The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
TLDR:Overturn, the outcome of the 2023 RFC is restored - postnominals are not allowed in the lead sentence. A future RFC may of course change this if consensus is demonstrated.
Summary and rationale:
The main argument in favor of overturning was that a "no consensus" outcome should result in the immediate status quo, not some previous status quo, being restored. This plausible argument was supported 2:1 by uninvolved parties, who I weight more heavily than involved, and this ratio determined the outcome. RFC closures can be reviewed, but some participants objected that the normal procedure for reviewing the previous RFC closure (contacting the original closer) was not followed. (This was not widely discussed.)
The main argument in favor of endorsing is that the outcome here was really "consensus to change but not yet agreed on what to" a.k.a. "bartender's close". Among the participants who considered the merits of a bartender close explicitly, some supported it and some opposed it, but there was a lot of hemming and hawing so it seems it was a difficult decision. Most participants did not mention the bartender argument explicitly, and I'm not sure if that's because they thought it didn't make sense, or they were distracted by the status quo weirdness. (But it's not my place to second-guess their judgment, so I didn't.)
A minor argument for sustaining was that "no consensus" for a policy or guideline should imply its removal, in order to reflect that it is no longer being followed in practice (and this is different than the "no consensus" for articles which means the status quo is kept). This was disputed. Another minor argument for sustaining was that the phrasing of the RFC means that it was a do-over of the previous RFC, not a modification of it.
To answer question 2 from S Marshall, there appears to be a lot of objection to and little if any support for the idea that this RFC close should have been based on the premise that a previous RFC was incorrectly closed. I would not read that as a general prohibition against going back and reading previous discussions, but taking into account much beyond policy and the contents of an RFC can be risky. The community acceptance of that may depend on how much they agree with that conclusion or with the consequences of doing so in a specific case.
To answer question 1 from S Marshall, hardly any participants engaged with the general question of whether a slight majority counts as consensus or if a large margin is needed (if I'm understanding your question correctly).
Personal opinions of the closer:
On question 1...you probably know better than I that different closers have different ideas about the threshold for consensus, absent a clear policy directive. I tend to grant narrow majorities a win if it seems making a decision is more important than which option is chosen, so editors aren't stuck flailing and unproductive. Other closers have a higher bar, and that can be a better approach in situations where there's a longstanding rule at stake, a major risk is being taken, the status quo seems safe, or it would be useful to workshop a complicated proposal and try again. Acceptance depends on how agreeable the participants are and how they consider these factors in a given circumstance. The answer is probably more complicated for bartender outcomes. In this case reasonable people came down on both sides of the question, so it's hard to say either answer is wrong.
Having done a few controversial closes recently, I do agree that participants on the losing side will often make spurious complaints about bias, supervoting, and tallying, or just try to re-litigate the RFC. While I support the right to petition for redress of grievances (and sometimes errors happen), maybe it would help raise the quality of appeals if there was a mandatory 24-hour cooling off period before pestering the closer or demanding a review? Some good advice I got from an elected city official is that often people who disagree with a decision just need to feel heard, and listening to their complaints like a therapist rather than as the decision-maker and acknowledging their disappointment can be satisfying enough for people to quietly tolerate an outcome they disagree with. I can't say I have the emotional bandwidth to do that every day, but fortunately no one can hear me swearing at my computer.
Thank you to S Marshall and everyone who closes discussions; you are performing a vital Wikipedia ecosystem function that vastly improves the quality of our content and makes working together possible. I hope you don't have to put up with too much drama and I impatiently await your declarations. Also thank you to everyone who wrote thoughtful comments for this review. -- Beland (talk) 08:38, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reasoning: In 2023, a RfC found consensus to modify MOS:POSTNOM so that post-nominal letters would be disallowed in lead sentences. This year, another RfC was opened ostensibly as a referendum on the previous RfC. The latter is the closure I'm appealing today.
The new RfC was closed by S Marshall as having no consensus to proceed with any of the presented options. I agree on that point. However, S Marshall's close found that 'no consensus' in this case meant that the current consensus is invalidated.
Putting that more simply, the proposal was to change a guideline's status quo wording. It ended in both no consensus and changing the wording.
S Marshall pointed to WP:BARTENDER as their reasoning for closing the RfC in this way, which HouseBlaster has separately questioned, as well as what he saw as a weak consensus in the 2023 RfC.
Well of course I hadn't predecided the issue, no matter what Alanscottwalker thinks. The absolute worst thing about closing the contentious stuff, on Wikipedia, is the constant accusations of misconduct and supervoting as soon as people don't get their way. It's not OK.
Of course, it happens because "I think you're wrong" always fails, but "You're INVOLVED" or "You're in bad faith" sometimes succeeds. We need to find a way to make close reviews better. It's got to be ok to say "Wrong outcome" (which is about the issues) and not ok to say "Wrong closer" (which is ad hominem).
At issue here is the question of whether the rule currently written in the MOS should stand or fall. I noted that the previous discussion close was marginal, and I noted the number of experienced editors who were saying that the rule isn't working for them or is causing more strife than it prevents, and I noted the relatively low level of support for Option 2.
We need to decide whether the community really thinks "No postnominals in the first sentence" is the right rule. If the community doesn't think that, then it shouldn't be the rule.—S MarshallT/C22:53, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[Much later] And here are my two questions for the closer of this close review.
Across all of the discussions we've had, I see a slight and tepid majority for "no postnominals in the first sentence". Significant and quite impassioned dissent from experienced editors exists (reading Peacemaker67's "overturn" as an "endorse", which seems to be a widespread approach among those who've analyzed this debate). I've taken the view that this slight and tepid majority doesn't amount to a consensus, and after all this debate, I still think it doesn't. Was I wrong? Where is the threshold of consensus?
When closing a RfC, is the closer confined to the one debate they've been invited to close, or should they read around and across other related discussions including historical ones to try to understand the community's view as a whole? I'm really bothered by this question because if it's the former, then everything in User:S Marshall/RfC close log about Israel/Palestine, India/Pakistan, and post-1932 US politics is potentially unsafe, so I'd appreciate the clearest and most specific answer you can formulate.
Overturn Having already reviewed the closers talkpage and the RfC, I feel I can stick my oar in now. I agree with the objectors. I also note, that the closes, "our society can convey" gives the appearance of impropriety, as a thumb on the scale of a partisan who already pre-decided the issue. I also think it is improper to use a close to in effect be a review of the prior close. The closer should have brought personal concerns about the prior close to review. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the closers new comment, above: No. SMarshall nothing I wrote is ad hominem. Having endorsed your closes before, I can assure you, I reviewed and commented on your close not you, and this is review of your close, so it invites me to say what I think of it, whether you care, what I think, or not. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:05, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adding, and whatever you don't like about what I said, see the Dan Leonard comment below[2], it is your close that is the problem, because it chose to view it through some kind of "nationalist" cast, which was completely unfair to serious consideration of the participants statements and analysis. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that Mr. Marshall finds that no possible MOS guideline on postnominals can enjoy community support at this juncture and is therefore scrapping it. This devolves the question of what to do about postnominals to local consensus at individual articles. This is gutsy (one might even say bold), not what I would have done, and will probably exacerbate tensions in the short term, but will (one hopes) push editors to agree on something to get it back in the MOS. Honestly, I like it, but I've not yet decided whether I can endorse it. —Compassionate727(T·C)23:03, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the quashing of the previous RfC - I became aware of the close last night, when I saw a string of edits citing MOS:POSTNOM in the edit summaries and so I went to read the RFC to see what happened. My view is that the close overstepped the mark when WP:DETCON to determine that no consensus in that discussion overturned consensus in a previous discussion. TarnishedPathtalk23:11, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - A finding of no consensus in a new RfC means the status quo ante bellum is maintained. It does not mean that a previous RfC's consensus is overturned or invalidated; to do that you'd need a new consensus, which a finding of no consensus is, explictly in its very definition, not. - The BushrangerOne ping only00:53, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A bartender argument is theoretically fine: if there's explicitly a consensus against the existence of WP:POSTNOM, even if no agreement on what should replace it, then it's within closer's discretion to say that section of the guideline is vacated as not having community support. IMO that'd be the correct close. I don't know whether that applies to the discussion.Respectfully, IMO SM's closes are long but the bulk of them is a summary of what the RfC question was, what policies are relevant to consensus-decision-making on Wikipedia, etc. It makes closes accessible to non-Wikipedians, but there tends to be little detail on how the consensus determination was actually made (which is typically only about two sentences of the multi-paragraph close). So it's hard for me to assess, just reading the close, how SM came to the determination he did. I presume by default that he saw all arguments as equally valid, and that option 1+3+4+5 editors collectively had a consensus. If that's the case, then I'd stay this close is correct and should stand. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hate most close challenges; they have a way of becoming RFC 2.0 with a side of ganging up on the closer. I can recall many vexatious challenges of S Marshall's closes. That is not okay. I am really sad that I find myself on this side of the close review. But in this one instance, overturn the quashing of the previous RfC, keeping the rest of the close intact, per The Bushranger. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)01:39, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The no-consensus close of the most recent RFC seems reasonable enough. That doesn't mean the result of the prior RFC gets quashed; instead the guideline should stay as it was before to the most recent RFC. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 14:35, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The question of whether or not to retain the the existing wording was clearly implicitly on the table. RFC's with more than two choices are problematic unless you also understand and recognize the common themes of the various options and the input on them. IMO the closer did this and the result was to not keep the current wording. This is also observed by the bartender essay but the essay itself was not the basis, it merely observes & discusses the logical principle. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:44, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctantly overturn. I do agree with S Marshall on a theoretical level regarding the contentious 'no consensus overwrites previous weak consensus' (to paraphrase), but this isn't how STATUSQUO works (somewhat unfortunately). Ie I agree that previous weak consensus transforming into no consensus should result in no consensus (as SM described); but this isn't how our policies work, and that would be another discussion to amend STATUSQUO, rather than this close setting a precedent to do so. Had SM elaborated on the consensus to no longer maintain the status quo, per BARTENDER and as ProcrastinatingReader describes, then I would instead likely endorse. But this did not occur, not in the close nor on the talk page (as far as I understood). Therefore I am unable to endorse for that reason alone, but it's a very close call. I otherwise entirely reject accusations of a super vote or otherwise, this close was clearly in good faith with good rationale, but has slightly strayed from policy being the only issue I see. Overall I find SM's closes well structured and complete, have learnt a lot from them, and has inspired me make closes myself. So to !vote overturn here is very much based on putting my positive biases towards the closer aside, similar to others it appears, and I hope this won't discourage them from further closes. CNC (talk) 11:47, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OverturnWP:BARTENDER closes are for when there is a strong majority in favour of making a change, but no consensus on precisely what that change should be. They are not for cases such as this, where there seems to be a large number with a stronger argument based on WP:PAGs arguing for no change, and an overall numerical majority arguing for some change. This didn't come through in the close, because it doesn't appear that the closer analysed the strength of arguments at all. I applaud that the closer had the guts to attempt such a BARTENDER close, but in my judgement, in this situation, a no consensus decision must retain the status quo ante bellum. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. If we were talking about an article, then the overturns would be correct; the result of a no-consensus outcome in an article is to retain the previous wording. But I believe PAG pages are different. A PAG page isn't an encyclopedia entry, it's a summary of the community's consensus on a topic. When there is no consensus, a PAG should say nothing. Therefore, I've always been of the opinion that a lack of consensus in an RFC on a PAG page should result in removal, unlike on an article - the MOS requires active consensus. The alternative would cause chaos. What happens when someone attempts to implement this recommendation on a talk page where it has not previously been implemented, and another editor objects? The discussion will likely reach no consensus (since there is, in fact, no consensus supporting that entry in the MOS), and their attempt to implement it will fail, leading to inconsistency, frustration, and conflict between people who believe they have a consensus to continue implementing this in articles and people who oppose them and can clearly demonstrate over and over that they don't. For articles, our primary concern after a no-consensus RFC is stability, leading to WP:QUO; but PAGs are different - for the encyclopedia to run smoothly, they need to reflect actual consensus and practice. --Aquillion (talk) 13:28, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. This reminds me of WP:NOCON for BLPs which goes against QUO. Ideally this should formally include PAG pages based on the same logic that if it is controversial, it shouldn't be included without consensus. CNC (talk) 13:45, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, this is a valid interpretation of how Wikipedia PAGs should work. But this would imply removing MOS:POSTNOM entirely from the MOS, or perhaps stating that there is no consensus on whether they should be included and it should be decided on an article by article basis. The close effectively introduces a guideline which, as you say, does not have firm consensus. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)19:18, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's the exact opposite of what it does. It deletes a guideline that does not have firm consensus, and replaces it with no guideline.—S MarshallT/C21:27, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1—that they may be included—has no consensus. The forced-compromise guideline says they can be included if they are used by the subject, which was found to have no consensus in two RfCs. Being silent would entail removing that from the guideline (which would be silly IMO, but being silly is not a reason to supervote). HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)23:10, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The way this RfC was framed invited the review of the prior RfC by asking whether the language should be overturned, maintained or revised. As there was no consensus there was also no consensus to maintain the text in its initial form. I will note that, had I participated in the RfC, I likely would have !voted to maintain the text as-is since I do think postnominals in the lead sentence do introduce clutter and may have problems with creating arguments from authority on controversial BLPs however I didn't participate and all I can really say is, based on a review of the close, the arguments made in the RfC and the original framing of the RfC, this was a good close, even if I personally disagree with the implications of it. Simonm223 (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The RFC was well attended and although the status quo was presented as an option, it failed to get majority support with 55% of participants supporting options that would weaken the current no-exceptions bar to postnominals in the lead sentence. The overwhelming majority of those supported either a total or near-total repudiation or taking it case by case. Both sides made well-reasoned points, but if we did have to weigh arguments, I think the position that there are never any situations that postnominals can be helpful for readers is a weaker position than one that accepts that some such scenarios exist. In any case, there is still guidance warning against adding lesser postnominals and that concision is a guiding principle. I think the close elides the difference a bit between there being a consensus against the status quo and there being no consensus for a specific replacement. It's within acceptable WP:BARTENDER close territory and it's reasonable to choose an option that did have once have consensus (i.e. the pre-2023 version) instead of unilaterally imposing one that never did. However, the best course of action would be discussions and then a new RFC on what uses have consensus as the close suggested. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions21:59, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn quashing of the 2023 RfC (so in effect, leave the no consensus close intact but with no change to the prior status quo). My thoughts are largely aligned with the comments made by the nominator of this review, The ed17. The substance of the rfc close was reasonable, in particular the finding of no consensus – given the even split of opinions and an absence of concrete policy/guideline arguments that might cause one or other view to be given more weight. But the conclusion from that no-consensus decision that the 2023 RfC should be overturned is IMHO really a case of adding up 2+2 and concluding the answer is 5. To be absolutely clear, the 2023 RfC was the established view of the community before this RfC and, despite some grumbling, there was never a challenge to it and it has now stood for over two years as established guideline. That's the baseline under which the 2025 RfC operated, and revising the 2023 close by the back door was not and should never have been part of the new RfC's remit. Given the absence of consensus, the only option under longstanding Wiki convention is to maintain the prior status quo, which in this case is to keep postnoms outside of lead sentences. So overall, I think there's a concrete case for overturning. Addressing a few of the issues raised elsewhere in this thread, while I have no doubt that the closer here has acted in good faith, and is an experienced and prolific closer of RfCs, I have to say I find some of their conclusions a little strange. Firstly, they appear to have been unduly swayed by comments in the RfC saying the previous consensus was "overreach" or "poorly thought out". No doubt that's how those participants feel, but that shouldn't give them extra weight in their !votes, and it sends a worrying message that you can get your way in future simply by moaning extra hard about the status quo. And secondly, S Marshall had several times said that the prior RfC was closed incorrectly, calling it "marginal" and declaring without evidence that it "wouldn't have survived close review". That is not only rather insulting to the 2023 closer, but also out of process. If you want a close to be reviewed then review it, don't end-around it by WP:SUPERVOTEing a close on a subsequent RfC. As before, this is a comment about the close, not the closer, so I hope it won't be taken as an ad hominem. Anyway, that's probably about all I need to say on this. Anecdotally, as a British person who watches football and cricket and goes to the pub – sometimes even after work – I can honestly say I don't feel strongly about whether letters are included or not included after someone's name, and I concur with the view expressed below that the average British person, even those educated enough to read or edit Wikipedia, would not be too fussed about the issue of letters after someone's name one way or the other. The "transatlantic dispute" angle seems overblown. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My position is that this is erroneous. My position is that you absolutely can have a RfC to review a RfC. Whether you should depends on how long it's been. If it's been two weeks, then re-running the RfC is likely to be disruptive and you ought to go to close review. But if it's been two years, then holding a close review isn't useful and you ought to run a fresh RfC.—S MarshallT/C14:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The point of an RfC is to come to agreement that enables us to write an encyclopedia. (In fact, the whole point of everything we do outside article space is to enable us to write an encyclopedia.) Sometimes RfCs can't reach that agreement... but they shouldn't make things worse. This took a rule that we could all follow, whether or not we agreed with it, threw it away, and didn't replace it with anything. That strictly made the situation worse. There needs to be strong agreement that the current rule is just completely unbearable before we replace it with chaos. There wasn't that here. There was no consensus - fine, in that case the status quo stays. Not: no consensus, therefore the status quo gets thrown away.--GRuban (talk) 13:25, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's completely mistaken. When you delete a rule that doesn't have consensus, the outcome isn't "chaos". It's the regular Wikipedian way of working. Discuss. Use the talk page. Check what the sources say. Reason it out. Reach consensus on a case-by-case basis. This is not making the situation worse. It is in fact an improvement over an overreaching rule that, quite honestly, never had consensus in the first place.—S MarshallT/C21:54, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@S Marshall: I wasn't aware you thought POSTNOM was an "overreaching rule". That's an opinion that would have been usefully contributed to the RfC. When it comes from a RfC closer, it does bring an appearance of supervoting.
