Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive350

Need help from someone who can see deleted history

I'm trying to fix some old GA subpage discrepancies, and need a hand at Talk:Fishbowl Inventory. The talk page was created (as far as I have permissions to see) in 2017, per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fishbowl_Inventory&action=history, but the GA review page was created in 2013. An old revision of the WP:GAN page shows that the article was nominated before the review started, so there must have been a talk page at that time. Can someone clarify what happened here? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Mike, I've undeleted the history for you. I'm not sure how much of it is relevant but none of it is harmful. You might need to revert the page back to an old version or pick through old diffs to find what you need but it's all there now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:49, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks; much appreciated. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:50, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Similarly I think there must be deleted history at Talk:Get Enough that contains GA nomination information from 2016; can someone undelete or let me know the nomination details? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing there. The three deleted are "Haro.Arrau moved page Talk:Get Enough to Talk:Get Enough (Ivy song): Get Enough disambiguation (see Get Enough (Paul McCartney song)" and two bot edits. Could it have been lost in the page moves? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:45, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:Get Enough/GA1 to Talk:Get Enough (Ivy song)/GA1 DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 15:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

And also at Talk:Giinagay Way. In that case the article was deleted, and later recreated. Not sure if this is the right place to ask, but in those case where a review such as a GA or FA has taken place, wouldn't it make more sense to keep the talk page? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Undeleted that one. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:47, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, both! Still working my way alphabetically through a list of discrepancies so there may be more. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mike Christie-- still red after all these years. But I may be repeating myself :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

That would be one of the easiest RfAs in Wikipedia history! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

<blushes> If someone waved a magic wand and gave me the tools I wouldn't ask for them to be removed, but this is really the first time I've ever felt the need. And RfA seems like a stressful thing to go through for something I don't really need. And I've next to no experience at things like AfD or vandal fighting. If I find I keep needing the tools I might change my mind. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:04, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

So when people ask you ridiculous questions about things you never intend to use the tools for, you say, "I don't know, don't pretend to know, and will never use the tools in that area anyway, so am not going to waste everyone's time on the answer". We trust you or we don't. Done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Another request: Talk:Viewtiful Joe/GA1 is a 2009 GA, but the histories of Talk:Viewtiful Joe and Viewtiful Joe only go back to 2020, so I am guessing there was a deleted version of the page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Looks like the article was moved and another article written at the original title but the GA review was left behind. I've moved it to Talk:Viewtiful Joe (video game)/GA1. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks; I think that's the last one, for now at least. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Girl in the Basement

Would someone mind emailing me the contents of this draft that was procedurally deleted by G13? I'm thinking I might try to resurrect it and use it for the basis of my first real article creation. I stumbled upon this film by chance while scrolling social media, and having now looked into the background of the film and the actual case it's based on, I'm rather quite intrigued. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I've userfied the content for you at User:Taking Out The Trash/Girl in the Basement. Attribution and all that, ya know. Plus it's easier than copying all the code into an email when you're just going to bring it right back here anyway. ;-) Katie^talk 01:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

User "General Ization" out of control

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See his recent edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.22.180 (talk) 05:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• I would suggest you leave this alone 172.58.22.180. You suggested something bogus on Talk:Eviction , got reverted, then you were rude to General Izatio, and got threatened in return. I suggest you stop aggravating a issue you started off and be constructive. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Umm you're defending him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.22.180 (talk) 06:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for personal attacks for 48h Ymblanter (talk) 06:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Superastig non-admin AfD closes

Superastig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a non-admin who closes WP:Articles for deletion discussions. Since January 2022, eight of their closes have been challenged at WP:Deletion review, with only one being endorsed. WP:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions (guideline, shortcut WP:NACD) states: Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins.

WP:Non-admin closure (essay, shortcut WP:NAC) has more guidance:

While rare mistakes can happen in closes, editors whose closes are being overturned at decision reviews, and/or directly reverted by administrators, should pause closing until they have discussed these closes with an administrator, and that administrator gained comfort that the closer understands their mistakes, and will not repeat them.
— WP:Non-admin closure#Who should close discussions, emphasis in original

A non-admin closure is not appropriate in any of the following situations:
...
2. The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial.
— WP:Non-admin closure#Inappropriate closures, shortcut WP:BADNAC

There were eight DRVs opened from January 2022 through January 2023, and two more in 2021:

DRV date	Original AfD result	Notification	Result	Closing statement excerpt
2023-01-25	No consensus	Special:Diff/1135512002	Reclosed as redirect	User:Sandstein: A majority here, even if maybe not amounting to a consensus to overturn, agrees that this was a mistaken and inappropriate non-admin closure.
2023-01-19	Merge	Special:Diff/1134641042	Vacate/relist
2022-11-18	Keep	Special:Diff/1122578945	Overturn to no consensus	User:Sandstein: I advise Superastig not to close any more AfDs whose outcome is not obvious.
2022-08-13	Redirect	Special:Diff/1104261998	Relist as new AfD
2022-06-20	Redirect	Special:Diff/1094105741	Overturn to relist	User:King of Hearts: Overturn to relist as WP:BADNAC.
2022-03-10	Keep	Special:Diff/1076316147	No consensus, relist	User:Sandstein: Opinions are divided, which illustrates that this was probably not a good AfD for a non-admin to close. As is possible in a no consensus DRV, and also per WP:NACD/WP:BADNAC, which allow the reopening of non-admin closures by admins, I'm relisting the AfD to try to get to a clearer consensus.
2022-02-13	Keep	Special:Diff/1071676119	Endorse
2022-01-28	Redirect	Special:Diff/1068521194	No consensus	User:Sjakkalle: no consensus and I will default this to letting the redirect stand. Making a close like this as a non-admin was probably an overly bold move, and probably out-of-process.
2021-11-03	Keep	Special:Diff/1053393810	Endorse	User:Scottywong: Some users want to trout User:Superastig for performing a non-admin closure on this AfD. While the outcome of this AfD was obviously not controversial, I can think of very few topic areas less controversial than US politics and US presidential elections, and therefore it probably would've been better to wait for an admin to close it, to avoid any potential drama (e.g., this DRV).
2021-06-24	Keep	Special:Diff/1030232459	Relist	User:RoySmith: I can't begin to cogently summarize everything that was said here, but there's clear consensus that this was a WP:BADNAC. I'm going to back out the close and relist it. @Superastig: If you want to wade into closing the more controversial discussions, WP:RfA is always looking for new candidates, but if you don't want to go that route, I would encourage you to be more conservative with WP:NAC.

Superastig's DRV count is egregious. It clearly does not meet the standards of WP:NAC (albeit an essay). Also, there may be other questionable closes. Daniel noted two recent ones at the last DRV. Randykitty reopened and relisted one (notification) in the last 24 hours. From January 2022 to January 2023, Superastig closed 276 AfDs and relisted 57 (Special:Contributions range, Ctrl-F Closed as or Relisting discussion). The close count reduces the error rate (7 / 276 = 2.5%), but it should be practically zero, as non-admins are expected to avoid closing discussions where errors are possible.

Superastig's closes can be replaced easily. 276 closes (even when adding the 57 relists) are less than one per day on average over the 13 month range. Since proper NACs are obvious, each should take a few minutes or less, especially when using a tool like WP:XFDcloser.

Feedback has not corrected Superastig's closing behavior. In addition to pre-DRV talk page queries and the DRVs themselves, seven of the DRV closing statements (excerpted in the table above) called out the NAC and/or Superastig specifically. Two should be noted:

• The June/July 2021 close included a ping to notify Superastig of its advice. That occurred around 19 months ago.
• After the November 2022 close, Superastig copied it to their user page – attributed to author=Boasty – on 2023-01-01 and followed it with two DRV-challenged closes within a few weeks.

Flatscan (talk) 05:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Notification diff. Flatscan (talk) 05:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Why does this discussion have so many sections and so much formatting? I picked one of the recent discussions at random. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Radha Jayalakshmi is a bit confusing. Why was that closed as "redirect"? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: Superastig is topic banned from closing AfDs

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Oppose. ...the error rate (7 / 276 = 2.5%)... - if someone closes correctly 97.5% of the time, I do not think we should TBAN them from closing. Instead, I'd say thanks for closing/relisting almost 1 AfD per day for the last year. Levivich (talk) 05:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
  • A purely symbolic gesture at this point, but I'm striking my oppose because I cannot get on board with someone continuing to edit but not participating in an AN thread about their closes. (Particularly as there has been one close during this discussion.) I agree with NBB's point below that if you NAC AFDs, you take on WP:ADMINACCT, and that means responding promptly to good-faith concerns, such as the ones raised here. Also per NBB, I would support some lesser sanction like "must re-open any challenged close", which would also have the benefit of forcing Astig to be damn sure their closes won't be challenged (which is what I think the community wants). Levivich (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support. I was planning on bringing this here myself, for largely the same reasons as Flatscan. I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say that Superastig has had more AfD non-admin closes overturned at DRV in the last year or two than any other editor (by quite a wide margin). That's a problem because of WP:NACD, but it's also a problem because each of these contentious closures wastes a week's worth of editors' time at DRV and unnecessarily prolongs the deletion process. Just as concerning is the failure to listen to consensus: Superastig was told nearly two years ago to be more conservative with WP:NAC, but instead the out-of-process closures have continued apace (and indeed advice has been mocked, as noted above). As for the idea that this is an acceptable error rate, non-admin AfD closers should hold themselves to a very high standard of uncontroversialness (back when I did AfD NACs, not a single one of my 393 closures was ever even taken to DRV, much less overturned), and at any rate the 2.5% figure excludes the bad closures that were never taken to DRV. That said, if editors don't feel a full TBAN is warranted, we could also consider a lesser editing restriction, e.g. "if someone makes a good-faith challenge of one of your closures on your talk page, you must re-open the AfD". But in my view, someone who keeps doing the same thing that consensus rejects shouldn't be closing AfDs at all. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  Firstly, the fact that none of your closures were brought to DRV as opposed to 8 of his is irrelevant; there are no minimum requirements to bring them there, and the losing side (the nominator of a failed discussion, or the author of a page deleted per a successful one) could do it with little cause; and a bad closure of a page in an unpopular topic may never be examined. And secondly, there is no way to know, without someone taking a reasonable-sized sample, to rule that any closure he did was wrong without a major case-by-case review - which we only have for 8 closures. Animal lover |666| 08:20, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  I don't really disagree with any of that, and perhaps I phrased my comment poorly. The main issue for me is that 1) Superastig made controversial and incorrect closures, 2) he was told by numerous editors at DRV to stop doing that, and 3) he hasn't heeded that consensus and keeps doing the same thing. This is a longstanding problem that's consumed countless hours of editors' time, and the problem doesn't go away just because Superastig has also made uncontroversial closures. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. As long as the other 268 closures went unchallenged, they are to be assumed to be correct. Having roughly 1 mistake in 40 does not look so bad. Animal lover |666| 06:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  One more remark, related to below: If an AFD is closed as delete, then any user may create a redirect at the same title; if the closer thinks it's appropriate, is there any reason not to do it immediately in stead of having the page deleted first? And is there any reason not to state this in the closing statement? And, that having been said, would a case with no clear result between delete and redirect, but with those 2 clearly far ahead of keep, be best closed as redirect? Animal lover |666| 17:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per Levivich. Apparently, a vast majority of his closes are good. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 16:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - If you're a non-admin and you're going to get yourself involved in an area of Wikipedia that already gets quite hot due to the implications involved, then you better get it right all the time. Serious errors which result in DRVs waste everybody's time, and combining this with obstinate behavior is hardly a desired temperament for someone making NACs.--⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 16:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
• Weak support based on the most recent 15 closures listed below. If you're going to do NACs, they should only be done on very uncontroversial closures and you really need to get them right. My first preference would be for this thread to be closed with a Warning, but based on some of the diffs presented this user doesn't seem very receptive so stronger measures may be necessary. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• Switching to Support per this diff, I no longer see any value in a formal warning given the WP:IDHT response. I've been convinced the topic ban is necessary. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support The community has indicated that it prefers admins to make close calls and controversial decisions and, less formally, also recognizes that WP:RELISTBIAS exists. If this editor isn't able to make those distinctions - and the analysis below suggests that there's not - there's plenty of ways for them to help out without closing discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support. As a regular DRV closer, whenever I see Superastig in a DRV it is because they mistakenly closed an AfD. We do not expect perfection from closers, but an ability to learn and communicate, both of which I see no evidence of here. Sandstein 22:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Editors undertaking admin-level tasks should be expected to display admin-level behavior regarding those tasks, and that is definitely not occurring here. Superastig has a poor response rate to problems raised re: his AfD participation, and when he does respond it's often dismissive and incomplete. It also is apparent that he has not listened to the recommendations by several admins that he desist closing marginal AfDs. This is especially an issue given his dismal DRV stats, the numerous issues identified with the closures that aren't taken to DRV, and the quite poor AfD !vote match rate. This is all under circumstances where BADNACs should be extremely rare.

