Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Wikipedia:Administrative action review.
• 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	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Total
CfD	0	0	59	3	62
TfD	0	1	21	6	28
MfD	0	0	1	0	1
FfD	0	0	3	0	3
RfD	0	0	6	1	7
AfD	0	0	2	9	11

• 13 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 10 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 0 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 2 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 54 sockpuppet investigations
• 52 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 0 Fully protected edit requests
• 9 Candidates for history merging
• 42 requests for RD1 redaction
• 168 elapsed requested moves
• 3 Pages at move review
• 36 requested closures
• 62 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 30 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (29 out of 11878 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin On conducting a special military operation 2025-06-09 16:51 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case 51st G7 summit 2025-06-09 13:01 2025-06-23 13:01 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts Chetsford Thom Yorke 2025-06-09 03:55 indefinite move Persistent disruptive editing: request at WP:RFPP Materialscientist QuoteWizard 2025-06-09 03:12 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Sohom Datta Arab Ba'ath 2025-06-08 21:03 indefinite move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Ymblanter Template:Molecular formula index 2025-06-08 18:00 indefinite edit High-risk template or module: 2503 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Howtoreqphotoin 2025-06-08 18:00 indefinite edit High-risk template or module: 2507 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Mitzpe Shalem 2025-06-08 17:13 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP: Special:Permalink/1294590069#Mitzpe Shalem Newslinger 2024 Closure of the Israeli Embassy in Dublin 2025-06-08 17:12 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP: Special:Permalink/1294589839#2024 Closure of the Israeli Embassy in Dublin Newslinger September 2024 pro-Palestinian strike in Spain 2025-06-08 17:11 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP: Special:Permalink/1294397996#September 2024 pro-Palestinian strike in Spain Newslinger Peace discourse in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict 2025-06-08 17:10 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP: Special:Permalink/1294397759#Peace discourse in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict Newslinger Popular Forces 2025-06-08 17:08 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP: Special:Permalink/1294397668#Popular Forces Newslinger Max Steinberg (soldier) 2025-06-08 17:08 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP: Special:Permalink/1294326957#Max Steinberg (soldier) Newslinger Draft:Battle of Ancedan 2025-06-08 04:09 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Sohom Datta Draft:Modern Era (2011-present) 2025-06-08 02:25 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Mz7 Template:Wikisource/Author 2025-06-07 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2879 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Chris Eubank 2025-06-07 00:06 indefinite move Downgrade to SP from ECC (block evasion/sock), as per Orangemike's consent at RFPP. Dennis Brown Yasser Abu Shabab 2025-06-06 21:35 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter Draft:Gani Gashi 2025-06-06 21:21 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: see also Gani Gashi SuperMarioMan Cliff Cash 2025-06-06 15:55 indefinite move Persistent sockpuppetry: extending per recent sock activity Ohnoitsjamie User talk:119.206.20.161 2025-06-06 07:17 indefinite move Inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked DoubleGrazing Imane Khelif 2025-06-05 20:59 2025-12-11 02:23 edit About to be in the news; this is prophylactic Black Kite Tupolev Tu-160 2025-06-05 19:51 indefinite edit Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Module:Ko-utils 2025-06-05 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 3015 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Module:Ko-translit/data 2025-06-05 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 3015 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Module:Ko-translit 2025-06-05 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 3011 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Infobox Korean name/auto/categories 2025-06-05 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2773 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Infobox Korean name/auto 2025-06-05 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2773 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Infobox Chinese/Korean/auto 2025-06-05 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2892 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II

Review of Topic ban (Dev0745)

