Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:09, 7 February 2024

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 11 as User talk:The Wordsmith/Archive 10 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

BATHROBES FOREVER

Archives Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

This user has been on Misplaced Pages for 19 years, 10 months and 6 days.

Contentious Topics awareness templates
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: the Arab–Israeli conflict Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts abortion complementary and alternative medicine post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles climate change COVID-19, broadly construed the Balkans or Eastern Europe governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan post-1978 Iranian politics pseudoscience and fringe science the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour He should not be given alerts for those areas.

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Miss American Beauty 1963

This was not eligible for soft deletion. Please revert the close of the AFD and relist it. Thanks! - UtherSRG (talk) 14:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:NOQUORUM, If the nomination has received very few or no comments but appears controversial to the closing administrator, or has been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgement. Common options include, but are not limited to soft deleting the article. My reading of that indicates that even though soft deletion isn't the default for these, it is still eligible for soft deletion at the closing administrator's discretion. If I'm misunderstanding the guideline please point out where I'm wrong and I'll undo my closure. The Wordsmith 17:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Liz had noted it was not eligible for soft deletion. Liz, do you have some thoughts here? - UtherSRG (talk) 18:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The Wordsmith, can you restore and relist it for another week? Since it was recently closed, it is better than going through another AfD as probably that is what the nom may be looking to do by requesting undeletion. Jay 💬 04:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure why the nominator (who wanted the article deleted) requested undeletion, but per request by you and UtherSRG I've reverted my close, relisted and restored the article for now. I still believe that WP:NOQUORUM considers my original closure valid, but I'll check the talk page there and potentially open a thread/RfC to clarify the wording there. The Wordsmith 23:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! What I have seen based on past requests, when there is a soft delete, the nominator wants to get it "hard" deleted, by undeleting and renominating, and we don't have a cooling period before one nomination and the next, for a soft delete. Jay 💬 07:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Coming late to this discussion, I just note on an AFD discussion page when articles under discussion have been PROD'd or been to AFD before. I do not know if the closing administrator's discretion can overcome the general prohibition against Soft Deletions under those conditions so I don't have a definitive answer here. But when I am challenged like this, I typically do relist a discussion to garner more opinions to make a closure more decisive. Having closed discussion regularly now at AFD for three years, I've discovered that things are less black and white as they appear to be in policy pages. Liz 02:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Just for the record, after I requested Wordsmith for relisting, he obliged within 24 hours, and now the AfD is in a position for a possible "hard" delete having received additional delete votes. Jay 💬 09:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Notating here that I've started a discussion to clarify this issue at WT:DELPRO#Clarifying NOQUORUM Soft Deletes. The Wordsmith 20:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Improving "Resisting AI"

Hi Could you please help me in relation to the piece "Resisting AI" - you kindly note it should be polished, and I am keen to do it but in which way? Now that the secondary sources seems to have passed the threshold, what kind of improvement should be made? Thanks a lot for your help. Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 08:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

The main issue I see is the style/formatting, and sections missing that I'd expect to see in an article on a non-fiction book like information about its development/writing/publication, critical reception, other works that reference it etc. The best way forward is usually to check out Good or Featured Articles on similar topics, and see what coverage they give and how they are formatted. As an example of a random non-fiction book rated GA, there's Fifty Years of Freedom. WP:BOOKS also has a style guide that may help you; it can be found at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article. The Wordsmith 23:18, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Talk:United States-Country relations articles

Hello, The Wordsmith,

I just deleted this page as an orphaned talk page. Typically when I delete pages, a notice is sent to the page creator, which is you, but Twinkle didn't do that this time. Your edit summary said it was part of a Merge but there was no accompanying article page. Of course, feel free to recreate it if there is an article on its way. Thank you. Liz 04:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Liz. That page was created accidentally by XFDCloser as part of an odd AFD, I must have forgotten to clean up after myself. The page isn't needed for anything so it can stay deleted. The Wordsmith 04:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Rizwan Sajan

Thanks for your recent removal of Discission tag, I want to ask about the remained "Undisclosed paid" tag, the user who placed the tag mentioned that "I work for a media agency and it mentioned on my profile". But I want to clarify that's not media agency, that's my own News media company, we run only news websites under that News media private limited company. We don't to any kinda agency work.

