistan?. Oxford University Press. p. 77. ISBN 978-1-84904-223-9. ...Bilour clan, an old Hindko-speaking merchant family.
    McKhan (talk) 09:12, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's see if I understand the situation. You disagree with Sutyarashi about what the article should say, and about which sources should be used. You have reverted one another back and forth a couple of times. There has been some talk page discussion, mostly between you and Sutyarashi, and you attempted to start an RfC to get more eyes on the matter; the only responses to your RfC have been one person observing that it fails WP:RFCBRIEF, and another which seems to be someone disagreeing with your position. I don't know why you aren't willing to take this to RSN - you can't say that the other party in the disagreement is the only one direlying on a disputed source, you are obviously both disputing one another's sources. There are also dispute resolution channels you could have explored. Unless there is something I am missing, this is a fairly commonplace content dispute, leaving aside the back-and-forth reverting which you have both engaged in. I would suggest that you try dispute resolution - admin noticeboards do not resolve content matters. Girth Summit (blether) 14:42, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Girth. To clarify a key point: I did not undo Sutyarashi’s additions. I preserved them and added additional reliably sourced content alongside them, with clear edit summaries and detailed explanations on the Talk page. My concern here is not just a content disagreement, but a persistent pattern of conduct:
    • Repeated removal of reliably sourced content without consensus
    • Refusal to engage substantively on RS or sourcing policy grounds
    • Dismissal of any opposing sources as “blogs,” “tabloids,” or "obscure" without justification
    • Insistence that I prove their source is unreliable, reversing WP:BURDEN
    • Attempts to control article content despite Talk page pushback
    • Assertive, one-sided interpretations of Wikipedia guidelines, used to gatekeep and justify deletions — raising concerns under WP:OWN and WP:GATE
    That said, I take your point and will open a focused RSN thread. If the same conduct pattern persists through those channels, I’ll re-approach ANI with a clearer trail.
    Thanks again. McKhan (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to set the record straight, your first edit preserved their edits, but this was a straightforward revert by you. Girth Summit (blether) 15:28, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the follow-up, Girth. Just to clarify your comment — while it may "look" like a revert at first glance, the underlying edit history shows that I preserved Sutyarashi's additions and built upon them, rather than reverting them wholesale.
    This began with this version, which stated:
    '"Bilour was born in a Kakazai family on 25 December 1939 in Peshawar, British India. He received his early education from Khudad Model School and Islamia School Peshawar, He then studied at Edwardes College and married soon later. He hails from Bajaur Agency, and comes from a well-known and wealthy business family. He is popularly known as Haji Sahab in Peshawar."
    That was replaced by this version:
    "Bilour was born in an old Hindko-speaking Peshawari merchant family on 25 December 1939 in Peshawar, British India. He received his early education from Khudad Model School and Islamia School Peshawar, He then studied at Edwardes College and married soon later. The Bilour clan hails from the inner city of Peshawar, and are a well-known and wealthy business family. He is popularly known as Haji Sahab in Peshawar."
    And later this version further trimmed even that:
    "Bilour was born in an old Hindko-speaking merchant family on 25 December 1939 in Peshawar, British India. He received his early education from Khudad Model School and Islamia School Peshawar, He then studied at Edwardes College. The Bilour belongs to a well-known and wealthy business family. He is popularly known as Haji Sahab in Peshawar."''
    When I made my edit, I preserved Sutyarashi's core additions — such as "Hindko-speaking merchant family" and "inner city of Peshawar" — and added reliably sourced material on Bilour’s Kakazai and Bajaur heritage alongside it. At no point did I remove their material or revert back to a prior version.
    By contrast, their edits repeatedly and unilaterally removed everything I contributed, dismissing it via summaries such as:
    Yet I was the one who initiated an RFC and attempted to seek consensus, while facing constant resistance and accusations of unreliability for sources described as "blogs", "obscure", or "dead" — without proper policy-based engagement.
    So while I respect your framing of this as a content dispute, I do believe there is a pattern of ownership and gatekeeping that has gone beyond ordinary editorial disagreement, and which I documented in good faith at ANI.
    Still, as you advised, I will now open a focused RSN thread to address the underlying RS concern directly.
    Thank you again for the time and attention. McKhan (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm… not saying if it is LLM generated, but maybe it is at least partially, considering at minimum the tone, but I'm not going to say it's in any way definite 37.186.35.134 (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No opinion on the substance, but NFCC doesn't cover noticeboards, so I added nowiki tags to the image at the top. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:18, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Wikipedian Liberation Front

    [edit]

    Came across this User:WLF Ever/sandbox at AfC, deleted it, and blocked the user as !HERE. Other than that, I don't know if it's worth flagging this to our colleagues at fr.wiki, or just assume it's purely a hoax? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a splinter group of the User:Popular Front for the Liberation of Wikipedia. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:07, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Splitters! DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:12, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not understand. Wikipedia is already free. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is WP:NOTFREESPEECH. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Monty Python's Life of Brian. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:59, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @DoubleGrazing, they are indeed prolific LTAs on frwiki (see fr:WP:Faux-nez/FLW). Thanks for flagging this! quebecguy ⚜️ (talk | contribs) 11:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Requested global locks for all of them since they're causing trouble here and in eswiki as well. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 16:59, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We are not the popular front, but a french association as Quebecbuy said @CambridgeBayWeather and @DoubleGrazing
    Viva el FLW (talk) Viva el FLW (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you ping me because you want to be blocked, or? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked. For being a sockpuppet and not having a sense of humour. Their username should have been "Vive le Wikipedia libre". How Gaulleing to mention Quebec and get that wrong! CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:18, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @DoubleGrazing
    Yeah that's true !
    You know, we are an association of quite 150 people from 7 different countries, we can do everything on Wikipedia.
    But if french admins unblock Ma Dacia Logan, we will stop vandalizing of course.
    Ma Dacia Logan was opressed while he was just a good man, it's unfair. That's why we are beating for him.
    PS : you have the honour to see a message from the vice-president of the WLF ! ChatGPTlover44 (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You should not vandalise regardless of if that person is unblocked or not. GothicGolem29 (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked ChatGPTlover44. PhilKnight (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism in List of countries by external debt

    [edit]

    The Page List of countries by external debt has been vandalized three times in a row. Maybe it should be blocked. Greetings Bigbossfarin (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like it has resolved itself. If there is more vandalism, them WP:RFPP is the better avenue. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:41, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gunther Fehlinger-Jahn

    [edit]

    Could use some admin attention. —Rutebega (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    From a checkuser standpoint, if this is coordinated it appears to be more WP:MEAT than one person socking.-- Ponyobons mots 23:01, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected for two weeks. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:04, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for some extra info, poking around at the listed Twitter account in the infobox for the article gives some interesting posts and info. To start with, this isn't the first time we have had an article for Gunther Fehlinger as it was deleted in 2023 under a different name: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gunther Fehlinger. Back then, the account tried to get their followers to keep the article. (1, 2) In any case, it seems that the account has gone back to trying to get followers of the account to canvas Fehlinger's article to prevent it from being deleted. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:19, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    TBAN appeal and request to re-open Close Challenge

    [edit]

    I posted a close challenge (with full support and encouragement of the closing admin) only to be subjected to an immediate flooding of opposing users demanding I be topic banned.