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

---

Hello, recently I got topic banned from editing India, Pakistan and Afghanistan related articles by Tamzin after editing the article of Love jihad conspiracy theory. She topic banned me by citing reason of verifiability and synthesis. But I am not convinced by her argument as I think her argument is not apply to my edit as I have cited verifiable soures and it was not Synth. The sentence written by me was clearly mentioned in the article. My edit link is here [1]. Can anyone comment about the TBAN decision. Is it reasonable? Thanks Dev0745 (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse topic-ban As Tamzin explained at great length, among other issues, Dev0745 was adding content to the Love Jihad conspiracy theory article about accusations against an organization by selectively citing sources without mentioning that the very sources they cited also said that an official investigation "concluded its probe in October 2018 after it found no 'evidence of coercion' that could result in prosecution." which eliminated the raison d'etre for their edit. And now Dev0745 is selectively citing the reasons for the topic-ban by omitting "Misrepresentation by omission" even though Tamzin stated (in bold) that that was "the main factor in my decision to impose a TBAN". Abecedare (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse topic-ban This is your second such ban under the terms of WP:ARBIPA (after such a ban in 2020) so it shouldn't come as a shock to you. Furthermore, you were formally warned here only about half a year ago that you were to stop misusing source material in relation top topics related to WP:ARBIPA. There's no way you should have thought this came out of the blue here. You were edit warring, you were tendentiously editing an arbitrated topic (of which you were made well aware that the topic was under special scrutiny) and you pressed ahead regardless of these issues. The topic ban is fully appropriate in this case. --Jayron32 15:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse topic-ban. This was explained at length, and from the quick review I did the sanction is more than reasonable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
• Note Dev0745 is forum-shopping. They have already tried WP:AE, and then my talkpage when I closed that. Black Kite (talk) 17:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  Let this discussion run. The more voices they hear telling them they were in the wrong, the more it might stick. --Jayron32 18:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think it is quite forum shopping, since the AE appeal was malformed and didn't get a proper review (by multiple people). Galobtter (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  Fair enough, though I closed it because I believed it to be fairly cut and dried. As you and Jayron say though, it may be better to let it run this time. Black Kite (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse topic ban - Admins have been too lenient against this user if anything otherwise this report should have resulted in a topic ban. Srijanx22 (talk) 21:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
• Thanks for your comments. According her Misrepresentation by omission was reason for Topic ban. I never read it at any Wikipedia policy. But I think, the article Love Jihad conspiracy theory itself is article where many thinks are omitted in lead only mention hindu women and Christian women are omitted which is also a misrepresentation by omission. Thanks... Dev0745 (talk) 05:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  I never read it at any Wikipedia policy. Do you seriously need "don't misrepresent what sources say" to be spelled out in policy for you? I'm shocked, that is such a fundamental and common sense statement. If you genuinely didn't know that misrepresenting sources is wrong that points to there being serious WP:CIR issues at play here.

  But I think, the article Love Jihad conspiracy theory itself ... What you think is completely irrelevant here, Wikipedia articles should be written on the basis of published reliable sources, not what the author of the article thinks. The fact that you could not find sources to support your content and had to misrepresent what the sources were actually saying means that that content should not be in the article - it isn't misrepresentation by omission to exclude material for which no reliable sourcing exists. Again, if you genuinely think wikipedia articles are the place to "set the record straight" and promote conspiracy theories that would point to there being majour WP:CIR issues at hand. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse topic ban. Tamzin's ban was well phrased and then painstakingly explained further on request. It comes none too soon. Bishonen | tålk 07:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC).

• Adding: Wow... I just looked at Dev0745's contributions. They are quite cheerfully editing The Kerala Story in violation of the ban they are unsuccessfully appealing here. I don't know what they thought the ban meant. Blocked for a week. Bishonen | tålk 08:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC).

• Endorse topic ban in light of the blatant violation today. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse. Tamzin's rationale for applying this topic ban was well reasoned and detailed, and Dev0745 has been extended considerable leniency in the past - they already had a narrow focus topic ban and and a formal logged warning for the exact same issues with pov pushing and misrepresenting sources. If this editor thinks that it is acceptable to take a low quality, tabloid, source and misleadingly quote sentences out of context to support claims that the source specifically debunks they have no business editing in such contentious areas. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

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

Inappropriate non-admin closure by User:FormalDude

User:FormalDude closed this RfC in violation of WP:NACD, which states that non-admins should not close discussions involving "close calls or controversial decisions"; the survey was a perfect 10-10 split, and the proposed question regarded the characterization of a controversial Florida bill, ticking both boxes.

Additionally, in my opinion, their edit history casts a bit of doubt on their impartiality, as it seems to suggest a social-liberal bias, which may conflict with this RfC.