We've already disagreed below on your apparent belief that one RfC's closer can unilaterally overturn a second RfC's closure without an affirmative consensus, so I won't rehash that further. Ed[talk][OMT]22:21, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I formed the view that the rule was overreach, and never really had consensus in the first place, while analyzing the debate to close it. It was not a preconception. I would not have !voted in that discussion. I do believe that an RFC can overturn a previous RFC and I don't think that's controversial. Just as a "keep" at AFD doesn't immunize the article from deletion at another AFD two years later, an RFC can overturn a previous one. I'm very confident indeed that this was the right close, Ed.—S MarshallT/C23:27, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a RfC can overturn a previous RfC. I haven't said otherwise. However, the RfC needs to show consensus to overturn it, and per your own close there was no consensus for that option. Ed[talk][OMT]02:33, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right. If every time we discussed an existing rule without getting consensus meant we had to get rid of the rule, we would very quickly lose most or even all of our rules. I'm surprised anyone who has been here longer than a few months thinks otherwise. It's like herding cats around here: Wikipedia editors prize their individuality, I strongly suspect a number of them will disagree with anyone on principle just to prove it. Getting consensus for anything is hard, getting enough consensus to make a rule is very hard, but getting "no consensus" is easy. --GRuban (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was a bit perturbed by the closure implying this was an ENGVAR issue, of Americans not understanding the concept and Commonwealth editors wanting to preserve their national culture. The best arguments expressed in the RfC were not in that style at all: see for instance Celia Homeford's comment comparing the styles of many encyclopedic biographies written in multiple English dialects, or the many arguments based on due weight, original research, and clutter concerns. I actually see very few ENGVAR-related comments at all. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs)22:58, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While a detailed close is appreciated, and any closure would attract scrutiny as it's certainly true that there's dissension in every direction, and some informality & humor is good even in closing statements... I will echo what Dan Leonard said. Disclaimer: I was and am in favor of the 2023 version ("Option 2" in the phrasing). But I don't think the "There's a tension between some (predominantly American) editors, who seem astonished that anyone could possibly make sense of a long string of alphabet soup after someone's name." line in the close comes across well. Nobody is surprised that some people can make sense of such alphabet soup. The question is whether this is a good idea to stick in the lead, the most generally accessible part of an article, and the most laser-focused on relevancy. Per Dan Leonard, there was strong evidence provided that the 2023 version was a good idea judging by usage strictly in Commonwealth countries. Not an AmEng issue, in other words. (Maybe the closure should stand for other reasons, but not this one, IMO.) SnowFire (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not involved in this RfC in question but in another one that User:S Marshall closed and I am not in one hundred percent agreement with his closing statement. Logoshimpo (talk) 01:03, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus means no consensus. You can't find there's no consensus to change the status quo and then revert back to something before the status quo. The close is internally inconsistent. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:17, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ProcrastinatingReader: I might gently point out that options 3 and 4 proposed more restrictive wordings than this close enacted. Even if we ignore that, the closer said nothing about 1+3+4+5 making up a consensus; they instead found "no consensus about what to do" (their words). Ed[talk][OMT] 02:25 and 6:01, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
Endorse The 2025 RfC clearly showed that the community was divided and did not support any one option including maintaining the previous guideline from the 2023 RfC. In that context, I think it was reasonable for the closer to conclude that the earlier consensus no longer stood and overturning the closure decision effectively reinstates a version that no longer enjoys broad support. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 06:26, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The current close effectively reinstates a version which no longer has broad support. Therefore, by Wikipedia convention, we go to the status quo, which in this case was no post nominal in the first sentence. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)01:00, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the 2023 RfC was contentious from the outset and its outcome was repeatedly challenged, I’d argue the appropriate status quo is the version prior to that RfC. The 2025 RfC showed no clear consensus for any new direction, and while it didn’t explicitly reaffirm the earlier version, it also didn’t endorse the 2023 guideline as a lasting consensus. In such cases, Wikipedia convention leans towards the last stable version with broad acceptance, which would be the pre-2023 wording. Therefore, I believe reinstating that version aligns more closely with both policy and precedent. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 01:25, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Repeatedly challenged" is a stretch. Certainly there was expressed unhappiness from some folks who fell on the opposite side of the well-attended 2023 consensus—that happens when people's opinions are strong, divided, and numerous. And yet no one ever filed a formal AN appeal (even when invited to), and no one kicked off a new RfC for two full years. Ed[talk][OMT]02:26, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But it was hardly a resounding consensus in the first place, was it. That was a marginal call that wouldn't have survived close review, and in closing this new discussion, I took note of the experienced editors who called it "overreach" or who said it was causing problems. The community doesn't love the status quo and it isn't working for us. In those circumstances restoring the status quo isn't the best idea.—S MarshallT/C07:20, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
S Marshall: It's not up to you to decide that it wouldn't have survived close review. When closing a discussion, your job is not to place yourself above the participants but rather to summarize the consensus that they formed –– and if you think a prior close was done poorly, to follow the guidelines for overturning it. If you felt strongly that the status quo ... isn't working for us and that restoring the status quo isn't the best idea, what you should have done was !vote in the discussion and let someone else, someone capable of summarizing rather than deciding, perform the close. Generalrelative (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's up to me. That follows inevitably and necessarily from the process.When you close a discussion, you're assessing the community consensus. That means reading the whole matter under discussion including any previous RfCs referred to. And particularly so when the purpose of a discussion is to confirm or refute a previous consensus. When closing, you have to weigh how strong that previous consensus is.Whether that previous discussion was accurately closed or not, it was a pretty marginal call. That's a material fact that a responsible closer of this discussion would absolutely take account of.—S MarshallT/C15:42, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your remit as the closer of a 2025 RfC is to determine that RfC's consensus. In the absence of a consensus, there is no leeway given for unilaterally overturning a consensus found in a 2023 RfC. Challenging a RfC closure is done at AN so multiple people can weigh in. You, or literally anyone else, could have filed such a challenge in a couple minutes (just like I've done here with your close), but no one ever has despite the repeated claims of a weak consensus. In a situation like this, our standard practice is to stick with the status quo until a new path forward is agreed upon, and that status quo is the 2023 RfC. Ed[talk][OMT]16:09, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't! That's completely wrong and in fact if it was true, it would undermine your whole complaint here.When you're closing you're not confined to that one discussion at all, and in fact you need to have a clear grounding in community consensus more broadly. You have to identify all the relevant policies and guidelines, and apply them correctly. You have to understand community custom and practice. Your complaint specifically, Ed, is that you think I didn't follow custom and practice. So, yes, I absolutely do read and reflect on community consensus, and that absolutely does include the previous discussions that are specifically flagged up to the closer.I didn't file and wouldn't have filed a close challenge, because I'm disinterested and uninterested in any of this. I don't write or watchlist articles about the kind of person who has nonacademic letters after their name. But I'll look you in the eye and tell you that previous close was a marginal call.—S MarshallT/C17:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, you're putting words in my mouth that I didn't say. Let me try to be more specific: you found that there was no consensus for options 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, as well as no consensus on any path forward. You then personally decided that the path forward will be option 1, overruling a previous consensus/status quo in the process, because you personally view the never-challenged determination of that consensus as "marginal". That's the problem. Ed[talk][OMT]18:13, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While it’s true no formal AN appeal was filed, there were repeated challenges to the 2023 outcome, both on talk pages and via continued objections from experienced editors on MOS over the two-year period. The absence of a formal process doesn’t erase the consistent pushback that clearly signalled ongoing dissatisfaction. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 21:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Unsurprisingly, I see no issues with the close and S Marshall's comprehensive and well-throught-out explanation of it and I entirely agree with Nford24's comment above. I also need to reiterate my big worry, which is that editors have been citing MOS:POSTNOM (as it stood since the previous RfC) to remove postnoms from the lead when there is no infobox. They are therefore deleting information in the name of dogma, which we should never, ever do. I do realise that many Americans don't understand the value we Commonwealth people put on postnoms, but to us it is extremely useful to see an individual's correct style. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do realise that many Americans don't understand the value we Commonwealth people put on postnoms, but to us it is extremely useful to see an individual's correct style. I highly doubt the average British person who goes to the pub after work to watch some cricket or football cares about the proper style for The Right Honourable Sir John Doe DM FFS BS, or could tell you what their post-nominals mean. I also don't think anyone is seeking to delet[e] information in the name of dogma. I just think we should remove long strings of inscrutable letters that only a very small group of people (with an oddly large number of them on Wikipedia) actually care about. That's a matter of style, readability, and how we convey information, not dogma. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:54, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I think this belies a major flaw in the RFC to begin with: it didn't emphasize the use–mention distinction aspect of this. While it might be useful sometimes to be able to find how someone styles themselves and/or read about the notable honors they received, using that style in wikivoice in the lead is altogether different. The RFC question really didn't go into this at all and just emphasized "LEAD SENTENCE" and infoboxes. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs)02:05, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To side fork your questioning that you don't think anyone is seeking to delet[e] information in the name of dogma- That concern has been raised and discussed elsewhere: By the very user you were replying to (and another experienced editor) here and by two users, including the originator of the 2023 RfC here (search for the bit referencing "gnomes"). ~~ Gecko G (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I highly doubt the average British person who goes to the pub after work to watch some cricket or football gives a monkeys about anything we do on Wikipedia! Not really much of an argument. And certainly not an argument to remove information. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:37, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the closure: there was no consensus for change across the two RfCs, so a return to the previous position is justified. PamD17:08, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps calling it a "Bartender close" was inappropriate (first I had ever heard of that), but I otherwise support the close. There was no consensus, just like in the 2023 predecessor (where I maintain that consensus was inappropriately determined). Wiki Editors have been debating the underlying issue periodically since at least 2008 (the earliest reference I found). The closest to a "Stable Status-Quo" was the pre 2023 version. The controversial 2 year version shouldn't somehow become fait-accompli just because I personally was offline and didn't have time (then or now) to figure out the intricacies of Wikipedia procedures. Gecko G (talk) 11:15, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse — (hesitantly) — allow me to preface by stating that I was the RfC initiator, and I also supported some version of permitting post-nominals in the lead. I believe I supported a total reversal, though in-hindsight, I think a restrictive policy (only permitting 1-3 post-nominal combinations, and consensus should be achieved on a per-article basis if there is any issue... I would also endorse only permitting it on articles of subjects' whose nationality places a strong emphasis on such letters; For the record, I am an American). Regardless, I feel that S Marshall was placed in a precarious and difficult position. I think it's obvious from the RfC(s) that the community is not currently happy with the total exclusion (from the lead) policy and I would hardly call support for such a policy broad. That said, I understand opposers' concerns with this closure. However, I would also take-issue with the reading of the prior RfC (though not necessarily with its closure). This was a relatively long RfC and I believe S Marshall did a fantastic and deep analysis of all of the concerns, and thoroughly explained their position. Given the relatively unique nature of this situation, it's relatively wide-reaching consequences (either way), and the amount of participation, I feel that the closure should be endorsed, and further refinements to the policy should take place via RfC.MWFwiki (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm reading your comment correctly, I think you may want to "endorse" the closure, then. The closer did indeed reverse the "ban." I apologize if I misread your comment. MWFwiki (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that assessment of endorse vs. overturn, and I've let Peacemaker know on their talk page. I also moved this to the participants section per their comments in the RfC in question. If anyone has an issue with this (as I obviously started this AN discussion in the first place!), please feel free to revert me. Ed[talk][OMT]04:29, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Good close. There is a cultural disconnect on this point which affects many people's thoughts on this matter and we should be wary of simple vote counting by way of a decision-making process. Given the split nature of the community and the lack of consensus on the matter over two RfCs, basing a decision on the initial status quo seems to be the right call. - SchroCat (talk) 06:42, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the quashing of the previous RfC. This 2025 RfC wasn't about the 2023 one; if the consensus of that 2023 RfC was "inappropriately determined", then whoever disagreed with it should've started a closure review, well, two years ago. Also WP:BARTENDER (first time I've heard of this essay) is just that, an essay that has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some1 (talk) 14:54, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BARTENDER is a long-standing essay that is cited with some regularity in deletion discussions. I've never seen it cited in an RfC to support the overturning of an old RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:03, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How can you argue that This 2025 RfC wasn't about the 2023 one? Option 1 overturned the 2023 RfC (...Reversal of the Exclusion), Option 2 maintained it, Option 4 effectively overturned it but with the added emphasizing of the limits which were already in the pre-2023 version, Option 5 effectively would of overturned it as well but via deleting all mention whatsoever from the MOS (Option 3 was the only new, unconnected option).
Your own post in the set-up/background of this RfC asked to ping all the editors involved in the previous one, and in one of the intervening discussions, in response to an editor disagreeing with the 2023 RfC you yourself suggested a new RfC about it.
