Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

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

Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Total
CfD	0	0	0	26	26
TfD	0	0	0	3	3
MfD	0	0	0	1	1
FfD	0	0	1	1	2
RfD	0	0	4	43	47
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

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

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (21 out of 9054 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Benji Krol 2024-12-28 14:41 2025-06-28 14:41 create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Russian shadow fleet 2024-12-28 13:16 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/RUSUKR ToBeFree Maharaja (2024 film) 2024-12-28 13:00 2025-01-11 13:00 edit Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Killing of Khaled Nabhan 2024-12-28 06:23 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case Haliey Welch 2024-12-28 05:43 2026-12-28 05:43 edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/BLP; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan TeenNick 2024-12-28 04:06 2026-12-28 04:06 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Reform UK 2024-12-28 00:44 2025-01-28 00:44 edit Persistent vandalism, DE Star Mississippi Political party affiliation in the United Kingdom 2024-12-28 00:43 2025-01-28 00:43 edit Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts Star Mississippi Talk:TopicsTalk 2024-12-27 22:57 2025-01-03 22:57 create Repeatedly recreated Liz List of ethnic groups in Nigeria 2024-12-27 20:52 2025-02-27 20:52 edit Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts UtherSRG Template:Wikidata property link 2024-12-27 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2502 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Caesar salad 2024-12-27 16:05 2027-12-27 16:05 edit,move Persistent vandalism: requested at WP:RFPP Favonian User:Aoidh/ 2024-12-27 14:47 indefinite edit Protecting committed identity / transcluded user page Aoidh User talk:Durgaprasadpetla 2024-12-27 05:17 2025-01-03 05:17 move Editor moving their User talk page to main space Liz Manmohan Singh 2024-12-26 17:55 2025-01-02 17:55 edit Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts; after expiration this needs to be restored to indefinite semi-protection; requested at WP:RfPP BusterD Aryan Hasan 2024-12-26 15:07 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD List of Bengali films of 2025 2024-12-26 12:56 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Spillover of the Israel–Hamas war in Syria 2024-12-26 00:14 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles Callanecc Daniel Larson 2024-12-25 18:58 indefinite edit Repeatedly recreated by sock puppets NinjaRobotPirate Draft:Ayaz Syed 2024-12-25 17:34 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated under this and several other titles DoubleGrazing Minneapolis 2024-12-25 01:00 2025-05-15 17:15 edit Upcoming TFA (bot protection) TFA Protector Bot

Reporting Disruptive user / A new user harrasment at Vriddhi Vishal

OP blocked as a sockpuppet. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi, I have created the page Vriddhi Vishal yesterday and a new user named Uncle Spock, who created his account 13 days before ie; on 9th april 2023 placed the G4 deletion tag, which was declined by an admin. He is HARASSING now by placing the AFD tag after the G4 tag was declined. I think he is more for a destructive edits in wikipedia rather than doing constructive edits. Christopheronthemove (talk) 10:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC) If the deletion request is baseless, this will be shown by the lack of any users supporting deletion other than the nominator. If he really thinks it should be deleted, AFD is the correct route for him to take. Animal lover |666| 10:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC) Based on the editing pattern of the filer Christopheronthemove, I strongly suspect them for COI/UPE editing. First of all they are trying to recreate or protect many of the previously deleted articles that had the COI/UPE or socking issues in the past. The tone they use in the new articles has also got a strong UPE flavour. Uncle Spock has done nothing wrong here. Every user on good terms has got the right to open an AFD irrespective of the age of their accounts. I recommend WP:BOOMERANG here. Pinging Oaktree b and Hadal. 111.92.78.203 (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC) Thank you for the update, I didn't think I had done something wrong. Oaktree b (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC) When you start a new discussion about an editor, you must notify them but you haven't notified Uncle Spock about this thread. So I'm pinging them. 111.92.78.203 (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC) Thanks for the ping, 111.92.78.203. I've already responded to Christopheronthemove at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vriddhi Vishal (2nd nomination). Suffice to say, there has been no harassment or other impropriety on the part of Uncle Spock. Re: any COI or socking issues, I was being charitable at AFD because I was not involved in the previous AFD; I don't have the insight to make a call on that. But I did catch a whiff of something off. --Hadal (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Tatar Confederation

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

---

User @Erminwin reverted my edits multiple times. I tried to warn him. He is using a Britannica source where it says Tatars originated between Lake Balkai and Manchuria. Same source also says Original Tatars (Nine Tatars) are a Turkic-speakers unlike Mongols. When I added "Original Tatars associated with Turkic peoples" he keeps deleting without saying anything most of the time.