    1. Arguments made in the close challenge are citations of the previous appeal efforts with the closing admin, who acknowledged numerous valid points in the arguments, encouraged me to file a close challenge, and offered to co-author it. To characterize the initiating incident here as a “further example” of my inappropriate behavior in the topic space is unsupported and was pushed through by a group of users.
    2. The close challenge was only discussed and adjudicated by those who rushed to the page, not participants of the previous RFC and moratorium discussions, who had not yet even been made aware of the filing.
    3. I was banned almost immediately by a "consensus" of a uniform group of editors, including one who has camped out on the Zionism talk page, and others showing up within a few hours of my post (despite it only appearing on AN and the closer’s talk page).
    4. I do my very best to abide by all expected rules and procedures, and learn/improve as I go. I am committed to receiving criticism and advice to ensure I am improving as an editor. I was tbanned based upon supposed “transgressions” that were not adjudicated in a thoughtful manner. I believe a proper assessment by impartial admins is warranted.

    Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 23:22, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose the topic ban was an appropriate response to battleground behavior and reopening that appeal again would be disruptive on its face. I would suggest Allthemilescombined1 find some other topic to edit on. Simonm223 (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: moved from ANI. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:31, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm I agree that the topic ban thread was closed too hastily. In my !vote, which was the last before the discussion was closed, I put forward a cogent argument for editing restrictions for Allthemilescombined1 beyond the Arab-Israeli conflict, as another thread open at ANI at the time initiated by Allthemilescombined1, now archived following the tban, displayed Allthemilescombined1 doubling down on some rather absurd personal attacks against Cdjp1 in the context of work on antisemitism topics. Discussion should have been allowed to continue in order to consider my suggestion of broader sanctions. signed, Rosguill talk 23:41, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      If the topic ban is too narrow I wouldn't be opposed to examining whether additional scope is required. But I don't think readmitting this editor to IP pages would be a net positive. Simonm223 (talk) 23:44, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm looking for a fair hearing from an uninvolved admin who has perspective on the situation. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 00:16, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I am not WP:INVOLVED with respect to this topic as an admin, as I have only commented in an admin capacity at ANI and have not participated in editing or discussing Zionism, although you are of course able to solicit further admins' opinions. signed, Rosguill talk 02:21, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Indef ban proposal

    [edit]

    For failing to WP:DROPTHESTICK when given plenty of input from the community that they should do so, and for continuing to cast WP:ASPERSIONS, I propose that Allthemilescombined1 be indefinitely banned. TarnishedPathtalk 03:46, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support as proposer. Enough is enough. Allthemilescombined1 has failed to get a clue and continues with their disruptive behaviour after the community has made them aware that the behaviour is not welcome. TarnishedPathtalk 03:46, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors please also see Special:Permalink/1303734914 where they launched this same appeal as a request for arbitration. I think the community is well over the forum shopping from this editor. TarnishedPathtalk 03:56, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support but I might reconsider if they withdraw the request and review WP:NOTTHEM.Simonm223 (talk) 10:44, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Simonm223 just to point out that they filed at ARC on 1 August, and it was closed the same day. Mind you, I guess that means they didn't withdraw their request. A good point about reviewing NOTTHEM; perhaps that should be a condition of their unblock appeal in six months? (Thinking SO.) —Fortuna, imperatrix 11:19, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks FIM. I'm aware the ARC request was closed very quickly. I more meant that they withdraw this appeal of their topic ban. I thought the topic ban was an appropriate outcome of the ARC request considering their past history of the page. I understand they also tried to get it overturned at AE? My principal concern is that Allthemilescombined1 seem unwilling to abide by their topic ban and edit something unrelated to Israel/Palestine. If they withdraw this request and accept that they were topic banned I would be less likely to be concerned that enhanced measures are necessary to prevent disruption and as we should not be punitive, if I have confidence they'll abide by their topic ban, I don't see as much reason for a block. Simonm223 (talk) 11:24, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had floated further sanctions in the section above, but to be honest I was thinking something more along the lines of an added topic-ban from antisemitism per the issues with AGF and Cdjp1 that I highlighted. I am not certain that there's been enough disruption to justify a site ban. signed, Rosguill talk 14:09, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. This proposal is excessive and troubling. I find it politically driven and biased. Every editor has the right to argue their case, and it is particularly important, also from a gender perspective, to ensure that women (in this case, someone from Women in Red who works to promote women’s biographies) are able to speak out without being silenced. This suggestion strikes me as extremely disproportionate and harmful to the principles of open debate. שלומית ליר (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      No, people do not have a right on this platform to endlessly cast aspersions and WP:FORUMSHOP when they don't get their way, as has happened the first time they came here, at WP:ARC and now here again. TarnishedPathtalk 12:00, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Editors have the right to argue their case, but not to continuously re-litigate their case forever, especially not on spurious grounds like these; beyond a certain point, when consensus is steadifastly against them, editors need to be able to WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on if they're going to be able to edit collaboratively. Allthemilescombined1 has continuously refused to do that; the fact that they felt it necessary to not just appeal their topic-ban but to try and continue the underlying dispute again (after the RFC was closed, after a moratorium was placed on the subject, after the close-review was closed and after the editor has already been topic-banned due to their endless intransigence on this topic) shows a level of unyielding tendentious behavior that leaves us with no real room for anything but a ban. Beyond a certain point editors need to be able to accept decisions they disagree with in order to edit on Wikipedia; Allthemilescombined1 has made it abundantly clear that they have no interest in doing so and will continue to attempt to bludgeon our processes via every angle available to them on this so long as they have access to Wikipedia. Editorial time, energy, and focus is a limited resources and editors are not allowed to endlessly strive to consume it simply because they are dissatisfied with the outcome of our dispute-resolution mechanisms. --Aquillion (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Heads up for the latest spambot

    [edit]

    There's some new spambot making the rounds of various projects, injecting crap about customer service numbers at various airports. I've seen reports of this on eswiki and simplewiki. Here's a typical example from simple. I'm sure this will reach enwiki at some point. I suggest admins get aggressive about blocking, WP:G5, and creating edit filters when it happens. RoySmith (talk) 23:35, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmmm, looks like I'm behind the times. Special:AbuseFilter/793 already addresses this. RoySmith (talk) 23:38, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    NoonIcarus

    [edit]

    I believe this request by NoonIcarus (fka Jamez42) on Callanecc’s talk page for a Sockpuppet investigation of editors of political economist Francisco Rodríguez’s page is a violation of NoonIcarus’s topic ban on Latin American politics. At his recent failed attempt to lift that topic ban filed in this venue, I pointed out several times he has skirted or violated the topic ban.