I left a message on the editor's talk page voicing my concern, but it appears to have been ignored. Oktayey (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn I can't see that being anything but a no-consensus close. It's both numerically close, and both sides make cogent arguments. Either overturn and reclose as "no-consensus" or just re-open it and leave it open longer to see if the discussion leans either way with further commentary. --Jayron32 16:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - WP:NACD is for deletion discussions. Any uninvolved editor in good standing can close a RfC, so I wouldn't call this a violation. I agree sometimes it's better for admins to close controversial things, but the close request asked for an experience closer, which could be an admin or could be an experienced user such as FormalDude. WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  An experienced closer is a bit different than an experienced user, in my view. An experienced closer should have a history of closing discussions, including some difficult and close RFCs, that have either not been challenged, or survived challenges. I'm not saying that isn't the case here, but it is different than simply being an experienced editor. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  Their status as an non-admin played no role in my assessment above. I don't really care if they were an admin or not, the assessment of the close should be done on how the close was handled, not on who handled it. Ad hominem rationales are rarely useful, it doesn't really matter who they were; just if they closed it correctly. I don't believe they did here, I don't think the rationale represents a reasonable summary of the discussion. --Jayron32 17:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  ScottishFinnishRadish but isn't there a catch-22 there? If an experienced closer is someone who "should have a history of closing discussions, including some difficult and close RFCs, that have either not been challenged, or survived challenges" then it's impossible for any non-admin to become an experienced closer since such editors would be effectively prohibited from taking the risk in the first place. Valenciano (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  Luckily there is a very broad spectrum of closes to make, so one can work their way up through varying levels of difficulty and contentiousness. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  I understand and agree with what you are saying. I was saying they could be an experienced editor, not that any experienced editor would be an experienced closer. Was bringing up the point of an experience closer being requested, to distance this situation from my early sentence that said any uninvolved editor could close a RfC. WikiVirusC^(talk) 17:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  That section of the article regards closing discussions broadly, not just deletion discussions. Both the terms "deletion discussions" and simply "discussions" are used, but the relevant part refers to "discussions" generally. Additionally, WP:BADNAC also says:

  "A non-admin closure is not appropriate [when] The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial."

  Oktayey (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  WP:BADNAC is an essay. If we didn't allow non-admins to close contentious RFCs nothing would ever get done. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  Per ScottishFinnishRadish, those pages are meant to guide people before they make a decision to close a discussion, they are not supposed to be rules we enforce around this matter. Ultimately, every close should be assessed on the merits of the close itself, not on who closed it. The NAC page should inform closers, not reviewers. --Jayron32 18:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  In WP:NACD, while the first sentence does use both deletion discussion and discussion. It is all in one sentence so I believe the latter discussion is still referring to deletion discussion. The last paragraph is completely about deletion discussions with same reasoning of deletion discussion being mentioned first before simply referring to it as discussion. Of the 6 bullet points in between, the majority are referring to deletion discussions directly, one is mentioning {{nac}} which is mostly used in AfD, and one is the OPs point of controversial/close calls. If people wanna say he violated an essay then so be it, I was stating they didn't violate WP:NACD. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse I would agree with the way it was closed, because consensus is not a vote count and the evidence that the Act is "commonly known as the Don't Say Gay Bill" given in the discussion is actually quite clear; indeed, I am having trouble working out how those who voted "B" could calculate it otherwise. But, yes, it should probably have been closed by an admin. Black Kite (talk) 17:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  I will note that people voting the other way made equally as cogent arguments regarding the matter. Closers aren't supposed to decide which argument is correct, they are supposed to summarize the argument, discounting votes only if they are unreasonable, not merely that they disagree with them. If a closer wants to decide that they agree with one side more than the other, they should vote and let someone else close. --Jayron32 17:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• I'd disagree, to be honest. Most of the "B" !voters appear to be claiming that it's only the critics of the bill that call it that, which is clearly not the case, as a quick Google search will tell you straight away. Someone in the discussion said it should be "which critics and many others have called ...", but that wasn't an option. But in the end, I'm not sure it actually matters since A is the status quo wording anyway. Black Kite (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• That's actually not true, if you count, only the second and fourth "B" voter said so. The bulk of "B" voters had far more nuanced and multifaceted rationals that I don't want to mischaracterize, but which you can see cite multiple evidences and policies and guidelines and give multifaceted explanations around phrasing. I see lots of references to NPOV and TONE based arguments like WP:IMPARTIAL, either by directly linking it, or explaining it as such, and others which look at the quality of the sources and not just the number. It's clear that many of the B voters had carefully considered, well thought out, and well explained rationales, and were not as you just characterized them. Most, indeed, made no such argument as you claim they did. --Jayron32 18:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  Even when B !voters cited TONE, NPOV, or IMPARTIAL, they did so because they claimed supporters do not call the bill by its shorthand, which other editors explained is not implied by option A in the first place, or they did so because they claimed that only critics called it by its nickname, which other editors demonstrated with RS is not true. ––FormalDude (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Once again, disagreeing with a rationale does not mean you have the right to invalidate that rationale. The closer has the right to disagree, but that means they lose the right to close; they have an opinion and should express that opinion through a vote, not a closing statement. A closing statement summarizes, it does not hold opinions. --Jayron32 11:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I do not disagree with a rationale, other editors disproved rationales during the course of the RfC, and I summarized that. ––FormalDude (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• Redo the close and thank the closer for their effort. It has an important impactful structural problem/ oxymoron in the first sentence. In Wikipedia "Slightly in favor of" is called "no consensus" and it calls "slightly in favor of" a wp:consensus. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  • Undo the close, then redo it with the same result but a very slightly different opening sentence? Or am I misunderstanding your opinion here? — Trey Maturin™ 18:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry for my ambiguity. I meant overturn. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