(I'm ignoring what appears to be a borderline attack on myself because I had RL issues at the time and wasn't online and wasn't able to follow up, and then didn't because I was advised that too much time had passed) Gecko G (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the quashing of the 2023 RfC. The close statement was well-articulated, but the result contradicts it. SM is correct in concluding that there was no consensus on what to do, but that means a return to the status quo that the RfC sought to change. I participated, obviously, so I see the arguments on one side as stronger, but even setting aside any weighting the numbers do not shake out in a manner that allows calling consensus for option 1, which is what SM did, even if they didn't state it that way. In fact a clear majority opposed option 1. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that this is not about the Commonwealth versus the US, or some such notion. At most this is a cultural artefact of the far smaller Commonwealth realm, though far from universal even therein, versus common practice everywhere else. Defending postnominals on organizational and informational grounds is perfectly reasonable, even if I disagree, but claiming this is US cultural imperialism is wide of the mark. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The RfC question was whether to "overturn, maintain, or modify" the POSTNOM language. Concluding "no consensus" but then choosing one of the options to change the language seems contradictory. – notwally (talk) 22:01, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the quashing of the 2023 RfC. The closing summary seems at first like an expression of no consensus, but looks like it was attempting to re-evaluate the previous discussion as well as consider the current one. The closer seems to have decided to throw out the previous closure without showing that there is a current consensus to do so. I have somewhat vacillated over whether this was a not-so-well-expressed correct closure that found a consensus to overturn the previous consensus declaration or an incorrect closure of a 'no consensus' outcome in the new discussion that reached beyond its mandate, but I've settled on the latter interpretation. (I wasn't sure whether to classify myself as "involved" or not; I made a couple of brief clarifying and questioning comments in the discussion, but didn't express a clear position on the matter. Ultimately, I think I should consider myself involved.) — BarrelProof (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the quashing of the 2023 RfC. Option 1 in the RfC was to "overturn the [2023] guideline", which is how the RfC has been closed despite everyone (including the closer) agreeing that there was no consensus in the 2025 RfC. Option 1 has been imposed through sophistry and what looks like a supervote. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:34, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, at least weakly. I've been hesitant to weigh in on this, but there have been a number of claims above that the outcome of the 2023 RFC represents the "status quo", and I have to politely disagree. I have created and edited quite a few articles on the stratum of British gentry who tend to be entitled to a postnominal or two and the bulk of these articles still conform to the pre-2023 standard. I have seen a few removals of postnoms (I think by 10mmsocket) but by and large a new editor creating a new article based on existing practice would be likely to include them. The result of the 2023 RFC is much closer to a failed attempt at prescription than it is a description of our practices. While I can understand why this close is controversial, I do think that "no consensus" more accurately captures the status quo of our articles, if not of our process. (Frankly, I am not convinced that the initiator of the 2023 RFC had a good grasp of the scope of the articles that would be affected.) Choess (talk) 03:56, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure about where I'd fit regarding participation so I'm putting my views on the matter in this section until told where they'd be best placed. Just thought I'd drop by and (since I'm semi-retired) let it be known I'm open to clarify any aspect of my 2023 closure if and where pinged — with the note that it's been two years so my memory might be vague. — ♠ Ixtal( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 16:43, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I heavily disagree that my closure was in any way "marginal". If I had thought that at the time, I would have included wording to signify the close nature of the arguments. My view of the discussion at the time, from what I gather based on both my closure wording and consequent discussions on my talk page, is that those supporting the use of post-noms in the lead sentence failed to provide strong counter-arguments to the points raised by those advocating for their removal. I did mention that the 2023 proposal divided the community, but as I clarified on my talk page that was (to my eyes) just a numeric division, not one of guideline-based strength of argument. If the latter was the case, I would have said there was weak consensus and not just consensus. — ♠ Ixtal( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 16:59, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate some further clarification on why finding no consensus results in de facto finding consensus for option 1 rather than keeping the status quo, S Marshall. I think that's where me and some others are a bit confused regarding your closure, particularly since WP:BARTENDER refers to situations where there is a clear consensus to make a change from the status quo but you do not mention finding "clear consensus against option 2". — ♠ Ixtal( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 17:39, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of WP:BARTENDER, I see nothing wrong with its application here. There are very clearly substantially more participants in the discussion favoring options other than option 2 than there are favoring option 2. BD2412T22:19, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the sheer quantity of criticism.
SMcCandlish: The exclusion was basically well-meaning but very poorly thought-out and has led to problems and strife...
MWFwiki: Total expungement from the lead [sentence] is not appropriate and is overreach...
Nford24: The previous RFC was a massive over reach...'
Peacemaker67: The existing MOS on this is a significant overreach.
Schwede66: I had missed the previous RfC and was quite aghast when I saw what had been decided...
SchroCat: I missed the original RfC and was horrified to find out about it too late.
I'm an extremely prolific RfC closer, and please take it from me that this kind of comment, in this kind of numbers, is not normal in RfCs. It's diagnostic of a rule that experienced editors are having a lot of trouble with.
At that time, Ed was trying to enact a change of rules, and he got it through because you directed yourself that it was for the opposers to provide "strong counterarguments" to the rule he was trying to pass, or else it should pass.—S MarshallT/C17:54, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
S Marshall, what is the context of these comments? Are they from the 2025 RFC or elsewhere? Thanks for the quick reply btw, hope you're having a nice summer all things considered ^u^ — ♠ Ixtal( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 18:02, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't mind me replying to my own comment, I'm confused as to what the issue is with my approach to the proposal. Ed and other supporters of his proposals provided meaningful arguments based on the PAGs that backed his suggested MOS changes, while the PAG-based arguments opposers countered with were not strong enough to balance them. Cultural tradition or whether one nation uses post-nominals prolifically and others do not are not PAG-based arguments, which is why I discounted the American-British cultural divide-based arguments entirely. I imagine, based on the votes from the editors cited in your comment mentioning the Commonwealth, that this is one of the factors in my closure these editors felt was overreaching. I didn't direct myself to anything other than closing based on how I saw the consensus in the discussion based on the balance of arguments. Is there another alternative approach to the closure I should have taken that is rooted in our closing guidelines that I overlooked? — ♠ Ixtal( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 18:49, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Calling it an overreach is an incorrect reading of the RFC I closed, by the way, if they feel me determining expungement from the lead sentence is an overreach when the RFC explicitly mentions the lead sentence and uses MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE as the reasoning for why the proposed change (of indeed, expunging the postnoms from the lead sentence) was necessary. — ♠ Ixtal( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 18:52, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A small note on the above, Ixtal—I haven't checked the full statements, but as quoted here they are unhappy with the consensus of that 2023 RfC. That's fine; we've all grumbled at one time or another when consensus hasn't gone our way. But these quotes do not assert that your 2023 close was a "marginal" or an incorrect reading of that RfC, as S Marshall is alleging. Ed[talk][OMT]18:58, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was hardly trying to imply the closure was improper. I suppose I could see how one might read that, but instead of simply asserting that is what I meant, perhaps one could ask for clarification. That being said, I do understand why the previous RfC was overturned and would hesitantly support it. MWFwiki (talk) 19:46, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the argument in that one specific component (namely ENGVAR arguments) perhaps wasn't "PAG" based, but I disagree that the rest of the oppose arguments & counterarguments from back then weren't (part of what I was trying to get more info from you in-order to understand your viewpoint with my "strength of arguments" mention in point #2 way back in our 2023 discussion on your talk page)- but that's a 2 year old debate, this is not the time nor place for that particular discussion.
Because the community never sorted out "the can of worms" (which me and Ed, opposing sides both agreeing needing to be done, back in 2023 on your talk page) in the intervening years it led to repeatedly being challenged or decried and finally to a new RfC in 2025, which was unfortunately multi-option and confusing (in small part due to changes to the MoS between the 2023 RfC & the 2025 one). It is the closure of the 2025 RfC by S Marshall which is being RfC closure review'd here and now by Ed (What I would of done with your closure in 2023 had I been online at the time). Speaking for myself, and I think many here, I find that both yourself and S Marshall both acted in complete good faith and I commend you both for willingly stepping into such a long and potentially heated discussions, however you both made some errors. I still believe you didn't WP:DETCON correctly and it seems that S Marshall either directly or indirectly agreed about the DETCON in 2023, but as a technicality perhaps S Marshall shouldn't of labeled it a "Bartender close".
Wikipedia has been arguing the underlying merits of POSTNOMs and when, how, where, and even if, to include them, since at least 2008- but now we really seem to be drifting close into badgering with policy and procedure minutiae and rules lawyering... Cheers. Gecko G (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the decision to entirely discount arguments based on the American-British cultural divide is a key reason this issue has remained contentious for over two years. Style and naming conventions are inherently tied to cultural context, and excluding those perspectives may have unintentionally introduced systemic bias into the outcome. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 20:56, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The dismissal of the cultural divide on this is exactly why there is still a problem here, and with this close. The burgeoning policing of minutiae and US-centric policy creep is driving experienced editors to distraction. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:40, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Peacemaker67, I dismissed the cultural divide in my closure because this is a global encyclopedia and our readership is meant to be all English speakers regardless of culture. The MOS guides us to write articles using straightforward, succinct, and easily understood language. Editors should structure articles with consistent, reader-friendly layouts and formatting [...] (from WP:MOS). The lead sentence, which should be written in Plain English (from MOS:FIRST) is meant to be understood by this global readership, whether it be a British well-educated reader or a villager from Peru or a young girl from Nairobi. The editors in the discussion failed to show why the supposed cultural importance of post-nominals within the UK was, in this context, encyclopedically essential to [telling] the nonspecialist readerwhat or who the subject is (from MOS:FIRST). This was pointed out by editors in the discussion who supported the proposal.
Slight aside- I don't believe the "Plain English" mention in MOS:FIRST was brought up at all back in the 2023 RfC (and I don't find anything using a couple of different search variations). It only got brought up for the first time with this 2025 RfC. So I suspect the recency of reading about it here has colored your memory of back then (very easy to have happened - something similar happened to me trying to recall back to "what was the point of the 2023 RfC? - removing postnomials entirely or only about removing it from the lead/lead sentence"?). Gecko G (talk) 02:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS did, but that point was never brought into the 2023 discussion, nor did you mention it in your closing summation as any sort of additional/outside "PAG" being applied at the time. When it came up in the 2025 discussion I mentally noted that it was a potentially valid minor counterpoint from the other side (albeit tangential/weak). Gecko G (talk) 01:47, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gecko G: I think(?) you've missed that MOS:FIRST and WP:LEADSENTENCE go to the same place. Ixtal used the latter shortcut in their close. And multiple people in the 2023 RfC commented on how post-nominals complexify lead sentences, even if they didn't use the exact phrase "plain English". Ed[talk][OMT]02:56, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A) I didn't realize they were the same, however B) Ixtal linked that in reference to the ENGVAR component, not in reference to any "clarity" component(s) (and as an aside to the aside, a quick ctr-F doesn't find either "complex" nor "plain English" anywhere in there, so neither term was used). But we are not supposed to be rehashing (or "relitigating" as you phrased it) the underlying arguments here, here we are supposed to be discussing if the closure was or wasn't proper. I went to lengths to stay out of the merits in the 2025 discussion (beyond my lone !Vote post) unlike the 2023 one which I was heavily involved in. In the 2025 one I limited myself to attempting to clarify what precisely the previous RfC was about to get us all on the same topic. Gecko G (talk) 06:45, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Gecko G, but ctrl+F doesn't find phrases like "an incomprehensible jumble of letters". Nor, evidently, does it find where Ixtal referenced WP:LEADSENTENCE a second time in their close. But you're right that we aren't relitigating the 2023 consensus in this discussion, which is why I was so surprised to see S Marshall unilaterally overturning it without a consensus for that action. Ed[talk][OMT]06:56, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A) That phrase, and "Incomprehensibility" ≠ complexity (maybe borderline connected to "plain english", but even that's a stretch to then use that tenuous connection to retroactively argue that the editor in question° was arguing in the 2023 RfC about "plain english") so I fail to understand what you are arguing nor why, and B) That second pipped reference by Ixtal was in respect to the clutter component, so still not in reference to "plain english" nor "Complexity".
°= and to preempt something else, that same editors elsewhere linking to LEADSENTENCE was in a separate side component arguing about narrow/specific "PAG" vs. Broad/high-level PAGs, so was also not about "Complexity" nor "Plain English". Gecko G (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gecko G, I do appreciate you trying to clarify the 2023 RFC and agree on not relitigating it. I am trying to limit my comments on this thread on replying to points where opinions on the 2025 are given based on the editor's thoughts on the 2023 close if I feel they are misunderstanding or representing the wording in that closure. I think this discussion is harder for the fact that it is challenging not to rehash issues from the 2023 closure that were never formally reviewed even if it needed to have been (to improve the wording, since it staying as status quo for over two years suggests community endorsment of its result) when a core aspect of S Marshall's reasoning in his closure relies on interpreting the 2023 closure as inadequate and as having a guaranteed overturning. — ♠ Ixtal( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 13:45, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I was considering adding the template, but got concerned before I did so that I might not have been properly thinking of a possible reason not to use it. (Also, it seems bump might be better for this, which I hadn't considered.) --Super Goku V (talk) 10:57, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AFD is in need of more participation. In recent weeks the number of discussions that have languished for lack of attention from !voters is considerably larger than usual in my experience as an AfD closer. Indicators of this include the number of discussions admins have allowed to remain in the "old" section in the hopes of attracting !voters; the number of discussions in which regular closers have chosen to participate instead of closing; and the proportion of discussions being relisted. I have theories as to why this is happening, but those are besides the point: the solution is clearly more engagement. I imagine other regular closers would agree with me. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been spending quite a bit of time in AfD over the last week or two (because I have been participating in the NPP backlog drive), although I'm not usually a regular. I've been struck by the need for more participation too. But also, couldn't the admins and other closers potentially make AfD a little bit more efficient just by taking a slightly more hardline approach?
What I mean is this:
If an article is nominated and nobody comments on the listing, it should always be soft-deleted as though it were an expired PROD (rather than being relisted, as sometimes happens at present: e.g. here, to take a random example).
If an article is nominated and attracts one comment in support and no objections, this consensus of two should usually be treated as consensus for a hard deletion (rather than the item being relisted or soft deleted).
If an article that has previously been tagged for PROD but has had the tag removed, or that has been soft deleted or deleted through PROD and then restored on request, is nominated by someone other than the person who nominated or tagged it before, and if nobody comments on the nomination, this should usually be treated as consensus for a hard deletion (rather than the item being relisted as ineligible for soft deletion), since this situation implies that at least two people have considered the deletion justified and no-one has set out any rationale against it.
If an article is nominated and attracts one comment in support and one in opposition, the closer should give serious consideration to treating this as consensus for deletion (rather than relisting), if on the face of it the arguments against deletion do not seem to have much weight or are not based on policy (as sometimes seems to happen, especially when the opposing editor is the page creator).
If participants in AfD knew that articles would usually be deleted under the circumstances outlined above (albeit not invariably, since of course the closer must still ultimately use their judgement!), this would not only reduce the number of relistings, but would also mean that AfD participants would not feel the need to spend time commenting on proposals that are unlikely to be opposed or that have been looked at by two editors already (as e.g. here, to take a random example), and could instead spend their limited time looking at listings where a rough consensus of two or three editors hasn't been reached yet.
Probably someone will now say that I'm not very experienced at AfD and therefore don't know what I'm talking about. But still, it seems to me that AfD is operating as though maximum participation and consensus were the priority, which would be great if there were loads of participants, but I think perhaps it would be better to consider operating slightly more in the interests of efficiency and saving editors' time, along the above lines. Dionysodorus (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dionysodorus: Thoughtful comments on the process are welcome. I would at least agree that in discussions with low participation, looking at the weight comments should get can sometimes show a consensus where raw numbers might suggest a relist. However, a bare minimum of participation is necessary for the process to be meaningful. I usually require participation from three editors to find a consensus for anything. Expanding the soft deletion process as you propose may be a way around that. It would require a community consensus to implement, but you could propose such an implementation. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that a policy change ought necessarily to be needed for closers to treat unopposed nominations as soft deletes, since an unopposed nomination meets exactly the same threshold as a successful PROD (which is in itself nothing more than an unopposed tagging): indeed closers sometimes do this already, just not consistently (e.g. here and here). And is there actually anything in existing policy to prevent closers treating 2 vs 0 or 2 vs 1 as a consensus in cases where the prima facie case for deletion is strong and arguments against deletion are not expressed or transparently weak? I think that would be entirely in the spirit of WP:CLOSEAFD and WP:NHC.