Superastig's seeming agenda of purposely closing discussions leaning delete as redirects or NC, often based on single !votes and against consensus, just to prevent deletion, is completely at odds with deletion policy and NACD. Nowhere does DEL "require" an ATD be considered, much less implemented against a consensus to delete. DEL says A page can be blanked and redirected if there is a suitable page to redirect to, and if the resulting redirect is not inappropriate.. That's "can", not "must" or even "should". In fact, the only place on DEL that uses any sort of binding language regarding an ATD is in the WP:ATD section WP:ATD-E, which states If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. "Editing" in this section strictly refers to disputes, vandalism, and stubbification, and obviously not any of the other ATDs, which have their own sections. This distinction is also referenced in DELREASON: Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following (subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page). So his overriding consensus delete discussions with useless redirects has no policy support. In fact, Rosguill's assessment understates the degree some of the closes go against consensus:

...Radha Jayalakshmi (closed 7 Feb) was 5d:1r:2k, with the first keep being blocked for sockpuppetry on 5 Feb and the second blocked and struck at the same time as their sock. Neither keep made any P&G-based argument anyway and so should have been totally discounted even if they hadn't been blocked.

...S. C. Krishnan (closed 7 Feb) and ...T. R. Mahalingam (closed 6 Feb) were both 3d:1r:1k, with the keep !voter the same as above (blocked 5 Feb)

...Runa Laila (closed 6 Feb) was 2d:1r

...Kanak Chapa (closed 5 Feb 15:00) was 2d:1r:1k, with the keep from the sock (blocked two hours after the close, but their !vote should've been ignored anyway as it's just Legendary singer and well rererenced discography)

Fire Eshona (closed 17 Jan) was 2d:1m, but the nom notes that there is nothing reliably sourced and encyclopedic to merge. Superastig didn't even perform the merge, either.

Fatih Mehmet Gul (closed 15 Jan) was 3d:3k, but none of the keeps had valid arguments and so should have been ignored even before two of them were struck as socks.

Closers need to assess not only the argument weights, but also the users behind the !votes, so it is inexcusable for Superastig to have "missed" the glaring blocked socks and suspicious IPs, and even worse that he apparently lacks the competence to recognize invalid !votes. JoelleJay (talk) 02:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Moved from the bottom of the "discussion" subsection below. ansh.666 03:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. If the issue here is that about 1-in-25 closes made by the user are incorrect, and less-restrictive-than-TBAN corrective actions have not yet been attempted, then I think a general TBAN from the topic is premature. Rather than TBANNING them, I think assigning the user a mentor to help their ability to discern when a case is going to be contentious would be wiser. The user seems to have become a little more bold lately, and a warning to the user to slow down on that might be warranted, but an indefinite TBAN seems excessive when there are ways to address this that are not nearly as restrictive. Allowing the user to take on some of the bureaucratic work while under guidance from an admin will improve the user's competency here while also allowing them to perform good work for the project. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

  The community has indicated, unlike RMs, RfCs, and even TfDs, that it prefers admins handle AfDs. Assigning someone a mentor to something that is already a marginally endorsed activity feels like a poor use of everyone's time. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

  I understand that the community prefer admins handle contentious AfDs, particularly so given how much community time poor closes take up. That being said, the community also acknowledges that there is a role for NACs at AfD to help clear out more of the simple closes, thereby allowing admins to spend more their AfD-closing admin-hours analyzing the tougher calls. A mentor would be there as someone to bounce off "is this something I should leave to admins" and to offer advice in responding to challenges of AfD closures. This doesn't seem like a waste of community time; something informal that could offer fraternal correction seems to be utterly reasonable. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

  Is Superastig actually interested in receiving mentorship? Usually mentorship is offered when an editor is facing a sanction and clamoring to avoid it, but Superastig has essentially ignored all discussions regarding their closures not posted on their talk page (and even then, the responses have uniformly been to demur concerns) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, Superastig's lack of response here is making me reconsider my !vote. As is the apparent fact that they've never self-reverted a close? I wouldn't TBAN on "failure rate", but on lack of engagement? Absolutely. Levivich (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

  This is very much my concern (the responses, that is) - but to clarify, it's not lack of engagement, since there's evidence of interaction, there's just complete refusal change their position in the face of clear evidence they've made mistakes. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Levivich, apparently he did revert himself once, in the talk page discussion linked by Sergecross below, with the comment (after being threatened with DRV) fine! I already reverted the closure, but I'm doing it just because I'm pressured with your hissy fits. His comments in that thread suggest he at least at that time had an egregiously deficient understanding of what "weighing consensus" means. After Sergecross explained that a keep !vote that simply stated an album got 3 stars from Allmusic was not policy-based and should not have been weighed equal to policy-backed redirect and delete arguments, Superastig's response was I've seen a few discussions like this, where each of them has only 1 "keep" vote and 1 "delete" vote. Either of them is weaker than the other. But after two relists, it was closed as "no consensus". The same case as this discussion. The "keep" vote is weaker than the "redirect" vote since the voter only mentioned nothing else but AllMusic. But, whether it is rebutted or not, it is still valid like the "redirect" argument no matter what. It doesn't sound fair to say that it's not valid. For the nth time, there was really nothing wrong with the closure I did. I did what I could to make the closure fair and square, though I could've added an explanation to back up the closure in the first place. Therefore, even if you throw hissy fits all day long, I really did a good job in giving proper weight to the given arguments. And there's nothing you can do about it because I am telling the truth. This conversation is now over. I'm not gonna waste my time responding to this again. JoelleJay (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah they definitely lost their cool on that one, but that was 19 months and probably like 300+ closes ago; I don't think isolated incidents that old are worth considering. I think the tone of their recent discussions (the last month) were fine. But just as I don't think 7/276 is too many DRVs, it's also not too many times to self-revert, so it cuts both ways. Levivich (talk) 04:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  I see that disagreement as part of a pattern of dismissive behavior, but I acknowledge that Superastig's tone has improved for the last several months. Superastig was fond of telling enquirers to [[WP:STICK|drop the stick]]: June 2021, November 2021, January 2022 talk page header (removed within a few weeks, after a request), and August 2022. Flatscan (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  In my opinion it's a problem that he has continuously characterized all opposition to his closes as "hissy fits" and has ignored the advice of a very large number of people over a very long period recommending he desist in closing AfDs, including pretty strong warnings from admins at DRV. And that only 8 of his articles have been taken to DRV does not mean his other closes were acceptable or went unchallenged after being discouraged by the notice at the top of his talk page, which until recently said If you're here to throw hissy fits over the closures of any deletion discussion, either drop the stick and accept the consensus or take them to the deletion review. The closures I've done are well-thought and therefore final, whether you like it or not. So, ain't nobody got time to argue with anyone over this matter. And it is certainly not acceptable that he purposely prevents deletions with preemptive redirect/NC/merge closures even when there is no consensus for those outcomes and/or they make no sense. His failure to recognize poor !vote arguments and obvious socks (and even socks that have been blocked and their !votes struck) is also concerning. JoelleJay (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  That talk page header was ridiculous, but that was a year ago, and I don't see it as "continuously" being uncivil. The Aug 2022 link Flatscan posted above doesn't read as problematic to me, except maybe the link to "stick" was not necessary. So if there haven't been communication problems in 8-12 months, I just don't see it as relevant; it's been fixed. There are, of course, more recent concerns raised in this thread, and I don't think those can really be addressed by anyone other than Astig. Levivich (talk) 05:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  As Extraordinary Writ has pointed out way down at the bottom of the discussion section, Superastig's "response" to this thread suggests that they still hold the same mentality espoused in that talk page header. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  That one, Danko Jones (EP), is the only self-revert of a close I found when skimming (Ctrl-F doesn't work well in this case) Superastig's contributions (2 pages) since they started closing AfDs in March 2021. Flatscan (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support While I agree the errors are an issue, by themselves alone I might not be on this side of the argument. However, it is not the overall error rate which puts me here, it is the repeated refusal to reconsider their closes when requested. That appears to be an 80-90% error rate. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Only 8 out of 276 closes went to DRV? That's a much better rate than I have! I'd probably encourage them to voluntarily back off a little or limit themselves to the REALLY obvious closes, but a topic ban goes way too far. WaggersTALK 13:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
• Weak support. It is not a question of the numerical percentage of a deletion review in regards to unchallenged moves, but the overall frequency of it occurring. I remember my struggles when I was first getting in to RM closing, and some utter cluelessness on my part encouraged me to rightfully back off and simply watch and learn until I could better weigh arguments. Having more than two NACs vacated/overturned within a month is more than enough of a warning to stop closing until you can either (a) understand the weight of policy to avoid poor closures (b) realize that you're clueless and should stop for good to avoid SUPERVOTEing. I encourage Superastig to pick one of the two, and in the case of a, suggest that they find a mentor of some kind to help. If possible, I'd support a six-month topic ban at the minimum to help them slow down and learn. The Night Watch (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support as per Sandstein. My name is mentioned above as offering commentary in the most recent DRV, and I do have concerns about this editor's ability to consistently close AfD's within the parameters set by the NAC guidelines. If this was a one-off or even a small number, you live with it (heck, one of my closes is at DRV currently), but there is a long pattern here with no real engagement by Superastig on the issues. Daniel (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per arguments of Levivich and Red-tailed Hawk. I suggest he should slow down in closing AfDs coz I feel that sometimes he acts like an admin-level closer when it comes to closing them and he should focus on the ones with easier outcomes. On the other hand, I see nothing wrong with most of his closures IMV, I'd question only a couple of them in fact. 268 of his other closures are correct. So it'll be unfair if he'll be TBANned indefinitely (or temporarily) just because of the 7 challenged closures that are overturned/relisted. Especially that he sometimes votes in AfDs. SBKSPP (talk) 23:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  Please move your recommendation to the Involved subsection below. You are clearly acquainted with Superastig. Most of your 24 edits to their talk page relate to their AfD closes and/or DRVs, including your comment shortly before participating here. You also supported endorse at all ten of the DRVs listed in the table. Flatscan (talk) 05:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  Oh. Didn't know where to vote. Thx anyways. SBKSPP (talk) 06:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  Moved below. SBKSPP (talk) 06:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support (for several reasons) - having 8 DRVs as a NAC is not necessarily an issue. Having 1/8 DRVs upheld is significantly more a problem. But the user's issues there are somewhat broader. I concur their civility in the process is much improved and no longer a particular issue. However, as a nac user, general community consensus is that they are not to take on close closes. In that position, their reticence to reopen their own close when asked is a persistent failing. Beyond that, I find their lack of engagement post-discussion, or in DRVs, or in this discussion itself, especially concerning. Anyone who makes a nac is taking on the same onus that ADMINACCT applies, and I do not believe their engagement to date demonstrates meeting that obligation. Multiple DRV closes have provided warnings, so I believe a TBAN is justified. Should someone propose a reasonable lesser limitation (e.g. obligated to reopen on GF request), then I can be viewed as a support for such above the TBAN. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support because of the continuing high rate of BADNAC seen in the analysis by Rosguill and the confrontational attitude towards this issue seen in the comments linked by Extraordinary Writ. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:08, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Not seeing any obvious reason to ban this user. Superastig has closed almost 300 AfDs, and most are closed correctly. So apparently, closing seven AfDs incorrectly is so horrible that it warrants a topic ban? I'd probably at most support a warning as a reasonable concession, but a topic ban is really excessive. Nythar (💬-❄️) 08:56, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

