Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Open tasks[edit]

    XFD backlog
    V Feb Mar Apr May Total
    CfD 0 0 11 35 46
    TfD 0 0 0 1 1
    MfD 0 0 0 4 4
    FfD 0 0 0 0 0
    RfD 0 0 5 18 23
    AfD 0 0 0 3 3


    Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection[edit]

    Report
    Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (20 out of 7744 total) (Purge)
    Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
    User talk:Favonian/Archive 58 2024-05-24 18:14 indefinite edit,move Favonian
    User talk:Favonian/Archive 57 2024-05-24 18:13 indefinite edit,move Favonian
    President of Ukraine 2024-05-24 12:26 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Lectonar
    User:Aviram7~alt 2024-05-24 12:18 indefinite create user request UtherSRG
    User talk:Aviram7~alt 2024-05-24 12:18 indefinite edit,move user request UtherSRG
    Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel 2024-05-23 22:04 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    Safia Khairi 2024-05-23 21:06 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: per RFPP Daniel Case
    Conservatism in Israel 2024-05-23 20:37 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    Draft:Xxx 2024-05-23 20:31 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Justlettersandnumbers
    Future of Honor 2024-05-23 03:55 2025-05-23 03:54 edit,move restore ECP Daniel Case
    Israel-related animal conspiracy theories 2024-05-23 03:51 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    Justin Stebbing 2024-05-22 22:39 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: Substantive COI editing - propose changes on the talk page Anachronist
    Proximus Group 2024-05-22 13:44 2024-08-22 13:44 edit Persistent sock puppetry, COI editing, or both NinjaRobotPirate
    International Criminal Court investigation in Palestine 2024-05-22 12:55 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C
    Draft:Zard Patton Ka Bunn 2024-05-21 20:22 2024-11-21 20:22 create Repeatedly recreated: targeted by Nauman335 socks Yamla
    June 2024 Ukraine peace summit 2024-05-21 18:38 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:GS/RUSUKR El C
    Template:English manga publisher 2024-05-21 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2500 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    Draft:S S Karthikeya 2024-05-21 13:27 2025-05-21 13:27 create Repeatedly recreated Yamla
    Talk:Sexual and gender-based violence in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel 2024-05-21 01:18 2024-05-28 01:18 edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish
    Draft:Roopsha Dasguupta 2024-05-20 21:26 2029-05-20 21:26 create Repeatedly recreated Yamla

    RfC closure review request at Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#RFC_on_current_consensus_#14[edit]

    There is consensus that there is no consensus. To put it in a slightly less ridiculous way, it is clear based on the discussion below and the original RFC that Consensus 14 does not accurately reflect the "current consensus" of Wikipedia editors. The RfC is partially overturned – there is still no consensus to mention "lab leak" theory, but there is no longer consensus to keep it out and Consensus 14 is no longer accurate. There is still ongoing discussion regarding the usefulness of "current consensus" pages at all, so I'm leaving that section open. The WordsmithTalk to me 02:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    COVID-19 pandemic (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RfC closure in question) (Discussion with closer)

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

    Notified: User_talk:Chetsford/Archive_41#Notice_of_noticeboard_discussion

    Reasoning: The closure was not a reasonable summation of the discussion. #1 closer ignored roughconsenus pointing to "the discursive failures that occurred in this RfC." #2 the closer introduced new alleged concepts such as a lack of WP:RS in the RFC, without noticing a wikilink to a sub-article COVID-19 lab leak theory that contains hundreds of RS as well as an RS explicitly referred to Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#Discussion in which I stated ""Controversies about the origins of the virus, including the lab leak theory, heightened geopolitical divisions, notably between the United States and China.[34]" Note that no editor made an RS claim in the discussion on the oppose side, thus the closer seems to have improperly summarized the discussion and rather than summarizing instead pointing to his own view of lack of RS, MEDRS, and discursive failures (none of which were not discussed in the RFC). When I sought to discuss the close with the closer on their talk page, the closer instead failed to WP:AGF stating "I know it wouldn't be as personally satisfying" and going on to say "we may sometimes feel shorted if our comments aren't recognized." Note, I had not been asking the editor why my "comments aren't recognized", I instead asked the editor to justify their own novel claim that no RS were provided in the RFC. #3 eventually the closer goes on to contradict themselves apparently stating "As already noted in the close, the RfC should have been an easy consensus close to strike #14" as if some procedural failure in the RFC didnt gain such consensus, I suppose pointing the editors vague claim of "discursive failures," rather than the very succinct explanations of many of the editors that participated in the RFC. In summary, the closer has never made any policy, procedural, nor factual explanations in the close nor on their talk page to explain going against consensus, instead suggesting that the RFC be run again and explained "I've reviewed it and decline to reverse." The discussion with closer (and additional information) can be found User_talk:Chetsford/Archive_41#An_odd_close. I adding it here as something is amiss with the template link above, maybe due to the closer archiving their talk page recently. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Uninvolved (COVID19)[edit]

    This close was within the threshold of reasonable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't recall ever editing that article so I think I'm uninvolved. Will strike if mistaken. The closure looks entirely reasonable to me. Simonm223 (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    What does it even mean to "strike down" a consensus? In this case, that consensus is a documented statement that the lab leak theory shouldn't be mentioned. Does "striking it down" mean removing the consensus statement because it's used to preempt discussion/proposals? Or does it mean finding consensus to talk about the lab leak in the article? If the former, given the way documented past consensus serves to limit present discussion (for good reason, in many cases), I'd think we'd need affirmative consensus to retain it, and not just default to it with no consensus. If the latter, it's worded oddly and it's hard to see that RfC as yielding a clear result. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    For what it's worth, my reading of the discussion would be that it's attempting the former. —Sirdog (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd say any other editor in good standing reviewing that discussion could reasonably find the same result. I am unconvinced by the challenger that the close is fundamentally flawed. —Sirdog (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Overturn This seems to be a clear supervote and WAY outside what reliable sources state. At this point, any restriction on this viable theory is political in nature and feels very much like the last vestiges of clinging to "no, I can't possibly be wrong". Buffs (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although I don't agree with the restriction, the close is with what could be considered reasonable given the discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Overturn to no consensus to include or exclude Within the confines of the question of the RFC the close was with reason, but the the situation is bureaucratic. RFCs on whether a talk page consensus is still valid is a waste of time, work on something to include in the article and towards consensus for it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the whole discussion? I was expecting it to be longer when I clicked through. At this point, the close note plus this AN thread combined seem like they are far longer than the actual RfC. The whole thing seems really weird to me, frankly -- why do we have a box proclaiming itself to be "current consensus" if all the stuff in it is four years old? jp×g🗯️ 14:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would probably have closed it differently. The reference to WP:NOTCENSORED is quite a compelling policy-based argument that wasn't rebutted for example. It's also worth remembering NOTAVOTE is an essay, not a guideline or policy, although the ROUGHCONSENSUS guideline does say "Consensus is not determined by counting heads". However the fact I would have come to a different conclusion isn't sufficient reason to overturn the close; for that we'd need to demonstrate the conclusion the closer came to is unreasonable, and I don't think it is. WaggersTALK 14:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, this is byzantine. Overturn. If there is no consensus about whether a consensus exists, then no consensus exists, and the statement saying a consensus exists should be removed as wrong. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • That RfC is probably one of the shortest (and most concise) I've ever seen. And I would have reached a different conclusion after spending just 5 minutes reading all the comments. A double-vote was not correctly identified and discounted. Closer wrote much more than every participant in the discussion to justify their stance, giving an appearance of a supervote. That's a clear Overturn. I echo what has been said about shutting down the current RfCs based on previous RfC from 6 months ago. The whole virus is only 4 years old. That means (checking my math) it has been more than 1/8 of the virus' entire history since the newest RfC was created after the last one. OhanaUnitedTalk page 13:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weakly overturn I feel Compassionate727's argument somewhat compelling. While we normally require a clear consensus to establish a new consensus and it its absence stick with the status quo ante, in this case since we were simply removing a documented current consensus, the lack of consensus should be enough to remove it. I have felt this for a while but didn't say anything because I hadn't looked at the discussion. Having done so I see that was actually another recent RfC. In the scheme of things, 6 months since the previous somewhat better attended discussion is a relatively short length of time. It's well accepted that those wishing to make a change cannot just keep making new RfCs until they wear everyone down and get their result due to non-participation. If the previous RfC had found a consensus to keep 14, I would have supported keeping FAQ item 14 but since it also found no consensus, IMO it seems clear this should just be removed due to the lack of consensus for something said to be the current consensus. Nil Einne (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That said, I'm only coming to this weakly since I also agree with those who've said the whole thing is a silly exercise. Rather than continuing to have these fairly pointless RfCs, it would be better to just start an RfC on some proposed change to the article which would go against RfC 14. If this succeeds, 14 will be overturned implicitly. If not, then even if technically 14 may have no consensus, since there was no consensus to add anything, who cares? Talk pages aren't for chit-chat and until there is consensus to add something the fact that there may simply be no consensus to add something rather than consensus against something doesn't matter. And if editors are able to provide compelling reasons for some addition then some FAQ item which has been through 2 RfCs with no consensus is not going to stop it. That said, this is one area where I disagree with the closer. Unfortunately all this means it's probably a bad idea to start an RfC so soon. It starts to become disruptive when editors keep having RfCs for the reasons I've mentioned. So I'd suggest this unfortunate series of RfCs means it would be best to wait at least 6 months before anyone tries to come back to this. Nil Einne (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      For clarity, when starting an RfC on some proposed change to the article in violation of 14, it would be advisable to acknowledge 14 and say this will also strike it down; or something like that. But the point is the focus of the RfC should be on some real change to the article rather than just changing what the current consensus says. IMO it's also fine to workshop an RfC on some proposed change in violation of 14 and would oppose any attempts to prevent that because of 14. Nil Einne (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-of any particular importance comment) I don't think I could adequately describe how much I am sick of this issue being raised (not sick with COVID though!) Remove it, leave it, whatever... as long as we don't have another one any time soon. On the latest discussion, I don't see any consensus either way. I will note that Lights and freedom (talk · contribs) is apparently now CU blocked as of 26 days ago though, which would not be information that was available at the time of close. (I suppose I should also note I read WINC narrowly, which I see was mentioned in the previous RfC close, and thus do not find it compelling in the context which it is used) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Involved (COVID19)[edit]