If you are agree with my clarification than kindly remove that tag also. @The Wordsmith iVickyChoudhary (talk) 11:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you or your media company have any sort of relation with Rizwan Sajan? Why did you choose to write about this person? Many of the sources used seem to have been sponsored, which can give the impression of paid editing. Please read WP:COI and WP:PAID, and determine if any parts of those policies might apply to you and your Misplaced Pages editing. If not, then we can possibly remove the tag. I apologize if my questions seem aggressive, that's not my intent. Undisclosed paid editing is an unfortunate problem here, so it does need to be rooted out. The Wordsmith 17:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

No, I or we don't have any relation with him, he's a millionaire-billionaire from UAE. It's almost impossible for people like us to reach or meet them :D I was searching something related to Filmfare Awards then I come through an article regarding Filmfare Awards middle east. There I come to know about this man then I searched it on wikipedia to know more about him as I usually do to know about someone famous, but I don't found his article here so one day I decided to make article about him.

Choosing topics randomly created problems for me in the past also:/ some fellow contributors think as paid editing. I read WP:COI and WP:PAID, and determined that any of these doesn't applies to me or my work. Don't need to apologize for aggressive questioning, you are doing your work <3

I'll surely disclose if I got paid for any article in future. If you feel right then remove the tag. <3 @The Wordsmith iVickyChoudhary (talk) 10:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I wanna ask one more thing, what if someone asked my help (the subject of article or any person related to the subject) to make any changes without any payment, do I need to also disclose that ? iVickyChoudhary (talk) 10:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@The Wordsmith Any comments on this? iVickyChoudhary (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Any sort of external relationship could cause a conflict of interest even without monetary payment. In general, if a BLP subject has asked for help with their article you want to disclose that. I can't think of any good reasons why someone might want to keep a relationship like that hidden. The Wordsmith 22:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks a lot, I'll surely keep that in mind for future work.

Anything about the current Tag on Rizwan Sajan ? @The Wordsmith iVickyChoudhary (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@The Wordsmith... iVickyChoudhary (talk) 13:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I got distracted by other things. I've removed the tag for now. The Wordsmith 16:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

It's ok <3. thanks for you kind words. :) iVickyChoudhary (talk) 05:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).

Administrator changes

Clovermoss

Dennis Brown

• Julia W
• Marasmusine
• PBS

CheckUser changes

• Aoidh
• HJ Mitchell
• Sdrqaz
• Spicy
• ToBeFree
• Vanamonde93
• Z1720

Maxim

• Enterprisey
• Izno
• SilkTork

Oversighter changes

• Aoidh
• Firefly
• Sdrqaz
• ToBeFree
• Z1720

Maxim

• Enterprisey
• Izno
• SilkTork

Arbitration

• Following the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Aoidh, Cabayi, Firefly, HJ Mitchell, Maxim, Sdrqaz, ToBeFree, Z1720.
• Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee rescinded the restrictions on the page name move discussions for the two Ireland pages that were enacted in June 2009.
• The arbitration case Industrial agriculture has been closed.

Miscellaneous

• The New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,000 unreviewed articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Your note on WP:EEML

I'm replying to you here because threaded discussions are not allowed in Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. I hope this is acceptable. I reviewed WP:EEML and while I agree that summarizing the evidence in a way that doesn't compromise privacy is possible, I wanted to note that this case is quite different:

1. There were no indefinite topic bans or blocks in this case. 2. The editors were accused of canvassing others and disruptive editing, not for being canvassed, which seems to be a far lesser offense.

Given those differences, I think citing this as a precedent is not entirely accurate. Please let me know if I'm missing something. Marokwitz (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Several editors were topic banned and site banned in that case, and both topic and site bans have been proposed during the current motions. Additionally, the LTA who allegedly coordinated the meatpuppetry was already banned. Regarding being canvassed, I'd encourage you to look at the Findings of Fact in that case closer. The individual users were noted has participated in the following discussions after having been canvassed. Regardless, this was the first big landmark off-wiki coordination case that I can remember. Even if not all if it is identical, there are enough similarities that it can be looked to as a source of precedent in how related issues are handled. The Wordsmith 19:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Was there a user in that case who was sanctioned only for having "participated in the following discussions after having been canvassed"?