Corrupted page: Tatar Confederation Volgabulgari (talk) 13:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

This looks to me like a content dispute. Please discuss on Talk:Tatar confederation. Animal lover |666| 13:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Philoserf is continuing to make hundreds of semi-automated edits while leaving thousands for everyone else to clean up and then saying that he's "retired" whenever someone calls him on it

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

---

Philoserf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). See https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Philoserf&diff=next&oldid=1151425190. I think a block is warranted, since he seems to want to retire and not collaborate. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

This is pretty much a case of WP:LISTENTOUS now. 1AmNobody24 (talk) 07:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

This comment seems to support the idea they are using "retirement" to evade communication with us. 331dot (talk) 07:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I have enforced their self-declared "retirement" with an indefinite block. Cullen328 (talk) 07:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Good block, as the length of this potential error list shows. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, good block. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

This is the kind of block I wish I made. BorgQueen (talk) 08:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Close of RFC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC on draftifying a subset of mass-created Olympian microstubs

Bradv has closed the above-linked discussion with a close that can be seen in this diff. This issue was discussed by the opener of the discussion on the closer's talk-page here, in which Bradv indicated that further discussion should take place on this notice board.

This close should be over-turned from no consensus to passed, or alternatively the discussion re-opened for closure by another admin. This is based not just on the large majority in favour of the draftification and the high level of community involvement in the discussion, but also:

• 1) The 2020 RFC that their close was based on was not raised as an issue in this RFC, Bradv using it in their close was therefore a super-vote, which is inappropriate.
• 2) Bradv misapplied the close of the 2020 RFC, which stated that "moving articles to draft space is generally appropriate ... if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify..." a case that clearly applies to this RFC which was in every wise a deletion discussion other than not taking place on the AFD page and going on for longer than 7 days, including there being multiple votes for deletion.
• 3) Bradv indicated in their talk-page comments that the articles would have been draftified if an AFD discussion had resulted in a consensus for draftification. However, this RFC was in no wise different to an AFD discussion other than having taken place in a heavily-advertised discussion at VPP which last for much more than 7 days. Bradv is essentially asking that the discussion be re-held at AFD with no reasonable expectation that the outcome (which was heavily in favour of draftification, and which any AFD-closer would have closed in favour of draftification had it occurred there) will be any different.
• 4) The CONLEVEL of the 2020 RFC was the same as (or at least not higher than) that of the RFC being closed.

FOARP (talk) 09:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn. FOARP raises many good points that are sufficient to overturn the result but there is one reason that makes the rest irrelevant; Bradv was WP:INVOLVED.

Previously, they opened a discussion at AN where they argued against the mass draftification of problematic articles. This discussion prompted an RFC that they participated in and advocated for a position stricter than that held by policy.

Clearly, they have both engaged in prior disputes on this topic and have strong feelings about it, and this involvement is likely to have influenced their close; for example, they claimed that policy only permits new articles to be draftified, even though policy permits older articles to be draftified when there is a consensus to do so. It was inappropriate for them to close this discussion, and it should be reclosed by an uninvolved editor if not directly overturned to passed. BilledMammal (talk) 10:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse (uninvolved). As Brad notes in the close, there was a numerical majority in favour of the motion, but he's also correct to say that the proposal seeks to establish a carve-out to established WP process in draftification which has explicitly been rejected by the community. There are all sorts of sensible reasons for this, including that there will be many editors who are active at AFD who don't follow VPP, and will therefore not have had an opportunity to "vet" the 1000 deletions in question. I'm not persuaded by the "involved" argument above... If editors are to be deemed involved because they had a hand in shaping the policy which passed by consensus and which they then later enforce, we'd end up with no administrators able to close discussions at all. The draftification policy passed by consensus and is therefore binding, regardless of whether Brad supported it or not. Anyway, the way forward here is clear, and outlined in the close - either PROD the pages or take them to AFD. If they're really as obvious deletion candidates as the RFC implies, then it should be straightforward.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  I’ll add that the WP:NOTBURO is a strong reason to overturn this close, for two reasons. First, Bradv suggests that if this was a deletion discussion, even if it was held outside of AFD, it could have found a consensus for draftification. The notion that we can propose deletion and get draftification, but we can’t propose draftification and get draftification, is kafkaesque. Second, the close means that we could make an identical proposal, including the five year auto deletion, with the only difference being we move it to wikiproject space instead of draft space. The notion that making a proposal worse, by making it harder for editors to find these articles, can make the proposal policy compliant is clearly bureaucracy gone mad. BilledMammal (talk) 11:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Amakuru - "he's also correct to say that the proposal seeks to establish a carve-out to established WP process in draftification which has explicitly been rejected by the community" - Where has it done so in a form that would prevent this VPP discussion reaching the opposite conclusion? We have only two VPP discussions, one of which was later, and much more heavily advertised and commented on, than the other. FOARP (talk) 12:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