  What effect do you expect a warning to have? As pointed out already, including by Nosebagbear two recommendations up, Superastig has received ample directed feedback via the DRV closing statements, but they have not corrected their closing behavior. Flatscan (talk) 05:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

  Flatscan, the formal warning I am suggesting (not one at DRV) would discourage Superastig from engaging in controversial AfD closures and to generally not engage in AfD closures for a period of 6 months. This is different from a topic ban, which is a complete restriction. The reason I support this is because I simply do not understand why 7 supposedly "incorrect" closures are justification for a topic ban. And they're technically not "incorrect" either. Sometimes a discussion at AfD will result in "keep" the first time, and perhaps the second and even the third. And the fourth nomination then results in the article getting deleted. Can't the same thing happen at DRV? Of course it can. Maybe if it were an entirely different group of editors voting at DRV, Superastig would have been wrong only 3 times. I'd like to see conclusive evidence that Superastig's AfD closures are very disruptive and that the only solution available for this disruptive behavior is a complete restriction--a topic ban. I have seen nothing resembling this. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 06:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

  Based on the evidence presented, I believe that a formal warning will be ineffective. I note that WP:Banning policy (permalink) does not mention "warn" anywhere. I disagree that DRV has the high variance you describe: it has consistent participation and a group of regulars, encouraged by having a fraction of AfD's volume. Flatscan (talk) 05:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  I did not say DRV participants vary greatly; I said "if" there was a different crowd at DRV, some of the results may have been different. As for a warning/topic ban, that is up to the participants of this discussion to decide. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 07:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support. If 2.5% of closures are taken to DRV, it does not mean that 97.5% of closures were good. Only a fraction of bad closures are taken to DRV. In my experience, it is a small fraction (acknowledging that there is no objective definition of goodness). So the statistics are against Superastig, not for Superastig. If stronger evidence is needed, someone experienced has to go through the last, say, 50 closures. Zero^talk 09:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Zero0000: Perhaps you could do that instead of assuming that a large percentage of Superastig's AfD closures are incorrect? That's the problem with assumptions; you can't know if they're correct, and they could be wrong. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 10:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

    My claim that only a fraction of bad closures are taken to DRV is my experience over many years. Zero^talk 14:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

    Not to mention a 1/7 endorse rate indicates he's actually really bad at closing controversial discussions, which he shouldn't even be closing in the first place. JoelleJay (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

    Zero0000, I meant that you should look through Superastig's closures and list every obviously incorrect and disruptive closure you can find. "My experience over many years" is not justification for a topic ban. If I supported a topic ban for an editor, why shouldn't I at least try to justify my vote with actual evidence, instead of just assumptions? 97.5% is not a bad look. If this were to decrease to, say, 60%, that then that would be a bad look. Even then, a formal warning and recommendation to stay away from all AfD closures for 6 months seems like a reasonable solution. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 06:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

    Many, if not most, of the contributors here are less concerned about the specific statisical incidence, and more the (continuing) nature of response when asked to reconsider, depsite multiple opportunities to amend. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

    Like I said here, Superastig's seven closures might not have been considered "incorrect" if there was a different crowd at DRV. And in fact, one of the 8 closures taken to DRV was accepted by the community. It's difficult to expect an editor to "amend" when it all depends on the community's opinions. "Superastig should only close AfDs if the closure lines up with our opinions which we will voice tomorrow at DRV" is the vibe I'm getting here. Again, this can be easily solved with a warning and recommendation that Superastig not engage in controversial closures and to generally refrain from closing AfDs for a few months. And this time a formal warning, not requests at DRV or talk pages. If there is disruption after the formal warning is issued, a topic ban will likely uncontroversially follow. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 10:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

    It's not about a difference of opinion, or who turns up to a discussion, it's about *how* one expresses oneself, the *nature* of the response, its effect, and subsequent actions, not simply the closure decision(s). Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

    Diffs have been posted above of attempts to discuss the issue with Superastig, he has been shown to be less than willing to accept feedback from more experienced users. That's why I gave the proposal a weak support above, because I don't think a warning would have any effect and we'd be back here in a couple months. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Would also support a restriction short of a full ban on NACs. I don't have an issue with implementing reasonable alternatives to deletion like merge or redirect but close calls or potentially controversial decisions should be left to administrators. That has been the community consensus for many years and if Superastig can't abide by that, they shouldn't be closing AfDs at all. The odd mistake or lapse of judgement would be perfectly acceptable but there appears to be a pattern of overstepping the bounds here and not even coming to explain yourself when your actions are questioned at a noticeboard is poor form. If you're not willing to account for your action, you shouldn't be surprised to find your privilege to perform it revoked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Involved

• Support indefinite topic ban as proposer. I participated in two of the DRVs (January 2022 and June 2022, recommending overturn for both) and commented on the June AfD after it was relisted. I also approached Superastig about closes I found questionable at User talk:Superastig/Archive 6#AfD intersection with SBKSPP (June 2022, permalink), disengaging after three comments. Flatscan (talk) 05:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per my analysis below. Even when just looking at closes made in the past month, there's a clear pattern of supervoting and other questionable closes, combined with unsatisfactory engagement with concerns raised by other editors when brought to DRV. Given the high proportion of problematic closes in the last month, my guess is that a significant chunk of their yet-unchallenged closes leave something to be desired as well. I don't think that the oppose argument that Superastig is right 39/40 times holds water; my assessment of their last month in closes is that out of 15, 5 were clearly wrong, 6 were defensible outcomes but did not reflect the balance of the discussion, and the remaining 4 were trivial, unanimous cases. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per arguments of Levivich and Red-tailed Hawk. As an editor who occasionally asks advice from him after warning me once, I suggest he should slow down in closing AfDs coz I feel that sometimes he acts like an admin-level closer when it comes to closing them and he should focus on the ones with easier outcomes. On the other hand, I see nothing wrong with most of his closures IMV, I'd question only a couple of them in fact. 268 of his other closures are correct. So it'll be unfair if he'll be TBANned indefinitely (or temporarily) just because of the 7 challenged closures that are overturned/relisted. Especially that he sometimes votes in AfDs. SBKSPP (talk) 06:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• While I've contested Superastig's closes and think that a tban is a plausible outcome here, especially since there's the ignoring of consensus-backed advice, but don't we need to do a bit more digging through the discussions that haven't been challenged before calling for a tban? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  Ok, so looking through their most recent closes (list goes back to mid-January 2023), I do think we have a problem here, with a lot of dubious borderline closes that read like WP:SUPERVOTEs.

  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Radha Jayalakshmi - In a discussion with 4 delete !votes, 1 redirect !vote, and 2 struck sock !votes for keep, closed as redirect.
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by S. C. Krishnan, 2 delete, 1 keep, 1 struck sock for keep, closed as redirect
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by T. R. Mahalingam, 1 delete, 1 keep, previously soft deleted at AfD, closed as redirect
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Belfield (4th nomination) close vacated and relisted by Oaktree b
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Urdu songs recorded by Runa Laila, 1 delete, 1 redirect, closed as redirect
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Kanak Chapa, 1 delete, 1 redirect, 1 discounted struck sock, closed as redirect
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Badnaseeb (2nd nomination) overturned following DRV
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/21 High Street Doha overturned following DRV
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William (footballer, born 1982) unanimous keep, nom blocked as sock, no support for deletion.
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big, Blonde and Beautiful , unanimous redirect
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gemini Home Entertainment, unanimous keep
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fire Eshona, 2 delete, 1 merge, closed as merge
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NER Class Z unanimous keep
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatih Mehmet Gul, 2 delete, 3 keep, but keep !voters did not engage with counterarguments and 2 were later blocked for sockpuppetry, closed as no consensus should probably be taken to DRV and reopened.
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Morro, 2 delete, 1 delete-or-redirect, 1 redirect, closed as redirect