I can see the similarities, but it seems that the accused people there were all neck-deep into disruptive editing, edit warring, actively canvassing others, sharing their passwords. And none of them were indefinitely banned or blocked. I think for completeness and fairness to the accused editors in this case, it would be good to mention those difference in your statement. Marokwitz (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, nobody was sanctioned only for participating after being canvassed. It was listed as sanctionable behavior, however and I never said it was the exact same situation. I'm see no need to add to my statement at this time; other editors and Arbs can read the case and determine for themselves how much of it applies. The Wordsmith 21:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I'll raise that point. Marokwitz (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Welsh Tidy Mouse

That actually does seem like it might be a viable topic, when it comes to "famous Internet animals".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

It might be, but not yet. The coverage I've seen so far all seems like WP:DOGBITESMAN. If it ends up going viral and being covered elsewhere on a more ongoing basis, there might be something there. Someone is bound to try creating it, so I'm tempted to create an R with possibilities if I can find a good target for it. The Wordsmith 21:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

A bathrobe for you!

	A bathrobe for you!
	I saw the top of this page and how could I not do this? ofHearts 19:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! The Wordsmith 17:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Timișoara Award for European Values

Hello :) I am referring to your deletion of the article (Misplaced Pages:Articles to be deleted/Timișoara Award for European Values). I am still quite new to Misplaced Pages and have definitely learned a lot for my first self-published article, even if some of the criticisms were linguistically very disrespectful, inappropriate and politically motivated. I would now like to make a new attempt at uploading, now that the award has been presented and the international media landscape is sufficient to prove the relevance of the award. I would also like to adjust the way I write to avoid WP:PEACOCKs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeneEfimero (talk • contribs) 12:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

If you would like to rewrite the article so that it can meet Misplaced Pages's standards, it is highly recommended that new editors use the Misplaced Pages:Articles for creation process. Additionally, the guide at Help:Your first article has a lot of great information about the article writing process, as well as things to be cautious about when writing. Good luck with your article! The Wordsmith 16:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Signature

Your signature contains the CSS style properties font-family:Courier New;font-size:3. As I understand the spec, the value for the font-size property shouldn't be dimensionless. In my browser, I believe this is causing an issue I see with the visual diff feature, with your user name displaying at what seems to be a 3-pixel size in diffs. Could you consider modifying this? As the obsolete HTML font size of 3 is equivalent to the base font size, I think it can be omitted as your signature hasn't set any different font sizes previously. Alternatively, you could use the medium value. I appreciate any consideration you may give. isaacl (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

My signature is pretty old. If it is causing problems I'm happy to update it, but I don't use that feature so I haven't noticed it. What's the name of the "visual diff" feature/gadget/preference? And if you could screenshot what you're seeing, that would also be helpful. The Wordsmith 19:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

It seems the visual diff feature is now available to everyone (it used to be a beta feature). When viewing a diff, near the top of the page, there is a selector for "Visual" or "Wikitext". You can also link directly to a diff in a specific mode, so for example adding &diffmode=visual to the end of a diff URL will use visual mode. This link shows your previous post in visual diff mode.

I've been trying to track down the reason why the smaller font size is only appearing in the visual diff and not the displayed text below the diff (or on the talk page), but haven't succeeded yet. Firefox will display the diff with a normal font size; Chrome, Edge, and Opera (all based on the Chromium codebase) show your username with a 3-pixel font size in the diff. Using the web developer tools, both Firefox and Chrome show that the font-size:3 property has an invalid value, and thus the rendering engine is ignoring the value, but for some reason with Chrome the computed font size is different in the diff versus the text below. (I did test that by manually editing the page to remove the font-size property, the user name displayed correctly with a normal font size.)