If the discussion were about revoking the policy in question, then this would be a valid point. But it wasn't. It was a proposal to specifically about draftifying articles in one limited scenario, in a manner not permitted by policy. That's textbook WP:CONLEVEL and the closer was absolutely right to close the discussion according to established policy, which is how discussions are always closed. I also don't really understand why you're here arguing this anyway, Brad has given you the way forward. Why not pursue the deletions in the normal manner, as suggested?  — Amakuru (talk) 13:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how this - an earlier less-well-commented VPP discussion governing the outcome of a later heavily-commented one - is just a classic application of CONLEVEL. One could just as easily turn it around: how can an entirely theoretical discussion govern the outcome of one presented with a concrete scenario and set of facts on which to decide? FOARP (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse (uninvolved). I can understand people thinking it would be nice (or expedient) if a conclusion had been reached but I cannot see there was a consensus in that discussion, not even a "rough consensus". Thincat (talk) 12:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn. consensus was sufficient, and closer was involved. ValarianB (talk) 12:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
• Note: I didn't "base" my close, or any other part of the decision, upon the 2020 RfC. I merely mentioned it because it is linked to from the WP:ATD-I policy page on this topic. That I happened to participate in said policy debate is immaterial. – bradv 13:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

If no part of the 2020 RFC was relevant to the discussion, why cite it at all? Why quote it as supporting your position? Stating that it was not even a partial basis for the close just casts more doubt on the reasoning in the close. FOARP (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I thought that the closing statement linked in the explanatory footnote at WP:ATD-I would be useful as it spelled out the preferred alternative. I included it to be helpful to provide a way forward to the participants in this RfC. However, my close reads the same if you skip that paragraph, and I'm happy for it to be removed if it is causing confusion. – bradv 13:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

With the mention of the 2020 RFC and the alternative suggested, it appears that the proposal could have passed at AFD. Without it, it appears that there is no way that the proposal could have passed, regardless of venue. I don't know which of these was intended but both appear problematic. FOARP (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse (involved - I opposed draftification and supported redirection) - Responding to the points at the top: Bradv using it in their close was therefore a super-vote, which is inappropriate. - While calling a closure a "supervote" is a popular way to attack any closure that goes against raw numbers, the precedent of the referenced RfC is documented in ATD, which many people raised. this RFC which was in every wise a deletion discussion - This betrays that the purpose of the RfC was to use draftification as back-door deletion and thus strengthens the closing statement. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse (involved) per Rhododendrites, Amakuru, etc. Good close. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) endorse. the close is sound. so please don't drag this out longer. lettherebedarklight晚安 14:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  I don't understand how this argument applies. The close calls for ~1000 articles to be PRODed or AfDed. Is that not longer? CMD (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  i meant the rfc. lettherebedarklight晚安 14:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse (uninvolved, though I did post some general information about notability in the RFC discussion, and I have separately talked to the OP about his views on very short articles). This summary is not the only possible summary, but it is a reasonable summary, and therefore should be allowed to stand. If anyone wants to pursue the AFD route, then I suggest selecting a theme (e.g., early Olympic athletes from a single country or from a particular sport) instead of trying to handle almost 1,000 articles at once. Enormous AFDs sometimes get responses based purely on the scale of the nomination. If you can send 10–20 in a single nom, and then wait until you see the outcome, you might figure out a path forward. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn (involved) per WP:NOTBURO. The close is basically that this should be done via the deletion process, so what now? Open a mass AfD for the 960 articles and have the community answer the same question again, just to make sure it's at the right venue? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  As I have a bit more time I'll add that part of the problem with this close is that it could have been done on March 3rd, rather than wasting the communities time. As this RFC was for an exception to the current policy the close saying that the exception is invalid means that the input of editors was wasted time. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• Leaning overturn. I haven't fully read the RFC in question, but there are enough issues with the closing statement that I think that it is likely incorrect. First, pointing out that the deletion policy is against incubation as a backdoor to deletion doesn't hold much water in a discussion on the board where proposals to make and change policy are put forth. Policy is descriptive, and if a consensus of editors wishes to change policy to deal with an issue VPP is the exact place to do it. Additionally, drawing from the close of a discussion saying

  Instead of unilaterally draftifying an unsuitable-for-mainspace article that is not newly created, editors should instead nominate the article for deletion, e.g. via WP:PROD or WP:AFD.