    Francisco Rodríguez is an economist that is of high political significance and NoonIcarus (as I show below) has long been aware of his significance in the politics of Venezuela. In reviewing Rodriguez's "The Collapse of Venezuela: Scorched Earth Politics and Economic Decline, 2012–2020", Richard Feinberg identifies Rodriguez as a “political economist”, who challenged the talking points of critics of Chavez and Maduro by identifying other causes for the Crisis in Venezuela:

    the country’s excessively powerful executive branch (and winner-take-all politics) and the maximalist economic sanctions imposed by the first Trump administration. Rodríguez is particularly critical of radical elements within the Venezuelan opposition and diaspora for drawing the United States into “scorched earth” sanctions against Venezuela’s oil exports, which impoverished the country but failed to trigger regime change. [1]

    NoonIcarus has been well aware of Rodriguez’s political importance. On 8 June 2020, he added wikilinks to a sentence of a reference to a book co-authored by Rodriguez, Venezuela Before Chávez: Anatomy of an Economic Collapse. On 10 June 2018 he changed to the heading of the section whose first line was “Rodríguez was an early supporter of the Chávez administration.” On 20 November 2023 NoonIcarus revised “he served as the head of the economic and financial advisory of the National Assembly of Venezuela.” There are numerous other edits like these to the article and other articles that make it clear that NoonIcarus has known of Rodriguez’s significance for Venezuelan politics, and that he wanted Rodriguez’s opinion removed.[4]

    The request for an SPI investigation follows a pattern of NoonIcarus challenging editors of the Rodriguez page of a COI.[5] This included a reporter who interviewed Rodriguez who repeatedly insisted he had no COI. [6] [7][8] Because of NoonIcarus’s steadfast insistence there was a COI, the reporter left Wikipedia in disgust on 1 October 2021, with the last words , “SO, I sincerely do not care anymore. Congratulations, you sucked the joy of editing some things due to your…approach on Wikipedia editing. It is a shame, Venezuelan articles need better editors. FAR BETTER.”

    NoonIcarus refused to remove the COI tag when asked on 17 August 2022. The COI tag was still on the article in October 2023—a full two years later when NoonIcarus edited the article.

    In August 2023, NoonIcarus followed his pattern of removing material attributed to Rodriguez that challenges the legitimacy of U.S. sanctions on Venezuela with the claim in the edit summary of a COI.[9]

    NoonIcarus’s previous skirting of the topic ban; his continued preoccupation with Rodriguez and the editors of the Rodriguez page and other Rodriguez material--to the point of making multiple COI accusations over the years, even accusing a reporter of a COI who vehemently denied it and was thus driven away; and, now requesting a sock puppet investigation on the Rodriguez page on a single admin's talk page—rather than at WP:SPI…It all makes one question whether NoonIcarus is really willing to abide by community sanctions placed on him or whether he thinks they are simply at his discretion to ignore.

    References

    1. ^ Feinberg, Richard (2025-08-19). "The Collapse of Venezuela: Scorched Earth Politics and Economic Decline, 2012–2020". Foreign Affairs. Vol. 104, no. 5. ISSN 0015-7120. Retrieved 2025-09-08.

    --David Tornheim (talk) 10:02, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm reading NI's post at Callanecc's talk page as a question about whether it would be a TBAN violation to file an SPI (hence the "I want to be careful about the current topic restrictions"). Having never heard back from C, NI never did file at SPI. We generally encourage editors to ask an admin if they're not sure if a given edit will or won't violate a ban. For the record, NoonIcarus, you can't file such an SPI, and I would recommend unwatchlisting the Rodriguez article. If you have any further TBAN questions, be more conservative in how much information you include. This one would have been better as "Am I allowed to file an SPI related to accounts active at Francisco Rodríguez (economist), or would that be a violation of my TBAN?". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw edits about Rodriguez before I saw this AN (since I created the Rodriguez article in 2010, I receive notifications when links are made to it, and that is what I check first when logging on).
    Rodriguez's article has a recent history of puffery and original research. In the last round, it was cleaned up by Scope creep, but the article was edited after that by the same editors blocked on the es.wikipedia. Rodriguez is now with Center for Economic and Policy Research; for context (possibly related to interns editing), please see Talk:Mark Weisbrot and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scalabrineformvp/Archive for a history of connected and paid activity.
    I had not seen the August post to Callanecc's page until reading this, but had already independently noticed the problem (and more) at Rodriguez when I got a notification to his article this morning. Had I known about the socks on es.Wikipedia, I could have saved myself a lot of editing time.
    Re the (old) post to Callanecc, I agree with Firefangledfeathers; NoonIcarus asked appropriately, and FFF's advice is sound. It is unfortunate that socks can continue at en.Wikipedia because the rest of us don't notice or aren't aware, and fortunate that NoonIcarus doesn't email others about these things, rather asks transparently on Wikipedia. But he can ask more briefly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    PS, I am out of time today, so unless an admin looks into blocking the socks already identified on es.Wikipedia, and examines other recent editors at Rodriguez, I'll file the SPI tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In starting to look at accounts for the SPI, I found that this account seems to be claiming it belongs to Rodriguez himself, so there's more work to be done here. It seems he's saying he got information removed from a source after NoonIcarus used the source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:24, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And there is another problematic one, difficult to discuss per risk of OUTING. So I'm stalled on the SPI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Update, that is, two more problematic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That was another fact that I mentioned at the Spanish SPI request, so just the fact that the COI tag was removed is troublesome enough. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    NoonIcarus: there are still matters here that require attention from admins, but we don't need any more participation from you. If an admin pings you, please respond directly. Otherwise, leave it to others. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:51, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with FFF. I have started to work on this, and NoonIcarus, it is better that less involved editors are looking at it and coming to their own conclusions. I have found several issues of concern, but need to take them private until I understand if OUTING applies. I will be delayed here as we are having a rough day; it would certainly be faster if I could just ask you, but it's better that you aren't involved. I hope to be able to work on this later today, unless things continue to fall apart at home. The problems seem to be bigger than those presented so far, but I could be wrong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Firefangledfeathers: Hi! Many thanks for the advice. I already have the article unlisted, which is the reason why I found out about the socks activity only a couple of months after I filed the CU request in the Spanish Wikipedia. I'll bear these words in mind in the future, best wishes, --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:49, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Separately, David Tornheim has not adequately reflected his own COI wrt Venezuela on his user page,[10] and yet has been a driver in every dispute resolution discussion about NoonIcarus (sample of most recent, where I did not opine). I suggest Tornheim be cautioned about his attention to NoonIcarus' editing, as he appears overly focused on removing views that oppose his own from Venezuelan topics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, I'd like to ask David to stop using my old username, it's not the first time that he does. I asked for the change for a reason. It's not something that I hide or deny, even with my own concerns (instead of, say, starting editing with a different account). The redirect to the user page is still up in old comment for anyone to learn about the relation. By repeatedly using it, he's putting me in more harm's way that I already have been through so far.
    I asked Callanecc as the closing admin of the decision precisely out of respect for the topic restrictions (and I have previously done so when in doubt for as little as a 19th century boat). I wanted to file a SPI request for Juanpablo1415 and Ysa4532 because a CheckUser at eswiki already confirmed that both accounts are related to each other and blocked, and the other alternative was waiting for the accounts to get stale, but I didn't take any action since I didn't get a response.
    David was canvassed to the discussion preceding by TBAN and has admitted to following my edits for months now. Him ignoring or omitting the CU at the Spanish Wikipedia, particularly at a time when I have done my best to stay away from Latin American politics for over a year, suggests that this complaint is not made in good faith, that he wants to see me banned at all costs, and speaks volumes more of his own behavior than my own. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Cross-wiki abuse