I understand if you are reluctant to alter your signature, given that this problem doesn't affect how your signature appears on the actual page, and doesn't show up on Firefox. isaacl (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do some experimenting and see how I want to modify my signature. The Wordsmith 18:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Copyvio

Hey.

Re this revert, are you sure? Footnote a in WP:ELNEVER#1 states that a URL to a full copy of a copyrighted work, including those in citations, is a copyright violation. The edit I undid, and revision I highlighted in that copyvio-revdel template was to a full copy of The Internet of Garbage, which per its first page is copyrighted. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Resolved per Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)#PDF of Jeong's The Internet of Garbage is not a WP:COPYVIO. Sorry for the hassle. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

No problem, I can absolutely see how it looked like a copyvio at first glance. I thought the same thing until I took another look at the URL. The Wordsmith 22:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, from the URL I thought it was maybe something that had been found on a Libgen or Scihub mirror. Glad we were able to resolve it though. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) According to The Internet of Garbage, that version was published by Vox and the link went to Vox's content delivery network. An e-book publisher publishing an e-book on their own servers is expected behavior. The work might be copyrighted, but linking to an authorized published copy of a work is allowed the same as linking to a newspaper article published on the newspaper's website. The Wordsmith 22:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Deletion of Page

Hi Dear Administrator,

Please teach me on how the guidelines were interpreted in deleting the Page Mariya Rusalenko. I am here to learn, and most of debates of page were not properly answered. I have always detailed everything.

If the experienced users feel not to explain things, It is very difficult to contribute. Existence Leesaaisath 09:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The consensus on that discussion was clear that the subject didn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. Some of the sources were sponsored, and others did not give significant coverage of Rusalenko. If better sources exist that weren't presented, I might suggest going through the Articles for Creation process. The Wordsmith 16:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I would like your assistance in the issue I have tired highlight. I think we can make wiki better everyday with diversity.

1. Not recognizing cultural and various local language sources when we write about individuals from those areas.
2. Editors who have language barriers make decisions on subject language and related articles.
3. Short answers without explaining new users and cold form of answers when given some.

I have worked in Maldives and later in Belarus/Russia, ( As journalist major), and I have come across these issues in both countries. Many sources that are major accredited sources are disregarded without research by experienced editors and lot of work and research goes to waste.

I am here for for over 4 years and keep on trying to develop myself with rules and guidelines. Its like having a fog in the work when aforementioned issues arise.

As an administrator, I hope you will assist users like us and provide a road to navigate and learn in a good respected environment. I will again work on the page, hope to have your assistance in that too. Existence Leesaaisath 21:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Relist vs. delete

Just my opinion, but I think relisting Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Taka N'Gangué probably would have been better than closing "delete" on the 1k-2d discussion considering that almost half of the discussion had occurred in the past few hours. Just noting. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I took a second look at the timestamps, and you're right that much of the discussion was very recent. I've reverted my closure and relisted for now. The Wordsmith 02:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I also think it may have been beneficial to keep Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ryan Binkley (3rd nomination) open a bit longer rather than closing "keep". I recognize that the number of !votes was very visibly in favor of the "keep" side, but at least in my view as someone who didn't fall into either the delete camp or the keep camp, the weight of the arguments on both sides was not balanced and there were enough !votes against keep to warrant keeping it open a little longer. Indeed, the "keeps" outnumbered the "not keeps" 2:1, but a not insignificant number of "keeps" relied on impermissible arguments. The last comment on that AfD before closure was an inquiry in which I requested some of the keep !voters articulate how the page is sufficiently notable, as many !votes fell into arguments to avoid territory e.g. "other stuff exists" votes or simple assertions of notability without elaboration. Or worse, simply mentioning how many votes the candidate received or pointing to the age of the page as an argument it should be kept. I think giving !voters some time to respond to the inquiry could have given the keep side time to give some more weight to their positions. Or, if nothing else, it would have been appreciated if the closing comment offered a more detailed breakdown that took the strength of the arguments into consideration, rather than simply reading "The result was keep." Thank you.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I've given that one a second look as well, and I stand by my close. The numbers weren't a significant factor in my close, and several non-keeps were weak as well. Ultimately what it came down to is that the Keep !votes demonstrated significant coverage of the person in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and there was no convincing counter-argument. The only real argument for deletion/redirection was WP:BIO1E/WP:NOTNEWS, which wasn't a strong policy-based argument. Considering a period spanning from April 2023 to (so far) January 2024 which encompasses coverage of multiple independent events and the subject's role in them as "one event" stretches the policy beyond what was ever intended. I saw a clear consensus to keep, and closed it as such. I won't be reverting this one, but as always WP:DRV is available if you would like to pursue it. The Wordsmith 02:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2024