So all I really meant to suggest was that you closers could be a bit bolder in closing discussions, not necessarily that we need a policy change. If you think there's any merit in what I'm saying, perhaps the ideal starting point would be for you closers to discuss it relatively informally (which could then either lead to an informal change of approach or to the proposing of more formal guidelines to the community), rather than me trying to create policy saying that you should proceed in a certain way, especially if such a change of policy might not be needed to do some of this. (If it would be useful, we could even ping the regular closers and have such a discussion here.) Dionysodorus (talk) 07:23, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that if people are closing 'no participation' AfDs (after one or two relists, natch) as 'no consensus' then that is arguably inappropriate. There is absolutely no need to change any policy to close an undiscussed, uncontested AfD as a softdelete. Just relist it twice, and if nobody discusses it, hit 'close'. - The BushrangerOne ping only22:27, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But what I'm saying is that uncontested nominations should always be closed as soft delete after one week without any relisting (as only occasionally seems to happen at present). When an article is PRODded it gets deleted after a week without delay, so there's no reason why uncontested AfD nominations shouldn't be soft-deleted after a week too. In my view, the unnecessary relisting of nominations should be avoided, because commenting on these unnecessary relistings takes up the limited time of the relatively small number of AfD participants and distracts them from commenting on cases that actually require discussion, which in turn contributes to the problem that Vanamonde raised at the start of the thread. Dionysodorus (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to agree. If you look at the various processes we need more folks to help, marginal notable articles are not the most essential part of Wikipedia. More soft deletes will lead to a higher share of 'mistakes', but they're easily reversible. Editor time is precious. That seems to be in line with current policy, where closers have this discretion: WP:NOQUORUM: Closing an unopposed XfD nomination under this procedure does not require the discussion to have been relisted any particular number of times.—Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:22, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At it happens I disagree with this. @Dionysodorus and Femke: There's a considerable potential distinction between soft deletion and regular AfD deletion: the former is reversible by any editor requesting it in good faith, whereas the latter mandates at the very least recreation that is substantially different from the deleted version, and in practice usually requires additional sourcing in order to not face the same outcome at AfD. We softdelete articles after an AfD with no participation because it is functionally equal to a PROD. An AfD with 2 or 3 editors opining "delete" has received additional scrutiny from 1 or 2 editors, and a SOFTDELETE closure negates their participation. That said, that's a theoretical problem. If someone could show that SOFTDELETEd topics are not subject to recreation significantly often - or no more than regular AfD outcomes - that would negate the issue, and if we had such data I imagine adjusting our practice much more palatable. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If things are working as intended, there should be a higher recreation rate for softdeleted articles. The more interesting question is to look at the rates of recreation in either category, and estimate the amount of editor time saved / spent if we were to change practice here. I should probably start a list of 'research questions' for Wikipedia.
It seems like there is almost one request at WP:REFUND a day to restore a soft deleted article. No idea how many articles get soft deleted daily and what the time commitment is at REFUND. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:25, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
re: "If things are working as intended, there should be a higher recreation rate for softdeleted articles", that's precisely why expanding the scope of soft deletion to include topics that editors besides the nominator have declared to be non-notable is potentially a problem. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may have slightly misunderstood what I am suggesting, Vanamonde93. My problem is with the fact that at present nominations that attract no participation commonly aren't being soft deleted after a week (as the equivalence with PRODs would suggest, and as your comment at 18:47 seems to suggest you agree they should be), but rather are being relisted. I'm not saying that soft deletion should be expanded to cover anything that is currently hard deleted: on the contrary, I suggested in my initial comment above that nominations that attract even only one supporting !vote (which tend to get soft deleted at present) should be hard deleted. Dionysodorus (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dionysodorus: I don't believe I misunderstood: I focused on your idea of expanding SOFTDELETE because that felt like a substantive proposal, whereas AFAIK we do regularly handle nominations with no participation as we should. I know I do. Are you aware of a considerable volume of SOFTDELETE-eligible articles that aren't being so deleted? Remember that PRODs and previous AfDs preclude soft deletion. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: But I didn't propose any expansion of soft deletion in the first place, except inasmuch as I suggested that any nominations with no participation should be soft deleted rather than relisted (as I think does sometimes happen: I cited this example above, but I'll have a look for others).
Apart from that, all my suggestions were about reducing relisting in favour of hard deletion: that is to say, I think that nominations that result in 2 vs. 0, 2 vs. 1 where the opposing arguments are obviously weak, or even unopposed nominations that are ineligible for soft deletion because they have been soft deleted or PRODded before, should all be hard deleted after a week without relisting (not soft deleted!). Dionysodorus (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. @Vanamonde93: In today's log so far, there are three relistings of nominations with no participation:
None of these articles appears to have been previously soft-deleted or PRODded. I think perhaps you would be able to get the same result by looking at the log for most other days. Dionysodorus (talk) 21:33, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am one of the admins who generally relists AFDs with no participation rather than soft deleting the article. I do that for two reasons, one more philosophical and one more practical. The more philosophical one is that policy ordinarily requires a consensus to delete an article and while it's true that policy also recognises PRODs and soft deletions – which are exceptions to that rule –, I find it more in keeping with the spirit of the deletion policy to relist a discussion with no participation, in hopes of attracting more attention to it, so that a consensus can form – which does indeed happen, such as here. After all, we are deleting someone's work, I think it only fair to have a full discussion before doing it, unless there is something in the article requiring urgent attention. The more practical reason is that soft deletion can end up creating more work. Anyone can contest it at any time and, then, the article has to be recreated and, if truly unnotable, has to be nominated again. So, trying to see if a more thorough discussion can be had now, in my opinion, can save time later. However, if it turns out that the general feeling of the community is that relisting a discussion instead of simply soft deleting it is a waste of resources, I have no problem soft deleting articles. But I'm not sure AN is the best place for this discussion... — Salviogiuliano08:57, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it just has to come down to admin discretion. I have no trouble soft-deleting when the situation calls for it, but sometimes it's not what makes the most sense: for instance, I just finished relisting this one (where the article was brand-new and any soft deletion would very likely be challenged) and this one (where the nominator wanted other viewpoints and had specifically chosen not to use PROD). I don't have an issue with nudging things a little closer to the soft-deletion end of the spectrum, but a bright-line rule wouldn't be a good idea. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that we can't close an AfD as soft delete if the article has previously been PRODed or brought to AfD. WP:NOQUORUM says that "the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgement". It also says that "[c]ommon options include, but are not limited to" relisting, closing as no consensus, "closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal" (e.g., hard deletion), or "soft deleting the article". voorts (talk/contributions) 22:23, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Star Mississippi and I have been talking about a decline in participation in AFDs that we've noticed over the past 2 1/2 years now. I don't think there is just one reason why the decline has happened but I know we have lost a lot of subject matter experts, unfortunately. And I think, this is a guesstimate, that we've lost a lof of inclusionists. It's hard when you tend to argue "Keep" to bust your butt looking all over for sources and the consensus STILL being to delete an article. I think those folks, after a while, just thought that their energy would be better spent elsewhere and left after months of frustration. I do know that it's a whole lot easier to be a deletionist as they usually don't have to provide a justification for their arguments. If you scan down the daily log, it's easy to come across a lot of discussions that are just a straight list of "Delete", "Delete", etc. My own perspective is in the middle, working in AFDLand for five years now has exposed me to a lot of junk articles that have been written over the past 24 years and it's good to clean this clutter out. But I can't help but notice a high burnout ratio for participants who tend towards the "Keep" end of the spectrum.
Looking at the participants has always been my approach when discussing the situation at AFDLand which has been a problem since about 2022-23. I have never thought of approaching this problem by changing our threshold of what qualifies as a Delete, or Soft delete. I disagree with some of the opinions brought up but it's great for us to be having this discussion. LizRead!Talk!01:59, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is all very interesting, and I am grateful to Salvio Giuliano and Liz for explaining their approaches. At the expense of possibly testing everyone's patience, it does occur to me that there are also other more radical ways in which deletion processes could be reformed to reduce the number of listings that required discussion, if low participation were felt to make this desirable (although perhaps the problem isn't so severe as to require this at all).
For instance, what if we got rid of PROD and replaced the two-tier system of PROD and AfD with a two-stage process? It could be the case that all nominations for deletion (except for speedy deletion) took the form of AfD-style listings in a "Preliminary AfD": unopposed nominations, or nominations opposed only on clearly insubstantial grounds, would generally be soft deleted after a week; but any listing that any editor on reasonable grounds opposes (or thinks needs discussing more fully: this could include the nominator) would immediately be moved to regular AfD for fuller discussion; and any listing that the deleting admin doesn't think should be deleted (or thinks requires fuller discussion) could also be moved by them to regular AfD at the end of the week. Also, requests to undelete soft-deleted articles could be reformed in such a way that they would require a reasoned response to the original nomination, and in such a way that the original nomination and the objection would then immediately be posted at regular AfD for discussion, where consensus could then emerge to keep the article permanently or to delete it permanently.
If we had a system like that, uncontroversial listings wouldn't end up in regular AfD at all, and participants there would spend their time looking at actually controversial cases rather than just adding a third, fourth or fifth "delete" !vote to an article on a subject that clearly doesn't satisfy notability. Also, it would become impossible to contest a PROD or to undelete soft-deleted articles without reasoned grounds, which would eliminate the problem that Salvio Giuliano mentioned of people reviving articles that have been just deleted and thereby necessitating a whole new nomination: everything would be streamlined, because the discussion would always be kept in one place rather than sometimes being spread across a PROD tag, an undeletion request, and sometimes more than one AfD thread. Obviously anything of this kind would require community consensus in a more suitable venue than AN, and I put forward this suggestion simply for the sake of throwing ideas around and in case anyone finds it interesting.
I do agree with Extraordinary Writ that it is essential that any approach should allow for the closer to use their discretion: when I said "always", I should have said "always except if there is a good reason why not". I also kind of agree with Salvio Giuliano, in that ideally everything should be discussed in detail and on the basis of consensus: but nothing I'm suggesting would prevent even a single reasonable objection from prompting a fuller discussion. Dionysodorus (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
but any listing that any editor on reasonable grounds opposes (or thinks needs discussing more fully: this could include the nominator) would immediately be moved to regular AfD for fuller discussion This would increase the number of AfD discussions. I've made PRODs that have been declined that I didn't bother taking to AfD after because I was satisfied with the dePRODing editors' response. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:27, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, requests to undelete soft-deleted articles could be reformed in such a way that they would require a reasoned response to the original nomination, and in such a way that the original nomination and the objection would then immediately be posted at regular AfD for discussion, where consensus could then emerge to keep the article permanently or to delete it permanently. I'm not opposed to this. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:28, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts: I would have thought the two things (requiring justification for contesting any proposed deletion, and requiring justification for requesting any undeletion) logically ought to go together. Also, I'm sure editors do occasionally PROD an article and then find themselves convinced by the rationale of the person who removes the tag, but surely that can't happen so often as to make a significant difference to the numbers that would end up in AfD? I would have thought any such increase would be more than offset by the fact that many pages currently end up in AfD because a PROD tag has been removed without sufficient justification, whereas on my scheme only pages where the objector can provide a justification would ever end up in AfD.
In any case, the nominator could easily withdraw the nomination if convinced by the objection (as sometimes happens at AfD as it is), and so such cases need not actually take up AfD participants' time to speak of. Dionysodorus (talk) 07:39, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have been participating in AfD in recent weeks, I'm not hugely experienced. But I do see there is a problem here. There are just too many deletes and not enough regular participants. What I'm seeing is one or two deletionist editors getting into a somewhat one-sided debate with a new editor, and the cards get stacked in favour of delete. The danger here is that this process is supposed to give due diligence, and yet that isn't happening, almost the opposite. My vote of sympathy to those who do Closing, it must be dispiriting to see the same nomination on a revolving door. I certainly agree with the point that if you start with an ATD mindset then it can be pretty soul destroying, as Liz has said, and indeed you think "why waste my time on this?" Yes we need more participants, but in the absence of that there is a logical necessity: reduce the number of delete nominations to ensure due diligence actually happens.
Incidentally there is a critical difference between BLP and historical articles. If a BLP gets scrubbed there is a very good chance it will be (correctly) reinstated if GNG eventually comes in place. TOOSOON duly sorts itself out. But deletions on historic items are much. uuch more troubling in my view. The chances are the material will be permanently lost, off the back of changing emphasis on sourcing. ChrysGalley (talk) 09:49, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
New editor here who takes an interest in article winnowing.
I'm not qualified to comment on how admins close AfD's (though, for what it's worth, no objections to encouraging admins to make more use of soft deletes), but I can fully see how AfD could become a deletionist echo chamber. I also unfortunately don't see a way to stop this due to the very nature of the process, where the burden of proof is on Keep !voters. In an ideal world, the burden of proof would be on the editor who creates the article as part of verifiability requirements, because I see the GNG as simply a practical matter of "if no reliable sources discuss this topic, how are you going to write a verifiable article?"
Unfortunately, we don't live in this ideal world, and I don't see any way to fix it apart from superficial fixes, like giving out awards for demonstrating the notability of topics, stuff in the scope of WikiProject Notability. The 'damage' from large amounts of unreferenced articles has been done, and the best course of action might just be to introduce non-systemic changes through a process like this one for the GA backlog to keep AfD useful for as long as possible.JustARandomSquid (talk) 13:03, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have you considered making an attempt to articulate what actually is wrong with the IP edits? It doesn't seem that you've done that either here or at AIV. 128.164.177.55 (talk) 13:59, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I came here to request an independent assessment by an Administrator. I expect you've looked at the examples, given by other editors, in the warning templates they have placed on the IP's Talk page. I would have thought that edits such as this one would be pretty self explanatory. Furthermore, in the meantime, I see that User: Criticize seems to have rolled back the majority of the IP's edits. But if everyone else thinks there is no problem with edits like this, and no further action is required, I don't intend to waste any more of anyone's time on this. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that's a "no" then. Let me suggest that, in the future, if you want someone to do something about a problem, it is helpful if you explain what the problem is instead of expecting people to agree with your unarticulated views. Lots of people know nothing about Jimmy Saville and whether his sexual abuse scandal would merit categories like Category:Royal scandals in the United Kingdom and Category:Margaret Thatcher; two or three sentences of context and explanation would vastly increase the clarity and potential audience of your message. 128.164.177.55 (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I glanced at a few edits — adding Category:Jimmy Savile to articles about shows and events in which he participated — and I'm tempted to agree with the IP's action. The only potential ground for disagreeing with them, in my mind, is whether his involvement were significant enough to warrant the category; it's definitely not a matter of vandalism. Nyttend (talk) 20:12, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't look at those ones; my comment was limited to the ones I glanced at, which were shows and events in which Savile participated. Putting the Thatcher template on the Savile scandal article goes against the idea (sorry, no link; I can't find it) that you shouldn't generally put navboxes on pages that aren't linked by the navbox, but such an edit isn't vandalism if nothing else happens. Nyttend (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the basis of the Admin advice above, I have now removed the level 4 warning for vandalism that I posted to the IP's Talk page. It seems that all of the warnings have had completely no effect anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The user shows no interest in heeding the warnings given to them, has not responded in any way, nor even left any comments in their edit summaries, and is therefore clearly being disruptive. Xexerss (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have concerns over this recent edit [3]. They added categories for a manga/anime and an internet meme to a short article about food - neither are mentioned at all in the article itself and I fail to see the connection.
Yes, I'm the same person, sometimes I edit from one place and sometimes I edit from another. Shocking, that! Meanwhile, your astonishingly thin skin and complete lack of concern about generating a positive outcome (to the extent of actively driving the thread off-topic when someone else tries to do what you should have done in the first place) are a wonderful source of entertainment, so thanks for that! 173.79.19.248 (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This venue seems to be a great source of entertainment for you. The contents of your Talk pages are enlightening. I wonder how many other IP addresses you might use, just to keep yourself entertained. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:23, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Request for Review: Fabricated Article "Brahuistan" Lacks Historical and Academic Basis
I would like to respectfully bring to the attention of administrators a serious concern regarding the article Brahuistan. The article appears to promote a politically motivated and historically inaccurate concept that lacks verifiable sources, academic legitimacy, and cultural recognition.
There is no credible historical, ethnographic, or political record that supports the existence of a region or national identity called "Brahuistan." The Brahui-speaking population of Balochistan has always been an integral part of the broader Baloch identity. The Khanate of Kalat, often referred to as the "Brahui Confederacy" due to the Brahui language of its ruling Ahmedzai dynasty, never used the term "Brahuistan." The region was historically divided into two administrative zones: Jhalawan and Sarawan. No sub-region or autonomous entity named "Brahuistan" has ever existed.
Even British colonial ethnographers rejected the term. As cited in Fred Scholz’s *Nomadism and Colonialism: A Hundred Years of Baluchistan, 1872–1972* (Oxford University Press, 2002, p. 21), the British deliberately chose to name the region "Baluchistan" and not "Brahuiistan," despite the presence of Brahui-speaking tribes. Scholz writes:
> “When the British came to the southern region of the Brahui Confederacy, they called the newly conquered land not Brahuiistan, but 'Baluchistan.'”