    • Comment by Closer: While I personally would like to have seen the RfC close in favor of the RfC proposal , I ultimately closed it as "no consensus" (not as "a consensus against" as, I believe, the challenger thinks occurred).
      As I read it, the challenge seems to spin on four assertions advanced by the challenger which I summarize here to the best of my understanding:
    • A belief that (a) ROUGHCONSENSUS is a synonym for Referendum, and, (b) consensus was achieved by process of majority vote.
      In their request for review on my Talk page, the challenger invoked WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS to repeatedly demand the RfC be treated as a referendum or plebiscite and reversed on the apparent basis that the "count" [1] of "votes" [2] (6-4 in favor of the RfC - though challenger claimed it was 7-1 [3] somehow) favored the RfC proposal.
      I repeatedly counseled challenger that this was WP:NOTAVOTE, pointing to our WP:CONSENSUS policy which explicitly describes that a simple majority does not represent the "sense of the community" described by ROUGHCONENSUS in the absence of strength of policy-based argument. The challenger appeared non-plussed by this. Here, challenger goes on to again advance the false premise that "the closer has never made any policy, procedural, nor factual explanations in the close nor on their talk page to explain going against consensus", based on their insistent belief that consensus was achieved by a simple majority headcount.
    • A belief that it's the closer's duty to engage in textual analysis of sources presented across the project and the zeitgeist, rather than arguments made in the RfC.
      The challenger writes that "the closer introduced new alleged concepts such as a lack of WP:RS in the RFC, without noticing a wikilink to a sub-article COVID-19 lab leak theory that contains hundreds of RS as well as an RS explicitly referred"
      This, again, appears to be a severe misunderstanding of the close by the challenger. RS was mentioned merely as part of the closer's formulary recitation of facts and summary of arguments made which is a customary and perfunctory part of the close. Nothing involving "RS" was part of the close rationale. (Nor is it the responsibility of the closer to evaluate the alleged "hundreds" of RS. Closes occur based on strength of policy-based argument, not the closer's independent and original evaluation of source material.)
    • A belief that geopolitical factors must be taken into account in closing RfCs.
      The challenger explained in the RfC, on my Talk page, and now here, that "[c]ontroversies about the origins of the virus, including the lab leak theory, heightened geopolitical divisions, notably between the United States and China." as an example of an unrebutted argument, apparently in the belief that the lack of rebuttal to this assertion tips the scale in favor of the RfC. But the RfC is the place to argue the application of WP policy. The state of Sino-American relations is completely irrelevant to the application of WP policy.
    • A belief that an (alleged) lack of social grace afforded to an editor is cause to overturn a close.
      The challenger explains "the closer instead failed to WP:AGF" in his discussion with the challenger, nested as part of their appeal to overturn. Accepting, for sake of argument, that I did fail to AGF in a discussion on my Talk page with the challenger, failure to AGF in a Talk page discussion is not a rational cause to overturn a close. Closes are overturned due to some failure of the close itself, not as a sanction against the closer when we believe we were not treated with the deference we feel we deserve.
    As I repeatedly said, this should have been an easy RfC to pass. Policy (and, frankly, reality) favored it. But those policies were never argued by the participants. For the closer to invoke his independent awareness of policy would be a WP:SUPERVOTE and, moreover, completely unfair as it would deny the opposing side the opportunity to rebut. I suggested to the challenger that if they were to rerun the RfC and remedy the significant defects in their first attempt it would almost certainly pass. They appear to be disinterested in doing that. Chetsford (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This response by the closer is further astray:
    • First the closer continues to refuse to provide a policy explanation to ignore consensus, see WP:NHC.
    • Second the closer talks about a nonsensical duty to provide textual analysis of sources. This is laughable. The closer failed to notice there was an RS mentioned in the RFC (and ignored the sub-article as well) and stated these omissions in the close. The closer argued that a lack of RS in the RFC was a justification for the close, and failed to understand that #34 was an RS.
    • Third, in responding to this review the closer is confused of even the subject of the RFC. "[c]ontroversies about the origins of the virus, including the lab leak theory, heightened geopolitical divisions, notably between the United States and China." is the exact text in the article at the time of the RFC that is being discussed in this RFC. I was discussing the text of the article, and even put it in quotes. I am confused if the closer even read the RFC at this point. I have never made an argument that any geopolitical blah blah must be taken in to account. Where is this coming from? You will find this exact text quoted verbatim here in the article at the time of the RFC.
    • Forth the AGF issues are simply me pointing out that the closer has chosen solely himself to paint this in some sort of personal issue, and continues to not understand the content that was being discussed (see #3). Note I have always been civil to this closer as well as everyone in the RFC, this argument is baseless, a strawman, and an odd response.
    • Fifth, RFC participants do not need to argue wikipedia policy nor RFC policy, it is the closer that applies the policy to the arguments offered by the participants. In this RFC we are simply discussing if the RS support the text in bold (that the closer seems to be confused is my words), if due weight should be given to wikilink (a link that is prohibited under consensus #14), and if the consensus #14 on the article was appropriate given the text in bold and the current state of RS.
    Seems the closer failed to grasp the RFC and still hasnt bothered to review it. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "the closer continues to refuse to provide a policy explanation to ignore consensus" I'll just note again, here, that this is a furiously repeated statement based on a false premise. As I have explained many times, there was no consensus to ignore. That's why the RfC closed as "no consensus" (versus "consensus for" or "consensus against"). I appreciate your view that your "count" [sic] [4] of the "vote" [sic] [5] led you to believe the 6 of 10 editors in favor of your RfC constituted a consensus, however, as detailed in our policy WP:CONSENSUS, consensus is not determined by plebiscite and your RfC was not a referendum. I sincerely regret if you were under a different impression.
    "RFC participants do not need to argue wikipedia policy" Sure, you aren't "required" to present policy-based argument, but by your decision not to do so, you ended up with the result you got here. Please see WP:NHC: "... after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue ... [if] discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it". Chetsford (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which editors made arguments that you felt met this criteria "after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue" and why? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly do you mean by reality? Can you explain what you meant by that? FailedMusician (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We could start here, but this is only a beginning... Buffs (talk) 20:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean it's very clear the actual state-of-the-world does not support a proscription such as #14 and this RfC should have resulted in a consensus to strike it, in my opinion (indeed, #14 should never have been put in place to begin with). And had I been a participant in the discussion, I would have sided with the strike camp. But I wasn't a participant, I was the closer, and for me to close this as "a consensus to strike" when only a bare majority of participants - advancing virtually no cogent policy arguments - supported that would constitute a SUPERVOTE and be out of compliance with our WP:CONSENSUS policy. Suppressing my innate knowledge of the external world beyond WP and deciding on no set of facts beyond what was contained in the RfC, it was clear there was no consensus (as undesirable of an outcome as that is). Chetsford (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not concur with your assessment. Majority opinion, professional opinions, WP consensus within the article, general consensus on the RfC, and a host of other options all show clearly that this restriction is wrong and needs to be rescinded. This is exactly the kind of reason we have and should use WP:IAR. Buffs (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "this restriction is wrong and needs to be rescinded" - I agree with this
    "This is exactly the kind of reason we have and should use WP:IAR." - I disagree with this. Chetsford (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment by SmolBrane: In the close, you(Chetsford) stated that “First, several editors in the oppose camp note that consensus can't occur implicitly in this case (the opposite of what we usually observe in WP:EDITCON), since #14 established a clear consensus and the mere presence of content against consensus that may have gone unnoticed doesn't overturn it.”
    The presence of content against the formal RfC consensus for six months on a high traffic article (8k views per day!) SHOULD overturn the two year old RfC. That's the whole point of implicit consensus—not to mention that this was the long-standing stable state of the article. TarnishedPath made the same error “Arguing that the content has been in the article for a while is putting the cart before the horse.” Why would we undo a six-month old undisputed edit here? We should not presume that the bold edit went 'unnoticed'--this is not a valid exception w/r/t WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. Implicit consensus has a great deal of weight on a contentious article with 2,200 watchers. The RfC establishing consensus #14 from May 2020 is very old in COVID-terms, and this RfC only had three keep !votes, which means only three individuals wanted to revise the article to a retroactive state—a situation that should require more opposers to stray from the current stable and long-standing state.
    Aquillion made a similar error “Sometimes things fall through the cracks even on high-traffic articles”. Bold edits are not “falling through the cracks”, This is again a lack of understanding of policy, and the collaborative nature of the project. Those !votes(Aquillion and TarnishedPath) likely should have been discarded.
    Both Crossroads and IOHANNVSVERVS made strong arguments in favor of striking, based on new sourcing and WP:NOTCENSORED respectively. Ortizesp and Lights and Freedom also made strong cases in relation to coverage by sources.
    The closer evidently erred “since no actual examples of RS were presented by those making this argument”. As Jtbobwaysf points out, there were three inline citations supporting the sentence about the lab leak. The closer did not correctly assess the policy-based arguments made by the supporters, nor the RSes involved. The current stable state of the article should have had more deference by the closer in light of the comments that were provided. The closer also commented about WP:MEDRS which was mentioned in the May 2020 RfC, not this one, so that stipulation was inappropriate. SmolBrane (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The "stable state" argument is laughable and HORRIBLE circular logic. The article is stable, therefore we shouldn't change our restrictions. But the reason it cannot be updated is BECAUSE of the restrictions. No restrictions like these should be enacted and held in place when they are demonstrably not in alignment with our five pillars, specifically, NPOV (and with that RS) + no firm rules. Buffs (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with your last sentence and I think you misunderstand my position; the lab leak theory was mentioned and linked to for six months prior to this RfC, despite the consensus 14 not being formally overturned. SmolBrane (talk) 01:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I wasn't clearer. I was concurring with you :-) Buffs (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion[edit]