    [edit]

    Please block Special:Contributions/KimHeungSou, it is a cross-wiki spam and advertising user.[11][12] 14.191.62.33 (talk) 13:00, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this situation is more complex than a simple accusation and quick block would call for. This editor is related to the article subject, was informed about our policies about editing with a COI and is trying now to abide by them. Let's give them a little time to respond to the warning they have received. Liz Read! Talk! 22:06, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OK! 14.191.62.33 (talk) 22:55, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Inviting admins to CSD delete a file that I uploaded early

    [edit]
    Deleted as G7. Thanks for saving time Star Mississippi 02:25, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I uploaded a file, but per WP:NFCC it should be deleted. Rather than letting the full week run out, it could avoid some disputes if an admin deletes File:Iryna Zarutska.jpg early. It was meant to be fair use, but the article is locked, so it cannot be added to the page and a couple of editors on the talk page are trying to come up with a free image. Deleting the file early could reduce some of the disputes around the article. Rjjiii (talk) 02:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Temporary accounts rollout

    [edit]

    Hey, we've posted a message about deploying temporary accounts here on English WP. Since this change very much impacts your work, I wanted to let you know here too. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 11:47, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    For those who don't know the lingo, temporary accounts are what will replace IP addresses. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:20, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Barkeep49, I didn't remember not to rely on jargon :D
    About "replace IP addresses", yeah, sometimes I present it this way too, although - a little clarification for the sake of those who haven't heard about the project - it's not that simple. They kinda replace IPs (they aren't registered so they do inherit some of WP:UNREGISTERED including Wikipedia:IP editors are human too which could get renamed into Temp accounts are humans too), but purely technically, they are a new layer on top of IP addresses, so some 1:1 comparisons don't make sense. I wrote more about this in this comment.
    It may feel complicated but as a geek, I think it's pretty interesting. It opens up new options like reduced collateral damage on good-faith users impacted by range blocks. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Erika Kirk AfD discussion

    [edit]

    The AfD of the wife of recently killed political activist Charlie Kirk (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erika Kirk) has gone off the rails, lots of non-compliant comments by infrequent/IP editors, and there have been some disruptive comments e.g. [13] [14]. The discussion could use some additional eyes. Many thanks Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC closure review request at Talk:Killing_of_Austin_Metcalf#RfC:_Should_the_name_of_the_indicted_suspect_be_included_in_the_article?

    [edit]
    Killing of Austin_Metcalf (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RfC closure in question) (Discussion with closer)

    Closer: Beland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    User requesting review: Symphony Regalia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at 00:06, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Notified: [15]

    Reasoning: I'd like to thank Beland for closing this discussion however I would like to raise some points and supervote concerns. I do not see how the close is an accurate summarization of the discussion or even an appropriate application of WP:BLP policy.

    • Beland didn't give any policy based rationale besides saying that editors considered it (which is circular reasoning). Naturally every BLP dispute has consideration but that doesn't change the burden being on concretely demonstrating the value gained by including the name, which was not demonstrated.
    • Beland did vaguely mention the suspect's privacy not being necessary due to the name being in sources, however this is not how WP:BLP policy works. For suspects not convicted of crimes, WP:BLPCRIME already assumes the name is in sources and defaults to exclusion. (Not to mention that Wikipedia is not news, and has significantly higher standards than American news media, which is why WP:BLP policy exists for these cases).
    • Beland did not seem to consider WP:BLPNAME which also say that news sources should not be factored into the decision to include the name of a non-notable individual.
    • Even aside from these points, after reading the discussion it is not clear that there was a consensus at all.

    A few other editors and myself raised these points (among others) with Beland on his talkpage, and Beland made an appeal to the principles of event based journalism as justification, however Wikipedia is not news.

    Closer (Beland)

    [edit]

    I have already responded to most of the substance of the complaints above at User talk:Beland#Close Challenge; I will not repeat all that here but just respond to what is new. Yes, this article is not news journalism, but that hardly seems like a good reason for assuming that the "who?" part of the Five Ws is inherently uninteresting and unencyclopedic. This was one aspect where I did consider the strength of the arguments made: the idea that the identity of the perpetrator or credibly alleged and indicted perpetrator of a crime is unencyclopic in an article about that crime was successfully debunked. In this case the accused is also at the center of subsequent events - online criticism, swatting, doxxing, crowdfunding, and misinformation.

    The complaint here seems to be that any reasonable application of BLP policy would demand exclusion, and that any editor who didn't explicitly mention BLP policy must not have taken it into consideration despite it having been mentioned in the discussion. But many editors did apply BLP policy, whether they mentioned it or not, and found the facts met the threshold for inclusion. I found the arguments for both inclusion and exclusion to be reasonable, and that outcome needed to balance a bunch of complex fact-specific factors. That is not the same as failing to take relevant policies into consideration. If I were to decide the outcome by making up my own mind as to whether the facts meet the threshold for inclusion, especially given this is a close call, I feel that would indeed be supervoting (which I am already being accused of doing). So, I relied on the majority opinion to decide whether the threshold has been met. -- Beland (talk) 03:23, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Non-participants (Killing of Austin Metcalf)