Furthermore, the Khans of Kalat consistently identified themselves as Baloch. In official portraits and historical records, the word "Baloch" appears in their titles. While their native language was Brahui, they never claimed a separate Brahui national identity. The concept of "Brahuistan" is not supported by any historical map, administrative division, or scholarly source.
Prominent nationalist figures such as Dr. Mehrang Baloch—born in Kalat, from the Langov tribe, and a native Brahui speaker—have never advocated for a separate Brahui region or identity. In fact, the modern Baloch nationalist movement includes Brahui speakers at its core. The unity of Baloch identity transcends linguistic differences and is rooted in shared history, struggle, and cultural consciousness.
Balochistan is historically and culturally defined by its regions: Makran, Kalat (Jhalawan and Sarawan), Lasbela, Rakhshan, Kharan, Koh-e-Suleiman, Quetta, and others. No region named "Brahuistan" exists in any official, academic, or local record.
Given the lack of reliable sources, the absence of historical precedent, and the potential for this article to promote divisive and fabricated narratives, I respectfully request that administrators review the article and consider its deletion in accordance with Wikipedia’s standards for verifiability, neutrality, and notability.
Moshtank, on reading your report I was going to tell you that deletion is handled at AFD, not here, but I see you've already tried that. You have two possibilities now:
If you think that there was an error in the way the AfD discussion was handled (such as consensus being misread) you can start a deletion review discussion.
You can wait a few more months and start another AfD.
As someone uninvolved in this whole area, I do have my concerns about the quality of the discussion at the AFD. Keep arguments referred to notability of the Brahui people and language (not disputed by the nominator), but did not address the nominator's argument that "Brahuistan" is not an accepted term or concept. Most of the sourcing provided is offline only and so hard to cursorily verify; the sources available online discuss Brahui people and language but not Brahuistan per se. I've tried to do a (admittedly very cursory) search, but apart from Wikipedia itself, the only mention of "Brahuistan" I can find is at [4], which does not seem like an impartial source. So, while I may be off the mark, I fear we may be elevating a controversial nationalistic aspiration (possibly with a few passing historical mentions) without having actually engaged with whether this is warranted. I'm not quite sure of the optimal process in such a situation (for instance, is a DRV warranted?), but I'm not convinced the AFD engaged with the right issues. I may be wrong. Martinp (talk) 21:02, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinp, my advice would be to take this to the talk page for further discussion and see if you can gain a consensus for whether the content of the article is reliable and verifiable or not in an environment where editors feel less pressure than an AfD. A clear, damning AfD nomination goes a long way; this didn't have one. -- asilvering (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This thread has clearly been AI generated - you can tell from the style of writing, the em dashes and the attempts at using markdown for formatting (e.g. * for emphasis, > for quotes). 86.23.87.130 (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the wording of the comments at the AFD, it seems both Moshtank and other participants there are perhaps not native English speakers. So I don't fault them for trying to use AI to make themselves more understandable - especially since no-one really seemed to engage with the point Moshtank was trying to make at the AFD. I dropped a note on Liz' (closing admin's) page myself to avoid needless bureaucracy. I may follow up with more discussion elsewhere (e.g. talk page as suggested above) but first want to give a chance for already involved parties to comment. Martinp (talk) 10:19, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Following up to note that our policy on LLM-generated and -assisted discussion contributions dates back to the consensus determined at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_199#LLM/chatbot_comments_in_discussions. Moshtank's (likely) use of AI to help craft his message here is explicitly permitted by that consensus: The reasoning is (presumably) Moshtank's own, which they articulated without the use of LLMs at the AFD #1 and their points were ignored. They may have used an LLM here, but it seems directly covered by the caveat at the close that the LLM prohibition does not apply to comments where the reasoning is the editor's own, but an LLM has been used to refine their meaning. Editors who are non-fluent speakers, or have developmental or learning disabilities, are welcome to edit here as long as they can follow our policies and guidelines; this consensus should not be taken to deny them the option of using assistive technologies to improve their comments.Martinp (talk) 22:31, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the last few days I keep seeing user pages being created that purport to be for early education. They vary in the wording and appear unrelated to any specific Wikimedia initiative (here's an example and here's another). The latter of the two user pages had some fairly blatant promotional text that was deleted before being replaced with the "educational platform" version. Has anyone else come across these? -- Ponyobons mots20:53, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We've seen stuff like this before, usually from classrooms that have not been involved in a registered wiki-education program of any sort. This has a similar feel to it. They know enough not to put this in mainspace, but not enough to know this is not the kind of editing that Wikipedia is looking for. I'd suggest a conversation on the talk page of these users, to ferret out why they have created the pages and why they all seem to be focused on education. I don't think these are bad faith or promotional content; they're not promoting anything. Risker (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm personally one of those users, we are actually doing some educational tasks that involve creating a Wiki platform and add some educational stuff to it that we are going to be marked for. We don't mean no harm. Please bear with us Jesco S Ipumbu (talk) 22:48, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BFDI and Object Shows have been blocked on Wikipedia for a long time, due to BFDI not having "correct sources or something like that." Battle For Dream Island and many other Object Shows have been on news sources, and BFDI is also getting an episode in theaters.
Until those news sources are provided and clearly demonstrate that the subject meets WP:GNG, it is highly unlikely that the article will be unblocked. I recommend you review WP:BFDI, as this has been a surprisingly contentious topic. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me!00:19, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing preventing you from writing a draft, if you believe that the sources exist to make the subject now. The fact that people have gone to the troule of writing WP:BFDI should give you pause, and you should read that first, but if you genuinely think that the sourcing has improved then go for it - write a draft and submit it to AfC. Just be aware that you might be wasting your time, and other people's, if you haven't first established that there are sources that are independent, secondary, reliable and which give the subject significant depth of coverage. GirthSummit (blether)04:13, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, wow - sorry, I didn't realise that even the draft was salted. I guess that someone could draft something in a sandbox, but absent any new and significantly improved sources they might be better advised to spend their time... well, doing anything at all. GirthSummit (blether)04:30, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It really does baffle me. One of those cases of everyone just pressing the bigger, scarier button each time the previous button doesn't work, without any consideration of whether that still accomplishes our goals. What exactly happens if we let people write the draft? A crappy draft exists? Most drafts are crappy. Most have a lower chance of becoming notable than BFDI. Most have a higher risk of hosting spam or BLP violations. Versus the status quo of constantly having to field questions from people who, reasonably, want to know why they can't even do the initial step toward creating an article. We could always have a big notice at the top saying like, "Current consensus is that BFDI is not notable. This draft may not be submitted to AfC without a consensus on the talk page that that has changed" or something like that. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 04:59, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That seems an uncharitable assessment of previous admin actions. Looking through the history, what seems to have happened was that the draft existing led to disruption elsewhere, amid wider regular BFDI-related issues which if I recall at one point included admin conduct issues. Looking into it, apparently salting can be temporary like other protections, which could be another tool in the box, but the concept is rare enough that I can't recall ever seeing it discussed anywhere. CMD (talk) 05:30, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to criticize the admin actions in themselves. The deletion and salting were reasonable implementations of community consensus, and other things stemmed from there. It's the community consensus that I think has been wrong and should change. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 05:34, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not actually sure how community consensus works here. There was consensus against whatever draft repeatedly got recreated, but that is not necessarily a consensus against any draft ever, and non-admins can't really assess that at any rate. WP:BFDI says only that "drafts about BFDI have often been deleted", not that there is consensus against any existing. Half a decade on, I suspect an admin could boldly unsalt the draftspace unilaterally, so long as they were prepared to resalt if "drafts being submitted for review and declined over and over again" issues emerge again. CMD (talk) 05:42, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at WP:BFDI, it appears to me that what happend was that the community completely ran out of patience after repeated pushing over and over and over completely poisoned the well for anything related to BFDI, largely because of...well, what started this thread was a very mild example, but it's an example nontheless - "the sources totally exist bro for this totally notable thing that Wikipedia must have an article about". Was salting the draft overkill? Maybe, but take a look at Wikipedia:Why is BFDI not on Wikipedia?#List of deletion nominations - especially that footnote "d". If there really is new sourcing that evidences notability, somebody can request the draft page be unsalted - but Wikipedia:Source assessment/Battle for Dream Island, which includes references to this movie-theater screened episode, is telling reading. - The BushrangerOne ping only07:55, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Realistically, all the blacklistings do is prevent creation at a page named after "Battle for Dream Island" or "BFDI" or "Object Show" or several other variants. It doesn't do anything about individual users' sandboxes like User:Example/sandbox.Probably the way to go forward, if we want to unsalt something, would be to have an administrator create a single page like Draft:Battle for Dream Island leaving all the other protections and blacklistings in place, and have people work on it there. It's not worth the disruption to try unprotection or unblacklisting in general. I do think it likely that anyone who does take us up on it and work on it there is wasting their time because of the continued sourcing issue, but so long as it's confined to one page, it's wasting only the minimum amount possible of everyone else's. —Cryptic00:55, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Vinthepro7v, writing a new Wikipedia article isn't easy. You need solid sources, and the lack of those is the reason why the article (and draft, which is very rare) was salted. What I'm about to say is not going to be nice, but I think it's important that someone says this to you before you waste a whole load of your own time, and a little of other people's. Further up this thread, you suggest that a random Twitter/X account is a possible source for this new article - that suggestion leads me to think that you have not read WP:RS at all. You also mention dubious sources like Business Insider and Bubbleblabber. I don't really know what the other sources you mention are. If you are serious about this undertaking, you are going to have to do some proper research into the sources you hope to cite, and convince people that they comply with the reliable sourcing requirements. That needs to happen before you start work on the draft. So far, you have made only 13 edits, most of which have been deleted for various reasons. I hope you don't think it would be unkind or unfair of me to suggest that you don't really know how to go about writing an article. Starting your editing career with a subject like this is, perhaps, foolhardy. If you want to contribute here, kick it off with a few articles about obviously notable subjects first, learn the lay of the land, and once you're up to speed you will be in a better position to judge whether or not this article is one that you want to try to write. GirthSummit (blether)03:49, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also point out that every Wikipedia article is more work for the community to maintain when the creator inevitably stops editing it, and it will most likely start out as an orphan article. Orphan articles attract a lot of attention from people like me, and there are lots of WikiHunters there looking for an easy target. GrinningIodize (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly oppose loosening any of the protections or blacklistings here; I think the current situation, in which we simply don't allow attempts to create an article or draft on this subject, is correct, and am astonished that this AN thread was given any daylight at all rather than being shot down on sight. * Pppery *it has begun...03:22, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have a few thoughts that are not entirely consistent. First, the community did not salt the title in draft space. The community deleted the draft article, because the proponents of the draft were being disruptive. There were two more disruptive recreations of the draft, at which point an administrator protected the title to prevent continued disruption.
Second, now that ECP-Protect is available, I am not sure that admin-salting a title in draft space is ever a good idea. Admin-salting a title in draft space almost always leads to changing the spelling or capitalization of the title in draft space, requiring more vigilance to prevent versions of the article from being sneaked into article space. Maybe in retrospect the title should have been admin-salted in draft space for two or three months, rather than indefinitely.
Third, I have two conflicting opinions as to whether Battle for Dream Island should have its protection downgraded to ECP at this time. On the one hand, I think it has been fully protected for about five years too long. On the other hand, I am not sure that this is the time for a downgrade. A request to unlock the title, but with the usual unreliable sources, makes me wonder whether there is off-wiki coordination at this time. So maybe it would be in order to fully protect the title in draft space for a month, so that it will expire in a month, and that then it can be allowed to be used as a draft.
Fourth, the state of BFDI in Wikipedia (no article, no draft, multiple rings of protection to prevent article) is very much the fault of its ultras, overly enthusiastic fans. In their eagerness to get an article into the encyclopedia, they tried various sorts of gaming of titles and other sorts of gaming. This has also happened with other subjects, especially actors and entertainers with cult followings.
Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A request to unlock the title, but with the usual unreliable sources, makes me wonder whether there is off-wiki coordination at this time.
I don't think so, just some new editors excited about the in-theater screening and relatively unfamiliar with what makes something notable here. While I'm not sure Vin is the best person to start this draft, I think they're here in good faith. StarMississippi03:12, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Admin-salting a title in draft space almost always leads to changing the spelling or capitalization of the title in draft space, requiring more vigilance to prevent versions of the article from being sneaked into article This is why we have title blacklisting, which was used here. And as a general principle I find that style of argument ludicrous - for the rare situations where we really want to even prevent a draft from being created, of course we should signal it by admin salting - "but it might not work" isn't an argument at all, just a futile plea. * Pppery *it has begun...03:20, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Calling it "admin salting" gives the implication that non-admins can salt pages, and that when a non-admin salts a page, the salting has a different effect because the salter isn't an administrator. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Recently I have seen more than one admin change images on the Main Page without checking that the image is protected on Commons. This is bad for WP:BEANS reasons if KrinkleBot, the protection bot on Commons, is running (the image might be unprotected for up to 10 minutes), and very bad if the bot is not running (which happens occasionally). Can we get everyone (especially those working WP:ERRORS) to use the right steps to add an image to the Main Page:
The filter is a workaround for missing protection types in MediaWiki. I am aware that there are some ways to bypass the filter. The filter is not intended to prevent intentional malicious actions. The primary reason for the filter were users not reading the guidelines and not intentional damage. If it should strictly ensured that a file is not overwritten by not trustworthy users page protection is the only reliable way. GPSLeo (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but we do not want to have a recurring open attack surface allowing the over 8,000 accounts on Commons with the relevant permissions to put inappropriate images on our Main Page. I have edited a few of the Main Page's relevant edit notices. I am sure that my edits can be improved upon. The edit notices are currently very different in tone and format and I do not know which of the formats works best. —Kusma (talk) 08:30, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're a sockpuppet of Eternal. @Joyous! Hurry up and block this account. I can already tell, they both use the same grammar. Why would a new IP address instantly come here and join a discussion? Also, they edited an article that Eternal definitely would edit. Astrawiki3203 (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anyways, you can click view history. Lol. Shows they got rid of the badge to save themselves from trouble. LIKE THE ADMINS WOULD FALL FOR THAT, LMAO. THEY CAN JUST GO BACK TO THE HISTORY. Astrawiki3203 (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have revoked Astrawiki3203's extended confirmed status, which was gamed by making ~180 utterly pointless edits to the public sandbox. They may request this to be restored once they have made another 180 sensible (or at least not blatantly senseless) edits. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:01, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't decide whether this is a case of WP:CIR, a very young editor, or just plain old-fashioned trolling (probably with some sockpuppetry thrown in). Anyway, this report should be closed before a boomerang hits its target. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:07, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated to this report, I've blocked @Astrawiki3203 for 1 week for BLP violations. I was on the verge of issuing a NOTHERE indef, and if any admin thinks I've been too kind, feel free to alter the block. Lots of warnings deleted from the user's talk page. — rsjaffe🗣️09:12, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm rather tempted to siteblock for 3 years in hopes that the editor's maturity will catch up with their eagerness by then. Based on this thread and past warnings on their talkpage, I don't see any way forward where they're going to be a productive editor in the short-to-medium future. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 10:04, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Their request shows that they do not understand why they were blocked nor do they care to prove unblocking them would be a net positive for this project. They basically just shot themselves in the foot, from a one week block to longer. I endorse a longer block since they evidently aren't going to understand within a week, and they do not grasp Wikipedia's policies/guidelines. You can't disrupt pages because they're "dead". Also the pompous "revert his denial right away" lol. jolielover♥talk10:21, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, just as a CYA thing lest someone notice this at a later date and draw the wrong conclusion: Coincidentally, I am Facebook "friends" with that particular BLP subject. AFAIK we've never interacted; she sent me a friend request one day and I accepted months later when I noticed it, kind of expecting she'd reach out with some Wikipedia-related request or something, but she didn't. The BLPvios weren't the main impetus for my block regardless, but I figure it's best to still disclose that to avoid any appearance of impropriety. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 10:36, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse block. My initial block was based on an initial brief impression, as it was urgent to stop the BLP disruption and the middle of the night where I am, so I didn't want to evaluate further. I didn't initially indefinitely block the person as I saw a glimmer of good intentions buried in there somewhere.