    Overturn and then… what? Close with the same decision but a different rationale? Or close with a different decision? — Trey Maturin™ 23:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

    I meant just overturn and then somebody else close it. But if if you want my opinion on a close should be the main finding should be it would be "no consensusus". North8000 (talk) 02:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse: So, just by the split (which is not exactly "even" BTW, there were several "either" votes, which in this case I'd count towards consensus on either option) I would ordinarily be calling for this to be overturned and re-closed by an admin. The problem with just citing the split here, though, is the same as what Black Kite said, namely that consensus is not a vote. There's an exhaustive list of sources at the bottom of the page, and it's clear from that list that many very strong sources don't use the "critics" phrasing. Even a non-admin closer has the right (and in fact, the duty) to assess the relative strength of the arguments rather than just counting heads. And that obviously goes some distance towards whether or not the close was close or not. Loki (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
• (involved) Overturn or make it no consensus. Both sides have strong arguments, sourcing, and analysis from a closers perspective and the !vote count is to close to look at that considerably. The thing about making it no consensus is it will de facto be A, but it would also leave the door open for any other alternative options to be considered, which I think would be helpful. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 19:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
• (involved) Overturn I also left FormalDude a message about this close. See User_talk:FormalDude#Improper_closure_on_Talk:Florida_Parental_Rights_in_Education_Act. A big problem here is that User:FormalDude's edit history suggests a strong POV on American Politics. This user has 300 edits at Talk:Donald Trump, which is more than double the number he has at any other page.[2] The second most edits is at Talk:Andy Ngo, again a hot-button article that is heavily tied to partisan politics. Several other articles in his top ten edited talk pages fit the same description. Then he comes along and closes this RfC, which is also deeply tied to US partisan politics, and in particular to likely Presidential candidate Ron DeSantis. Notice also the deep involvement in the RfC here[3], on whether or not Jan. 6 should be classified as a terrorist attack. Having an opinion is one thing, but per [4], USER:FormalDude contributed 24 diffs to the RfC [under two different names for the RfC, as it was re-titled in the middle], arguing that Jan. 6 should be classified as a terrorist attack, i.e.[5] Obviously, everyone is entitled to their opinion about that question, but the edits do not suggest that USER:FormalDude is a neutral observer to US partisan politics. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I edit American politics. Someone who is not familiar with American politics is probably not best suited to handle such a closure. The outcome of the discussion to include "Category:Terrorist incidents in the United States in 2021" to January 6 United States Capitol attack ended up with consensus to include, which is what I supported. Not sure how that makes me non-neutral to U.S. politics (and I might add that that's from December 2021). You're acting like I have a history of going against consensus in American political topics, but I think a thorough search of our editing histories would reveal you are much more consistently at odds with consensuses in the topic area than I am. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  I am not suited to such closures either. Hence I don't make them. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  If you're not suited to close them, what makes you think you are suited to review the closures? ––FormalDude (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  To the best of my knowledge, it is standard practice for involved editors to participate in closure reviews. I did note my involvement in my initial response. Obviously I won't close this discussion, either. Am I missing something? Adoring nanny (talk) 00:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse as it appears to be a good measure of the consensus of the discussion, admin or not is irrelevant. This challenge is just "I didn't like which way it went". Zaathras (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
• Vacate - and issue a warning to all of the combatants in the American politics topic area, and based on the various noticeboard complaints and topic area contributions by and about FormalDude I think it is safe to consider him one of those combatants, to stay away from closing any discussions in the topic area. nableezy - 21:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn: I tend to agree with FormalDude's thinking but with such a basically an even split and reasoned arguments on both sides I can't see calling this one way or the other. If I had to pick a one or the other I would agree with the closing but I think it's just too far into the no-consensus category to close with a decision one way or the other.