  when the discussion had fewer than half as many participants as just those supporting the draftification is not very convincing. A discussion with much broader participation is exactly what is necessary to demonstrate a consensus not to strictly follow the earlier result.
  A very large discussion at VPP is exactly what is necessary to demonstrate that community consensus is different than what is presently recorded on the policy page. The policy should be updated, rather than disregarding the support of there is sufficient community support. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  Oh yeah, I'm uninvolved in this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn (involved) mostly as per ScottishFinnishRadish, who pretty much exactly wrote down what my thoughts were. I'm not particularly happy with the close - a discussion at WP:VPP that was advertised at WP:CENT should be enough to change almost all policies if need be, and draws so much participation that it's hard to say there's a WP:CONLEVEL issue - I don't think this is a case where the intention of CONLEVEL is met either.
  The close seems to be mostly reliant on WP:ATD-I. But what ATD-I does is allow "Recently created articles that have potential, but that do not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards" to be draftified - it doesn't bar other uses for draftification that can be developed with consensus. What it does restrict is backdoor deletion, but the result of a widely advertised RfC is not backdoor deletion.
  What the close suggests is that another RfC be held to add to WP:ATD-I that "A widely-advertised consensus can result in the mass incubation of articles" which seems bureaucratic to the extreme. Galobtter (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
• (Uninvolved). Much per SFR and Galobtter above, I'm of the heart that a CENT-advertised VP discussion spanning nearly two months should be adequate consensus to ignore any policy it likes. Our policies are not etched in stelai, and in this sense I feel any strict policy-based close that countervenes consensus of this magnitude is essentially incorrect. Moreover, the penultimate line of WP:ATD-I reads: Older articles should not be draftified without an AfD consensus.... With a single imagined removal of AfD to accommodate this specific case, certainly unpondered during the general case policy drafting, even the policy-based argument evaporates.
  Having said that, I don't agree that Bradv was WP:INVOLVED, and I'm aware that my reading of the situation is more based in idealism than anything enshrined in our hallowèd WP:PAGS, so I'm not sure I'm prepared to bold an "overturn" here. I'll instead register my disagreement and gladness to see Brad's name back. Folly Mox (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse per Rhododendrites, Amakuru, et al. You can be sure if the nominator's desired outcome is not reached, they will keep trying and not drop the stick. –Fredddie™ 00:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  Fredddie - I've seen at least one person on here already mistake who is actually challenging this close, and I think you may be doing so as well. Just FYI, I'm the one who asked for this close to be reviewed, and I don't believe I have an extensive record of challenging decisions I did not agree with. This is the first time I have asked for AN to review the outcome of an RFC. Obviously I think review is justified otherwise I wouldn't have asked for it, but the Overturn !votes above also show that I am not the only one who thinks so, so I don't believe I'm being unreasonable here. FOARP (talk) 08:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  Then I'll make it clear that I agree with Brad's closure and his subsequent statements on the matter, especially those comments about how it should be harder to delete an article from Wikipedia than it is to create one. It reeks of IDONTLIKEIT and if you hadn't started the thread, someone else would have. That being said, I don't think you are unreasonable, but I think this whole thing is. –Fredddie™ 17:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse (uninvolved) per Amakuru, mostly. The proposal seeking out to carve an exception to existing policies should have much more broad acceptance than the current one had, and reasonable concerns and counter-arguments were all policy-based. If one wants an IAR action performed (and this proposal amounted to one, seeking to bypass established policies), they should better have near-universal approval that it improves the encyclopedia; removing innocuous ~1000 articles on borderline notable early-20th century people does not cut that slack. Bradv's closure has artfully reflected the discussion and has shown a way forward. No such user (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
• I'm involved and therefore disinclined to add a word in bold... but I would have sworn that there was consensus to draftify there. These are biographies; the database sources are self-published and unreliable; their creator admitted to introducing inaccuracies into these articles; and this fact was proven with diffs during the debate.—S Marshall T/C 13:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  S Marshall - Agreed. This no-consensus close came out of nowhere. It leaves it very unclear what exactly we're supposed to do: it's hard to believe the problem was venue because, how could it have been? It's not believable that this was a policy issue because this WAS a policy decision. I can just see the AFD getting closed "no, AFD isn't for this" because that's what's happened so many times in the past when this was attempted. Hell, I had complaints just trying to get hundreds of Iranian "village" articles (that were actually about pumps/wells/etc.) deleted even with an overwhelming consensus in favour. You cannot PROD hundreds of articles, and if you did they can be de-prodded by a single editor without discussion. It's just setting up a Catch-22 where nothing can be done. The assertion that policy-changes need to be near-unanimous just doesn't make sense since these policies were not typically made near-unanimously, and any way consensus can change. FOARP (talk) 13:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  Olympedia isn't unreliable: they're related to Sports Reference and editing can only be done by "about two dozen trusted academics and researchers who specialize in Olympic history." BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

BeanieFan11 - This is not the place to re-hash the RFC, rather, the focus should be on the close itself. However, I've seen Olympedia's editors basing their content on Wikipedia (the Frank English case we discussed in the RFC). The prose content is particularly suspect and I've seen it be flat-out wrong on multiple occasions. The "two dozen trusted academics and researchers who specialize in Olympic history" are unknown and we have not tended to treat other such user-created databases where the users were self-proclaimed experts as automatic reliable sources. FOARP (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

In re their creator admitted to introducing inaccuracies into these articles – or claimed to have done so for some (not necessarily these) articles. It was not a happy moment in the community, and humans do sometimes say things to hurt others. It might be true, but I have not seen evidence myself to support this claim. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

We can show with diffs that there were inaccuracies. Diffs show you what someone did, not what they were thinking when they did it, so we don't know whether Lugnuts' inaccuracies were intentionally disruptive (as he claimed while ragequitting), or whether they were careless. To my eye, the diffs in the debate we're reviewing here do suggest the latter rather than the former. In other words, Lugnuts' errors were those that you'd expect from the kind of person who starts ten articles in 29 minutes -- key biographical details in one article that are wrong but would have been right in the previous or subsequent ones -- rather than those you'd expect from a vandal.