I agree that the person appears to be young, enthusiastic, and very disruptive. A block until they are hopefully more mature is a good choice. — rsjaffe🗣️17:50, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't the denied unblock request be restored? Per WP:KEEPDECLINEDUNBLOCK, it's one of the few things which can't be removed. I don't think the extension changes anything does it?I considered re-adding it myself but since Tamzin had extended the block and commented without restoring I decided not to do it unilaterally. Nil Einne (talk) 10:38, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps an admin could take a look at User talk:Sawbrimedline#Unblock. It's not formatted properly so perhaps that's why nobody has gotten to it yet. I'm not sure this user really understands why they were blocked, but English might not be their first language. Some of the things they've posted like this and on their user talk page, if taken at face value, are unlikely to convince any admin to unblock them. I've decided not to notify the user of this discussion because they won't be able to respond here, and this could be a case of an older person just screwing around or maybe worse. So, I figure it would be better for an admin to look at it first before notifying the user myself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:53, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As the blocking admin said in their block notice, you must acknowledge the concerns that led to your block, and move to correct them, to be unblocked, and you must request an unblock under those conditions on your talk page. - The BushrangerOne ping only07:42, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I Desperately Want To Edit Wikipedia Again Because My Account Has Been Partially Blocked. I Also Want To Edit More Articles In The Near Future. Albury1993 (talk) 05:55, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'd be well-advised to consider withdrawing this request and reading the information that was left for you on your Talk page at the time you were blocked. Most obviously, your note here doesn't say anything addressing the reasons why you were blocked. DonIago (talk) 06:17, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Donlago. If you just keep asking to be unblocked because you want to edit or it was unfair without addressing the reasons for your block the result it just going to be a full block without talk page access to stop you wasting everyone's time. Nil Einne (talk) 06:55, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"Removing admin-only content as user is not an admin" - updating(sic) user page archives for no-longer admins?
Are these: [7][8][9] good edits? (Happy to accept them as GF)
This is not something I've ever seen done before. Yes, these are users who are no longer admins (for whatever reason), but these are archive pages, of editors who were admins at the time. I find this particularly concerning where it's done to a deceased admin of good reputation. I see no reason to do this, I don't think we should be doing it (and if we did, there'd be a 'bot).
The subcategories of Category:Wikipedia_administrators (and other privileged users) get cleaned up occasionally. People use categories to find admins, so having a non-admin there is not a positive. You might see edits similar to these, periodically, to remove the category. It's not really helpful to do it otherwise. No one checks the backlinks of a topicon to find an admin. -- zzuuzz(talk)20:23, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've just looked at Gonnym's talk page, where he assumes that you are making a fuss about this because you were a friend of RHaworth. I certainly was not a friend of RHaworth, but I still found that edit grossly inappropriate. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A top icon, a userbox or a category that says "This user is an administrator", when a user is not an admin for any reason, is bad for the project. These tools identify users and it can clearly confuse other users, who most don't understand the minute details, why someone isn't an admin but has the tag. These templates or categories didn't only appear on past admins, but also on editors with a few dozens of edits. As I've commented on my talk page, if somekind of tag is still wanted, a new template, that clearly distinguishes the editor as a past admin, can be created. Gonnym (talk) 21:36, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if those subpages ought to be removed (questionable), then surely that's a deletion not blanking? We basically never simply blank stuff, it's just not a useful end result. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the admin topicons is entirely cromulent. Admin topicons should not be on any page that does not belong to an active administrator, full stop. (I'd go so far as to say they shouldn't have been on the archive pages in the first place at all even while the admin was active - for, among other reasons, precisely this one). However the blanking of subpages is arguably against guidelines - In general, one should avoid substantially editing another's user and user talk pages, except when it is likely edits are expected and/or will be helpful. - and is absolutelyan end-around of MfD, which is where these pages should be taken if they should no longer exist. Given that, @Gonnym: needs to receive a {{trout}} and pledge to never make these sort of blanking edits of others' userspace pages again, lest they be sanctioned for it. - The BushrangerOne ping only23:14, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Admin topicons should not be on any page that does not belong to an active administrator, full stop. "
Why? We can control any 'side effects' separately. But labelling archive pages as "This was the page of an admin at the time it was archived." seems an entirely valid (and I'd say the best) interpretation for it. It's also (very clearly) our long-established practice. So you and Gonnym need to go through the regular consensus discussion [sic] processes if you want to change that. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:14, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why? The fact a Wikipedian of your stature and tenure is asking 'why is it a problem to have something that says 'this user is an admin' on the page of a user who is not an admin' is troubling at best. - The BushrangerOne ping only01:42, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the reason to have any topicon on an archive page. As far as I've known, archived talk pages should just consist of archived talk page messages. There is no need for them to contain any "extras" to indicate some sort of status for the editor. I didn't know that there were some exceptions. LizRead!Talk!04:36, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly as per voorts. Even if this was an admin defrocked in shame, if it was valid at the time of the archiving, I'm fine with keeping it. Like all the best archives, it's a robust snapshot in time. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are several separate issues being brought up here, which have different solutions. As I see it:
Categories implying the user is an admin should always be removed from people who aren't admins. I would be shocked if that, by itself, were controversial - this was the underlying task Gonnym was trying to accomplish, and it only blew up because of the things below.
User basepages of non-admins should not normally have userboxes or topicons saying that the user is an admin. I can think of some exceptions to this - for example I use a long series of topicons on my userpage as a history of everything that ever happened to me so would probably want to keep the topicon (without a category) even if I were to resign adminship (although when I did exactly that OwenX removed the topicons and I can't remember whether I didn't notice or noticed and didn't complain). Likewise I wouldn't mind memorializing a deceased admin's user page with {{deceased}} while leaving any userboxes or topicons it has unchanged, as the {{deceased}} template provides needed context.
I'm more in line with Andy Dingley re user archive subpages, though, I see no problem with letting those reflect what was true at the time.
Wikipedia:User pages implies that it is acceptable under certain circumstances to blank user pages of inactive users (WP:STALEDRAFT and WP:User pages#On others' user pages, among other things), so I don't fault Gonnym for extending the principle embedded there to this case, although I'm inclined to agree he extended it slightly too far.
@Pppery agreed re:archive pages, but WP:STALEDRAFT says if the draft is not problematic (e.g. no BLP, reliability, promotional issues) but not ready for mainspace, let it be and WP:User pages#On others' user pages says If the material must be addressed urgently (for example, unambiguous copyright, attack, defamation, or BLP reasons, etc.), the user appears inactive, your edit appears unlikely to cause problems, and you are quite sure the material is inappropriate, then remove or fix the problem material minimally (emphasis added). Based on that the edits that @LakesideMiners pointed out look like pretty cut and dry bad edits that should be reversed. CambrianCrab (talk) please ping me in replies!01:15, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Possible need to bulk-delete Myanmar village stubs
I have come across a large number of Myanmar village stubs of questionable quality. Two examples I have already sent to PROD before I noticed the scale of the issue are Rgangkum, Chipw and Rgangkum, Hsawlaw. These articles all have almost identical content of the form "X is a village in Y Township, Z State, Burma." and give very imprecise coordinates (degrees and minutes, but no seconds) and they are all citing one or two sources (some combination of GEOnet Names Server or Maplandia and Bing Maps). I spot-checked a few articles and it appears that they have been produced by 3 different editors, though it is hard to tell who produced which article without looking at the history.
Some of the articles are linked in the following Kachin State and Sagaing Region township and district pages Chipwi Township, Hsawlaw Township, Shwegu Township, Bhamo Township, Homalin District, Kale Township, Banmauk Township. By my estimate we are already approaching ~1000 articles here, there are likely more that are not listed in a township page. Hopefully all of them are in the Populated places by region categories under the Populated places in Myanmar category. The problem seems mostly confined to Populated places in Sagaing Region and Populated places in Kachin State categories as the number of pages in the other categories seems more reasonable though probably worth having a look there as well.
The question is what to do about this? For examples of the articles listed in Chipwi Township for somewhere like the aforementioned Rgangkum, Chipw I have not been able to find any mention in any reliable sources, Sawnkyawn could conceivably be an alternate translation of Shankyaw (25.760588682378096, 97.9916423226629) and Chipwi is clearly a notable place.
The volume of the articles seems just too much to do a thorough WP:BEFORE for each one of them to see if they are verifiable and even so I'm not sure if flooding PROD with hundreds of these articles is a productive use of anyone's time. In my view the best option would be to filter out the articles that are clearly pointing to an actual village and WP:TNT rest. Giuliotf (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worth pointing out I have tried to have such geo stubs deleted enmasse and it was rejected, given that verifiable populated settlements are considered notable. Agreed with Giuliot but not sure this is the right place to discuss this. The idea of course 16-17 years back was to try to start developing great coverage of Myanmar geographically, but most are small villages with little more than a database ref. Nuking the villages and then developing the district and township articles is the way to go. I sorted out Hkamti Township a while back, redirecting most of the stubs, but it's just too much work needed to go through it. The notable villages will likely be created eventually with proper content and sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld18:58, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As chief deleter-of-dubious-settlements, I must second Dr. B's proposal. Right now I am going through Indiana's "unincorporated communities", and I estimate I'm maybe a bit over half done, and the sourcing on these is mostly better and the materials for verification are likely far more available. And that has taken a year and a half, involving 355 deletion nominations; I've probably looked at and not nominated at least twice that many. In terms of the work involved, never minding who ought to be doing it, it makes much more sense to delete the lot and start over, particularly since GEOnet and the like are known to have reliability issues. Mangoe (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this is not the right place then I'm happy to move this discussion somewhere else, as for the outcome, I'm fine with whatever the outcome, my preferred choice would be deletion after some basic filtering, but the important thing for me is to have a consensus about how to handle this as its one thing to WP:BEBOLD with one or two articles, but when dealing with this many it would clog up whatever avenue is chosen to deal with them and I think the community would need to be on board for that. Giuliotf (talk) 20:10, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your bit about imprecise coords isn't generally a problem with settlements; as long as the article is correct that it's a village, minutes are routinely sufficient, because seconds are for things more on the scale of individual buildings. Sure, it's good to get seconds when we can — might as well focus on the centre of the community — but it's not something we should expect with typical towns. Nyttend (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I maybe over-estimated the difference the lack of seconds would make, in which case a lot of the coordinate are either outright wrong or simply aren't populated places, for example Kyokha picked at random doesn't point anywhere near a discernible settlement Giuliotf (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In densely populated tropical areas it's fairly common for a location specified in minutes to indicate a point in the midst of a cluster of villages, where it can be difficult to work out which one is meant. The other issue, particularly in this region, is that the actual sources are very frequently old maps of quite dubious accuracy. I seem to recall a case of a Myanmar location that was sourced (eventually) to GNS, where their authority was a military map from WW II! As far as Kyokha is concerned, GNS gives 26°40′59″N98°19′53″E / 26.68306°N 98.33139°E / 26.68306; 98.33139 for a location, which turns out to be more or less nowhere and is consistent with what the article says, within a few seconds each way. The listings don't give sources, so no idea where they got that from. But there's plainly not a settlement there. Mangoe (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A minute of latitude is equivalent to one nautical mile at the poles (by definition of that measurement), or a little more than 1800 metres, and a minute of longitude is roughly the same at the equator; it decreases to nothingness at the poles, but since Myanmar is mostly tropical (its extreme points are roughly 9°54'N and 28°30'N), that shouldn't matter hugely; you can assume that a minute in either direction is just a little less than a nautical mile, which is generally sufficient for a town. I agree with Mangoe's comments, but if the village really does exist nearby and is surrounded by countryside, at worst it shouldn't be hard to find on Google Maps. If you can't find anything at provided coords, and if it's not in the midst of a cluster of villages, I think you can conclude that it's disappeared, that it never existed, or that the coords are completely wrong. Ghost towns are notable — an existing town is, and a notable entity doesn't lose notability merely because it ceases to exist — but I'd be more open to deleting articles about ghost towns in this situation, simply because we can't tell whether such an article (1) covers a ghost town or (2) is outright wrong somehow. Nyttend (talk) 02:30, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in most cases you can find the precise coordinates and see they are legit villages on Google Earth. You can add some location observation data to flesh it out but if there is no info online about it aside from a database listing I think we should redirect to a list of settlements with coordinates and tabled summary if verifiable. When the sources are available then separate articles can be created. Would advise the same on Carlos's Iran short stubs. Hkamti is an example of what we should do. We shouldn't be deleting or redirecting village tracts IMO, Mepok was once an xx is a village database stub. Some can be expanded, but just too time consuming going through all the townships.♦ Dr. Blofeld08:14, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Giuliotf: The xxx is a village and database ref isn't just contained to Myanmar either, it's long been a problem on here for many developing world countries. What I would suggest is starting a new proposal to change the WP:GEOLAND guidelines on settlements. Suggested revision. "While most human populated settlements are generally considered notable, in many cases where there is no information about the place online aside from a GEONames or database ref and the article has been a short stub for many years, consider redirecting the article into a higher administrative division article or a tabled list of settlements by division with coordinates until more information about the place can be found online to justify a full article". No admin is going to blanket delete a thousand Burmese villages. Gain a new consensus in adjusting the notability guidelines would be my suggestion. If that fails, you are still free to take whatever neccessary action you want in sorting out Myanmar. ♦ Dr. Blofeld09:22, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually in looking it already says " If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it." But I think this should be elaborated on with my suggestion to give editors a better idea.♦ Dr. Blofeld09:29, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ozone742 / Renamed user 69d650c3b39235d55e0b6175df9cf787 seems like a case of WP:VANISHNOT
I just came across this account due to some problematic edits of theirs in a past edit chain involving multiple accounts/IPs removing content in relative lockstep that made me look closer.
The account edit and block log history shows patterns consistent with WP:Sleeper account activity, with periods of inactivity followed by brief heavy engagement in a controversial topic and warnings/reverts/blocks.
The user ceased editing upon the account’s last block in February 2025 by @Star Mississippi.
The user appears to have made a global courtesy vanish request a month later which was executed, despite the accounts history that shows a pattern of failing WP:VANISHNOTIt is not a way to avoid accountability, an escape from criticism, sanctions, or other negative attention unless you genuinely intend to leave permanently. Users who have been disruptive, lost the community's trust, or are blocked or banned may not be granted courtesy vanishing. and effectively similar to the under a WP:CLOUD principle (should this be spelled out more clearly in the courtesy vanishing guideline?)
As this seems to have been done with the intent to obfuscate, and the likelihood, had a CU been done at the time to find other accounts given the editing pattern consistent with SPI activity. Requesting reversal of the vanishing, as it obfuscates their prior editing since the redirect from their old signatures appears to also having been deleted, which is not default procedure and is only done on request per Signatures (on user talk pages, article talk pages, and project discussion pages) will not be changed, and will redirect to the new username by default, although this redirect can be removed upon request.
Since the account has had many engagements on talk pages as well, the lack of redirect presents a problem for users unaware of the account history, so re-instating the account is the best course of action. Raladic (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They have not (at least not using the account since its locked). But if a user currently goes to Talk:Gay agenda#Lead description they will find the latest thread by @Ozone742 but because the redirect was deleted, if a user clicks on their profile just lands on a "this user doesn't exist" and a user has no idea who that user is because there is no history or linkage. (unless they manually go and find the log that links them loosely). Raladic (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for the ping. Renames can be reverted, just ask on meta:SN to get an account unlocked, but I don't see the point in doing so – CU data is preserved with a rename and is in this case long gone. Account is also locked after vanishing so it cannot possibly take any action whatsoever. SPI is literally pointless here. WP:CLOUD doesn't apply here and I'm raising a more important question: vanishing is not granted to blocked/banned users (and found a few socks recently via renaming requests myself) but I don't think it's reasonable for global renamers to sieve through hundreds of edits to grant account vanishing (since other projects beside enwiki exist, there would be potentially 850+ projects to check edits for if that was the policy). A09|(talk)17:58, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I said, if a CU had been done at the time, since I know the logs are only kept for a month or so, so there's no point in doing an SPI now (I considered whether to file this at SPI or AN, but since I knew there likely was no way to check now, figured all we can do now is just make sure if someone does come across one of the previous edits, whether it's in the edit log (in which case it currently points to the User:Renamed user 69d650c3b39235d55e0b6175df9cf787 page, so there at least you can see the long talk history, block log), but if it's on a talk page comment, it brings people to the "Create page" link at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/iniidex.php?title=User:Ozone742&action=edit&redlink=1, which doesn't show the link to the public log, that is only shown on the non-create link at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ozone742 and not all users know to try to remove the action=edit part and to sleuth their way to the logs to find out what happened to that user.