    Ignoring the massive discussion, the facts are abundantly clear. I went WP:BEBOLD and invoked WP:IAR: [6]. WP:BRD if you feel I'm in error. Buffs (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I went ahead and reverted your WP:SUPERVOTE that goes against the RFC result, and the emerging consensus here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I wasn't the closer, so it wasn't a WP:SUPERVOTE. As for the rest, I do not see the same consensus. People here appear to be much more concerned about debating process rather than doing the correct thing by deprecating a "rule" that is clearly not being followed and a clear consensus on both Wikipedia and IRL. The idea that we should stick to restrictions imposed a few months after COVID hit vs what we know now four years later is absurd. WP:IAR could easily fix this and so could anyone with half a brain that isn't fixated on procedural hurdles.
    All that said, I was bold. It was reverted (I hold no ill will against anyone for such an action). Time to discuss. Buffs (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Are these "/current_consensus" pages even real?[edit]

    • The more I think about this whole "official talk page current consensus box" thing, the weirder it gets. Since when do we have a policy or procedure for keeping a set of officially-determined statements about article consensus... on the talk page of an article... separate from actual consensus on the article? And then we have to have separate discussions to change the "official consensus" thing on the talk page, versus just the article? I don't see anything about it in any of our policies or guidelines; I am looking through some talk pages, each of which I know to be a zoo, and seeing if they have anything like this. So far it's a "no" for Talk:Israel–Hamas war, Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign), Talk:Race and intelligence. A title search says that there are, apparently, only thirteen of these pages on the whole site. The first was at Talk:Donald Trump, which seems to have been unilaterally created by one admin in 2017. What in tarnation are these? Are these binding over actual article consensus or actual talk page consensus? jp×g🗯️ 15:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      They appear to be a mutation of the FAQ header sections that articles like Gamergate and R&I do have. However those are used to explain commonly asked questions and are more informative.
      The statement in question is from a talk page consensus (this May 2020 RFC). But how it's stated has led to an RFC on whether to remove a statement from a talk page, which is just bureaucracy. An RFC on text to be included would have been a better solution. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      A good question for this closure is why the bureaucracy was weighted more heavily than the editing. Deferring to editing consensus would be preferable given that an RfC for mainspace content never occurred(to your point). SmolBrane (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Probably because that's how the RFC question was raised. If someone edited content in, was reverted and following discusion the content was kept then the statement would de facto be struck down. This seems a more sensible approach than an RFC about removing the statement from the talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This RfC was not about removing the talk page statement, it was whether or not the statement was "still valid". Perhaps this is central to the issue. SmolBrane (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      But that is still an RFC about a talk page statement, my point was the framing of the consensus blocks is the cause of such odd discussions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      For pages that have had a lot of RFCs, they are basically a history of RFC results for that page. Here's some other ones. I see nothing wrong with documenting RFC results and consensuses this way. It makes it more organized. The proper way to change an item that has been RFC'd before is to RFC it again. And then we have to have separate discussions to change the "official consensus" thing on the talk page, versus just the article? Normally I think one would change both the current consensus and the article content at the same time (to reflect the result of a new RFC). The two seem clearly linked to me. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to side with JPxG on this. This is layered bureaucracy designed to get a consensus and then have it apply in perpetuity. The fact that it was applied first with Trump and now with COVID should be an indicator that there are other factors at play (a.k.a. "Fact checking"). Buffs (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree too, it's instruction creep of the worst kind. This kind of thing should be in the WP namespace as a formal policy or guideline. It's no wonder people fall foul of these pseudo-regulations if they're spread all over the place in talk subpages. If an RfC finds consensus to make a guideline, make it a proper one. WaggersTALK 08:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Aren't these current consensus templates just a list of RFC results though? A list of RFC results doesn't ring any alarm bells for me. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It depends what the RfC is for. If it's to establish a rule like "don't mention the theory that COVID-19 might have originated in a lab" then that's a guideline and should be published as such. WaggersTALK 08:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I guess it depends on scope. Guidelines like that go beyond a single article. Others might just be consensus for what one particular article should say, in which case it's fine that they stay on the talk page. But that sort of consensus only reflects that moment in time, so doesn't necessarily need to be kept for posterity. In short, we can't have it both ways. Either it's a "moment in time" decision or it's a lasting guideline. WaggersTALK 08:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      And sometimes the so called "consensus" is just two people agreeing, yet it's treated like a commandment forever more (often by the same two people). The Trump list is like RSP: start clicking through the links and you'll find a bunch of the entries are BS. The lab leak one is another example where "documented consensus" -- aka the opinion of strong minded editors -- failed to keep up with RSes and actually impeded Wikipedia writing an accurate summary of current scholarship on the subject. Havana syndrome is another example. Pentagon UFOs also IIRC. Same with policy/guideline FAQs. Sometimes it's good to establish and document consensus, but also those tools or processes get abused by folks who want to use them to assert consensus rather than document it. Levivich (talk) 13:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Exactly. This is why I think this kind of thing needs to either become actual guidelines, or not be kept at all. Discussions about genuine policies and guidelines tend to attract a fair bit more community scrutiny and stop rubbish like this getting through. WaggersTALK 13:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think to some extent this happens because people want others to read the previous discussions and not cause massive time sinks. Talk:Twitter has an FAQ section where 8 move discussions are linked, for example. Obviously consensus can change but I don't think that mentioning previous consensus where there's been strong editor participation (not a two person decision like Levivich mentioned) is a bad idea in itself. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh absolutely. I occasionally do a bit of work on British Isles and related articles and the same conversation happening time and time again about the name of the island group (or even whether it is a group) is mind-numbingly dull. Probably the biggest problems in the COVID case are (1) the original consensus was a very local one and (2) some editors are treating it as set in stone when it absolutely isn't. WaggersTALK 07:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      But it's a local consensus on a local issue. If editors were trying to say that based on this consensus you cannot add the lab leak to any article that would be a problem. Likewise if editors were saying this local consensus overrides some wider consensus. But this is simply documenting a historic consensus established on the talk page of the one and only page it applies to. And it's documenting it on that same talk page basically. (I mean yes it technically derives from a subpage but it's intended for the talk page.) And there's no wider consensus that comes into play. So the local consensus issue is a red-herring here IMO. (As I said above, I find it weird we have a current consensus which isn't a consensus so would support removing it for that reason, but that's unrelated to it being a local consensus.) Nil Einne (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm unconvinced your claim about Havana syndrome is accurate. AFAICT, there has never been a current consensus documented on the talk page [7] Talk:Havana syndrome/Current consensus. I'm aware of how controversial it's been in recent times, but my impression and I had a quick look at Talk:Havana syndrome which seems to affirm my belief that the discussion has primarily about whether the recent reports are of sufficient quality to be mentioned in the article and where and how WP:MEDRS applies. In terms of discussions over consensus, I see repeated claims there is consensus to add stuff based on the recent reports (which clearly can only be referring to a recent consensus) as well as discussions about there being consensus for MEDRS etc and people imploring others to gain consensus before making changes to avoid blocks and page protection (i.e. not necessarily because there was existing consensus they needed to override but because as always when there is dispute there needs to be discussion rather than edit-warring). Oh and there are also mentions of alleged consensuses outside of wikipedia e.g. a scientific consensus or medical consensus. In other words, this is a fairly typical highly charged disputed involving stuff some editors feel is fringe and the sourcing making certain claims are insufficient, and where others disagree. It may very well be correct that the anti-fringe editors often have the "upper-hand", so to speak, for various reasons but this is not because of any specific claims about a documented consensus other than MEDRS itself (for which there clearly is consensus even if not in it's application to any specific case). Nil Einne (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think they're fine to have FAQ-style lists of common things people bring up.