• News and notes: Wikipedian Osama Khalid celebrated his 30th birthday in jail

• Opinion: Until it happens to you

• Disinformation report: How paid editors squeeze you dry

• In the media: Katherine Maher new NPR CEO, go check Misplaced Pages, race in the race

• In focus: The long road of a featured article candidate, part 2

• Recent research: Croatian takeover was enabled by "lack of bureaucratic openness and rules constraining "

• Comix: We've all got to start somewhere

• Traffic report: DJ, gonna burn this goddamn house right down

Administrators' newsletter – February 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).

Administrator changes

• Red-tailed hawk
• Robertsky

• Ameliorate!
• Ancheta Wis
• Anthony Bradbury (deceased)
• Cobi
• Ev
• Moondyne
• Worm That Turned

Bureaucrat changes

Worm That Turned

CheckUser changes

Wugapodes

Interface administrator changes

• Enterprisey
• Izno

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.

Technical news

• Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)

Arbitration

• Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
• Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2024 Steward elections will begin on 06 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 27 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• A vote to ratify the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via Secure Poll. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found here.
• Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the Community Wishlist Survey. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. Read more
• The Unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in February 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Your opinion

Hi there. I noticed that a number of your edits involve articles for deletion. I'm wondering if you could have a look at an article recently moved from draft, Anthony D. Viazis. I have found little coverage of this person online, but there are other accomplishments listed in the article. Can I get your opinion about the notability of this article? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I do plenty of work in deletion, but academics are not a topic area I touch very often so my opinion might be of limited use. Based solely on the article content and sources, it might scrape by WP:NACADEMIC criterion 1. That really depends on whether 1500 citations is "highly cited" for the field of orthopedics/orthodontics, and how noteworthy those journals are. The Fastbraces thing also might count for Criterion 1b but the article doesn't currently demonstrate that, and we don't have an article on the technology itself. My instinct is that it doesn't meet the criteria. The only real source is the Ritz Herald one, but I've got some concerns about their reputation or lack thereof. No Misplaced Pages article on them, no discussions about them at WP:RSN, and essentially nothing online that's been written about the newspaper itself. Their X account has 11,000 posts, but ~2400 followers and their posts are seen by an average of 20 people. They're a news/press release aggregator, and the article looks like a press release. Honestly the whole thing looks like a G11, but I might be inclined to send it to AFD instead in case I'm wrong about the subject not meeting WP:NACADEMIC. The Wordsmith 01:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I looked around for sources to improve the article, but found little. I might AFD. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

NFL Draft

This seems an easy overturn:

• First, the three RfC precedents you cite in your close. did not change any article titles but clarified MOS language. was done at Kyiv, a page which had already gone through an RM and was simply asking if other pages using the name "Kyiv" should also be changed (a usual practice unusually brought to an RfC but, importantly, at the relevant page). And a request to clarify guideline language about two video game naming options in an RfC at the topic-relevant "Naming conventions (video games)". Unlike any of those, or probably unlike anything in the history of RfC's on Misplaced Pages, your NFL Draft close will likely be used as a reason to move hundreds of page titles, which will lead to further debate and contention as an admin has already said they would reverse any such action.
• Many editors commented that this RfC was in the wrong venue for a Requested Move, and so did not comment on its merits. Since the question itself did not contain anything about moving pages, but was simply an opinion poll, these editors did not leave their opinions other than correctly state that this was not a recognized RM.
• Not one of the hundreds of pages which some editors may try to title-change because of the close were notified about this RfC, not even the readers of the centrally important National Football League Draft article. This seems way too inside-baseball and amounted to purposely hiding hundreds of asked-for name changes in a backroom of Misplaced Pages. This is fine for discussion purposes, but not for an RM.
• A panel of at least three experienced closers was asked for. This was ignored (although you said within the discussion that if others materialized they could join in but, if not, you were going to close alone). Shouldn't you have reached out and/or waited until two other experienced closers were recruited?
• Just one more point so as not to wall of text this. A most unusual thing in this unusual RM disguised as an RfC, you extensively interacted with one of its main proponents within the RfC while it was in progress. This was done, of course, in good faith, but shouldn't that be disqualifying in any RfC?