  This is not a good track record, there's a clear tendency to close as redirect over delete even when numerically deletion is favored, without clear justification based on the weight of arguments. Both the empirical record above, and Superastig's own comments at User_talk:Superastig/Archive_6#AfD_intersection_with_SBKSPP, suggest that Superastig is disproportionately weighting !votes made by SBKSPP. There's also several examples of inappropriately closing discussions as keep or no consensus when the balance of arguments (and evidence of socking) should have given them pause. Their AfD match rate when voting is also relatively weak (66.7%, with no mitigating circumstances that I'm aware of). If this was the first time that issues were being raised I'd consider arguing that a warning to stick to the unanimous calls would be sufficient, but given that this behavior is taking place after being repeatedly told at DRV to back off from close-call or contentious closures, and is coupled with an unwillingness to engage constructively with discussions about their closes, I think a tban from closing discussions is warranted. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Rosguill: What are your thoughts about this argument Astig makes in that SBKSPP discussion from last summer you linked to: It's not much of a big deal if the outcome of a certain discussion was redirect after only one redirect vote over a handful of delete votes since the consensus is clearly against having an article and a redirect is their typical ATD ... I don't like the idea of getting them closed as delete and redirect because no one can add some content from their history in which they believe are useful to the respective target articles. I follow ATD and PRESERVE, which are both policies, before closing their respective discussions as redirect? Or to put it more broadly: what's wrong with weighing votes against ATD/PRESERVE? (I have not yet looked at the more-recent AFDs you linked to, but will do so.) Levivich (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  Levivich, assuming I'm correctly interpreting your broad question as "what's wrong with weighting votes in favor of ATD" I think that the it's a clear case of a type of close that a non-admin should stay away from because their decision will be biased by not having access to the delete button. From the set above, while some of the "List of songs..." examples are cases where ATD is arguably the policy-correct outcome (if not the actual balance of discussion), others, like List of Urdu songs recorded by Runa Laila, are not--no such list exists at the target, and the ensuing redirect is unhelpful (not to mention circular). If Superastig was including thoughtful closes and engaging with discussion when challenged, or if the problem closes were exclusively limited to "closing 'redirect' when the discussion says 'delete' but the redirect is helpful", I'd be more amenable to their continued activity in the area, but given that they have essentially been unacountable to the community's concerns at DRV thus far, and that issues seem to extend to improperly assessing no consensus outcomes I don't see the benefit in their continuing to close discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  The benefit I see in their continuing to close discussions is the 300+ good closures/relists per year we get. I'm perfectly willing to "sacrifice" 7 DRVs to get 300 good closes. In other words, if the cost of 300 closures is the time spent on 7 DRVs, that's worth it. (And I don't agree that there were, in fact, 7 bad closes among the DRVs listed in the OP.)

  I've looked at the list of recent closures, and here is my take on them (out of order):

  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Radha Jayalakshmi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by S. C. Krishnan, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by T. R. Mahalingam, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Urdu songs recorded by Runa Laila, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Kanak Chapa - In my view, it's inherently silly to redirect as "List of songs recorder by X" to the article "X". As you say, it's kind of circular and unnecessary. But not wrong, not against policy, and not against the consensus displayed in those discussions. If you have 1 keep, 1 redirect, and 1 delete, closing as redirect is reasonable; it's reasonable to apply ATD and PRESERVE and weigh both the keep and delete vote less than one weighs the redirect vote. In the case of list of songs redirected to the artist, I wouldn't do that, but I do not see these closes as closed "wrong" or disruptively; this is minor in my view.
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Belfield (4th nomination) - the keep close was correct and I don't think it needed to be relisted; I just !voted keep. This is an obvious keep IMO, almost snow-worthy.
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Badnaseeb (2nd nomination) - The NAC of "no consensus" seems correct to me. It's the re-close as "redirect" that seems like... wait for it... applying ATD and PRESERVE :-) I mean, Sandstein did what Astig used to do, which is weigh the votes towards ATD. Given that Astig was given feedback about not doing that, I can see why Astig closed this as a "no consensus" instead of a "redirect". But really, the take-away I'm getting is that weighing votes is something an admin can do but a non-admin closer cannot? I disagree.
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/21 High Street Doha - NACed as "merge", taken to DRV, relisted, closed by an admin as "redirect". The original close was correct, what a waste of time!
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatih Mehmet Gul - after two relists, with most of the participants being LTAs, this looks like a proper "no consensus" close
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Morro - proper application of an obvious ATD
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William (footballer, born 1982), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big, Blonde and Beautiful, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gemini Home Entertainment, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NER Class Z. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fire Eshona were obviously closed correctly, being unanimous or near unanimous

  I'm not seeing a problem here. 15 closes and the only problem I have is the five "list of songs..." didn't need to be redirected, but it's not worth having them stop. Having them stop closing would be a significant net loss to the project, because we'd lose the good closes. Levivich (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  I think your reading of Badnaseeb and its DRV is rather odd. The issue there was that keep votes were not properly discounted--i.e. that they should have weighted differently there. There's a similar issue at Fatih Mehmet Gul, where keep !votes should have been discounted due to LTA status and non-engagement with discussion, but were not. Finally, regarding 21 High Street Doha, I think that the balance of discussion at the time of their original close was significantly different from the final close (compare: Original close, final close). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  On Fatih Mehmet Gul, correct me if I'm misreading it, but those accounts weren't blocked until after the AFD closed (closure 1/15, blocks 1/17 and 1/19). Discounting votes due to non-engagement in discussion? Show me an AFD where that happened :-P

  On 21 High Street Doha, the numerical !vote count changed, but the balance of arguments are the same, as is the applicability of ATD to that entry. I mean, the fact that after more attention, more people voted "redirect" confirms that "redirect" was the proper application of global consensus to this title. (I do not consider "merge" and "redirect" as being qualitatively different.)

  On Badnaseeb, I agree with you that Astig should have discounted votes instead of going the "no consensus" route and closed it as a "redirect", as it was ultimately closed by an admin... but I can forgive Astig for not doing that, given that this close was made on the heels of the 21 High Street Doha DRV. I don't agree with TBANing him for making this mistake. When I count the closes that I actually think are in error, I'm looking at 3 or 4 over the course of a year (including Badnaseeb)... a 98% or 99% match rate is really, really good for NACing AFDs, IMO. Levivich (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  For 21 High Street Doha, the correct call at the time of Superastig's close was to relist. There had been no prior relists and consensus was unclear. If the balance of discussion had been the same after 2, or even 1 relist, Superastig's close would have been defensible. For Fatih Mehmet Gul, the correct call would have been to recognize that this is a close and convoluted discussion with SPAs involved and to not NAC it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  I would not relist this AFD. It was unanimous that we should not have an article at that title; the only question was whether to delete outright or redirect; WP:ATD says redirect (as a matter of policy!). I mean it's the same situation as Badnaseeb; in both cases, redirect is the right close per ATD. I mostly disagree with the notion that when Astig correctly weighed votes at 21 High Street, that was overturned, and then when he didn't weigh votes at Badnaseeb, that was also overturned, and we're going to TBAN him for this. My view is that 21 High St should not have been overturned, and if it wasn't, Astig would have weighed Badnaseeb correctly, and that wouldn't be overturned, either. Levivich (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  Finally, regarding the calculus of I'm perfectly willing to "sacrifice" 7 DRVs to get 300 good closes--I think that misrepresents the content and quality of the good closes. A good NAC close is an obvious close, which by definition do not take long to perform. Even with an overabundance of caution, closing such a discussion should take no more than 2 minutes. A DRV, meanwhile, is going to take 5-30 minutes of time for each participant in the discussion, plus additional time in closing. So, my math is that on the good side we've saved 10 hours of work, whereas on the bad side we've cost the community 17.5 hours of work, and that's before factoring in discussions such as this one and the further examination of other closes they've done. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  I strongly disagree that closing such a discussion should take no more than 2 minutes. One must read the discussion in order to determine if it is in fact controversial or noncontroversial. That takes longer than two minutes. I'd estimate NACing an AFD to take 10-30 minutes per AFD. It's true that a DRV is the same 10-30 minutes, but per participant, so you have a multiplication effect. Taking the lower bound of 10 minutes and using some round estimates to make the math easier: 10 minutes x 300 closes = 3,000 labor-minutes. 10 minutes x 7 DRVs x 10 participants per DRV = 700 labor-minutes. I admit this is some fuzzy math, but I think it illustrates the point. Levivich (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  I think we may have a different bar for the level of obviousness expected from a NAC. I think that, particularly in the case of an editor who has been repeatedly warned at DRV to stay away from contentious or close calls, the only closes that should be performed are ones where the discussion is essentially unanimous, where an uninvolved closer is a formality. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  I think that's exactly right. To me, "obvious" doesn't mean "unanimous", and it doesn't mean "requires no weighing of votes", it means "the outcome is obvious to any experienced editor", even if that obvious outcome requires weighing votes. For example, I think it's OK for for a NAC to discount "IAR keep" votes, or to discount blocked sock votes, or to apply ATD. Levivich (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  By the way, looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatih Mehmet Gul at the time of closure (before the socks were blocked), would a "no consensus" closure have been wrong? This is unrelated to the question of re-opening it now that they are known to be socks. Animal lover |666| 18:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  I think that at the time of the close it was on the borderline between deletion and no consensus, with an even vote count but a balance of discussion favoring delete. But bringing it back to the question of whether NAC is appropriate, I think it's worthwhile to discourage NACs in such situations, not just because of WP:RELISTBIAS but also to save the non-admin's time--it's not saving the project time to have non-admins pore over discussions for a good 10-30 min only to come to the conclusion that delete is the correct outcome, in which case there's nothing they can do and the time has been wasted. This issue could be avoided if we adopted a convention to allow NACs to recommend deletion closes, which apparently is already sort of the practice at CfD where deletion first requires a lot of non-delete-button-related cleanup _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  Hm, I don't think that's quite the point of contention between our understandings. I agree that it's fine for an NAC to discount "IAR keep" votes, or to discount blocked sock votes, or to apply ATD (and that failure to do so may itself be a problem!), but that the resulting consensus arrived at should not be ambiguous or leave room for interpretation. NACs should not be closing discussions as no consensus when there is a plausible interpretation of the balance of debate favoring deletion, even if an admin coming in and closing it as no consensus would be defensible. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with Levivich's analysis. I also see nothing wrong with the closures presented, including the redirects since ATD is key. One of the !voters in the list of songs states that he's "not opposed for a redirect". Besides, a redirect doesn't hurt at all. SBKSPP (talk) 23:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  Deletion policy as written does not require editors or closers to consider ATDs or to implement them against consensus to delete. The redirects were both pointless and lacking in any P&G support, and as closers are expected to evaluate the legitimacy of AfD participants as well as their arguments' validity none of the BADNACs noted by Rosguill above can even be justified as the type of "redirect-as-compromise" close that might be acceptable from e.g. a 5d-1r-2k !vote landscape. Every single keep !vote in those AfDs should have been ignored even in the absence of blatant socking. See my !vote above. JoelleJay (talk) 02:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

• Frankly I'm surprised that someone who I have down as "most uncooperative AfD behavior ever encountered" should now be in the habit of closing them. The second half of any of their !votes used to be, literally, "that's my opinion, I'm not ever going to change it, so don't bother responding, kthnxbye". Not having visited many non-STEM AfDs recently, I possibly have missed a complete heel-face turn there, but chances are that someone with that approach to deletion discussions should not be closing even uncontroversial AfDs. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
• We don't do numbered !votes for ban proposals, or at least shouldn't, so I have combined the support/oppose/neutral sections above. @Levivich and Animal lover 666: This has involved slight refactoring of your comments; feel free to modify further as you see fit. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  For the record, I imitated the formatting of a community ban proposal that was on AN when I started drafting. I just realized that the Support, Oppose, and Neutral subsections match WP:Requests for adminship. Flatscan (talk) 05:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