    [edit]
    • Overturn: Much of the arguments for inclusion rested on the fact that the accused has been mentioned in sources, but BLPCRIME already assumes that's the case. I don't think there was serious consideration of the privacy interests of the accused, who was a minor at the time of the offense, and even if there was, there were strong arguments in opposition that got short shrift from the close. A local consensus appears to have developed in BLPCRIME discussions, particularly related to killings that cause agita in the right-wing press, where large groups of editors (including canvassed ones) routinely show up to name and shame and advance a spurious interpretation of BLPCRIME that would have the exception swallow the rule. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:27, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I think it should be noted that you un-involved in this discussion, but are very lively about this exact same issue at Killing of Iryna Zarutska R. G. Checkers talk 00:41, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes. These are completely unrelated cases. If you read my comments there, you'd know I'm not uniformly opposed to including the names of accuseds in articles. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:47, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn per Berchanhimez: "An RfC where a significant minority (if not majority) of "include" !votes were based solely or primarily on "well the sources name him so we should too" - an argument that's been soundly rejected by the community multiple times - is by definition not "strong consideration". —Fortuna, imperatrix 11:46, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn The closer's rationale showed a poor grasp of BLP policy and was non-compliant. BLPNAME and LOWPROFILE don't go into abeyance just because some headlines of news publications include a detail. If anything we might want to consider avoiding the use of news articles whose headlines might lead to a BLP violation. Simonm223 (talk) 11:50, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse accurate reading of consensus to include the widely publicized name of the suspect in the article. This is the correct interpretation of BLPCRIME which does not prohibit using Mr. Anthony's name in the article, but advises only that users seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, suspected of, is a person of interest, or is accused of having committed a crime. Serious consideration was given to not use his name, and ultimately consensus was to reject this consideration. Frank Anchor 14:34, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Can you point me to a single include !vote that seriously considered not including the content? voorts (talk/contributions) 17:26, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not Frank, but I'm making a similar argument immediately below. Starting from the top, the "yes include" !votes by FrodoMarsh, Penguino35, Nemov all show engagement with what BLPNAME/CRIME say, and to me seem to explicitly therefore meet that bar. (I stopped my explicit search for names in response to your question after those 3.) In addition, the discussion *as a whole* amounts to serious consideration: while I can't speak for individuals, I AGF that many of people who participated later in the discussion, on both sides, did so after familiarizing themselves with the points made by others, and therefore will have given consideration to their arguments before chiming in that (in their view) the stronger argument went one specific way. Doubtless, of course, there were some - again on both sides - who will have made up their mind based on gut feel and not seriously considered any contradictory view. Martinp (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse. Admittedly, I don't live in the US, so I'm blissfully largely ignorant of the political (and racial) overtones of this specific case. I don't edit in this area, didn't participate in the discussion, but have read it today. This was a debate on how to reconcile when two fundamental policy constructs of Wikipedia are at odds in this instance (report what is notable/in RS vs BLP/privacy/do-no-harm). While opinions were strong, the discussion was reasonable with serious consideration of the policy issues by the participants. The closer parsed the discussion as ultimately reaching consensus of "yes, put the name in". I think this is a plausible conclusion; I also feel "no consensus" would have been plausible as well, but see no reason to challenge the closer's judgement in that regard. The arguments for overturning it seem to centre on a conviction that BLP considerations were not given enough weight. But, as Frank Anchor writes above, our policy in BLPNAME and BLPCRIME ends up advising caution should be applied and seriously considering not including a name in these circumstances, not prohibiting it. That serious consideration was made here....and (plausibly) reached a conclusion to include it. I think some commentators there and here would *like* BLPNAME and BLPCRIME to be stricter than it is, which is a policy discussion worth having, but shouldn't translate into overturning a close of a (largely) policy-compliant but tradeoff-aware discussion. Martinp (talk) 17:03, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Participants (Killing of Austin Metcalf)