    NOTE: The following is a fictitious example meant to illustrate a general point that applies to all Wikipedia content equally, and is not intended to be an analogy, endorsement or condemnation or any political subjects, activities, lifestyles or worldviews.
    Led Zeppelin IV actually wasn't released with an official title, so some people call it "Untitled (Led Zeppelin album)"; if we had some RfC about what to call it, but people keep showing up to ask about it eight times a week regardless, it makes sense to have a little talk page header saying "this title was decided on by XYZ discussion in 20XX". I think the main thing lacking justification is the idea that the talk-page summary header becomes a thing in itself -- e.g. that people argue that something should or shouldn't be done on the basis of what it says in the header, rather than the actual discussions themselves. Maybe a useful litmus test (a hypothetical statement concerning a thing that I do not claim to be the case) is to imagine that some random person makes a page at Talk:Moon/Current consensus that says "The article MUST say that the Moon is made of cheese" -- what happens? I feel like what should happen is that nobody cares, and we all go about our business, and edits to the article are made based on what sources say, etc. jp×g🗯️ 02:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem there is that it discourages good editing practices such as WP:BRD, WP:SOFIXIT, and WP:NORULES. "The science discussion on this is settled" is the governing statement.
    I find it completely ridiculous that we have a discussion result no one is willing to overturn due to bureaucracy despite
    1. a general consensus of the public that this is the most likely origin
    2. literally hundreds of reliable sources
    3. the actual article which has it there in spite of the consensus
    4. even if you don't agree with it, you have to admit that it is possible or at least a widespread theory and its exclusion from the COVID-19 article is a disservice to what reliable sources state.
    Some Admin needs to step up and say "enough." Who is going to be brave enough to do what is right? Buffs (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You sound pretty confident that the current consensus is wrong. If so, wouldn't it be easy to just RFC it again and get it changed? –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An RFC shouldn't be necessary; it's unnecessary bureaucracy. The article already has the consensus to include it. Buffs (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Buffs: I don't really understand your point 1. There's nothing in FAQ 14 which stops us mentioning what the general public believe is the most likely origin i.e. that it came from an animal of some sort through natural means. (In such much as the is a general consensus, probably over 50% of the world haven't really thought about it any any great deal.) FAQ 14 only stops us mentioning what a small minority of the public believe is most likely i.e. that it came from a lab. There may or may not be merit to mention what this small minority of the public believe but there's absolutely nothing stopping us mentioning the general consensus of the public of the most likely origin i.e. that it came from an animal through some natural means. Since this confuses you, we would consider re-wording it although I'm not entirely sure how you could confuse "Do not mention the theory that the virus was accidentally leaked from a laboratory in the article" into somehow affecting us mentioning the most common belief by the general public i.e. that it came from an animal through some natural means. Nil Einne (talk) 02:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Let's start with FAQ 14's verbiage: "Do not mention the theory that the virus was accidentally leaked from a laboratory in the article." This means that, according to the "consensus" that was reached 4 years ago and bare months after the virus started, we cannot even mention the theory that COVID had a manmade origin. Even if you still wear a mask (despite ZERO supporting evidence that it does anything significant against the most current strains of the virus) and ample evidence that there are deleterious effects to social development, you have to admit that there are a lot of people who believe it. Including the following entities who admit it
    2. "only stops us mentioning what a small minority of the public believe is most likely" You might want to get out of your own circles a bit more. None of these are a "small minority. They are, at worst, a sizable minority and, at best, a solid majority:
    3. "Since this confuses you..." There's no confusion. You're being condescending and casting aspersions I would expect an admonishment from an admin.
    Buffs (talk) 23:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As an example, I remember the discussion earlier this year about "Consensus 37" at the Trump article. This RFC from five years ago with an 8-3 vote is still the law of the article despite being obviously outdated because it's about "Content related to Trump's presidency" which ended three years ago. Levivich (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Pretty much all of these should be shitcanned. Editors do not get to form a little clique and vote themselves a preferred consensus to be preserved in amber forever. Jtrainor (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The one thing I will say is IMO it might be helpful if we establish somehow that when we have these current consensus FAQs, a no-consensus outcome in a well attended RfC would be enough to remove them. However also that most of the time, such RfCs are ill-advised since it would be better to propose some specific change that would be in violation of the current consensus. (An exception might be broader current consensuses like consensus 37 mentioned by Levivich above.) Nil Einne (talk) 02:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've found these sorts of consensus-collections and FAQs to be useful, and I greatly appreciate not having to dig through archives to find the relevant RfC. Levivich's point about obviously outdated items is a good one (though I don't think of item 37 being a good example), but it's more bathwater than baby. In general, older RfCs should be more easily overturned by non-RfC discussion; this is a position I hold generally, and it doesn't matter whether the RfC is buried in the archives or collected for convenience in a pinned section. I would prefer (a la Nil Einne) that new discussions/RfCs focus on proposed article changes than meta-discussion about the consensus item itself. If we do get more "should we keep item #86" RfCs, I agree with NE that a "no consensus" outcome should be enough to invalidate the item. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Re: "new discussions/RfCs focus on proposed article changes than meta-discussion about the consensus item itself". The problem is that the conclusion of the RFC itself is the problem. We can't have a discussion about content when the RfC prevents such changes. Buffs (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know how many topics have general consensuses, but I think said consensuses should be revisited regularly, say maybe 3 or 4 months? That would help keep things current, as it were. That would mean that the divbox containing the general consensus should also reflect when it was decided on, and possibly when it should be reevaluated. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, while I'm sympathetic to the sentiment of avoiding bureaucracy, I'm not sure it's a good idea to essentially reward raising the same issue over and over again until the people opposing it give up, which is the only reason I see for these "current consensu"/FAQ sections to be used. Ultimately, I don't think there's a good way to write a general rule on this, so I would prefer to leave it to the judgement of the uninvolved closer, considering the history on a case by case basis. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hesitant to criticize a method of making it easier to find past discussions and RfCs. Talk:Donald Trump has 169 talkpage archives. CMD (talk) 06:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If we're just talking about previous discussions, I don't think anyone has a problem with it. The problem is that these discussions are treated as sacrosanct, i.e. "These are the rules for this page" when they are just a record of previous discussions. Such discussions should indeed be archived as they flow further into the past and more information becomes available. This instance is probably one of the most egregious. The RfC says we can't mention the COVID lab leak theory, but it's prominently in the article by extensive consensus. It is one of two leading theories as to the origin (there doesn't seem to be any significant debate on that). Wordsmith was absolutely correct on his assessment of both the RfC and the subsequent discussion. The fact that it took so much discussion for an easy, clear outcome is just one example of the bureaucratic hoops that are stifling Wikipedia.
      These pages and ones like it sprung up in the "fact checking" era of Trump's presidency when self-appointed "fact checkers" went out of their way to block "misinformation". This was an extension of that era and continues to strangle meaningful discussion and reasoned debate in society. I'm not saying "publish everything they say as gospel truth!" but I am saying that it is better to reasonably reflect the public discourse than become an arm of "fact checking"; it invariably leads to censorship. Buffs (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Deleting an experienced editor and keeping Viraj Mithani[edit]