• Just a quick comment, IMO we should consider a DRV overturn as at least effectively 2 errors. I haven't looked into the details for these DRVs but I assume the normal procedure was followed for them all and the editors concerned first approached Superastig explaining their concerns but this wasn't enough to convince Superastig to do something (probably overturn their close and leave it for someone else). For this reason, simple raw counts of their 'error rate' is IMO somewhat flawed for something like this. Indeed IMO I would consider failing to properly take on board concerns about your close especially as an NAC and where there's been a consensus you have had problems before, as something which should count for more than "2 errors" if you wanted to put it into raw numbers. As I haven't looked into the details, as there is mentioned of January, it's possible that Superastig wasn't able to take on board the DRV feedback for all challenges as some were partly simultaneously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nil Einne (talk • contribs) 11:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

  I skimmed through the notification diffs from the table: my count is seven after discussion and three with no prior message. Flatscan (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• I'm still undecided, as I've had both good and bad interactions with SuperAstig. They make plenty of good closes, but this was definitely an example of a bad close and a negative interaction with him when I asked about it. Sergecross73 msg me 14:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
• Noting that Superastig has responded to this AN thread here by describing it as "outright ridiculous" and complaining that editors "seem to get triggered" by his "really well-thought" closures. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  Pretty similar to my DIF directly above. It's starting to move the needle for me... Sergecross73 msg me 00:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

  Same here, it seems to be moving into WP:IDHT territory. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:42, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Draft:Lada Nakonechna

Hi, i'm a contributor to German Wikipedia for over fifteen years and i just tried to create my first english article (Draft:Lada Nakonechna). For i am currently working on this subject in german wikipedia, i would love to link both articles, but sadly, it doesn't work with a "draft", so my question is: when will this become a "real article"? Greetings, Enter (talk) 16:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Enter This question can be answered by any editor, not just administrators, so the Help Desk is a better forum- but to answer you, your draft lacks the information needed to submit it for a review, I will add it. 331dot (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I moved it to the mainspace, as she is clearly a notable artist with plenty more sources available (books, newspapers, ...). Fram (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Great, thank you very much! Greetings, --Enter (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Possible early close

Please could an uninvolved admin take a loot at Talk:Railroad car#Requested move 14 February 2023 and judge whether the early close several participants have asked for is appropriate and either close it or comment that it shouldn't be closed just yet. Given that I snow closed the immediately preceding request earlier today I would rather someone previously uninvolved make the call. Thryduulf (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I closed the second discussion because the initiator did not first talk about the issue on your talk page, or open up a move review. As such, opening a new discussion was unproductive, and I closed it. If the nominator has any issues with the closure, they should discuss outside of the RM before creating a new one that could easily get overtaken by previous arguments (as seen in this case). The Night Watch (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 01:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023–24 S.S.C. Napoli season

Maybe an admin can explain to Sakiv that this edit is wrong [1] as he was the creator of the AfD. As I just did and he reverted me anyway. Regards. Govvy (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Govvy I left a message on their talk page and believe/hope that further discussion at AN is unnecessary.

Per the edit notice on this page, though, when you open a thread here about another editor, you must notify them with a talk page message; I have done so on your behalf here. ^Complex/_Rational 16:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@ComplexRational: Forgot that notification bit! I've been working from home for work and a bit of wikipedia between breaks! Maybe I am getting laps in my old-age! Govvy (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Requesting edit summary removal

Apologies if this is the wrong place to request this, but can an administrator quickly remove the racist edit summary of this edit by an IP editor on a vandalism spree? Thank you in advance. Yue🌙 22:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Non-admin, but it's now resolved. In the future please use the advice at WP:REVDELREQUEST :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:UAA Backlog

Hey folks, looks like quite the backlog over at Usernames for Admin Attention. 2600:6C40:7E7F:6445:FDE0:95C0:C500:51C (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Mostly gone-- for now. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:14, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Help needed today at CopyPatrol

Hi everybody. There's quite a few cases listed right now at CopyPatrol, and we could use some help today. You don't have to be an admin to do this task; any experienced editor should be able to quickly figure it out. If you are just starting out, you might like to try assessing reports about biographies or schools – they are pretty easy as the issues are usually quite obvious. Any help you can give today (or any day for that matter) is greatly appreciated. Thank you! — Diannaa (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

• Link to copyPatrol
• Documentation page and detailed instructions

watchlisting topics rather than pages

is there a way to watchlist a specific topic on a notification board rather than every topic on the page? TIA soibangla (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

For topic as in thread, there is WP:SUBSCRIBE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

a-ha! thank you soibangla (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Reiner Gavriel

Reiner Gavriel destroys 3 authorative sources here and replaces them with 1 non-authorative source: [2][3]. If something doesn't fit his narrative, he calls it biased and not neutral: [4]. If you check Durdzuks, Ingush people, Vyappiy, you will see that he has a pattern. It's good to mention that the person seems to not like people of Ingush origin as to why would he want to add Phallic statue image to Ingush people article, his 2 colleges even said that it's unnecessary. Insulted me here by saying that I have "shown over and over again that my sources are either simply bad or straight up non-existing": [5]. Hopefully the adminstrators will resolve this issue and bring back the authorative sources and stop Reiner from vandalising them. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 07:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• You provoke him, write against the Chechens. Add sources with completely different information. Товболатов (talk) 16:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

None of those "3 authorative sources" were "destroyed". In fact you are the only one who had removed one source, which I simply readded to the article. It's outrageous of you to accuse me of "not like people of Ingush origin" and then claim I have insulted you for pointing out that several articles of yours were deleted for shockingly bad sources and that you have lied about sources before, as you can see here. Regarding the Phallic statue, it is part of the Ingush history and played a big part of local pagan cults. I have tried finding a middleground with you but you were not willing to work on it, preferring removing it because "writing this in this article is an insult not only for me, but for many Muslims!". Anything you don't like should be removed, anything you like, even if the source is exceptionally bad, should be added. That is simply not how Wikipedia works. As I can see you have been blocked from the Russian Wikipedia for doing this. I sincerely recommend staying neutral and realistic. Reiner Gavriel (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• You removed the 3 authorative sources and replaced them with 1 non-authorative source here:[6][7]. Denying the reality isn't helping you at all, you removed following text: sfn|Крупнов|1971|p=37sfn|Волкова|1973|p=153sfn|Жданов|2005|p=71. I was banned in Russian Wikipedia 2 months ago because I was unexperienced user and did some mistakes, but this shouldn't matter as I have changed and now only edit everything neutrally and with using authorative sources which you usually like to destroy. I always edit the page neutrally, however you vandalise the articles associated with Ingush and revert my edits calling it biased, despise me sciting authorative sources or you just call it "vandalism" when it's not. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 18:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  Again, none of those "3 authorative sources" were removed, they were moved because I replaced "Ingush society" with "Chechen and Ingush society", which it is, no matter what your personal opinion is. There are Vyappiy Chechens. You can't deny that, it's a fact. You are nowhere close to being "neutral", it was pointed out several times in articles you have created and were rightfully deleted. Reiner Gavriel (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• • Reiner Gavriel first of all as you know Ingush and Chechen sources on the matter of ethnicity aren't authorative and aren't neutral, they are interested parties. Not only your single source wasn't reliable, but it didn't even back up your claims — Nataev simply claimed the society as whole Chechen and he also claimed Kostoevs (which is ridiculous). I have told you so many times but it seems that you're not understanding: Chechen Fyappins are offspring of Ingush Fyappin taip Torshkhoy that migrated to Aukh and the Chechen Fyappins are very small minority compared to the Fyappin society in Ingushetia that is Ingush. There's nothing hard to comprehend. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Товболатов I didn't provoke anyone. Reiner removes 3 authorative sources and adds 1 not authorative source as a replacement, reverts edits and calls everything "vandalism" and "biased narration". He puts images of Phallic statues in Ingush people, is this normal to you? It's clear that his intentions are bad and he wants to make fun of the Ingush. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 14:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• This is a related dispute to the one opened at the section on Таллархо above. There have been extensive attempts to resolve through discussion on relevant article talk pages, but the involved editors are at an impasse as far as the use and admissibility of sources related to the crux of the content dispute, and rather than escalating to an appropriate dispute resolution process the conflict has devolved into edit warring across multiple articles to a degree of intensity that makes it difficult to tell if anyone is in the right at a glance. Таллархо crossed the line by making ethnonationalist personal attacks so that was a good block, but I'm concerned that WikiEditor is now trying to win the dispute as a whole through ANI. I'm going to try to dig around more and possibly impose page protection on some of the affected pages, but would appreciate more independent eyes on this. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  Ok, I unfortunately need to step away from this for some time due to other appointments I have today. I will note that I came within a hair of blocking WikiEditor for personal attacks against Reiner Gavriel and the general pattern of disruptive editing across multiple articles (which appears to be continued from ru.wiki, where they were blocked for falsifying information), but was not able to research the dispute to a degree where I would feel comfortable following through. Elements giving me pause are that while I do speak Russian, I'm not familiar enough with the relevant scholarship to be able to identify at a glance who is correct about claims of removing "authoritative" sources, and that there may be some validity to the accusation that Reiner Gavriel is placing undue weight on the prominence of the phallic cult among Ingush peoples, as I can find relatively few results concerning that topic when I search for it in English on Google Scholar. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• May I please know where did I try to "personally attack Reiner"? I didn't personally attack him, and I always try to be as professional as possible without any insults. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  Rhetoric like destroys 3 authorative sources, accusing them of vandalism, and accusing them of harboring anti-Ingush sentiments without providing clear supporting evidence are all forms of personal attacks. Accusing Reiner of filing frivolous sockpuppet reports and calling it It's one of his favorite things to do when opponent is winning in the argument is further a personal attack in the absence of evidence to back that assertion up. And this is just a list of examples taken from this specific discussion section at ANI. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• • • Rosguill, I never accuse anyone without showing proof — Reiner really did remove 3 authorative sources and I backed it up twice with these 2 links: [8][9]. Reiner reverts my edits in Bats people and destroys Volkova's sources which are authorative too and adds in between the referenced text his own opinion which wasn't mentioned in the sources: [10][11]. I don't know how me saying that Reiner removed 3 authorative sources was considered personal attack but Товболатов clearly implying that I wasn't properly raised and bringing up my parents wasn't even looked at: [12]... Товболатов also insulted Ingush people in Russian Wikipedia and it amasses me that no admins warned him for such words:

“ Well, yes, and you fought against us in the Caucasian war, seizing our lands after part of our people moved to Turkey. ” — Товболатов[13]

“ You whine and cry for the whole world after a 4-day war with Ossetia, 30 years howl for the whole world. Everyone around is to blame except you. ” — Товболатов[14]

“ If Moscow decided so together with the Ossetians, then you will have to endure, you swore an oath that you will endure forever since 1770. The Constitutional Court ruled, so there is nothing to covet foreign lands. ” — Товболатов[15]

, note that the text was in Russian but I translated it to make it easier for people who don't speak Russian. Because of the request ([16]) of admin Rosguill, I won't enter a discussion for a while until the admins assess the situation. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello Rosguill, you should see that while we were discussing with Reiner in Vyappiy, he tried to immediately get me and another user Muqale blocked with false accusations: [17], but this case was quickly closed and his attempt to get me blocked for false reasons failed. It's one of his favorite things to do when opponent is winning in the argument. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Rosguill Hello, WikiEditor1234567123 tries to send all participants to the block with such requests. This is not the first time he changes accounts often. There is an experienced participant here who is well acquainted with this situation for more than a year. He is a Russian-speaking administrator Ymblanter, he can give you advice in this situation. There are a lot of articles on Ingush topics hoax WikiEditor1234567123 knowing that the sources here are not particularly checked, it expands these articles and creates legends. People who understand this begin to roll him back, he accordingly starts a war. Several times I found one information in the sources, and WikiEditor1234567123 writes something completely different. There were two of his articles, they were deleted; in general, it was written that the Ingush defeated three empires. From his first edits, he made a war here with other participants.--Товболатов (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Look at these articles there at the very beginning that he created. Even the administrator was surprised by Ymblanter.