So, in this case since that user's last action led to a ban - I think it's reasonable to expect that an admin would open the Block log - Wikipedia and see they have not edited since their block and their talk page shows a pretty clear pattern - this doesn't require sieve through hundreds of edits, it merely requires opening the block log and *maybe the talk page/talk page history.
I said effectively similar to the under a WP:CLOUD principle - I'm aware we usually use cloud specifically when someone loses higher permissions, but the principle is the same and is similarly called out at WP:Clean start#Criteria, aka we don't usually allow a user a clean start, or vanishing if it may be used to avoid scrutiny. My point about spelling it our clearer is to adopt the clearer language like say Clean start (as it links to scrutiny and such). Raladic (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if I am in the wrong place - this is my first (hopefully last) time coming to AN. I am writing here to request that @Sarefo's autopatrolled right (granted in 2011 by @Acalamari) in light of discussion at their talk page and the NSPECIES guideline talk page (the latter is a long discussion that only partially pertains to this user). Sarefo has been creating articles on South African spiders (see xtools) using Claude Sonnet 4.1 without disclosing that the content was generated by a LLM and, being autopatrolled, these articles bypassed new page patrol. This was seemingly only discovered because obvious LLM tells and hallucinated statements were noticed in the articles. I don't believe that any admin would grant autopatrolled to a user knowing that they intended to use an LLM to automate the mass creation of articles, hence my request that the right be revoked. AI generated text requires extra scrutiny from editors, not less, and these articles should not be automatically reviewed, and significant use of LLMs should be disclosed.
If you read the linked talk page discussion, Sarefo has been asking Claude to write articles, based on specific sources; he saves the AI-written content, reviews it to ensure that it's accurate, and then mass-creates articles when convenient. The basic workflow is not problematic. The rate of upload does not necessarily represent the rate of creating. I'm sometimes batching uploads that were prepared earlier, so doing them in batches is fine. Also note a comment at the bottom of the guideline talk page: I wouldn't be using claude 4 as part of my toolkit for this. Perhaps the quality of reviewing Claude's content is sufficient to revoke autopatrolled, but since Sarefo won't continue to use Claude here, there's no reason to revoke autopatrolled. Nyttend (talk) 02:43, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have misunderstood the linked discussions, I would suggest reading both threads in full. When Sarefo says I wouldn't be using claude 4 as part of my toolkit for this, they are referring to not using Claude 4, which is not the same as Claude Sonnet 4.1 (though I must note I think they made a mistake referring to the model they're using as Sonnet - I think they meant to say Claude Opus 4.1, but I am using Sonnet here as that's what they've said on their talk), because they feel Claude 4 is worse at this task than Claude Sonnet 4.1. They are giving an example of a model they think would be particularly unsuitable for the task, not saying that they will not continue use LLMs to create articles. Unless Sarefo wants to correct me now (and I am very happy to be corrected!), they have given no indication that they plan to stop generating articles with Claude. On the NSPECIES talk they say that they have around 500 more articles to complete the species in the existing SANSA guide and I'm happy to slow down to around 50 per day. Again, I am happy to be corrected if Sarefo intends to create these pages manually and/or seek WP:MASSCREATE permission, but I do not see any evidence that that is the case. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:30, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
hi! trying to clarify as much as I can, if anything unclear let me know.
some context. I'm a biologist (Masters' in genetics/bioinformatics, but big fan of biodiversity, especially spiders). I built the framework for wikipedia's spider section (WikiProject Spiders, doesn't seem very active nowadays) around 2006, using mostly scripting. I've been very active on iNaturalist the past decade or so (my user name is portioid there, if you're interested). I recently realized that Ansie Dippenaar-Schoeman (ADS), SA's most prominent arachnologist, uploaded thousands of the late Peter Webb's high-quality spider photos to iNaturalist under an open license, and also creates quite good guides for all the spider families in the area. So I'm bringing these together to build the SA spider section on wikipedia. these are photos of wild specimens that were then caught and dissected, meaning that we'll have scientifically determined high-quality photos of about 500 species, which is awesome. the spider guides are of rather good quality IMO, and my personal assessment was that these are essentially a collection of pre-written short wikipedia starter pages already that just need to be transferred. I call it Project Spider Webb. if you think it would make sense to create a project page for it, let me know.
to achieve this, I'm using a combination of manual work, python scripting and claude sonnet 4 (now 4.5). at the moment, my sources are WSC (world spider catalog, world authority on spider systematics) and ADS' guides. I have been using claude extensively for coding for the last year or so, so am generally aware of its strengths and weaknesses. the use of claude in this project is mostly to make existing passages flow better, as the original guides are sometimes written in shorthand. I proofread everything it outputs, and tweak it to a varying extent.
I don't fully understand in what way you're both misreading my earlier posts ;), but I'm referring to claude sonnet 4 (now 4.5). I mistyped when I mentioned sonnet 4.1, there's no such thing (I was working with claude opus 4.1 for programming earlier, hence the mixup). 4.5 is very new (it came out today) and allegedly markedly better, but I will have to test this more to have details, especially regarding fabulations. as I mentioned elsewhere, I'm using claude essentially as a glorified text processor as part of my pipeline. it is my impression that this is legitimate under wikipedia's current guidelines.
I am currently in the process of mass uploading the photos to Commons, and creating categories etc. Once that is done, I intend to complete adding SA spider species pages. as mentioned, there are a few hundred left I think.
I was made aware of some mistakes that slipped in, for which I am very thankful. this showed that I did not check the output as closely as I thought I had. at some point, I had gotten a bit careless in the rush of things. I improved parts of my scripts (including the part where claude is involved), and how I proofread the pages. I have been closely reading through hundreds of these since, and found very few mistakes. these mostly happen with claude 4 when it is expecting some input, but I did not give that input.
some people have worried about the short-term frequency of article uploading ("every two minutes", etc.). this may be an artifact of batch uploading previously generated works. I sometimes generate and proofread a batch of articles, then upload them in one go. so the upload rate is not necessarily an indication of creation speed. also, some of the shorter pages are much easier and hence faster to check than more complicated ones. this eg. depends on which spider family I'm currently working on.
my personal suggestion would be to let me finish this project using my current workflow, adding the remaining pages. then I will revisit the earlier additions to make sure they are up to the standard of the later ones. SA spiders are not a highly visited topic (yet!) I assume, so there should be no immediate rush I guess ;) any help is encouraged and appreciated, but not required. I'm happy for anyone joining in with the effort, but am equally happy to bring this to a level everyone can live with by myself.
I am comparing my output with average content on wikipedia, which as you all know is a mixed bag. I think it's better than much content that nobody has contested for years, but not as great as that of some of the great contributors here. I can live with that. it's a first version, and wikipedia is meant to be iterated on. I've experienced in the last week(s) that my content is held to a much higher standard of perfection, which I find only partly justified (because of the amount).
most of the feedback I was given did not actually involve problems resulting from LLM use. again, my suggestion would be to extend to me a certain level of trust that I'm trying to build something of value here. I'm not some random jerk poisoning the waters with hallucinated AI slop.
pain points I'm personally aware of with my past output:
half-sentence additions here and there that while not factually wrong, are not actually explicitly mentioned in the source. this happens much less in newer content, but I don't think it's a drastic problem in earlier content either. after being made aware of two of these, and very thoroughly checking around a hundred articles, I spotted around two of these in my output at the time.
due to the way claude internally processes the content I feed it (WSC + respective ADS guide), it sometimes will give the wrong reference (WSC for ADS content or vice versa). when proofreading, I did not thoroughly check for this. that's not great, but hopefully tolerable. now that I'm aware of it, I'm keeping an eye on it.
regarding fabulations, I can't fully vouch for the earliest articles I created, and hence will revisit them in the coming weeks. there might be a phase where my diligence waned for a bit after initial scrutiny, until I was made aware of some flaws I had overlooked. I don't fully remember when I started using claude. I started doing this manually, and at some point tried claude sonnet 4, and found it to be a valuable tool for part of the creation process.
to summarize. my plan:
finish adding pages using ADS' spider guides content (cc-by)
start adding Peter Webb's photos
revisit earlier pages in this project, to weed out beginner's problems that probably exist in these
take a good rest, because this project is amazing but also exhausting. I have no plans on adding any other mass content to wikipedia for the foreseeable future. I'll be updating WSC data from time to time (using python scripting).
thanks for taking the time, and for keeping this friendly and factual! as I mentioned in the other thread, we all have essentially the same goal, and I'm confident we can find a path to there that brings a smile on all of our faces. Sarefo (talk) 04:36, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Expectations around mass creation were not created due to the need to respond to "random jerk"s, they were created due to good faith editors moving too fast and too far and creating cleanup work for others. For example, you are mass-uploading images on Commons calling the author Peter Webb and put in the category "Photos by Peter Webb". However the author of every one of a random sample of your 50 most recent uploads appears based on the source website to be someone called Ansie Dippenaar-Schoeman (eg). This is technically a violation of the licence, and while it can be fixed it's a lot of cleanup. CMD (talk) 05:23, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the subject of accusing people of typing without reading, here is what they said in the second paragraph of their comment:
I recently realized that Ansie Dippenaar-Schoeman (ADS), SA's most prominent arachnologist, uploaded thousands of the late Peter Webb's high-quality spider photos to iNaturalist under an open license, and also creates quite good guides for all the spider families in the area.
Thank you for the clarifications (you has me more than a bit confused with Sonnet 4.1, but I figured it was a safe bet you meant either Opus 4.1 or Sonnet 4.5, and not some secret Claude version I was unaware of), though I must ask again that you clarify the scope of your use of automation in regards to which/how many articles are affected, as these will need substantial clean-up if they resemble your recently created articles.
I don't necessarily have a problem with you using automation in this process but, while I can tell you are acting in good faith, creating such a large volume of articles with a LLM without disclosing this and without going through the normal page review process seems like a serious lapse of judgement. Mass-created articles and articles generated by LLMs are two categories of article that require extra scrutiny, not less than is expected for the average article by an extended confirmed user, and you've combined these two methods at higher risk of error into a single project while entirely bypassing the safety net of new page patrol. You've started a large-scale automated article creation process without disclosing the level of automation or putting any checks and balances in place besides your own personal review, which is not enough when producing such large amounts of content. It seems like the only reason the errors in these articles have come to light is because @Novedevo noticed Claude saying "here's the article you requested" and flagged it on your talk page, which led other users to investigate the rest of your articles for further errors. I am certainly seeing issues that others have not flagged that need addressing and seem to be common across the board with your recent articles.
I appreciate that you've paused creating new articles since becoming involved in this discussion and would kindly request you continuing to keep this on hold for the moment until this is resolved. This is a project with a lofty goal but I am really deeply disappointed by the failure to disclose the use of automation so other editors can ensure the quality of these articles, and I maintain that you have not held to the high standards expected from an experienced autopatrolled user. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 06:05, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
this wasn't really a problem when I auto-created lots of articles in 2006 IIRC. I've been working on iNaturalist for the last years, and I was generally met with a wall of silence on its forum when trying to talk about projects, so that was the mindset I was in. build this, make sure it's of good quality. as I mentioned earlier, should I create a project page for this, so we can discuss improvements in a central place? or any other suggestions to centralize this? Sarefo (talk) 21:15, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of things have changed in Wikipedia since 2006. I used a lot of really poor sources then, and created some very iffy articles. We have tightened up our standards for sources, articles, and the pace of creating articles since then. My personal advice is to slow down the rate of creating new articles and spend more time expanding each article before taking it to main space. Even better, spend part of your time expanding existing stubs. I spend as much time on major expansions of existing articles as I do on creating articles. Donald Albury22:09, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We can assume good faith on the part of the relevant editor here. I don't think the details of how LLMs were used in this case are particularly relevant. The crux of the issue is that the autopatrolled right is completely unnecessary for article creation. It has no impact whatsoever on this editor's capacity to create more articles, and one hopes he will continue to do so. The purpose of autopatrolled is to remove works created by trusted editors from the NPP log, so as to reduce the overall burden on new page patrollers. In a case where an editor has used, and plans to continue to use LLMs for article creation, and where numerous errors have been identified in his past creations, it does not make any sense to treat that editor as trusted, and allow him to continue to retain the autopatrolled right. For the encyclopaedia, it is imperative that a second pair of eyes be drawn to any content resulting from LLM-based editing before it is indexed. In fact, this benefits the editor, because the patrollers may pick up on phenomena he did not detect. Given this, I must support the stripping of this editor's autopatrolled right, with no prejudice against his past and continued contributions to the encyclopaedia. Yours, &c.RGloucester — ☎06:06, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[triple edit conflict] Sarefo, as far as mass addition — just slow down and add some of these articles more gradually, like one or two per day, and people won't object to the quantity. (Imagine that you were doing all the work manually, and upload them at this rate.) Obviously once they're written, it won't take much work at all; just log in for a couple minutes and copy/paste from your offline saved information. Or better yet, mass-create them in userspace (User:Sarefo/Spider species 1, User:Sarefo/Spider species 2, etc.), wait a while, and move them into mainspace at your convenience. As far as files — as Chipmunkdavis notes, the linked image does need to be attributed to "Ansie Dippenaar-Schoeman", even if it were a Webb creation, because the source specifies Dippenaar-Schoeman as the required attribution. Be sure that you're complying with the source when attributing copyrighted-but-freely-licenced images. If you have good reason to say that they're Webb creations, you can note this in the file description page, and you can still use the Webb category.
As far as the bulk of the content — since you're reviewing and modifying the AI-generated text, it's not a fundamental problem, but if your output contains errors, yes this will be a problem. I don't want to deter you from this work, but supplying erroneous information is disruptive, so you need to be careful not to disrupt things; you've been around here long enough that you know that people get sanctions of various sorts if they keep disrupting things. And this applies both to the text of the article ("Spider A lives in America" when it really lives in Europe) and to the citations (citing a statement to a source that doesn't say so), so yes be careful to keep a very close eye on it.
South Africa, I believe Sarefo is in contact with some of the researchers and managed to secure image release in a compatible licence. CMD (talk) 06:36, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the observations on iNaturalist also say these are observations and photos by Peter Webb, so I don't think there will a problem here?
any work that is actually done will contain errors. the point is to minimize errors as much as possible. I'm doing this. I think the output is of pretty good quality. I don't think holding me to a 100% perfection standard is fair. I'm also happy to run a bot over this set of articles, eg. removing the status information (IUCN etc.) which I scripted in, but ethmo told me recently under wrong assumptions. I really don't think I'll be putting any unnecessary burden on others.
South African spiders :) Peter Webb was a colleague of Ansie Dippenaar-Schoeman, SA's most prominent spider scientist. he died recently, so she spoke with the family, and they granted open rights to make these fantastic photos accessible. she uploaded most of them to iNaturalist, that's how I noticed it. Sarefo (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is just about my exact sentiment, but you put it into words much better than I did! I don't want Sarefo to stop creating articles, but this is not an appropriate use of the autopatrolled right. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 06:15, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is worth noting that, since last year, autopatrollers can unpatrol their own creations. I wrote the current rough guidance on this—Use cases for this include where most of the page's content was written by someone else who is not autopatrolled, where the user has a conflict of interest, or where the user is unfamiliar with the topic area or otherwise thinks the page would benefit from an outside review—and I think it would make sense to add "where the page's creation involved generative AI" to that list. @Sarefo: Would you be willing to self-unpatrol any AI-created articles you publish in the future? There should be a button in the tools menu saying "Add to the New Pages Feed". -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 09:18, 30 September 2025 (UTC), ed. 10:14, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The link is called "Mark this page as unreviewed" but as Tamzin says, this does exist as a feature since last year. I've attached screenshots of how it should look for folks with autopatrolled. This is how the link looks like in Vector22which then opens up this dialogSohom (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With all respect, offering that option does not seem appropriate to me. I want these articles to be generated, and I'm sure Sarefo has the best intentions (and good material). However, what the autopatrolled right comes down to in the final analysis is "does the community think this user has sufficient judgement to not require oversight". I'd suggest that the flaws discussed so far, and the discussion had here, show that this judgement isn't quite there. Jank autopatrolled. It's not a collectible hat, and this only places them back on the same level as the vast majority of valued and productive users. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:31, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as a patroller, I'm not entirely sure whether it would do anyone any good for NPP to be flooded with articles about spiders: NPP is backlogged enough as it is. It therefore doesn't strike me as a very good idea either to revoke autopatrolled or to ask Sarefo to tag the articles as unpatrolled. In my view, if editors are going to create huge numbers of semi-automated articles, this should be on the understanding that they will check them rigorously for themselves and not publish them in mainspace until after they are properly checked: I mean, I'm not sure if any editor should be mass-creating articles at all unless they are autopatrolled and check their articles in the thorough manner that that user right presupposes.