So, okay, let's call these inaccuracies "reckless lies" rather than "deliberate lies". We still can't allow it. Particularly in biographical articles.

To leave falsehoods in place would be completely irresponsible, and to insist that the community go through and correct them in 90,000 articles which have to be individually AfDed is completely unreasonable. If we were allowed to discuss Lugnuts' articles 1,000 at a time via RfC, it will still take the best part of a decade to review it all, and the amount of process we're having to go through suggests we can't even discuss them 1,000 at a time. So we're looking at a multi-decade cleanup project.

This close wasn't a summary of what the community thinks. It was Bradv's opinion in a hatbox. But I'm coming to the view that that doesn't matter, because the 1,000 at a time solution is not going to get past our hyperinclusionist colleagues anyway. Therefore we'll need to enact WP:CSD#X4: Articles created by Lugnuts that only have database sources.—S Marshall T/C 08:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• Leaning overturn (involved and hence not bolded) due to supremely odd usage of CONLEVEL. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn per FOARP, but also involved and won't bold. Therapyisgood (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
• I was involved in the initial debate, but want to only come by to add that (by my count) the debate was 61-36 support-oppose, which is a 62.8% in favor of the proposal. Borrowing from other places on Wikipedia where %support is quantified, generally only 75% and above is considered to be the limit above which something is considered a clear consensus (see for example, WP:RFA) whereas values below that fall into the "closer's discretion" area. People can use that data how they will in assessing the appropriateness of the close.--Jayron32 16:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  We shouldn't compare discussions that are decided on strict numerical majority, like RfA, to discussions that are not vote-based, like RfCs and AfDs. Since the closer suggested the proposal would have passed if it was held as an AfD and even recommended that the articles in question be taken there, it would be more appropriate to compare the RfC to AfD outcomes. JoelleJay (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  Since the closer suggested the proposal would have passed if it was held as an AfD What??? I never said that. – bradv 18:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  TBH that’s also what I took from your close statement - that this would have passed had it been an AFD. Why else direct people wanting to do something about these articles to take them to AFD and/or PROD them? Why use a rule that explicitly permits draftification if an AFD discussion shows a consensus to draftify? If you are of the view that this WOULDN’T have passed as an AFD it would have been better to say so explicitly, but stating so would seemingly clash with other parts of the close. FOARP (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• (EC) Overturn (involved). There were 60+ supports to ~37 opposes to the draftification proposal. That's including several !votes as "oppose" that were actually "oppose because the articles should be mass deleted" or "oppose but also oppose keeping or doing nothing with these articles", as well as oppose !votes that were never updated despite the bases of their complaints being resolved (e.g. the list containing entries for which others had found "potentially SIGCOV sources" -- these were later removed). It's also not including several "supports" that seemed more "qualified" or "neutral". If this had been at AfD, the closer would have closed as draftify, which means the arguments and numbers of the opposition were not sufficiently convincing to achieve "no consensus". It is therefore not acceptable that this was then closed as NC simply because a 1.5-month-long, 100+-participant VPP discussion concerning draftification/redirection/deletion/merging/userfication of 900 articles that objectively fail our requirements to be in mainspace was not a deletion discussion and was not explicitly aimed at modifying a <40-person RfC on draftification from 3 years ago (that was never even brought up in this RfC). JoelleJay (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  That's including several ... oppose !votes that were never updated despite the bases of their complaints being resolved (e.g. the list containing entries for which others had found "potentially SIGCOV sources" -- these were later removed) – That's not correct; looking at the discussion right now, I still see Roland Spitzer and Edward Greene on the list to be draftified/redirected (main two articles in that debate). BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  BilledMammal said go ahead and remove those two, and Cbl62 said Restoring support based on representation that Spitzer and Greene will not be draftified. This is functionally equivalent to removal. JoelleJay (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  @BeanieFan11, BilledMammal said at 23:24 on 8 March If you want, go ahead and remove those two. However, please add future removals to a list instead. If they're still in there (and unless I've missed something) it's because you didn't remove them. I would note for the audience here at AN that your response to the original suggestion – that you prepare a list of names you wish to remove and present it at the end of the discussion, rather than remove names individually during the course of the RfC – was And if I do wait until the end and show you a list, how do I know you won't just be like "screw you, I don't feel like removing them"? I'm not sure I trust you, considering you have absurd interpretations of notability and do not like me. I would also note, as others did in the original discussion, that the worst case scenario for those names staying on the list was that somebody would have had to go and move them back to mainspace. XAM2175 ^(T) 17:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure that our requirements to be in mainspace is actually a thing, unfortunately. Deciding whether something belongs in the mainspace is complicated. For example, User:WhatamIdoing/Christmas candy doesn't contain a single source, but I'm sure it would survive a trip through AFD anyway. The subject is notable, even if the article is unsourced. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  NSPORT requires biographies contain at least one citation to SIGCOV in secondary independent RS. JoelleJay (talk) 00:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  If it were mainspaced and brought to AfD, then the result would likely be someone finding and adding sources to it during the period of the AfD, not an unsourced article being kept. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Non-admin request for Edit Filter Manager access