    [edit]
    • Endorse WP:BLPCRIME says to "seriously consider not including material"-- the "seriously consider" part is the RfC in this particular case. Beland provided a good and accurate summarization of that RfC. Some1 (talk) 00:33, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse - This close was well within discretion. A majority of editors agreed that the name should be included and they were basing this off analysis of the reliable sources and their interpretations of BLPCRIME, which is a painfully vague and disputed policy to begin with. The minority was an argument based purely on a rigid policy interpretation of BLPCRIME only. As far as I can tell, there is no amount of sourcing or arguments that would make the opposition turn nor did they adequalty address the affirmation arguments regarding how the readibility and quality of the article was greatly diminished by excluding the name. OP's points are fair but this is not a court with strict interpretation (see this and that). R. G. Checkers talk 00:38, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    of BLPCRIME, which is a painfully vague and disputed policy to begin with.
    This is problematic in that site-wide WP:BLP policy should never be dismissed as disputed. It is also untrue given that participants recently attempted to change WP:BLPCRIME with the goal of lowering the bar to name suspects not convicted of crimes, and it was overwhelmingly rejected. Symphony Regalia (talk) 01:16, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The goal at that RfC was to create a rigid tier system, which is unrelated to this issue at hand and I'd probably have opposed it to. Also I'm not "dismissing it," I am pointing out the grammatical fact that this policy is vague. It is perfectly fair for this community-- and a majority of the Metfalf discussion--to interpret this policy within the framework of reflecting reliable sources and a host of other things I mentioned in my first comment. And it is perfectly fair for a neutral closer to accept that as legitimate consensus. R. G. Checkers talk 01:30, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is the close was not neutral nor did it reflect consensus, as highlighted here. Symphony Regalia (talk) 01:41, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Overturn. Symphony Regalia has linked to my longer form explanation, and I wasn't originally planning to comment here as involved comments are less helpful than uninvolved ones. But I feel a need to respond to the idea that "having an RfC is what is meant by strongly consider". That's absolutely untrue. The guideline is not saying "if you get a bunch of people to think that it should be included in an RfC, then it should be included". It's saying that there should be a strong consideration of the encyclopedic value of the name of someone. An RfC where a significant minority (if not majority) of "include" !votes were based solely or primarily on "well the sources name him so we should too" - an argument that's been soundly rejected by the community multiple times - is by definition not "strong consideration".
    I am not saying that a closer cannot still find a consensus keeping that in mind. But the close needs to account for the fact that at least a significant portion of the "include" !votes were based on arguments that have been rejected in wider discussions. The closer says they "inferred" that people who !voted for "include" considered it as the guideline requires. That is not how it works - people are expected to show they considered it through their !vote - whether by expanding on their reasoning themselves or by referencing another !vote that has done so that they agree with. The closer doubled down on their close being appropriate when this was specifically brought up by 3 users on their talkpage - and as they're unwilling to correct that problem their close should be vacated and someone else who is willing to take the time to properly and completely consider things, including discounting !votes that are contrary to wider consensus and explaining their reasoning in more detail, should be allowed to re-close. Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:02, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Berchanhimez: Please provide evidence (RfC links, etc.) that the wide dissemination of name in reliable sources has been "soundly rejected by the community mulitiple times" as a factor in inclusion of a name in a BLPCRIME context. In my reading, BLPNAME--a different but related policy--suggests that a wide dissemnation would weaken the case for exclusion (read the whole second sentence of BLPNAME). R. G. Checkers talk 03:04, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The purpose of WP:BLPNAME seems to be to exclude the names of "living private individuals who are not directly involved" and "family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons". The accused person in this article is not loosely involved; they are a core participant in all the events described and indisputably the subject of at least half the article which covers post-stabbing events. It appears it is not even disputed that they performed a stabbing, but merely whether it was murder or self-defense.
    If the BLPNAME-based argument is that the accused's name only appears in primary and not in secondary sources, that can be countered by finding a secondary source that uses the name. In fact, I found a book which not only mentions the name but includes it in the title of the book: https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Case_of_Karmelo_Anthony/XsFC0QEACAAJ?hl=en
    Going by BLPNAME instead of BLPCRIME (which may be wrong because BLPCRIME is more specific in scope) seems to set a lower threshold for inclusion, and the facts of this article would to my reading easily meet that threshold.
    -- Beland (talk) 03:46, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's arguments you were free to make by !voting in the discussion. Not as the closer as justification for your closure. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:24, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Beland is responding to R. G. Checkers and pointing out that BLPNAME has a lower standard than BLPCRIME and that this article would meet the lower BLPNAME standard. None of that is relevant to the close and I don't think Beland is stating otherwise. I'll note, however, that I'm concerned that Beland is citing what purports to be a self-published book on Amazon that throws an error when you click on the link to Amazon. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:27, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I still think that this sort of reply is heavily based on Beland's somewhat strongly held personal opinions - and I generally prefer closers not have such a strong opinion on things they close (as it reduces the risk of a supervote, whether intentional or not). But I appreciate that this isn't as inappropriate a place to speak those views as part of the discussion as I made it sound. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:37, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not say that it is not a factor. But there's a significant minority (if not majority) of !votes to include that were solely based on that factor. Which has been rejected as a sole/primary reason - that's the whole reason we have BLPCRIME/BLPNAME/BLP in general in the first place. Is that we do not have to name someone just because their name is in reliable sources.
    Failing to discount the many !votes that were based solely on it being in reliable sources as contrary to policy makes this a supervote. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:28, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So you admit to overstating the community consensus on this matter. How much weight to give to any factor -- in the case the factor is every reliable source mentions and discusses the accused in significant detail -- is up to the community, and in this case (just like many others) a majority of particants thought it weighed toward inclusion. Also if consensus is not a vote, which it isn't, why can't the solely source-based (which are very legitimate) votes be weighed alongside other reasons that were brought up by other inclusion supporters? Of which there were many.
    Overturning must establish this close was grossly outside the realm of reason, and so far the overturn side has been upheld by largely unevidenced claims of some massive site-wide community consensus against using reliable sources as the sole factor that apparently doesn't exist. You can't decree ex nihilo that the community must consider more than one or two or however many factors. That is just your interpretation of the policy. But in this discussion the majority viewed it otherwise. The only grounds you had to demonstrate otherwise was if it violated some larger community consensus, which you admitted to be unable to scatch up. R. G. Checkers talk 04:51, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not overstate the consensus. You are reading things that I did not say. The community has clearly stated that being named in reliable sources is not sufficient and is not a major factor. This is why we have BLPNAME in the first place. This is why BLPCRIME talks about when to name people. This is what the RfC about whether sources using the name is acceptable came to the consensus that sources not using the name should be preferred.
    That is why solely "it's used in sources" !votes cannot be used. Because they are contrary to longstanding policy/guideline and prior site-wide consensuses. If you wish to change those consensuses, the proper way to do so is through another sitewide discussion or RfC. Not by acting like a local consensus can go against it just because people are tired of countering your view to point it out repeatedly to you. I did not admit I'm unable to do so - in fact, I referred you to the three policies that explicitly state it should not be the only or most significant factor. You refusing to accept that does not mean it doesn't exist, and ultimately, living persons is a contentious topic because of people like you who refuse to accept consensuses you disagree with and act like they don't exist.
    Bluntly, it does not matter what a majority of people here viewed it as. That's why WP:CONLEVEL exists. A local consensus based on ignoring a site-wide consensus, as reflected in policies and guidelines, and without explicitly stating based on good reasoning that the site wide consensus shouldn't apply in this instance, is not a valid local consensus in the first place - period. Your dislike of the wider consensus does not mean it doesn't still exist. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:03, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't the site-wide consensus in WP:BLPCRIME compatible with choosing inclusion in some cases? If it meant to require exclusion in all cases, I would expect it to say "editors should not include material" rather than "editors must seriously consider not including material". -- Beland (talk) 05:10, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's compatible with choosing inclusion in some cases, with good reason. A significant minority, if not a majority, of "include" !votes in this discussion were based on flimsy (at best) reasons, and some based on reasons specifically against the sitewide consensus (ex: the reason "it's there in sources so we should name too"). A valid close would have taken into account any argument that provides such a "reason" and discounted it entirely. Yours did not do so. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:36, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLPCRIME does not say "no matter how widespread coverage of the person's name is", so I would not reject "coverage of this event is so extensive that the person's name is widely known and thus they are a public figure now and there is no remaining harm to be done" as an argument incompatible with policy. -- Beland (talk) 05:41, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't overstated. The mere presence of the name in sources being some special mitigating factor was indeed overwhelmingly rejected by the community. The purpose of that tier system proposal was so "suspect, but mentioned widely in sources" would bias toward inclusion was opposed to defaulting to exclusion as it currently does, as evidenced by the failed proposal to add editors must carefully weigh factors such as the extent and quality of reliable sourcing to WP:BLPCRIME. It was thoroughly rejected. Symphony Regalia (talk) 07:35, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see at least two Opposed editors supporting that wording; most opposition was to "editors should assess the stage of proceedings as a spectrum: person of interest < arrested < charged < on trial < convicted". -- Beland (talk) 13:27, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is literally just a lie. Go read it yourself for anyone interested to see the bad faith straw grasping of the overturn side to uphold their policy decree ex nihilo. This is an unclosed RfC with many nuanced, diverging views, less participants than the Metcalf discussion, and some opposed participants pointed out that they explicitly supported reliable sources being in the analysis. At no point was the specific matter of reliable sources being the only/primary factor considered. R. G. Checkers talk 14:52, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't accuse other editors of lying. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:01, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If one persons says "A" and another says "A because policy X" and a third person says "B", I think it would be a little too much of a "Simon says" game to exclude the first opinion from consideration, given that opinion 2 shows that A is a conclusion supported by policy.
    Looking back at the discussion, supporters of inclusion were not merely arguing that the name appeared in some reliable sources. The most common logic was that "extensive national coverage" undermined the need to reduce harm, as any harm of disclosure had already been done by widespread distribution. As evidence, one editor gave a list of 8 national non-tabloid sources, and more were found in the article's citations. A secondary argument was that the accused has become more of a public figure, both due to the extensive coverage and due to events involving and actions of the accused and the family, including public fundraising. Not everyone connected all the dots, but they are all pointing to the same factual justification for their preferred outcome.