1. .List of wars involving Ingushetia # Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wars involving Ingushetia
2. .Nazran conflict. # Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nazran conflict (2nd nomination)

When he realized that the article would be deleted, he began to quickly correct the information there. But still, the article looked very fantastic.--Товболатов (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Товболатов The admins found nothing on me in your investigation, I didn't abuse multiple accounts, so what's the point in still spreading this false accusation? In Nazran raid I was warned and since then stopped editing that page, accepting the "result". About the two articles, I made mistake making them and I greatly apologize for that however they were deleted and it's been month, no need to bring up the past. If you check my recent created articles (16 articles), they are all well made with authorative sources and neutral point. Why not talk about the fact that you tried to make Ингуши в Турции deleted but this was denied, here: [18]? Why not talk about the fact that in Russian Wikipedia, you insulted Ingush, here:[19][20][21]. You try to send all your opponents into block by accusing them of sockpuppetry which can be seen here: [22][23]. Most of the stuff that you accuse me of are false and I would appreciate if you wouldn't make such big accusations, thanks. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Tell us how many of your articles were sent to drafts after suspicions about the administrators' fake.--Товболатов (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Only two of your articles have passed the test, the rest weigh at the Unknown. No need to brag.--Товболатов (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• Well, you yourself confessed two months have passed and you continue the war. I can't believe you.--Товболатов (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• • • Товболатов EXCUSE ME, where did I insult your parents and why mention my parents!!? Where did I insult you? I wasn't raised either to make false accusations of people and attribute such things to them, this is unacceptable! I never insult someone's parents as this goes against any kind of norms. As I have mentioned many many times the admins found NO CONNECTIONS with other accounts that you said I have connections. I was proven innocent and this should be the end of that. Why are you deliberately trying to attribute such things to me? Rosguill is this normal? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

      The accusation by Товболатов regarding insults towards one's parents should be struck unless it can be supported by evidence. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• • • • Rosguill this isn't the first time that Товболатов has made false accusations about me, he tries to take me down by making such accusations, however that one is just unacceptable! Not only he attributed such thing to me but also brought my parents into this matter and implied that I was raised wrongly! This is clear as day personal insult! WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• • • • • Well, I’ll take a picture about my parents, but explain where and when I insulted you? this is another participant in the Russian Wikipedia, we will take off a simple dispute over the article. you don't participate at all. He wrote to me and I wrote to him. This is all without proof that I insulted you. WikiEditor1234567123 . Rosguill is this normal?? without proof. If I insulted someone, the Russian administrators blocked me long ago like you WikiEditor1234567123.--Товболатов (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

          I think it's pretty clear that WikiEditor is interpreting the statement you made, and then removed in this edit, as an insult directed at their parents. You have removed the statement (striking would have been preferable), so that is now largely moot. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

        • Rosguill, first he made that wild accusation and brought my parents and insulted me and my parents by implying that I was raised wrong. Then he removed his statement as you too saw here: [24] and then tried to make a fool out of me. It should be clear that he's just making as much accusations as possible about me to take me down, he and his colleague were trying to do that by saying that I do Sockpuppetry however the admins found nothing on me and proved that I'm innocent. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Rosguill this is not the first time he is trying to distract everyone here from the topic, to mislead other participants. How he misleads readers WikiEditor1234567123 he again tries to avoid responsibility as he did last time. You can fall under his influence, be careful. I already see that you wanted to block him now you have changed your mind. I would not believe him yes he writes well here. But as soon as he returns to satatya, he will immediately start a war.--Товболатов (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

WikiEditor1234567123 Why do you say that I offended you this account Anceran in Russian Wikipedia is yours??--Товболатов (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Rosguill There is a link where an Ingush participant insults my parents. I can provide.--Товболатов (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• How is that "Ingush participant" connected with me in any way? The admins have proven that I have no connections so please refrain from those accusations. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Товболатов, if that insult is unrelated to WikiEditor then there's no need to bring it up here. My sense is that both of you are trigger happy to find offense at each other right now, and that everyone would benefit from taking a step back and seeking uninvolved input on the content disputes, without continuing to edit war. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't know, the previous administrator told me if this member continues to break the rules or make wars, then I can apply here.Товболатов (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I meant my comment more in the sense that all parties to this dispute have clearly already provided the relevant evidence for others to look through, and that further back-and-forth between you at this noticeboard two is unlikely to help your case here. Evaluating the evidence will take time because of how long this conflict has been going on for, the less-than-stellar behavior on display from both sides, and the relative obscurity of the subject matter. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps it was him before that a member with this similar name Ghalghai'Wiki'Editor wrote to me and insulted me from this account Roberson4096. Here is insult can you check if he is or not.--Товболатов (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Ghalghai'Wiki'Editor that's him for sure @Bbb23: Hello! The accounts Ghalghai'Wiki'Editor and Niyskho belong to Kist-Dzurdzuk, who is blocked on ruwiki. I understand --Товболатов (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• My assessment at this time is that we're only going to be able to get to the bottom of this once we have a community assessment of the sources that Reiner Gavriel and WikiEditor have been fighting over, and I think the best method to do that is to have a moderated discussion related to the spelling of Fyappiy vs. Vyappiy (or other spellings) at WP:DRN, to pick one dispute that cuts to the core of the issues between this group of editors and which seems like it should be relatively easy to identify a correct solution for. There's been back and forth personal attacks, but a lot of the diffs raised in this discussion are from ru.wiki, relatively old, and in the context of heated disputes with other editors uninvolved here, so I'm disinclined to sanction on the basis of them. I note as well that the SPI request linking WikiEditor to an LTA was closed with the conclusion that they are not the same person. If Reiner Gavriel, WikiEditor1234567123, Товболатов, and any other editors party to this dispute (Muqale?) agree, I'm willing to moderate the proposed discussion at DRN. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Rosguill Sure, I will agree to discuss about Fyappiy, however it's not just about the correct spelling, it's also about the ethnic belonging of Fyappiy. It's good to mention that in this dispute Товболатов wasn't involved with the page Fyappiy and didn't have disputes with us in that article so I think he's not needed in the discussion. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Rosguill thank you for your attention to this topic. Recently, when making requests, members who write on Chechen topics are blocked, and WikiEditor1234567123 is left to be edited. I hope after your intervention this issue will be considered neutral and not one-sided.--Товболатов (talk) 08:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Hello Rosguill, I've noticed that I was tagged by you in this discussion. I myself am an ethnic Ingush, and just recently started creating articles and ofcourse have a separate interest in articles regarding my nation, and was suprised to see that there even was an edit war going on regarding the Fyappiy considering their obvious ethnic belonging to the Ingush. I've entered the discussion in the Fyappiy talkpage and was immediately falsely accused of being a sockpuppet by Reiner Gavriel. I prefer not to engage in edit wars when the other side does not seek consensus or decide their version is the only correct one, so I left the discussion. When I recently noticed another strange statement in the Durdzuks article, I removed a falsified statement. See here. And Reiner Gavriel, seemingly monitoring my edits I suppose, immediately reverted it, in bully-like manor, so I invited him to seek consensus and asked him to provide evidence for his edit here. After failing to back up his statement with evidence (source material). He altered the statement, again with his own version of the truth, just like his previous statement, which he defended for a long time. I've personally not come across Товболатов, and am unaware of his connection to some of these nationalist edits. The reason why I assume this is nationalist editing is because both Reiner Gavriel and Товболатов seem to be mostly creating and editing Chechen-related articles, which means they have a bias in this matter. I would advice to keep in mind that Ingush-Chechen relations are not the smoothest. See here and here. Renaming and turning Ingush clans and families into Chechen (like the Fyappiy article) is a way of eventually claiming the territory of the lands these families live on. A form of propaganda. This is why this situation needs special attention. I am willing to discuss this matter further if it requires further attention by Wikipedia administrators. Thank you for your attention to this matter.--Muqale (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

So I'm still waiting for Reiner Gavriel's response here because DRN is an optional, opt-in process, but I wanted to note in response to Muqale and Товболатов's comments that the reason I suggested the Fyappiy/Vyappiy dispute was because it involves the use of sources that seem central to the broader dispute, and because English Wikipedia's article-naming guidelines are relatively straightforward and thus makes good and bad behavior more obvious than for say, a discussion about the relative WP:DUE-ness of a potentially-controversial claim. I also didn't want to exclude anyone who may have been party to the dispute, hence including Muqale and Товболатов--if either of you are not interested in participating that is OK and we can proceed without you (assuming that Reiner and WikiEditor are still on board). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:53, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello Rosguill. It's been now more than 3 days and Reiner, instead of replying here about a discussion at DRN, keeps on editing the page Fyappiy, here he removed according to him unrelated information to the article (the information was about the history and anthropology of Fyappiy which are very important) and added once again non-authorative source alongside the 3 authorative sources which claim Fyappiy being only Ingush. Here in Bats people, he once again removed authorative source from Volkova, famous Soviet-Russian caucasologist and historian and added his own text which isn't even supported by the authorative sources I put in the first place. I don't know how to deal with this, if a person doesn't wanna engage in discussion at DRN and keeps on removing referenced text and authorative sources. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