  Springee (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  Springee in here to argue the far-right talking point. No surprise. 2603:7080:8F00:49F1:58B:3BD4:1DAB:AEB4 (talk) 01:36, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• (Involved) Endorse - I've been going back and forth on whether I should comment here, as I challenged an earlier closure of this same RfC, on involved grounds. I'm still not sure if my comment here will help, or be seen as improper. In the case of the earlier closure, the editor who closed the discussion was one who had both contributed to the RfC and extensively edited both the article and talk page, and as a result their status with respect to involvement was clear. However for this closure, prior to closing the RfC FormalDude had never edited the article nor its talk page. Nor has he edited Ron DeSantis (and only one minor edit to DeSantis' talk page), Government of Florida or its talk page, Florida Legislature or its talk page, Florida Senate or its talk page, and Florida House of Representatives or its talk page. As far as I can tell, FormalDude is completely uninvolved with respect to Floridian politics.
  However, editors here are saying that FormalDude is involved, because of his broader contributions to the American politics content area as a whole. While I understand that involvement is typically considered broadly, are we really wanting to consider it this broadly? I worry that by construing it so broadly as to consider any/all edits elsewhere in the topic area, that experienced closers with background knowledge of the topic but who have not directly edited the article or closely related ones will be unable to close discussions such as the RfC we're discussing. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  "I worry that by construing it so broadly as to consider any/all edits elsewhere in the topic area, that experienced closers with background knowledge of the topic but who have not directly edited the article or closely related ones will be unable to close discussions such as the RfC we're discussing."

  I find this concern a bit exaggerated. I think it's reasonable that editors shouldn't be precluded from closing a discussion solely because they've made any edits on the topic at hand, but having a history of edits that consistently suggest a bias relevant to the topic does put into question their ability to make a fair judgement. Oktayey (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  Nothing improper about an involved user commenting. I did so myself. Cheers. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse (uninvolved), largely per Sideswipe. This discussion involved two contentious topic areas; US Politics and Gender and Sexuality. Editing within these broad topic areas doesn't make an editor involved in specific disputes, and no evidence has been provided that FormalDude has edited in relation to this specific dispute. BilledMammal (talk) 02:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
• overturn. there is no consensus. close it as no consensus. lettherebedarklight晚安 13:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse Non-admins are allowed to close discussions and there is no evidence that the closer is involved. Moving to the close itself, the count of 10-10 in the survey section is correct, but there were other contributors in the discussion section who expressed support for option A/the status quo. Additionally, it is clear that this close may not be the final word on the wording. A no consensus close and a close in support of option A keeps the existing wording ("commonly referred to"). The only difference in effect of the close is that, in general, editors are advised not to reopen a settled close for a longer period of time than a "no consensus" close. Finally, we will likely see more sources talk about the effects and impacts of the legislation for a while longer and we will have more information about the common name of the legislation. --Enos733 (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn to NC As far as I can see, there is no real difference between NC and choosing option A. Note: being a non-admin isn't relevant here. And I'm not seeing a clear case for being involved. But I don't think that discussion can be said to have found consensus and I don't see an argument that one side had better policy/guideline-based arguments than the other. So NC it probably should have been. But this doesn't really change anything as far as I can tell. Hobit (talk) 00:43, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
• Meh. This is a meritless close review that raises no valid points concerning the close itself other than vague accusations of bias. I simply don't see why someone being left- or right-leaning precludes them from closing a discussion concerning American politics. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 03:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  The OP literally wrote in the opening sentence that the survey was a perfect 10-10 split. Maybe I'm missing something as an outside observer, but it appears patently absurd to claim that this is only about bias. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn maybe some of you can see a consensus in that thread, but I do not. There were solid arguments on both sides, and there was no clear numerical advantage. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Urgent Appeal to Reconsider My Account Block on Wikipedia: Unjustly Accused of Sock Puppetry