In light of all of that, and much more that can be articulated, I respectfully request that you overturn your close and instead ask participants to take the question to an RM at the National Football League Draft page. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: I'm going to have to respectfully decline your request. If another admin has pledged to move war against consensus, that's on them and any conduct issues can be handled at that time. It doesn't change what the consensus actually was. Regarding your framing of the RfC as an opinion poll, I'm well aware that's how you see it. The phrases "opinion poll" and "opinion survey" collectively appeared 16 times on that page, and 14 of them were you (the last two were SMcCandlish quoting you in response). A panel was requested by two editors, and there were no other volunteers. This RfC was very long, but not actually that complicated. Nothing that can't be handled by a single experienced administrator. Who is it that I've "extensively interacted with"? Granted I interact with a lot of people, but I don't recall anything that would call WP:INVOLVED into question. Of course my memory isn't the greatest, so if I missed something please do point it out. The Wordsmith 15:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. You did not address how this RfC is so very dissimilar than the examples you used to justify the close. I thought that your interaction with SMcCandlish in the section asking for a panel of closers may or may not be disqualifying, which is why I asked. The coming edit war is not really an edit war, just a disagreement if this outlier RfC can take the place of an RM - you think it can and others reasonably take the opposite view. I'll ask that you please study the three examples you gave with the focus on checking if they had anything to do with replacing RM's (I'm not reading them as doing so). Taken that there is no precedent for replacing an RM with an RfC in such a way, I think I correctly read the wording of the nomination as asking for opinions. It was not made clear in the nomination wording that the RfC would replace an RM, and many editors did not offer an opinion on the merits because they too did not view the venue as an appropriate substitute for a real RM which would change titles at hundreds of articles. I'd again ask that you reconsider after studying the "precedents" you used as foundational to your close. A last question, do you think it would be appropriate to take your close to a move review (murky water, that)? Randy Kryn (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC) re-ping after name fix Randy Kryn (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I meant to touch on your point about the other precedents, but got distracted so I can address that now. There were several more examples given, but I singled out those three as a few of the most relevant here. They were all examples of RfCs that were not directly an RM, but sought to clarify how a set of pages should be named to comply with the MOS and other policies. With the consensuses (consensi? consenses?) reached, pages were moved as a natural consequence. The circumstances were obviously slightly different, but they were the same from the perspective of "Can a centralized RfC result in page moves for several articles?". I don't think there is an intent here to replace RM with RfC, but as I mentioned in my close WP:CONSENSUS suggests RfC and the Village Pump for seeking a wider consensus when discussions have been contentious. Regarding my interactions with SMC, I've taken another look at them. My two direct replies to him were confirming that I had seen points that he raised, encouraging all participants provide all the policy-based arguments they had, and encouraging civility/discouraging bludgeoning. Those seem to fall squarely within the purely in an administrative role line of WP:UNINVOLVED, as well as Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator involved. As far as going to WP:MRV, it does not seem like that venue is equipped to handle a discussion like this. According to that page, the sidebar, and WP:PROCESS#Formal review, the appropriate venue for seeking review of the closure is WP:AN. The Wordsmith 18:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• I'll be honest, I don't see how there possibly could have been considered a consensus there. So. Many. Issues. That discussion was a disaster. Wrong place; not enough appropriate notifications (e.g. there were no notices at the top of any relevant page as is necessary per WP:RM); many felt that this wasn't really a proper proposal and did not comment (e.g. many of the contributors from the very recent RM on this isssue, such as Jweiss11). Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject College football, one of the most active and interested places on this topic, was never notified. Dicklyon and SMCcandlish (Randy to an extent as well) literally BLUDGEONED THE HELL out the discussion, discouraging many from contributing. The amount of editors actually !voting was like a fifth of the discussion because of all the nonsense side-discussions. Everything–This was a complete wreck. It needs a do-over. That was no consensus. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  The discussion certainly was messy, with tons of bludgeoning, aspersions and assumptions of bad faith. Several editors bludgeoned the crap out of it, both on the Good Forum/Lowercase side and the Bad Forum/Uppercase side (Side note, of all the people who took positions on both the RfC legitimacy and the capitalization, there were zero examples of Good Forum/Uppercase or Bad Forum/Lowercase. It didn't play any part in the closure, but an interesting statistical anomaly nonetheless). I made every effort to ensure that the quality of the argument, and not how many times it was repeated, was the basis for the closure. WikiProject College football wasn't specifically notified about the RfC, but they were notified about the Village Pump discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject College football#Village Pump discussion, concerning the NFL Draft while that discussion was open, a few days prior to the RfC opening. Notifications were also sent to WikiProject National Football League, WikiProject Ice Hockey, WikiProject Baseball, WT:MOS, WT:NCCAPS, and the talkpages of the last several years of NFL drafts as well as the main Talk:National Football League Draft. The Wordsmith 17:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  That's still not enough notifications - college football has many interested editors who would have had interest in the proposal; the vast majority of relevant draft pages had no notifications at all, let alone a notice at the top of the article page (where its more likely to be viewed, and is required by WP:RM), none of which had that. The discussion was perhaps the most disastrous discussion I have ever seen; like half the people thought it wasn't even the proper forum! Many editors were discouraged I'm sure by the bludgeoning in response to everyone that did not agree with Dicklyon and SMcCandlish (to a lesser extent the other side as well) – such a disaster cannot possibly produce a consensus any way. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• I don't think this sanely could have closed any other way. Those who refuse to drop the stick should get on with their WP:AN thread, which will close for endorse, so we can put this to bed and get on with something more productive.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I don't think that discussion sanely could have closed in favor of any way. It was improper in just about every way one could think of. Don't think you're in the best position to accuse of not dropping the stick when you and Dicklyon have been trying for years through rejected proposals, non-consensus based moves against the rejections, and then more rejected proposals until now when you finally get your way through bludgeoning the hell to drive everyone away who doesn't agree with you. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