So I wonder whether it might be better to ask Sarefo to create these articles in draftspace and move them to mainspace only after the whole process of creating and checking has been completed. Dionysodorus (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also putting a lot of personal effort into it. My fingers hurt. I'm seeing spiders the moment I close my eyes. I'm essentially reduced to working on this and sleeping for the last weeks.[10]
As there is no time limit on getting every spider in South Africa added to the encyclopedia, I think it would be better all around for them to slow down. A problem with these kinds of mass creations (LLM, scripted, or human written) is the break in feedback. One missed error becomes 50 missed errors when you are publishing 50 articles at once, and one is much more likely to miss errors when working flat-out every day. REAL_MOUSE_IRLtalk18:14, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also fine with this. As I keep mentioning, while I highly appreciate any input on how to improve this dataset, I'm also very happy to work on it by myself to bring it up to a level everybody is happy with. I don't want to put a burden on anyone.
I also think that the recent pages are totally good enough to stay in mainspace while I improve on them.
You'll also have to consider that I have a life outside of this project (soon, hopefully). I still think if you let me do this my way, while I incorporate input I get to improve, is the best way to go for everyone. Everyone does things differently. In the end, it's the result that counts. Sarefo (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I am reading correctly, they aren't hooking the model directly up to the editing box, they are using it as part of a workflow which they manually review prior to posting any articles. jp×g🗯️01:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
that is correct. it is also correct that I improved my workflow in the process of doing this, also due to feedback from here. that's why I want to revisit older articles once I'm finished to clean up what I might have missed. again, as it's not a highly frequented area anyway, I think the easiest thing would be to just let me wrap this up in mainspace and clean up whatever might be necessary as the next step. I don't think there is anything dramatic there. here and there a sentence that while not wrong is not written as such in the source. very rarely some fabrications I might have missed. it took me a few days to adapt from reviewing the model's coding output to using it for text processing. Sarefo (talk) 04:55, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbitration Committee has enacted a motion in lieu of a full case:
The topic of Zak Smith is placed under the extended-confirmed restriction. This restriction is set to lapse automatically one year after the enactment of this motion. If an editor believes this restriction should be extended, they may request the Committee consider an extension by posting an amendment request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment in the final month of the restriction's timeframe.
I respectfully wish to bring to your attention the current situation of Hossein Ronaghi, a human rights activist, civil society advocate, blogger, journalist, political prisoner, and long-standing contributor and administrator on Persian Wikipedia. He has been imprisoned by the authorities of the Islamic Republic of Iran due to his advocacy for freedom of expression and human rights.
Mr. Ronaghi has recently entered a critical phase of a hunger strike. After 22 days without solid food, he has now refused both food and water for the past four days, reportedly consuming only one glass of water at the insistence of fellow prisoners, and receiving a single IV injection.
His stated wish has always been the freedom and dignity of the Iranian people. Regardless of political views, his commitment to knowledge and openness aligns with the core values of the Wikimedia movement.
I kindly ask the global Wikipedia community to be aware of his situation and, where appropriate and in line with Wikimedia policies, to consider ways to express solidarity or raise awareness.
I want to say this is deeply tragic. I was just bringing up the point that unveiling people's identities would be a cause of harm to Larry Sanger. I hope he is freed and lives to see his wish come true. jolielover♥talk17:40, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a request for awareness, not for any particular action, so I don't think there's a need to take that tone with the OP. There's indeed nothing we can do, but we can at least take note the plight of this fellow editor, as jolielover has. Nor is this entirely unrelated to the English Wikipedia: Those in the English-speaking world, at this particular historical moment, would do well to think about what it's like to live in countries without freedom of speech, and what it means to be a Wikipedia editor right now given how things are changing in some places. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 18:02, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It saddens me everyday to see other editors in Western Asia be marginalised and censored for trying to make information freely accessible for us all. A lack of education on subjects is, in my view, what leads to hatred. I am concerned about the current political climate, especially since I live here, too, and must be careful with what I edit and be vague enough in what I say for my safety. Anyway, even though we cannot do anything, in my view it doesn't violate anything to post it here since it is a noticeboard with information of interest. Especially since Sanger's unexpected return yesterday. jolielover♥talk18:10, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. If there's much more to be said here, it should in fairness probably be moved to WP:VPM, because this isn't particularly admin-related, but I don't think this was entirely the wrong place to put this thread, as it does concern a sister-wiki admin, and we do in fact have a recent threat of investigation into 15 enwiki admins (i.e. the arbitrators) from the government of the country from which most of our admins hail. It's good for all of us to be thinking about these things, both for selfless and selfish reasons. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 18:18, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what this is doing here when this doesn't even have anything to do with the English Wikipedia. I suggest that this thread be closed as out of scope. 88.97.192.42 (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have just read the thanks that I received for reminding people of WP:BITE, and I think I need to do that again. The OP may not have been following Wikipedia guidelines perfectly, but I, for one, am grateful to receive a reminder of the lengths some people go to to protect the free dissemination of knowledge. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I respectfully ask the community to reconsider my ban.
I understand now why I was banned: I created edit wars because I did not follow the rules to start discussions on the talk pages and wait for other opinions. Some of my words also sounded uncivil in English. I am sorry for this, and I have learned from it. I will not repeat that behavior.
For the future, I will not edit existing articles about Freemasonry anymore. I know that this was the wrong way and it only created conflicts.
But I would like to be allowed to finish my own article draft about the contradictions of Freemasonry (I will rename it to that – because I also renamed it in my German article). This was the reason why I came to en-WP in the first place. I started that draft already before my ban (see: User:Wikiprediger/Freemasonry criticism). It is based on facts and reliable sources, and I want to translate it step by step.
See also the actual German version of this article: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Wikiprediger/Widerspr%C3%BCche_in_der_Freimaurerei.
This is the Google-Translator Version (english): https://de-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Benutzer:Wikiprediger/Widerspr%C3%BCche_in_der_Freimaurerei?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp
I want to remark that I am on de-WP since January 2014 and had never any conflicts until my edits on Freemasonry in 2024.
I understand that topics like Freemasonry are sensitive, and that is why I started a separate draft long ago – after I recognized the intensity of the conflicts – but the idea unfortunately came too late. My aim is not to attack, but to write a fact-based article that highlights contradictions and critical perspectives, supported by reliable sources.
I promise to be very patient: first completing the German version, then waiting for review and discussion there. Only after that I will create an English version. I will follow all rules, respond to discussions, and start a review before publishing. My only goal is to contribute to Wikipedia and i think such an article is missing here.
Please unblock me with the condition that I stay away from existing Freemasonry articles, but that I may continue to work on my own draft. I believe this would be a fair compromise. If I make mistakes, they can always be corrected or discussed.
Thank you very much. Wikiprediger (talk) 14:16, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note that while I'm glad Wikiprediger is willing to take a TBAN, I did suggest that they not ask for the exemption for their draft. I would also support a TBAN from freemasonry, broadly construed, without the exception for the draft. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:55, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't think this should have been a CBAN, but now I don't think Wikiprediger should be unblocked because it's clear that they only want to use Wikipedia writ large to POV-push their views on freemasonry. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:28, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at Wikiprediger’s edits at de.WP, I am concerned that he is a bit of an SPA, focused on Freemasonry (from a negative POV). This was the topic area that resulted in his being blocked in the first place. Suggest a topic ban (broadly construed) if he is to return. This would include not working on his desired draft. Blueboar (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Blueboar: I understand the concern, but in Wikipedia we should not be judged by personal opinion, only by how we use good sources.
There should not be a problem with my perspective on Freemasonry, as long as I use reliable sources and remain neutral.
There will not be an Edit-War again. We can discuss it on the talk page and ask for third opinions or reviews.
@Wikiprediger: it's not censorship. A TBAN (which I thought you agreed with based on your unblock request) is used to avoid disruptive editing. You were banned by the community for being disruptive in that topic area, and you have indicated that you would like to continue editing in it. If you can edit productively for a significant amount of time (at least 6 months, preferably longer), you can come to the community and ask to have the restriction lifted. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:58, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I would support this unless other issues that have not been mentioned come up but I don't see any way to enforce a topic ban EXCEPT for in the editor's sandbox. I think if this is the plan, it would be better for the editor to work on the English language verion of this article on the German Wikipedia and after appealing the topic ban here after a few months, then moving that article to this Wikipedia if that appeal is granted and the topic ban is lifted. However, this proposal might not get wide approval among other editors since the focus of this editor's work is still the subject that originally got them into this mess in the first place. LizRead!Talk!21:45, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: Thank you for your comment. I can accept working in my sandbox if that is the best way.
It will take some time anyway. First the German article surely will be discussed and maybe improved, then I can translate it step by step in the sandbox.
It would be best to do this in en:WP, so I can ask for review here. Also we can use the talk-page for discussions. I am used to finish articles as draft. When we have reached a consensus, the draft can then be moved into the article namespace. Wikiprediger (talk) 01:46, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Blocking Admin I implemented the consensus of the discussion and have not been able to follow the recent discussions on @Wikiprediger's Talk and will not have the on wiki time to do so. I support whatever consensus the community comes to on the unblock and potential topic bans. StarMississippi02:48, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Concerned. This doesn't feel right. Typically, editors who have experienced problems in a specific topic area but who want to contribute to the overall project will be happy to accept a topic ban from that specific area in order to be unblocked. Here we have someone who has never shown any interest in editing other subject areas, but who promises not to edit existing articles in their favoured topic area, and only wants to write their own article about the subject. I am concerned that this is, in a sense, setting them up for failure - this is a collaborative project, nobody gets to write their own article about any subject, and when they discover that the 'I won't edit existing articles on the subject' firewall is not a two-way street I fear that we will be in for a lot more drama down the line. I would be happy to support an unblock with a topic ban on the subject of freemasonry, broadly construed, which could be appealed after six months of constructive editing in other subject areas while they learn the ropes. Six months of editing in the walled garden of their sandbox will not help them develop as a collaborative editor. GirthSummit (blether)03:34, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In light of their recent comments (referenced below by jpgordon and others), I would no longer support an unblock with TBan in place. Oppose any unblock at this time. GirthSummit (blether)00:28, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I took a peek at the de-WP draft.[11] This is IMO the kind of article that will often contain a lot of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. For example, we have under the heading "Ethical understanding of well-known members of Freemasonry" (I'm using google translate, I don't speak german) the sentence "Harry S. Truman ordered the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki" with two cites. That is uncontroversial enough, but the cites makes no mention that this has any connection to Truman's FM, and is contradictory to it. An en-WP article about "Contradictions in Freemasonry", is supposed to be a summary of WP:RS that discuss that subject, not a list of selected examples the WP-editor finds "contradictory". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:44, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unban I speak fluent German, and had a thorough look at the draft over there. The title of the draft itself has already an npov-tilt, and we already are, at least in part, in OR, but more so in WP:SYNTH territory. A TBAN from freemasonry, broadly construed, including the draft would work imo. Lectonar (talk) 09:46, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to add that even if an article was accepted in DE-Wikipedia, it would not mean that it would be automatically accepted here. The rules for sourcing and notability are not identical. Lectonar (talk) 09:48, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose any unban not accompanied by a complete TBAN for at least a year. And after that, only lift the TBAN if Wikiprediger has done significant useful work on other topics. It seems entirely evident (see e.g. the comment about 'censorship' above) that Wikiprediger wishes to continue with the same POV-pushing that led to sanctions in the first place. We don't need that. And nor do we need synth-ridden POV forks padded out with random stuff that seems to have little to do with the supposed topic. Even if such nonsense is acceptable on de.wikipedia (which would surprise me), it won't be here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support unblock only with a broadly-construed topic ban to freemasonry definitely including the draft I think it would be unwise to allow a person who was cbanned for edit-warring over freemasonry to make what appears to be a WP:COATRACK article. Simonm223 (talk) 14:26, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support unblock, but only with a topic ban on freemasonry, with no exception for any current drafts. If we trust this editor to write about freemasonry, there's no reason to prevent them from writing about freemasonry. And if we don't trust this editor to write about freemasonry (I'm in this camp), then there's no reason to allow any edits about freemasonry. I am explicitly against any sort of St. Augustine "Lord, give me a topic ban on freemasonry, but not yet!" nonsense. There's nothing preventing this editor from saving their draft on their own device and working on it offline, but allowing them to work on this topic on Wikipedia is a terrible idea.CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:55, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unban after seeing the latest comment on their talk page that is referenced below. The veiled threats in order to exert leverage over the community in order to get to edit this article make me seriously question if the problems collaborating of others would be limited to the freemasonry topic. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:16, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unban I was planning on staying out of this discussion, since I started the one that got him cbanned in the first place, but after reading his last comment, where he seems to claim we'll damage public trust in Wikipedia by not letting him edit on the topic, I don't think an unblock is appropriate at this time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)19:24, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unban. Just wow: I cannot accept being told I am not allowed to work on this subject...If it is blocked here, I will always note on my user pages that the ban in en:WP feels like censorship. I will also try to find other solutions to be allowed to speak... A ban on me may not prevent the subject from appearing sooner or later — it can only prevent that I take part in the discussion. I don't see how this person's attitude aligns with Wikipedia's policies and polity. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇00:19, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Oppose unban in its entiretyThis says it all: I cannot accept being told I am not allowed to work on this subject. This is the reason I came to en:WP, and I want to continue to translate this article into other language versions (French, Italian,...). If it is blocked here, I will always note on my user pages that the ban in en:WP feels like censorship., If en:WP is not prepared to allow critical discussion of certain topics, it may have a clear effect on how the project is perceived from outside. In the end, it may be the en:WP community that is questioned for this decision., andI will also publish the article in other languages step by step, so that all major Wikipedias will eventually cover this topic. If readers are then told that such an article cannot exist on the English Wikipedia because of a ban related to conflicts about Freemasonry more than a year ago, it will naturally raise questions and may reflect poorly on Wikipedia. makes it very clear that this is a user who is not here to help build an encyclopedia. They have no interest in editing topics other than their pet hobbyhorse, and speaking frankly if they were to be unbanned with a topic ban I can't help but have a feeling they would try to build a good reputation, get the topic ban lifted, and immediately push that POV. - The BushrangerOne ping only00:24, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose any unban. I just don't see any indication that this person actually wants to edit constructively on other topics. At best, I think we'd get the situation Bushranger described, but I don't even think they'd get that far given their comments. ♠PMC♠ (talk)00:48, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Number 6 might be shoehorned in under "character handling issues", and Commons:File naming suggests not abusing Unicode, and that "strange punctuation can be replaced with standard quotes and commas".
I'm happy for the curly d' to be replaced. I didn't upload it as 'strange punctuation'. It was just my file name, so there's a weakness in the Commons processing of uploads of the apostrophe. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)
Bumping thread for 14 days. Until closed. -- Super Goku V (talk) 11:08, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
_male_Montagne_d%E2%80%99Ambre_2.jpg){kind=link}
_male_Montagne_d%E2%80%99Ambre_2.jpg){kind=link}
_male_Montagne_d%E2%80%99Ambre_2.jpg){kind=link}
_male_Montagne_d%E2%80%99Ambre_2.jpg){kind=link}