    I'm done dealing with nonsense like this [8]. If a promo article that ledes with statements like "...where contradictory forms bombard our thoughts and gazes." and is authored by an account that is probably a sock and was blocked as a "Spam / advertising-only account",[9] isn't G11 I'm in the wrong place. I've had my NPP flag removed,[10], and doubt I will continue contributing in anyway. @Bbb23: has won the game they've been playing with me, but it cost Wikipedia an editor. I'm well aware there is little concern about losing experienced editors, but eventually it will catch up with Wikipedia (and clearly is having an impact at AfC, AfD, and NPP).  // Timothy :: talk  17:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm really quite confident Bbb23 is not trying to get rid of you. There are graceful ways to leave if you're sick of a place, but coming to AN on your way out the door just to blame it on one person who disagrees with you on the definition of a G11 isn't one of them. Hope you find some peace and come back in a better frame of mind. You've done a lot of good work. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Timothy, I hope your absence isn't forever. I have taken two extended WikiBreaks during my 11 years here, the first for 6 months when I was a new editor and got into what seemed like a dispute that would never end (that editor left Wikipedia during my time away) and later for 2 years after some changing life circumstances. Both times I came back to Wikipedia renewed and ready to get to work. So don't say goodbye forever, if stress or ongoing conflicts are wearing you down, change your environment for a week, a month or several months. Come back after you have cleared your head and differences that could be driving you crazy now might not seem so catastrophic. But I agree with Floq, you've contributed a lot to Wikipedia and I'd hate if you slammed the door shut forever on your way out. Take care. Liz Read! Talk! 20:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've deleted this article as G11 (having been created by a spam SPA to boot), no comment on the other issues. jp×g🗯️ 03:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why did you salt it with the summary "Repeatedly recreated"? It was created once. DanCherek (talk) 04:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There were two entries in the deletion log and one for the draftification, which looked like three, sorry I've unsalted. jp×g🗯️ 04:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    JPxG, CSD is for uncontroversial deletion. The deletion is by definition controversial if someone has objected to it, admin or not. So, what you've done constitutes abuse of tools, sorry to say. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to open a DRV I can undelete the page, but: the article itself was slop, and it was such slop its creator was indeffed for spam, and Special:DeletedContributions/Sakshi.shah123 is nothing but slop. The AfD had 3+1 to speedy-delete and 2 to delete, so it seems like a completely foregone conclusion. jp×g🗯️ 04:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's irrelevant. Admins often do things I disapprove of that I let go because it does not matter much. Whether this article is deleted now or six days later does not matter much to me either. But since we are on the admin's noticeboard writing stuff that will be archived forever, I felt it important to point out that admins should not be speedily deleting pages where CSDs have already been declined, even by non-admins. In this case, it was a very experienced admin. Even in the AFD, there's a comment saying they want the AFD to proceed because it's not an obvious CSD case. If you're taking AFD votes into account, then perhaps you wanted to deleted under WP:SNOW, not WP:G11. I don't know if SNOW would be a good call but it would at least not be an unambiguous bad call like CSDing a page under the same criteria that's been declined before by another experienced editor. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TimothyBlue: I do not want to comment on who is right or wrong here. I just want to say that we need you. Please do take some time off. Sometimes we all have to move on disagreements for the better of all. No shame in it. Lightburst (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Please review my revdel[edit]