DRN is optional, generally participating in discussions and consensus building is not optional. It looks like "Vyappiy" is the original spelling on Wikipedia, so from a procedural standpoint it should remain at that title until a consensus to change it is reached. You should start a discussion on the talk page to propose a change if you disagree with the current title. If the discussion stalls, you can seek uninvolved input at WP:ORN or WP:NPOVN. If editors continue to edit war after discussion on the talk page has begun, that would be a clear violation of editing policy and can be reported to WP:AN3. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello Rosguill. WikiEditor1234567123 removes confirmed information from authoritative sources from the encyclopedia in several articles. see his contribution --Товболатов (talk) 12:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Товболатов You add unrelated information to articles Khamkhins, Arshtin and many many others. I deleted the information only because it didn't have any connection to the article, you know this yourself. You purposely added the unrelated text to the articles so that later you could write it here to Rosguill and make lie that I remove referenced text. Let's take for example this [25], explain how the text is related with the Arshtin? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 09:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Last time another administrator Callanecc warned him not to do more than two cancellations per day. This time he made 27 cancellations. --Товболатов (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Where did Callanecc warn me not to do more than 2 cancelations? As I have mentioned you added purposely unrelated information so of course I had to remove the unrelated information. Care to explain how for example this [26] is related with the Arshtin? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 10:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

January 2023 Edit Information icon Hello. I wanted to let you know that in your recent contributions to Nazran conflict, you seemed to act as if you were the owner of the page. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. This means that editors do not own articles, including ones they create, and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:28, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Stop icon Your recent editing history at Nazran conflict shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Товболатов (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

This is a different situation as there's exemptions to this rule:Wikipedia:Edit_warring#Exemptions. You purposely spammed unrelated information like here:[27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35], which didn't leave a choice for me other than return to the previous version. I don't understand why you're mentioning Nazran conflict when you were reverting edits there too. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 11:47, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

The information directly relates to the articles, it just doesn't suit you, you delete it violating the rules. You have been here for 6 months but have not studied the rules of the project. If there is information confirmed by an authoritative source, I can add it. Why does this hurt you, you yourself said that the Chechens are your brothers. And if we are brothers, we are one people.--Товболатов (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

This text [36] that you purposely spammed on articles about Kalkans, Khamkhins, Fyappiy, Fyappiy Mokhk, Arshtin, Ghalghaï, Galashkians, Nazranians, Ingush societies is not related with the articles, it's simply spam and very disruptive. Surely the Chechens are mine brothers, but with all due respect this doesn't allow you to spam unrelated information and ruin articles about Ingush. You have many times insulted Ingush people ([37][38][39]) so I doubt that you consider Ingush as brothers. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

When I politely asked you, you considered it a weakness and continued to edit. But I'm not like that if you ask politely, I won't do it, my parents didn't raise me like that.--Товболатов (talk) 16:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Товболатов, please provide specific diffs (links are ok too) when making accusations. This is a basic requirement of participation in discussions regarding an editor's conduct. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I don’t understand why he quotes phrases from Russian Wikipedia. Anceran like he said that it was not him. Anceran this member violated the rollback rules, his administrators deprive the rollback flag. Here he first began to insult 1, 2, 3 For this, his administrator deprived the status of a rollback edit.--Товболатов (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of edits by another editor that has barely been active on English Wikipedia. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:47, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Here, for an example, more than two rollbacks per day in the article Galashkians 1, 2, 3. In another Nazranians 1, 2, 3, 4. In another Vyappiy 1, 2, 3, 4. After the warning 1.--Товболатов (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

At Galashkians, you appear to be the editor instigating the edit war. At Nazranians and Vyappiy, it looks like normal WP:BRD between the two of you. The specific diffs you provide here just look like normal editing. Further, your edits at Fyappiy and Nazranians, where you add unnecessary bold text (Special:Diff/1139723084, Special:Diff/1139723019) are violations of WP:POINT. Further tendentious editing in this vein will result in a block for you. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Rosguill clearly I didn't know that highlighting was a violation. I'll remove it, but tell me why you only revealed my violation. And it's like you didn't notice it. Didn't he break the rollback rules --Товболатов (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Editors are allowed to revert changes--the issue is when edits are repeatedly reinstated without discussion. In all three of the articles you provide links to above, you are the editor that is introducing new changes that are then objected to: the burden is on you to start a discussion related to why your changes are appropriate. Administrator intervention is only appropriate if your attempts to discuss (which should begin on the talk pages of those pages affected, not spread out across AN reports) are ignored and disruptive editing continues. The ball is in your court to win a consensus for the changes you suggest. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@RosguillWe need to see who started to conduct provocative texts that have no sources. Here you need to find out who provokes conflicts, why this happens so often. The Ingush are known in the Caucasus for their fakes. Why is only the Chechen side being blocked, which essentially removes the falsified text. Merjuev Salovdi (talk) 10:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Here he accused me yesterday that I insulted him. But check where I insulted him. 1 Constantly some false accusations.--Товболатов (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

This has already been addressed above I think it's pretty clear that WikiEditor is interpreting the statement you made, and then removed in this edit, as an insult directed at their parents. It's unnecessary and inappropriate for them to bring it up in an edit summary, but neither is it accurate to call it a false accusation. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

In this article, look, I did not delete anything and did not return the title of the article. Everything he did there is the same. Although I was against it. The main problem is that he violated the rule of two kickbacks. If now it is so left, he will continue to make kickbacks. You know better, I will not advise you, but this will constantly have consequences not me, so the other will contact you.--Товболатов (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Deleted info here. Muqale 1--Товболатов (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I see under any circumstances I will be to blame. I probably won't edit here again. Do what you want. My violations are detected at once and their violations are bypassed.--Товболатов (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello Rosguill. Several Ingush-related articles on my watchlist have been spammed by user Товболатов [40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47] with the same nationalist edit. After being warned by you to not resort to tendentious editing, Товболатов didnt remove this spam text, see diff. Ingush and Chechens are separate nations who are not mutually intelligible. The Ingush people have their own language, culture, customs, anthem, republic, flag, etc. It seems to be on ongoing issue, as I keep stumbling on these kind of edits by the same users on Ingush-related pages. It appears these users refuse to acknowledge the Ingush' identity as a nation, which false under the category of nationalist editing. --Muqale (talk) 06:09, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Muqale WikiEditor1234567123 This is not the first time these two participants have accused me of nationalism here. Please pay attention to their obvious aggressive actions towards me. Making unfounded accusations. 1, 2. Today 1 I did not write anything nationalistic, this is a well-known fact Nakh peoples.--Товболатов (talk) 06:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Товболатов explain these massive removal of referenced text and the authorative sources in Galashkin naibdom please:[48][49] [50]. I made the lead section neutral ([51]) where I mentioned both the opinions on the naibdom being Chechen and opinions on it being Ingush, I don't see the reason for it to be deleted. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 06:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

1. Let's take it in order 1, why did you delete it? I removed bold text everywhere yesterday after the admin said.

1. 2 Further on the article Galashkinskoe naibstvo. Here, another participant explained everything to you (an administrator in another project), but you also accused him of nationalist edits — Talk:Galashkin naibdom.--Товболатов (talk) 07:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

«Overview of the political state of the Caucasus in 1840»[10] and «Military Statistical Review of the Russian Empire // Caucasian Territory, 1851»[11] mention Galashkians as Ingush among other Ingush societies like Nazranians or Nearby Kists. Historian Volkonsky wrote in 1886 in his book «War in Eastern Caucasus from 1824 to 1834 due to Muridism» that Galashkians are an Ingush society,[12]

I returned the article to a neutral version. I left your edits, but I removed further unclear text.--Товболатов (talk) 07:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

1. The text was removed due to it being completely unrelated with the article. Refrain from spamming that text, it's very disruptive.

2. "Another participant" (Takhirgeran Umar), didn't explain anything, he didn't even make sense and it's clear nationalistic editing: [52][53]. Him being adminstrator in another project (Chechen Wikipedia) doesn't mean anything as we are in English Wikipedia.

3. You removed the text about map of Imamate combiled by Chechen naib Yusuf Safarov, it wasn't unclear at all. You also removed the sources in lead section and removed neutral version. Regarding the title of the article, two times I wanted to have discussion beforehand with you but you ignored me: [54][55], so I renamed the article to accurate English translation which you somehow had issue with. Wikipedia should be neutral and because of this, the lead section should contain both the opinions of the Naibdom being Chechen and opinions on it being Ingush, I propose this neutral version:[56]. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

N.b. Товболатов has been topic banned from this topic due to tendentious editing related to the above dispute and cannot respond further here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I can then transfer the entire text from Arshta to this article; everywhere in the sources, the Galash people are mentioned as Chechens. Get a mess.--Товболатов (talk) 08:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I see here I am secretly discussed and accused of nationalism. Takhirgeran Umar (talk) 17:10, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

WikiEditor1234567123 Muqale

Muqale WikiEditor1234567123 This is not the first time these two participants have accused me of nationalism here. Please pay attention to their obvious aggressive actions towards me. Making unfounded accusations. 1, 2. Today 1, 2. I did not write anything nationalistic, this is a well-known fact Nakh peoples. Товболатов (talk) 06:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Per the notification at the top of the page, when you open a discussion about particular editors you are meant to notify them. I have gone ahead and done this for you. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

For reference this appears to be about a series of edits, here are some examples of those [57] [58] [59]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I've imposed a topic ban against OP as an arbitration enforcement measure following a string of edits that cannot be interpreted as anything other than tendentious. I would appreciate additional eyes on the topic area, as other editors have also displayed less-than-stellar behavior. However, I have investigated the specific accusations made by Товболатов in this thread and do not believe they require sanctions in relation to these accusations at this time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm unsure of the copyright status of the source they are using, but their addition is a one to one copy of the Google translations. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@RosguillDue to the lack of knowledge of this topic in the English Wikipedia, false data are added. This is especially noticeable in the participant's @WikiEditor1234567123l Unfortunately, the Ingush side often resorts to fake edits is easy to check by the composition of the sources). Therefore, we ask you to consider this problem again. Merjuev Salovdi (talk) 10:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Help needed with deleted history of B'Day

I'm cleaning up old GA subpages, and Talk:B'Day's article history shows an April 2008 promotion to GA. The talk page's history only goes back to 2011, because the page was moved to archive instead of cut-and-pasted. But the archive page's history only goes back to 2022. I think something must have been deleted but I'm not sure how or why. Can someone undelete the talk page history, if that's what's needed, or explain if something else happened? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

It's a mess, and I'm not exactly sure where any pre-2008 history is, but in 2008 it got moved to Talk:B'Day (Beyoncé album)/Archive 1. It looks like whoever moved the page back to its current location missed that archive and left it there. Katie^talk 15:36, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks; I missed that. I moved the current archive 1 to archive 2, and moved the page you found in as archive 1; I think that covers it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Removal of retired editor from Mentorship

Hi, I recently noticed that User:Kaleeb18 has retired (mentioned on their userpage) and hasn't edited for 4 months now. Yesterday, a new editor asked a question on his talkpage, but like several other questions before it, it went unanswered. So, kindly remove him from Special:ManageMentors. To notify him about this development, I've left a talk message at User talk:Kaleeb18#Your tenure as Growth Mentor. Thank you! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 15:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

As a side request, there should be a database report that lists mentors if they haven't edited for a week, or have put retired, or away templates on their userpage. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 15:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