A non-admin request to be granted edit-filter management access is currently open at EFM. Editors may express their support or reservations, and ask questions of the application there. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 18:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Cleanup of articles after

This is part of the cleanup after Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1125#Disruption, where the user Hanshingling (talk · contribs) was blocked. Two articles are currently at AfD (Gypsy (Rajput clan) and Rathore clan), one is at PROD (Bhadanakas Kingdom), and one more has been redirected (Takka Dynasty).

• Battar
• Chandel (Gujjar clan)
• Chavda clan
• Chechi clan
• Gorsi clan
• Hun clan
• Maitrak
• Meelu clan
• Nagar (Gurjar clan)
• Nekadi
• Poruswal clan

I seek to determine if these articles should be preemptively deleted due to alleged use of a large language model. Some of the articles also contain improperly sourced lists of allegedly affiliated people oftentimes based only on surname, which violates established guidelines about caste, and all of these lists will be removed by me. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Content was also added to the following articles, and requires scrutiny:

• Maitraka dynasty [1]
• Bhadana clan [2] (contains a list of people which predated Hanshingling, but was previously unsourced and based on name only)
• Gurjar Veer [3] (not related to caste)
• Baisla [4]
• Nain Singh Nagar [5]

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• Noting for completeness that Hanshingling had created a sock BonzonEllite (talk · contribs), which was blocked. All the sock's contributions have, I believe, been reverted or speedied, and some of the targeted articles protected. Also pinging @Packer&Tracker: as a fyi since they too have been dealing with these accounts. Abecedare (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to establish merge review process

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

---

I've noticed that despite tons of articles that are in the process of being merged, a vast majority of merger projects have been dormant for at least a year. To be frank, I believe that the reason for this is because several people, myself included, feel that some of these merger proposals shouldn't have been accepted, and would like to contest them akin to a move review or deletion review. The problem is, I couldn't find a process to do that, which leads me to belive such a thing doesn't exist. I therefore propose that a merge review process akin to those regarding moves and deletions be established. 100.7.44.80 (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

This is probably better suited to The Idea Lab or The Proposals page at Village Pump, as this is not particularly an admin-related issue. --Jayron32 15:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

All right, I'll take this to the Idea Lab. Thanks for letting me know! 100.7.44.80 (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Messed-up page move

A user moved the 2023 Sudan conflict to Third Sudanese Civil Wars. I saw that this was not accompanied by a discussion and was incorrect, so I reverted their move; however, they had already corrected the spelling mistake and moved the page to Third Sudanese Civil War by the time I had reverted their edit, and I have no idea what happened, but the pages are messed up right now. The history of the main article is in still in 2023 Sudan conflict but disappeared from the main article. Here are the pages involved:

• 2023 Sudan conflict
• Third Sudanese Civil Wars
• Third Sudanese Civil War

Can someone take a look at this before someone moves another article and the pages become even more messed up? — Nythar (💬-🍀) 03:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• I am not sure if my explanation above is correct; according to the history of Third Sudanese Civil War, the content of the actual article doesn't seem to have even moved and was copy-pasted. — Nythar (💬-🍀) 03:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  • @Vanilla Wizard: Please don't move any of these related pages before you read this section. Thanks. — Nythar (💬-🍀) 03:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
    • @Nythar: My apologies, I thought I only undid the user's blanking of Talk:2023 Sudan conflict to restore the talk page. Did my edit also move the page? If it did I apologize, I was just trying to put it back to how it was. I'll avoid editing any of the relevant pages until this is resolved just to make sure I don't break anything.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 03:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
      • @Vanilla Wizard: Your edit didn't move any pages; I'm just informing you in case you decide to undo the wrong move, which would make the histories more confusing. — Nythar (💬-🍀) 03:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

pagemover here. undoing the work done now. – robertsky (talk) 03:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Robertsky: Thank you so much! — Nythar (💬-🍀) 04:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

no problem. – robertsky (talk) 04:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Nythar, @Vanilla Wizard: Looks like a c&p move. Nythar, you had already done the first half of reversions needed on the article. @L'Mainerque was apparently on it as well and carried out the second half of the reversions. Vanilla Wizard did good for the talk page.