    I just deleted about 5 years of history from Ubbi dubbi. I couldn't find any specific reason listed to justify it, so I guess it's WP:IAR. Noting it here for the record. RoySmith (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Regrettable, but if that link is to malware now, then it is also a link to malware everywhere in the history, and this is a good revdel. RD3 covers links to malware, though, IAR wasn't necessary. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed on both counts. For the record while it might be five years of history it was only 64 revisions, which on the whole isn't that "big" of an issue (in either sense of the word). Primefac (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know how big a software change it would be, but I wonder how many people would be upset if links that are currently on the WP:SBL become unclickable. That is, readers just a see a bare URL in the text, and have to copy-paste it to the address bar. This time it was only 64 revisions. But what happens if some source that's been used in United States since the very beginning is hijacked and starts delivering malware? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems like it would be a good approach, though I also don't know how big of a change it would be. But it would be a more thorough method of obfuscating known malware links without having to hide large sections of page history. I think it would be a good idea if instead of removing the links they could point to some kind of warning page instead, so that users are warned what they are. If we just leave a plain URL without a link then someone's going to copy and paste it into their address bar. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's probably a better approach. One concern with either of these approaches might be performance. A typical edit might add one or two links to be checked against the blacklist, and the check only needs to be done once, at page save. But this would mean checking possibly hundreds of links, every time the page is parsed. It might be better to make this an option only for certain links, e.g. with a checkbox at Special:BlockedExternalDomains. Or even a separate "bad link list", similar to MediaWiki:Bad image list. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Tracked in Phabricator
    Task T365520
    FWIW, I opened a security ticket on this. I'll be happy to add anybody with a phab account and a legitimate need for the details, but the gist is that this particular URL isn't in any of the malware databases the WMF uses, so whatever process we had in place probably wouldn't have caught it.
    It might be useful to have some periodic background process which found every external link on the wiki (perhaps via an off-line database query or the XML dumps) and examined each one. But I don't know how you would determine if it was malware or not, and I suspect it would be a prohibitively expensive process. RoySmith (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you add me, please? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm in way, way over my head, but wouldn't adding this site to the blacklist prevent people from clicking thru to the malware site? I think maybe it would even prevent you from saving a version of the page with the link in it? Then you could restore the history. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it only prevents saving. It's still possible to accidentally click on the link when viewing the old revision. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, OK, thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One possibility is to export the revisions to a file, modify that link, and then re-import. Of course this is a misrepresentation of what the past version were, but could disable the link and preserve others changes. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that should ever be done, for any reason. If there's a diff saying that you did X, you did X, no questions asked. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we should be more willing to do this instead of revdelling large amounts of content as collateral damage. Perhaps add a change tag to make clear the diff is munged. And in this case there's a way of doing this without misrepresenting what anyone did: re-import all of the revisions as never having had the link entirely, leaving the revdelled edit as is. Then the history shows that someone added something that had to be revdelled, and then correctly shows exactly what each later editor did. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds frightening. Even if I could get my head around the ethics and/or legal implications of rewriting history, this has the potential for all sorts of automated tools to not know about the change tag and mis-attribute something. "You can't see this" is better than "I'll show you the wrong thing and pretend it's correct". RoySmith (talk) 13:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently I'm, as usual, a minority-of-one position, but there's definitely nothing legally wrong with this (the exact same people are attributed - although the current situation is legally fine as is per WP:Attribution does not require blame if anything rewriting history is better legally because it does provide blame). I don't see what's ethically wrong about rebasing people's edits - we do the same thing with git commits all the time and the concept is not fundamentally different. And the point of this is that the picture presented by said rebasing is not fundamentally incorrect. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, that sounds better, but the modified revision still shouldn't appear in original user's contributions. It's too easy for people to make a quick judgement, and not notice a tag or whatever. Instead, maybe attribute the diff to the person who modified it, and credit the original user in the summary. This is roughly how we deal with edits disallowed by the edit filter, e.g. Special:Diff/1219443324.
    This would require a software change, however. The importupload right, AFAIK, currently gives absolute power to the uploader, and I'm not willing to trust many more users with it. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 to not rewriting history. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm, there's conflict between what the guideline WP:ELOFFICIAL recommends for hijacked/malware spreading official links, which is just hiding them until they are fixed, and what the policy WP:RD3 apparently recommends. Though I'm aware that the link in question was a translator link, and not an official link, so there was no reason not to remove it. – 2804:F14:80B7:8201:C4DC:E500:5610:A60F (talk) 23:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hubbi, frubbends. Looks like a good revdel to me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kautilya3[edit]

     – Geardona (talk to me?) 00:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Tommygunn7886: WP:NOTHERE edit warring[edit]

     – A Rainbow Footing It (talk) 04:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Trolling and harassment by A Rainbow Footing It[edit]

    See previous section. Primefac (talk) 11:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This user has been harassing me for changing an article they added to that contained transphobic language(an admin ruled in my favor and kept my deletion of their post). This user has threatened to ban me over this despite this user not being an admin themselve. This user also has a history of promoting white supremacy on various pages such as the online dating page, claiming white males are the most desireable gender and black females are the least desireable. I feel afraid and threatened as a trans man myself, as this user will not leave me alone. Tommygunn7886 (talk) 05:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry if I did not link the user correctly I am still fairly new to this platform. User:A Rainbow Footing It Tommygunn7886 (talk) 05:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:ThatBritishAsianDude[edit]

    In the article Desi, the user ThatBritishAsianDude is repeatedly removing sourced content [1]. He is engaging in the edit war. The reference says 'south indkans and tamil dont consider to be desis' [2] Afv12e (talk) 13:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at the article history it appears that you have made 4 edits over the last 5 days attempting to inset this content into the article, and have been reverted by two different editors. Per WP:ONUS it is your job to get consensus for inclusion.
    Looking at the article history one of the editors who was reverting you raised concerns that you are misrepresenting the source, or that the source does not properly support the content, having read the source I would tend to agree. The source basically consists of a series of interviews, and makes the claim that Some South Indians and Tamils don’t feel ‘Desi’ includes them, which does not support the blanket statements you are adding to the article. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On the article talk page the only other person who commented on your proposed changes disagreed with them, and in response you attempted to use reddit and quora as a source?
    Looking at the number of warnings you have had about edit waring and disruption on IPA articles I don't think a topic ban would be unreasonable. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    why do you want to come in ip @Ratnahastin?
    I have already created a separate talk section for the discussion, which including you is not engaging and keep on removing content.
    I have already said before posting those Quora and reddit link that these are not accepted in Wikipedia, but for a discussion you can have a look. Anyone who is a human can see that. Afv12e (talk) 15:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You should stop digging your own grave. Ratnahastin (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    why do you want to come in ip Anyone is allowed to comment on AN threads.
    You're asking people to read those reddit threads and make edits to the article based on what they say, regardless of how you frame it you are trying to use those websites as sources.
    You have been alerted to the contentious topic designation of India-Pakistan-Afghanistan twice [11] [12] but despite that you've been warned about disruptive editing five times [13] [14] [15] [16] [17],been warned twice about edit warring [18] [19] been warned about adding original research [20] and warned about WP:SEALIONING [21] and have been the subject of an ANI thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1147#Biryani where a number of issues were raised including edit warring, accusing other editors of vandalism and using chatGPT. In this thread we have you edit warring yet again to add poorly sourced content to an article over the objections of multiple other editors. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been in Wikipedia for almost 2 years now and I received these warnings over the time. Nobody asked you to pull all these and 'court never punishes for a new allegation on a person just because he has done some mistakes in the past' .
    I have neve broke the 3 revert rule and when the user @ThatBritishAsianDude was into edit warring , I came here to report the thing.
    I kept refrain from edit warring.
    ======
    In the source it is mentioned that 'South Indians do not consider to be Desis, and it's a new term in 1990s to counter the Hindutva politics of BJP'
    @ThatBritishAsianDude has never came for the talk discussion and removing without reaching the consensus Afv12e (talk) 18:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For someone who has made a total of 350 edits you have collected a large amount of warnings. Wikipedia is not a courtroom and sanctions are levelled to prevent ongoing disruption - it is completely appropriate to look at your editing to see if there is a pattern of behaviour.
    Just with a cursory glance there's even more disruption from yesterday. After this ANI thread about your disruption related to the origins of Biryani [22] why on earth did you decide that these two edits were a good idea [23] [24]? Or this one, which is trying to partially implement the edit you made in January, still without consensus [25]? This really looks like a combination of WP:CIR and pov pushing.
    3RR is not the same thing as edit warring, 3RR is simply the point at which people edit waring are pretty much guaranteed to be blocked. I don't know why you keep bringing up that ThatBritishAsianDude, given you have been edit warring against two other users.
    What is the exact quote you are using from the source, because I cannot find the wording you give above. As a general point you cannot use a source consisting of a bunch of interview quotes with activists about how some south Indians do not consider themselves to be Desis to support a wide ranging unqualified statement, that is simply misrepresenting the source.
    I already pointed you to WP:ONUS - you need to get consensus for the addition since it has been contested, other editors do not need to get consensus to remove it (besides which, two editors removing it from the article and one editor saying it should not be included on the talk page are a fairly good consensus against inclusion). 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Desi&diff=prev&oldid=1225163941
    2. ^ https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/brown-desi-south-asian-diaspora-reflects-terms-represent-erase-rcna1886

    Titus Gold: Appeal to conclude topic ban[edit]