    Another argument not made in the discussion is that many of the news organizations listed as examples have similar policies against invading the privacy of a non-public figure and treat minors accused of crimes with special care. Those organizations have done a similar balancing of harm vs. utility, and decided that balance favors inclusion. -- Beland (talk) 05:04, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Another argument not made in the discussion is that many of the news organizations listed as examples have similar policies against invading the privacy of a non-public figure and treat minors accused of crimes with special care. Those organizations have done a similar balancing of harm vs. utility, and decided that balance favors inclusion."
    This is looking more and more like you inserted your view into the discussion and WP:SUPERVOTEd. TarnishedPathtalk 05:10, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The only reason I thought of this argument is that the closure was challenged and complaints were made that I didn't analyze the strengths of the arguments deeply enough. I did predict that doing so would result in more accusations of supervoting, and so it has happened yet again. It seems there is no closure that would have been accepted as fair by everyone involved. -- Beland (talk) 05:33, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is correct that there are some RFC closes, which given the underlying dispute, will invariably end up being challanged here. Whether that particular RFC is one of them, I'm not sure. TarnishedPathtalk 05:38, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 - everything being said as a justification for the close makes it more and more clear this was a supervote. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:37, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So much for assuming good faith. -- Beland (talk) 05:43, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    AGF is not a suicide pact. I assumed good faith at first - hence why I posted on your talk page encouraging you to explain further, and then once you did and it was insufficient, I encouraged you to self-revert it to avoid this. But you doubled down on your talk page and are doubling down here repeatedly. It gets more and more difficult to assume good faith when you continue ignoring now half a dozen editors - many of them more experienced than me even - saying that you're wrong here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:52, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not ignoring you; I've spent way too much time carefully reading your arguments and responding. It's not unexpected that a crowd of people on the losing side of a debate would come to the appeal of the outcome and try to get a second bite at the apple. And it's not like people on the winning side haven't shown up and argued the outcome was correct. Most of the procedural objections have been poor; I've investigated the policy objections and that has actually increased my confidence in the outcome. The one procedural objection I think is worth a second opinion is whether headcount was a good way to decide whether the threshold for inclusion was reached, whether 4:3 is enough of a ratio, and whether discounting this would change the outcome. I hope someone who does not already have an opinion on BLPCRIME issues will show up and look at that and anything else they find askew. I fear no matter what they say, they will be accused of supervoting or ignoring policy, and people will just make the same arguments again that they made in the original discussion. Which will make it unpleasant for them and thus take longer to find a volunteer willing to do that. -- Beland (talk) 06:16, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In the interest of fairness, scouring the discussion does turn up one editor making the opposite argument: that news organizations use different standards for deciding whether to include names. And that's also true - instantaneous news value is not the same as long-term encyclopedic value. A second editor echoed this point, and said not all news organizations chose to include the name.
    If we're looking for reasons to dismiss !votes, many editors advocated exclusion on the grounds that adding the name of the accused added nothing to the article. I evaluate that is a very weak argument, based on the counterarguments given.
    Many editors advocated exclusion based on the fact that the accused was a minor. If we are only looking to Wikipedia policy, that is not mentioned as a factor in WP:BLPCRIME, so could be dismissed entirely. I would not do so, though; I think it is one of the factors envisioned by "serious consideration", and it is an important one when considering the harm that could be done to a living person. Other editors point out that this person was charged as an adult, which I know means the charges go on their public record, and the proceedings are fully public. This will show up on a criminal background check if they ever apply for a job, and the massive number of media stories will show up if anyone ever does a web search on their name. So what would normally be a quite strong factor is somewhat weakened. What remaining harm are we trying to protect this person from? According to the article they have admitted to stabbing another person; that is another factor which undermines the need to wait until after conviction - normally the fact of performing bodily harm is still in dispute.
    Another argument that just came to mind - when someone in the future is doing a web search on this person, for example as a potential employee or first date, they have an extremely strong interest in knowing the person they are looking up has admitted to stabbing someone. Arguably what harm Wikipedia would add (to answer my own question) is keeping this event prominent in web results long after the trial has ended and media reports get less prominent. But that is also the service it provides to readers who might be concerned about their personal safety. We will report, in fairness to the accused, whether the jury decided this was in self-defense, and readers can take that into account.
    I'm bringing up new arguments here because I think it's worth exploring them to make sure that overturning this wouldn't result in the same outcome with the same or stronger level of support, or a no-consensus outcome resulting in article instability for not much real-world benefit. -- Beland (talk) 06:06, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your final paragraph makes clear you don't understand it. The ends do not justify the means, if the means were wrong. Even if it results in the same outcome, the community of editors and our readers deserve a close that is well thought out and articulated. And not one that is saying that just because the outcome may be the same, a poor close is acceptable. This attempt to justify the close is probably the most clear you've been that it's a SUPERVOTE. You closed it because you felt it was the correct outcome, and you're justifying it based on your own opinions. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 06:12, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, when this sort of thing happens with a criminal case, a US appeals court that finds a problem in a trial doesn't automatically declare a mistrial and order a new one. Yes, everyone deserves a fair trial, but if the appeals court finds the error or misbehavior was very unlikely to have changed the outcome, it may admonish lawyers but will dismiss the appeal and let the verdict stand. Often appeals are limited to verifying that the law was correctly applied to the facts established by the original trial, but sometimes new facts are also considered if they were unknown at the time - for example, major new physical evidence. Asking "will new legal analysis or new facts change the outcome of this conviction" is not evidence that the appeals court judges are biased and just trying to preserve their favored outcome. Nor would the district court judge saying "I learned more about this case during the appeals process and what I learned made me more confidence in the verdict" be evidence of bias. That could be a legitimate result in a specific case, but if the judge never became less confident in their verdicts, that would be an indication of confirmation bias.
    Also not saying I'm free of confirmation bias! That's one of the reasons I'm open to closure review. -- Beland (talk) 06:32, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn - Very much per voorts' comments on this. A lot of the arguments for inclusion were merely that RS stated who the accused is. This as WP:ONUS makes clear is not a reason by itself for inclusion. We still need to take policy considerations into account and it doesn't appear that Beland sufficiently discharged that duty in line with WP:DETCON when they closed the RFC. TarnishedPathtalk 02:18, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Beland states above that inclusion v no inclusion was a "close call", indicating a WP:NOCON close in which we would generally default to exclusion in a BLP, but then goes on to state that to get around that "I relied on the majority opinion to decide whether the threshold has been met". To me this runs contrary to WP:DETCON which states that "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." If when weighing up the arguments on vaious sides, they found that the policy arguments were of similar weight, the analysis should have ceased and no consensus determined. Determining consensus is not merely a WP:HEADCOUNT. TarnishedPathtalk 04:00, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I mean, if a discussion was whether policy X or policy Y was more important in a given case, and reasonable arguments could be made either way but 90% of editors favor policy X being given priority, wouldn't we go with the outcome determined by policy X? There wasn't a 90% margin in this discussion, but with this example I mean to say that headcount should not be ignored. -- Beland (talk) 04:11, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn per voorts' comments; the overwhelming majority of comments arguing for inclusion presented no policy-based reason for inclusion. The entire point of WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPNAME is that the simple mention of a name in news sources is not, in and of itself, sufficient for inclusion; arguments that solely point to the fact that such sources exist, and nothing else, are therefore not based in policy and must be disregarded. The interpretation Beland presents above (that BLPCRIME sets a lower standard than BLPNAME for inclusion of a name) is not one that was presented in the RFC and is therefore clear evidence that Beland's closure was a WP:SUPERVOTE. And, of course, as an interpretation it is also obviously absurd to suggest that BLPCRIME could lower the standard of BLPNAME in a context that is plainly more BLP sensitive than normal. To seriously consider something means to consider it in light of the broader policies, including BLPNAME. Beland's interpretation of it would mean that any time any dispute over BLPCRIME occurs, the people in the dispute could immediately point to that dispute itself as seriously considering not including it the name, even if (as in the discussion at hand) they then plainly ignore BLPCRIME and present no arguments beyond the bare fact that it passes WP:V. also note that Beland's response above immediately leaped to arguing the underlying facts (The purpose of WP:BLPNAME seems to be to exclude the names of "living private individuals who are not directly involved" and "family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons". The accused person in this article is not loosely involved; they are a core participant in all the events described and indisputably the subject of at least half the article which covers post-stabbing events. It appears it is not even disputed that they performed a stabbing, but merely whether it was murder or self-defense.), further underlining the SUPERVOTE nature of their close - if Beland feels so strongly about both their idiosyncratic interpretation of BLPCRIME and the specific facts of this case, they should have weighed in with a !vote, not imposed that opinion via a closure. --Aquillion (talk) 04:10, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      This is what I mean about being accused of a supervote if I deeply consider the merits of arguments, and being accused of improperly not taking policy into account if I don't. -- Beland (talk) 04:13, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I did not argue that BLPCRIME sets a lower threshold for inclusion that BLPNAME; I argue the reverse, that BLPNAME sets a lower threshold. I would also agree that BLPCRIME's higher threshold should be what controls, because it's more specific in scope.
      One objection to my closure was that I did not consider BLPNAME, but no one mentioned BLPNAME in the discussion. If BLPNAME set a higher threshold for inclusion, then it would be worth considering whether it is more strongly controlling and if applying it would have changed the outcome. But if we agree BLPNAME sets a lower threshold for inclusion and that the discussion relied on BLPCRIME, then the discovery of BLPNAME after closure is not a reason to re-open. -- Beland (talk) 04:21, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Endorse per R. G. Checkers.
    Additionally, a link to this closure review at the RfC may be appropriate. 85.238.68.143 (talk) 12:56, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That the name should be included because it is reported in relation to a single event, which has not been sought by the named individual, seems at odds with being a low profile individual. WP:Who is a low-profile individual says A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:30, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      To clarify if they do not seek to be reported on, but RS report on them and that reporting is all BLP1E, then they remain a low profile individual. So a close that says an individual should be named based on unsought BLP1E reporting doesn't seem right. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:02, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      There could well be other arguments for inclusion, it's just that I don't see how this one is a valid. To say they should be included just because there has been reporting is the same, per the essay, as saying they should be included because they are a low profile individual. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:04, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse as I think it is the correct representation, but the reasoning was shockingly sparse. I was kindof surprised. This issue needs to be resolved at BLPCRIME more definitively, as I have already seen several debates over this on assorted, but obviously contentious topics, just in the past few months. Metallurgist (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion (Killing of Austin Metcalf)