I have undone the c&p move on the targeted page and talk page that the user had made. I don't see any issues with the talk archives pages. – robertsky (talk) 04:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Also a c&p warning has been dropped on the user's talk page. – robertsky (talk) 04:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Persistent violations of WP:PASSIVE and WP:NPA by Nomoskedasticity

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

---

Introduction

Nomoskedasticity has engaged in repeated and persistent verbal abuse toward other Wikipedia editors throughout the past decade. He has violated WP:PASSIVE and WP:NPA. As we will see below, he attacks anyone on his talk page who encourages him to act more courteously, including telling me to "fuck off", so I am respectfully asking for administrator intervention.

===WP:PASSIVE Violations:===

Charlie Kirk: Revision history: Nomoskedasticity talk contribs‎ 65,159 bytes −14‎ Reverted 1 edit by GabeTucker (talk): The academic source is much better...

User talk:Nomoskedasticity/Archives: Nomoskedasticity.. I would appreciate no personal attacks. PigeonPiece (talk) 05:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC) But darling, I couldn't possibly have been more polite - courteous - inviting - welcoming! I am ready to be floored by your wisdom and bravery! Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Nomoskedasticity/Archives: The burden of proof is satisfied by the responses to the BLPN thread that you started. You started the thread, you've had feedback -- now live with it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 4 February 2012 (UTC)

===WP:NPA Violations:===

Violations

The following point is edited, moved from WP:PASSIVE section GabeTucker (talk) 08:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the above mentioned talk pages, I think it reasonable to assume PV monitors its Wikipedia pages. Comments posted to the talk pages could later appear in a PV release. I think it is a good idea to resist any temptation to be flip, and answer all talk page comments straightforwardly. -- M.boli (talk) 16:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay cupcake. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

User talk:Nomoskedasticity: Not sure why you reverted my two edits. Your reverts seem to violate NPOV. And telling me to knock it off does not help . Nerguy (talk) (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Of course you know why. Among other things, "false" is supported by the source and is in no way "opinion" (as per your edit summary). If you want to explore this further, we will do at ANI, where any idea of editing these articles in truther mode will get the outcome it deserves. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Israel: Difference between revisions:

Thanks for your efforts to improve this article.  sheesh...  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Nomoskedasticity: Your recent edit history shows you are in violation of WP:PASSIVE [...] Please review Wikipedia's policies before making further changes on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a platform intended to be civil and open to everyone. Here are some pointers from WP:PASSIVE that might be helpful [...] Thank you. GabeTucker (talk) 05:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Huh. I suppose I could just tell you to fuck off -- not a violation of "passive"... Or maybe "okay cupcake"? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Conclusion

I propose a 6-month suspension of Nomoskedasticity's account in effort to break this pattern of verbal abuse. Thank you.

GabeTucker (talk) 07:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Fascinating -- a report of "misbehavior" that has to dig back to 2008 to find examples. Can't wait to see the outcome. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

GabeTucker, are you really bringing forth comments from 2008 and 2012? Do you realize how old this stuff is? Do you realize how trivial these comments are taken as a whole, over a 15 year period? In my opinion, it looks to me like you have completely failed to make a convincing case with these weak diffs of yours. If this is the best evidence that you have, you should not be at this noticeboard. Cullen328 (talk) 07:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I included comments from 2008 and 2012 to establish a pattern of behavior over a long period of time, but seeing as it's instead being perceived as grasping at straws, I will delete them. The rest of my examples stand and do not necessarily represent the entirety of his misconduct like you suggest. Moreover, even if comments from 2008 and 2012 are trivial, this does not overshadow his recent violations, much less considering his sardonic responses to these allegations. GabeTucker (talk) 07:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

How is The academic source is much better... being passive-aggressive? – robertsky (talk) 07:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

How about this:

• @GabeTucker: WP:PASSIVE is an essay, not a policy. People aren't routinely blocked for perceived violations of essays. Re WP:NPA, I note you've removed some of the very elderly diffs but you're still proposing a block based on material which in some cases is 15 years old. And regardless of the dates, a lot of it seems pretty mild. Unless you have more (and more recent) diffs there's really not enough here to justify any sanction.
• @Nomoskedasticity: the "fuck off" was uncivil. Please don't do this, even if you feel provoked.

And with that said, perhaps let's call this resolved and go back to regular editing. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Euryalus I could not find better instances of verbal abuse than the evidence listed above. That said, I don't agree that his unequivocally condescending behavior, no matter how mild, should go unscolded. I appreciate you warning him about the "fuck off", but I wish that you would at least provide him a warning that being condescending in the general sense is not welcome in Wikipedia. GabeTucker (talk) 08:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@robertsky Shutting someone down with a statement ending the sentence with ellipses is often a condescending way of approaching a disagreement...

Like right there—me including those ellipses communicates that your perspective is obviously wrong. It's like leaving a trail of awkward space at the end of what I said to emphasize how stupid you are, or something along those lines, and me disincluding those ellipses would have conveyed the exact same information without the negative tone.

"The academic source is much better because X" is much better than "The academic source is much better..."