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

---

Dear Wikipedia administrators,

I am writing to appeal the decision to block my account on Wikipedia, as I have not received any response to my previous request for unblocking. In my previous request, I stated that I have been unfairly connected to Jebli18, a sock puppet account, and I have not engaged in any inappropriate behavior on Wikipedia. Despite providing evidence to support my claim, I have not received any response from the administrators.

As a long-standing member of the Wikipedia community, I have always been dedicated to upholding the platform's guidelines and policies. My contributions have been recognized by the community, and I have received positive feedback from other users. I have contributed to Wikipedia with the utmost good faith, and it is disheartening to see that my account has been blocked based on a false accusation.

I understand that Wikipedia administrators have a responsibility to maintain the platform's integrity and quality, but I firmly believe that my account has been unfairly blocked without sufficient evidence. I respectfully request that my account be unblocked so that I can continue to contribute constructively to the Wikipedia community.

I am committed to following all of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies and contributing in a positive and constructive manner. I believe that my previous contributions demonstrate my commitment to the community and my desire to contribute to the collective knowledge base.

I appreciate your time and consideration in this matter, and I look forward to a prompt response.

Sincerely,

@MoroccanEd

Here is my previous request : MoroccanEd Request 103.117.254.8 (talk) 12:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

You have an open request on your talk page. An admin will review and decide to unblock you there. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

They need more than a local unblock - at this point they're globally locked, and will be unable to log into that account. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

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

Process Question About Gabrielhussein03

I am asking this here because it isn't now about an urgent incident or a chronic, intractable problem, but about the handling of an intractable problem that has now been handled successfully. I would have asked this at the bottom of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Gabrielhussein503_creating_hoaxes, but that thread was properly closed as having been handled by User:Courcelles. By the way, thanks to User:Courcelles for use of the mop to clean up the mess left by a fabricator-vandal. Two editors reported that Gabrielhussein03 was creating hoaxes in draft space. User:KylieTastic reported it on 9 May, and a few editors agreed that something should be done. Then three days elapsed. Then I made a report that was similar to that of KylieTastic on 12 May, and then noted that the vandalism had been continuing for three days. At this point the vandal was blocked and the false drafts were deleted. Is there a particular reason why User:KylieTastic's report was not acted on quickly? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Since I’m tangentially involved, I’ll say this, I watchlist ANI, but rarely read it, so your edit summary making the 2nd report just happened to catch my attention. (The reports were combined while I was looking at the drafts). This was an easy problem to solve, any admin would have pressed the same buttons after three minutes of looking at pages, but I see no evidence any admin acknowledged Kylie’s report, which given how obviously problematic it all was makes me think no admin read it. The top of ANI is usually either resolved requests or big time drama, and this was neither. I wonder if more aggressive manually arching on ANI after these “easy” cases are resolved would help, so the noticeboard wouldn’t be so full of sections that need no further admin intervention. Courcelles (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

AC/DS applicable?

I came across Coerced religious conversion in Pakistan via WP:THQ#Starting an RfC and am wondering whether the article should be subject to WP:AC/DS per Wikipedia:Contentious topics/India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and I don’t see it as particularly debatable. Courcelles (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

It certainly is. And for parts of it (eg, material such as this that I removed pending discussion) WP:ARBBLP would also apply. Abecedare (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at this Abecedare and Courcelles. Should the article's talk page be correspondingly marked as such? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Secretlondon (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Done. Abecedare (talk) 01:09, 14 May 2023 (UTC)