    [edit]

    Thank you Tamzin for pointing out the word limits. Apologies for what I've done to violate it myself or encourage violating it by other people. I will not be responding any further to this discussion in any way, shape, or form unless someone asks me a direct question about my views. In such case please ping me and I will still try to keep any such response to as short as possible. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 06:23, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Berchanhimez: To clarify, WP:CT/AP, unlike a few other CTOPs, doesn't have a general word limit; this is a discretionary sanction, specific to this discussion, per ArbCom's recent change to WP:STANDARDSET. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 06:30, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the clarification on it (not) being default. I still agree with it and will abide by what I said above - no longer replying unless I’m specifically pinged with a specific question. Thanks for all you do to try and keep things on track :) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 06:40, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrator Elections | RFC phase

    [edit]

    The RFC phase of the July 2025 administrator elections has started. There are 10 RFCs for consideration. You can participate in the RFC phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/RFCs.

    Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

    You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

    MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Redirect creation

    [edit]

    Wanted to create the Satyabhamakkoru Premalekhanam redirect as an alternative spelling for Sathyabhamakkoru Premalekhanam. But it is apparently blocked due to some previous socking blacklist for Prem Khan. Would appreciate if an rd can be created here (or the blacklist removed?). Thanks.

    PS: Would also like to rd Satyabhamakoru Premalekhanam and Sathyabhamakoru Premalekhanam to the same target. Gotitbro (talk) 16:07, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    A request for participation

    [edit]

    WP:AFD is in need of more participation. In recent weeks the number of discussions that have languished for lack of attention from !voters is considerably larger than usual in my experience as an AfD closer. Indicators of this include the number of discussions admins have allowed to remain in the "old" section in the hopes of attracting !voters; the number of discussions in which regular closers have chosen to participate instead of closing; and the proportion of discussions being relisted. I have theories as to why this is happening, but those are besides the point: the solution is clearly more engagement. I imagine other regular closers would agree with me. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Request to close the POSTNOM RfC closure review

    [edit]

    Is any admin willing to close #RfC closure review request at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#RfC Regarding MOS:POSTNOM? It's been on this page for a month and has had one substantive comment in the last 21 days. It's been listed at WP:Closure requests for 14 of those.

    I don't think this is a difficult close—even if I set my own viewpoints on the issue aside, to my eye there's a clear consensus particularly among people who did not participate in the original RfC. But it's a closure review, so someone ought to do a formal assessment of consensus. Ed [talk] [OMT] 18:40, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]