    Titus Gold (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    I'm just making a request to conclude the topic ban I previously received on Wales related topics. Alternatively other options could include limiting the topic ban to specific pages or a specific timeline and criteria to conclude the topic ban; although these would be far less desirable. I fully acknowledge previous editing mistakes including during the topic ban and aim to avoid these in future. Thank you for your time. Titus Gold (talk) 13:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Titus Gold: I'd advise you to provide links to the discussions/events that led up to your tban, discuss what was problematic with your actions at the time, and explain how you will avoid doing similar stuff. Folk will be a lot more likely to look on your request in a positive light if you don't make them dig through your contributions history for themselves in order to get to a position from which they can consider it. Girth Summit (blether) 13:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the link to the conclusion of the topic ban Any perceived issues are mentioned here.
    In terms of the future, some basic things I will aim to do include:
    - I'll ensure to go to discussion pages immediately if any edits are reverted.
    - I will aim to provide multiple viewpoints where applicable when editing topics.
    - I will aim to give an accurate representation of sources used when using them in Wiki articles.
    - Avoid issues previously mentioned in the TBAN discussion including ensuring a good practice of discussion before any potentially controversial page moves.
    - As good practice, I'll generally cite reliable sources.(I have generally done this consistently for a long while.)
    - Be ready to listen to the views of others to come to a consensus.
    Please let me know if anything else is desired, thanks. Titus Gold (talk) 14:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the tban, I had raised concerns of their edits on other Wikipedias relating to Wales so concerns are still present. Note Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wales/Archive 2024#Mass implementation of Welsh place-names on other Wikipedias (leading to a discussion at Wikidata). They have made similar edits on other Celtic/separatist countries following the tban, so they're still interested these contentious political topics. Only stating what has happened so far. DankJae 14:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I had largely forgotten about this, thanks for the link. I think it's important to mention that this was 6 months ago and I think only one page name edited around 4 months where I also provided concluding reasoning at the bottom of the page. This followed an announcement of official minor place names by Eryri National Park.
    In future, I've learnt to start discussions for any major page moves. Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Undiscussed moves were raised at the original ANI, just pointing out you continued to do it after your tban but elsewhere. DankJae 16:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    After reading the discussion that led to the topic-ban, I scanned Titus Gold's contributions. Although WP:TBAN states Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, Titus Gold has repeatedly made edits related to Wales since then (talk pages, templates, categories, wikiproject. Samples:[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37]) Was the topic ban amended at some point to only apply to articles? Schazjmd (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Apology for banging the diff/contribution history drum again, but I would suggest including diffs above noting where you have taken such actions on other topics, eg. managing viewpoints on topics where they may clash. That you are going through Wikidata changing "British boxer" to "Welsh boxer" in French[38], and editing cebuano Wikipedia to change English to Welsh[39], is not comforting in regards to potential actions here. CMD (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    changing "British boxer" to "Welsh boxer" in French - except that the edit did not respect French capitalisation rules. I put it back. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Schazjmd: The original close states: As written, the topic ban applies only in mainspace, but, again, disruption elsewhere will probably result in a swift expansion of the restriction. DanCherek (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I missed that, @DanCherek, thanks for clarifying. Schazjmd (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose for now. TG opened this thread 12 minutes after posting this to a thread they opened earlier today on their talk page. The thread has continued on their talk page with posts by TG and others, but with TG not mentioning that they have this thread at AN. That post on their talk page in reply to me was very typical of how TG ended up with the TBAN: civil but either disingenuous or missing the point. Then 12 minutes later they opened this appeal. That little exchange looks harmless/minor by itself, but, with TG's tremendous rate of editing, the volume, speed and relentlessness of their MO starts to overwhelm a topic area. That's one of the reasons the TBAN became necessary. That's even before looking at his editing more broadly. DeCausa (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose after reviewing contributions. Titus Gold has continued to place material related to Wales in mainspace, for example:

    Such edits seem to not so much test the boundaries of "broadly construed" as to creatively circumvent the ban. They're not easy to detect - most watchlists wouldn't reveal such strategy, and we can't look to TG for transparency. DeCausa's already described their behaviour today in asking editors to outline conditions for TG's return to Welsh topics but staying silent about this thread. It might be possible to review TG's talkpage for other tban issues - hopefully resolved ones - but they delete without archiving, as is their right. When they observe their mainspace tban by requesting edits on article talk pages instead, they don't say why they have to work that way.[48][49][50][51] Again that is their right, but altogether the issues raised at the ANI discussion last year of uncollaborative POV promotion remain. NebY (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose This appeal has several statements about what will happen in the future. Past and bitter experience suggests that these promises should be viewed with a more jaundiced gaze. Much more significantly, there are no statements acknowledging the issues of the past and the unsewerving Celtic nationalistic POV. There are no promises to give careful thought to the contents of an edit before it is published - only when an editor reverts will such consideration be offered. No, sorry, but this is far from good enough . I have wasted too much time in this arena to have to waste yet more on a tendentious editor.  Velella  Velella Talk   19:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose for now - When we had the discussion last year I promised I would be the first to support a lifting of the topic ban if TG could demonstrate collaborative editing that would give confidence the issues were resolved. I meant that promise, and I would like to support this. The ban is not meant to be permanent. But we don't have much evidence on English Wikipedia, and as described above, what we do have still raises concerns about the POV pushing and such like. Where we have a lot more evidence is on Welsh Wikipedia, where TG has created many articles and edited freely on articles edited by few others. Now, on the plus side, TG's enthusiasm for Wales and all things Welsh has led to a considerable expansion of articles on the Welsh site. The site is managed seperately from English Wikipedia, and TG's edits there are fully within the rules, and I expect the additional effort is welcome. My concern, however, is that the edits being made on that site suggest that the POV issue has not gone away. For instance, TG created this article on the Welsh Penal Laws [52] and is the only writer of that article. It is based on the one we have [53]. Except the Welsh version deliberately follows the version that TG tried here, but that was amended to something more historical. It is particularly instructive that the Welsh article begins Set o gyfreithiau gormesol ac apartheid... And the word apartheid is used in that article 7 times. This word was discussed at length here[54]. I won't relitigate that discussion, but what is disappointing is that in creating equivalent articles on Welsh Wikipedia, TG has chosen to go with their preferred version, despite knowing that there were POV concerns raised about those versions on English Wikipedia. That is not the only article this has happened on. One other example being [55]. Neutrality is a core Wikipedia value. One of the five pillars. I am sorry, TG, but I do not see evidence of a commitment to neutrality, and so, for now, I do not believe the topic ban should be lifted. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I appreciate the comments. Here are specific responses:
    @DeCausa I was trying to be transparent by starting the discussion on my talk page. Some editors had suggested I should not have even started a discussion on my talk page but brought it straight to this page. I was trying to be prompt in responding to that suggestion and I suppose I can't please everyone. DankJae had already posted the link here but I've since posted it again there to make sure everyone can see.
    @NebY I acknowledge the edits mentioned by NebY. In hindsight, it would've been easier just to avoid all mention of Wales rather than continue to edit articles and non-mainspace areas.
    @Velella I acknowledge that many contributions have been made to Celtic nationalism-related pages, but these have been constructive, including views of unionists like Jeffrey Donaldson etc. and just poll updates regardless of higher or lower support for whatever movement. (There is some conflation here with POV vs just general editing on Celtic nation-related pages.) I acknowledge however that I should have been more strict in avoiding Wales related edits; I acknowledge that.
    @SirfurboyI appreciate efforts for comparisons and I have promptly made edits in response to your comments. Perhaps it it is not relevant to discuss Welsh language Wici, but I have made changes based on your coments nonetheless. Although various comparisons with apartheid were made by 4 different sources I have now reduced the mentions down to 1 only in response to your comment. I have also split the Welsh dragon page to a Celtic Britons symbol page of text less strictly associated with the "red dragon". I hope this pleases you.
    Since it now looks unlikely that a topic ban is lifted; I am now going to continue to stay away from any mention of Wales on English, and more strictly so. I think any further discussion might be best focused on criteria for future topic ban lifting. Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm neutral. I feel talking like this helps solve the problem. Most of the time errors can be amended, like a computer system, it simply needs an operating system update. Titus has been punished, variably based on good faith edits stemming for his love for working and his patronymic feeling about his home country Wales. The ban can be punishing, I'm sure almost torturous. If this was the case of repeated vandalism, or essentially random stupid edits, then a ban completely makes sense. But it's not. The original topics raised were over zealous emotional edits. And since, he might have found a loophole in approaching the Celtic connection, and different languages. However, from a neutral's point of view, these talks should serve as an education for Titus, and let bygones be bygones. Most of the people involved in his TBAN are not neutral, and it seems a bit of a witch hunt if you ask me. Cltjames (talk) 01:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A reaction to zealous emotional edits and bygones? A deliberate cross-wiki campaign has continued after the topic ban here. A closer can consider me an oppose, given above and the lack of diffs to support the appeal. CMD (talk) 01:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose for now I think TG needs to show some evidence of cooperative editing in other areas and of being patient - this appeal, while discussion was ongoing on their user talk page, is symptomatic of TG's impatience in editing which was a major part of the problem that led to the ban. Llwyld (talk) 08:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose - The appeal contains no mention of the fundamental problem with TG’s editing, their strong nationalist POV. That is the crux of the issue. Without any mention of this, let alone an acknowledgement of editors’ legitimate concerns about it, and a commitment to address it, I cannot see there is any evidence to suggest TG’s approach will change. As for their “assurances” regarding consultation in future, I share the almost universal scepticism. We have had such assurances many times before. They have not been honoured. Moreover, during the period of their ban, they have undertaken mass-edits on a wide number of related wiki-sites, changing text to reflect their POV. Did they consult before they did so? No, they established their “facts on the ground” and then promised to consult in future. Which is exactly the “assurance” they are offering now. KJP1 (talk) 10:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think this has been addressed;
    Since it now looks unlikely that a topic ban is lifted; I am now going to continue to stay away from any mention of Wales on English Wikipedia, and more strictly so. I think any further discussion might be best focused on criteria for future topic ban lifting. Could some kind of criteria be outlined please?
    Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 10:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From the number and detail of opposes, in my view it's quite clear that other editors don't want to prolong the issue by discussion of criteria for future topic ban lifting. Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know any standard criteria (please prove if wrong), but as this tban is based on community support, you kinda have to win over the community. Having evidence to show you have collaborated on English Wikipedia elsewhere on as much contentious topics/scenarios can be used as evidence you've addressed the issues brought here. Merely promising you'll learn is not enough (I will aim to do), and you ideally should show you have learned. In this appeal, you've just promised, as like many discussions I've had in the past, that doesn't always last. Understand that you have a very eager interest in Wales, as do I, so it will be hard to focus elsewhere.
    While you are free to do whatever on other Wikipedias (as long as they're not questioned there) your edits there, particularly Wicipedia as it is more connected to Wales, it will serve as a glimpse into what your edits here may look like, you're both the same editor here and there. Although of course, Wicipedia and others have different standards then here. DankJae 11:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment As TG has now blanked their talk page I think it's worth preserving here, for reference, the parallel thread to this in its entirety: "Potential for lifting topic ban" DeCausa (talk) 11:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose - per above blanking and the wordage this issue is generating daily which, in my view, is in itself disruptive. Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Weak oppose for now, although do so reluctantly. I didn’t participate in the original ANI, hoping for alternatives, but accepting their tban. However since the tban I haven’t seen any overall improvement in their editing. Following the mass-renames in ~30 Wikipedias (click on a non-English Wiki and their contributions is almost entirely on changing to Welsh place-names), as well as mass-removing English place-names in Wales at Wikidata, only showed the continued POV edits (assuming due to the scale and speed of edits, they're not likely fluent in ~30 languages, if so you deserve recognition, so it is likely a Welsh name push rather than sourced reviews in line with each wiki's rules). Plus even when criticised, they just stopped rather than corrected and learned. Sharing concerns with Sirfurboy concerning cy.articles, here they largely just moved to other Celtic countries here, for example creating Scottish versions of articles they made on Wales or separatist articles, so nothing different in their editing. As mentioned on my response to criteria, I suggest Titus pick an entirely unrelated topic to Wales and unpolitical topic, that they personally have no POV towards and gain experience and evidence there. Although, I am personally partly open to some background contribution they could make, as there is a lot on Wales to do. But won’t push it if everyone else wishes to end this discussion. On the one hand, I miss some of the articles they've made on Wales, but I do not have confidence in their editing. I hope for the day you are allowed back, but I am less convinced that, that day is today. DankJae 12:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Titus Gold: Could you talk us through how your edits to the +30 other Wikipedias referenced above are consistent with ending/reducing your TBAN? How does this, this, this and this give us confidence that you have adopted a more measured and less-POV driven approach to editing Welsh topics? DeCausa (talk) 13:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've taken all on board. Thanks for the contributions. Titus Gold (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Waxahachie, Texas Wiki page[edit]

    Wrong venue. Primefac (talk) 11:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    under private schools, it mentions First Christian Day School offers Kindergarten-grade 12 education. They offer pre-k through grade 8 education. 68.179.227.52 (talk) 04:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) This isn't something that requires admin attention. Please direct your concerns to Talk:Waxahachie, Texas. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Conflict of interest VRT queue and call for volunteers[edit]

    Pursuant to remedy 1 of the Conflict of interest management case, the Arbitration Committee is pleased to announce that the VRT queue for reporting conflict-of-interest or paid editing (WP:COIVRT) is fully operational, while the former queue remains accessible to members of the CheckUser team. Reports should be sent to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org when doing so on-wiki would conflict with the harassment policy. The VRT administrators' work on the queue's creation is appreciated.

    The Arbitration Committee encourages members of the CheckUser and Oversight teams to patrol the queue. Administrators interested in applying for VRT queue access and users interested in applying for CheckUser and Oversight are invited to email arbcom-en-c@wikimedia.org.

    Finally, the clerks team is in need of new members. Users who wish to become a clerk are asked to email clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org.

    On behalf of the Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 11:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Conflict of interest VRT queue and call for volunteers

    Eden Golan and WP:ARBPIA[edit]

    There is some question on the talk page if this should be generally covered by ARBPIA. There has been some controversy that brings is pretty close to broadly construed, but I wanted to get wider input from the community. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    My 2c: Aspects of her biography relating, eg, to Russia-Ukraine war (such as her family moving because of the war) would be covered by RUSUKR, and aspects relating to the I/P conflict (such as what she has said publicly about the conflict), would similarly be covered by ARBPIA. But I don't think the entire article/topic/person is covered by either one. As the article sits now, it seems there is one line about RUSUKR and nothing about ARBPIA. I don't think the RfC about whether she is "Russian-Israeli" or "Israeli" is covered by either one. But future expansions to the article might be covered. Levivich (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess the song they sang for Eurovision could be within ARBPIA territory broadly construed, if you squint a bit. Maybe it's worth a {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement|relatedcontent=yes}} template, despite the article templates not having much of an observable effect on the behavior of non-EC editors, as far as I can tell. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment)I would say yes at the moment, since half of the career section is about her Eurovision performance, and the song she sang in the contest should be covered. The lede in the article on the song is mostly about the October 7 attack and how the song was rewritten because Eurovision officials thought the original version was too much of a political message about the war. It's always possible to revisit when she releases more material and the career section expands. Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO the entirety of her 2024 Eurovision involvement could reasonably be said to be broadly constructed covered by ARBPIA. However the Israeli/Russian-Israeli thing wouldn't be and so it's still fine for non EC editors to participate in discussion etc. Nil Einne (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering the Eurovision controversies, I’d say it should be at least partially covered. Perhaps allow IP/non-EC contribs to the rest of the article, but not the Eurovision section. The Kip (contribs) 21:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1225507689"