GabeTucker (talk) 08:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

GabeTucker, your report is exceptionally weak. I suggest that you withdraw this report rather than pursuing it. Unless you have a "hidden smoking gun" that you have not yet produced. That would be a poor strategy from the get go. Cullen328 (talk) 08:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity telling me to "fuck off" is not evidence of misconduct? GabeTucker (talk) 08:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd call it evidence of exasperation. Which I can fully understand. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump @Nomoskedasticity

Great! Awesome! Superb!!! So glad you could fully understand that, thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I hate it here so much. Wikipedia is the most toxic community I have ever attempted to engage with. I occasionally creep by excited to contribute to making knowledge accessible to the public, but every single time I do, someone shuts me down with some snide comment, referencing some extremely strange bureaucratic justification, pretending they don't relish the sense of domination this affords them.

So many of you absolutely cherish your condescending holier-than-thou self-affirming circle jerk of pretention. You will never admit how much you relish inflicting suffering on others, how sadistic you are (not all of you, but certainly the majority of you). I often wonder how people were so sociopathic during historic genocides, but there comes a special moment every blue moon when everything begins to make sense and the tribalistic, self-serving, smug bullshit becomes clear as day.

Whenever I look at one of your profiles, it looks like the person is in a retirement home. Do you miss exerting dominance over your employees from when you used to have a job? Did your wife stop affirming your intelligence? Or did you never get the opportunity to have your intelligence validated at all, and this is your outlet to convince others of your intellectual supremacy? You're the type of person who self-describes as "sardonic" in lieu of the more accurate “deep-seated pathological narcissist” descriptor.

Oh wait… I’m going to switch my tone. I might accidentally cross the line and provide a “smoking gun” that justifies banning me under section WP:340928:18920-8124901, which I’m sure you all could cite at the drop of a hat. Maybe you’ll ban me for this. Haha maybe! Maybe instead of actually expressing my outrage, I should have hid behind some veil of plausible fucking deniability so I could pretend I’m “too sophisticated” to indulge in childish discourse. Oooooh, that could never be me. I am far too reputable to act in a matter unbecoming, in the manner of the *dirt people* who do not have WP:POWERADE hung up across 13 different locations in their house and WP:YOURMOM as my mantra. I am He; I am that dirt person. Now pretend like you’re better than me by cowardishly concealing your emotions under some socially acceptable mask of monkish self-control and wisdom. Yeah, this is an outburst, but at least I admit what I’m actually feeling. At least I don’t lie. At least I’m not gaslighting myself into believing I’m above juvenile comments while simultaneously being the worst kind of asshole: the kind that won’t even fully commit to their being of a passive dick, who won’t even acknowledge their genuine identity to themselves.

A few months ago, a guy in a frat house started screaming then tackled my friend and started pounding him in this head (which, by the way, was against a hardwood floor) upon the mildest provokation. I will never forget his eyes in that moment; they reminded me of a rabid chimpanzee. Everything suddenly made sense, how unexceptional we are in evolution, how much we fail in our attempts at hiding how we have the very same apeshit social hierarchies as primates. And you are absolutely no different, no matter what you tell yourself. This community is the equivalent of high-fashion connoisseurs in intellect. You are fundamentally more sophisticated than, and superior to, all other forms of fashion. The dirt fashion people do not even deserve a spot in your consideration lest they tarnish your precious ingenious intellect with a speck of spotty poop brown. As a philosophy major I’ve met like dozens of philosophy professors and these philosophers—the ones you would actually *expect* to be self-aggrandizing pretentious pricks, aren’t even remotely like this. They’re chill… It’s just this strange little conglomeration of… I don’t even know. People who need intellectual validation? In this clusterfuck of a community. Maybe when you’re actually smart you realize you don’t need to demean and belittle in order to edge yourself to some strange and corrupted euphoric masturbatory satisfaction.

Huh, well that was *MY* exasperation. Hopefully you can understand that! Or oh, oh wait… is exasperation only justified when it's pro-establishment ego-affirming psuedointellectual callous horseshit? Shit… should have thought of that.

Oh! That was all *speculation*. Ah, yes, ‘tis speculation. You see, that technicality negates any negative consequences, interpretations, or repercussions resulting from what I said. It was nothing. Nothing!!!!!!

Hahhahaa ok… well hope fully you can understand THAT! You little freak… Or else I’m gonna…. gonna start tweaking. I’m going to actually have an aneurysm if I keep talking so for now, I will spare my brain.. the thing…. I don’t know. I’m at a loss for words. I’m finished. I have nothing else to say except I guess… bye you cooky little butthole GabeTucker (talk) 09:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Let's be precise and accurate, shall we? I didn't "tell you" to fuck off. I speculated about it as a means of avoiding being "passive-aggressive". I do wonder how much more time you're going to waste on this... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Disruptive User/ user:Gina Felea 88

I noticed the user user:Gina Felea 88 making continious disruptive editings at International recognition of Kosovo article. RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 10:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)