    Both of you, kindly chill out. This page isn't the place to attack each other and continue rehashing arguments. Continued assumptions of bad faith and accusations regarding sticks, horse-shaped bloody spots on the ground, bludgeoning and the like are not likely to be productive. The Wordsmith 20:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

    Sure. The community coming to a decision BeanieFan11 doesn't like isn't a conspiracy. It's just doing what it does with the available WP:P&G (especially MOS:CAPS and WP:CONLEVEL) and independent instead of primary sourcing. If someone thinks MOS:SPORTCAPS is somehow wrong, or the entire lead of MOS:CAPS is, and that it should say something like "WP will capitalize anything found capitalizd in 50.000001% or more of the sources", that's a proposal they can make at WT:MOSCAPS. Good luck with that, since it would result in orders of magnitude more capitalizations, across at least hundreds of thousands of articles, and the community does not want that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

    Alright, c'mon now, that's definitely not chilling out. There's no need to relitigate this here, I'm confident Wordsmith can handle this themselves. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

BTW - 'The National Football League Draft' page has moved to lowercase. I don't know if that's what the RFC closure calls for? But it's been done. GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@The Wordsmith: - Seeking clarification. Is your decision, giving the 'green' light for National Football League Draft to moved to National Football League draft? GoodDay (talk) 02:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC) - Copied here from the RFC page. The Wordsmith 03:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

My determination was that there was consensus that the pages should be moved to the lowercase titles. That doesn't mean it has to happen all immediately in a mass pagemove; care should be taken to make sure we don't break templates, categories, transclusions, double redirects etc. The Wordsmith 03:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)