That seems doable at WP:DBR or related pages, and maybe even worth a Phab request for the parts that aren't specific to our wiki. IznoPublic (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done @CX Zoom: I removed Kaleeb18 as a mentor, I think their mentees will be reassigned in a batch process. There are several phab tasks open to try to address this issue, see phab:T321509 and linked tasks. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Confirmed, this batch process, example user changed. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Xaosflux: Can this task be automated by an adminbot? Because it would be quite tedious to remove mentors following every inactivity period or retired/away templates, until phab tasks are resolved. It should auto-add them back as mentors when they are active, otherwise the mentor will lose interest in mentorship if they have to re-add themself all the time. This may warrant a VPPR thread before proceeding, just floating some ideas here. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 16:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@CX Zoom maybe parts of it. There are 2 different conditions that could happen, one is an 'away' mentor, that is a per-mentor status flag, when you are away mentee questions should go to another mentor. The other is what to do with a completely retired/forcibly removed mentor; when you completely remove a mentor all of their mentees are reassigned permanently. I suggest going through the discussions at Wikipedia talk:Growth Team features first, many of these have tech solutions being looked in to already. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Side note, I don't think a bot that forcibly reenrolls someone as a mentor is a good idea, re-enrolling is just a couple of clicks. If we did use a bot to remove someone, it could leave them a talk message with the reenrollment link. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, it makes sense, thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 16:38, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Improperly blocked?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Per WP:PB drove me here. I was just wondering if I was improperly partially blocked? Because I kinda do. I just need some views from other admins if this action was justifiable. ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 09:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Rejoy2003 What do you feel was improper about it? 331dot (talk) 09:36, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Hasty judgement? lmao ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact)

If there's something funny here, I'm not seeing what it is. You came here. It's up to you to tell us what was improper about your block. In reviewing what I have so far, it seems to me that the block is valid. You will need to show that you understand the reasons for the block and will not repeat them; in this case, copyright violations. 331dot (talk) 09:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

It's understandable if you don't find it funny. Although I loved the question you asked and your reply actually does makes sense. ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 10:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Had it been me blocking, the block would not have been partial. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

A hand does have different sizes of fingers, you know. ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 13:04, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

What Deepfriedokra said. Salvio ^giuliano 12:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Deepfriedokra too. If you want to be unblocked you need to take the time to understand why you have been blocked, and why your article was delated, why that deletion was snow-endorsed at DRV, and why we aren't finding your situation in the least bit funny. Then you need to demonstrate that understanding The more comments you make in more places before you do that the greater the likelihood that your partial block will become a full block. You are on thin ice, tread wisely. Thryduulf (talk) 13:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: 👍 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Is this an appeal of the block to WP:AN? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, of course it is. What else could it be? The advice at WP:PB is pretty useless, because it says to follow the instructions on this page but there are no instructions to follow. The appeal is pretty obviously going to fail, because the appellant hasn't demonstrated that they understand that you don't violate copyright, but I don't think we can fault the venue when we give such poor advice. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Considering the response Rejoy2003 has got from five admins already, I'd kind of hope not. Might as well close this. SN54129 17:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

This is a strange complaint. The blocking admin, User:Moneytrees, explained the block, if anything, more precisely and fully than most admins do. I'm baffled that Rejoy2003 should want even more explanation. If this is indeed an "appeal to AN" (a rather indirect one), I'll say Decline quite forcefully. Bishonen | tålk 19:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC).

I'm not sure I have anything to add here that I haven't already said on Rejoy2003's talk page. Actually, User:Moneytrees/Copyright blocks has some good advice on appealing copyright blocks. I try to make most of blocks for copyright violations partial blocks since it can make rewrites easier-- if an editor I've partially blocked is causing issues at other venues, then I have no issue with another admin making it a full block. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:57, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

You’ve been more than reasonable, going above and beyond in trying to explain something very simple to someone who does not want to listen to you. From this non-admin’s point of view, I’m impressed with your patience and communication skills. For the OP… less so. If they carry on demanding ever greater detail on something that should be fucking obvious, well, we’d be better off without them, alas. — Trey Maturin™ 20:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Proper block by Monkeytrees, proper denial of unblock by Yamla. The OP seems to have an informal view of copyright policy. I do appreciate the OP has been helpful in talkspace during their block. Understanding copyright is fundamental to proper attribution. Non-compliance with copyright policy is a deal breaker. BusterD (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

If User:Rejoy2003 wants to be unblocked, he should read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks, Wikipedia:Copyrights, and the user essay User:Moneytrees/Copyright blocks; formulate an unblock request either off-wiki or at User:Rejoy2003/sandbox, then come back to this page with his new request once it's ready. Animal lover |666| 13:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Procedural quirk in WP:GS/CASTE

I just semi'd Bharatsinh Madhavsinh Solanki under WP:GS/CASTE, and, in going to log it, noticed an unusual quirk to that GS regime. Unlike most CT or GS regimes, which apply to "all pages related to X, broadly construed", the CASTE GS apply only to "pages about social groups ... related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal". So, "about" rather than "related to", and no "broadly construed" (despite the claim on the GS/CASTE page itself of "pages with content related to South Asian social groups") In light of this, I'm happy to reverse my protection (or convert it to a regular admin action), but this would also mean a number of other logged protections exceed the scope of the GS, such as Rao Tula Ram and Bijli Pasi. Should such protections be reversed? Do we need a formal consensus to change to "pages related to South Asian social groups, broadly construed"? Or is it enough to say that years of enforcement as if that were the scope makes it the scope? Personally the third seems most sensible to me. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I think expanding the scope to involve historical caste figures (such as Bijili Pasi) would be reasonable; the pages (including that one) I have protected are because of caste warriors trying to either history-wash or otherwise overrule the existing historical literature; in other words it was still caste-based disruption in my mind, but an expansion of the scope might make it less nit-picky. Primefac (talk) 11:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think the most sensible thing to do would be to formally notify the relevant places of this discussion (I haven't looked to see if you've already done this) and see if there are any objections to changing the scope as you describe. If there are none after about 7-10 days then make the necessary changes. If there are objections then someone uninvolved can determine the appropriate course of action at that point. Personally I'm in favour of adjusting the scope to match what it's been treated as. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: Which venues did you have in mind to notify about this? WT:GS doesn't seem to be used much. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin everywhere that you would have to notify if we did decide we needed a formal consensus discussion to amend the scope, e.g. wherever the GS were agreed in the first place, relevant WikiProjects, maybe relevant article talk pages. This is the first involvement I've had with this GS and probably about the first with the topic area so you will know far better than me where these places are. Thryduulf (talk) 11:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Notified WT:GS, WT:IN, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Asia, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bangladesh, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pakistan, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Nepal, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka. The original authorization was at AN/I, so I think this thread at its parent noticeboard suffices as notification. But anyone is welcome to drop {{please see}}s anywhere else they see fit. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I also think adjusting the scope to match practice is the way to go; I suspect the odd wording was unintentional. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly it. I was the original proponent of these sanctions and, if memory serves, it was one of the first times that the community decided to impose community-authorised general sanctions that were basically a copy of arbcom-authorised discretionary sanctions. As such, the various kinks hadn't been ironed out yet... Salvio ^giuliano 09:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I also agree with modifying the scope to match practice (and where it's needed). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I concur. I often leave the warning notice on user talk pages but had not noticed the quirk. @Tamzin that talk page may not be used much, but it is still a decent place to post a message and start of a GS based discussion, linking that section back to here. One might publicise the discussion on relevant Wikiprojects? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with others above, this seems to just be an error in wording (though I'm surprised it lasted this long without the issue being rasied). Unless there is some evidence that it was intentionally phrased like that and has been enforced abusively, the simplest thing to do seems to be correcting the error by updating the scope to match what it has meant in practice. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Problematic Hungarian agenda (Hungarianization)

Hello! User Zsovar3 continues the work of previous users, associated with Hungary (some even with irredentism).

Type of work: István Kovács. But there are dozens like his page.

This top football referee is ROMANIAN of Hungarian descent (at least 1 parent has Hungarian blood). Although Hungarian is not an international language and Kovacs does not represent Hungary either, he pollutes by adding articles in Hungarian even though we have so many articles in international languages. In addition to this, the name of the author is written on each article, like this: last=Pesek first=Attila, last=Albert first=Dénes, ETC.

To be clear he is "Hungarian". If I come to replace Hungarian sources with Romanian ones, he is not satisfied. For almost 20 years, Hungarian extremists have been polluting Wikipedia with such articles. They really have no shame! This is a complete mockery and call it what you want further on extremism.

A Romanian even tells him. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zsovar3&diff=prev&oldid=1138915058

In addition, he adds a Hungarian name order, although in Romania the FIRST NAME comes first like in the West (not the SURNAME as in Hungary).

There is a gross Hungarianization propaganda. He was mean to tell this user `Readded ref (just because a source is not in English does not mean it should be removed` https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Istv%C3%A1n_Kov%C3%A1cs_(referee)&diff=prev&oldid=1137689314 Basically, he only pollutes with Hungarian sources, although the personality figure is Romanian. And we have sources in English or sources in international languages. Also, if we bring a Romanian source instead of a Hungarian, he is not satisfied.

It's as if I were to go to Donald Trump and out of 220 sources, 180 would be Romanian. It's just that Trump doesn't even have Romanian origins. So it makes sense to say that Istvan Kovacs, just because of his descent, is not Romanian. Very harmful for Romanian readers and support of very nationalist extremism for Hungarian users. 86.125.92.169 (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

User:SoHoBro

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• SoHoBro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has engaged in disruptive editing and perpetuates racist stereotypes on Wikipedia. They have also flamed other users. This can be seen in the following contributions at the Rosa Luxemburg talk page: [60] and [61]. They later followed it up with similarly offensive edits at the Poland talk page: [62].

It's one thing to discuss a historical figure's nationality or instances of collaborationist activity in wartime, it's another thing entirely to accuse an entire nation of being responsible for the genocide they were also victims of. --Pitsarotta (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I must be reading that first diff incorrectly, as it appears to say that it was the Polish who perpetrated the holocaust. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Poles and Ukrainians happen to be the only nations outside of Germany that manage to kill hundreds of thousands of Jewish people during (and often after) WW2. I don't see how is that not perpetrating the Holocaust, but would love to have that explained to me. SoHoBro (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I would like to point out that SoHoBro has continued in showing an interest in pushing a very biased and inflammatory narrative, also WP:NPOV . [63] [64]. Rhayailaina (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Will anything be done about this user's racist comments, personal attacks, and disruptive editing? --Pitsarotta (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Content dispute. Interesting, but belongs elsewhere. Let's keep to discussing conduct here

Uninvolved outsider perspective: Poles and Ukrainians are not nations. They are heterogeneous groups of people of two nations. Poland and Ukraine are nations. When you say Poles did something, you implicate all Poles. If something happened in a certain geographic region, some of the locals might have participated, but that doesn't mean that all people of that nationality are guilty or that the nation somehow sanctioned the action. The Polish government was taken over by German leaders and sympathizers. It no longer represented the Polish people. It seems absurd to hold the Poles responsible when they weren't in control of their own country. I know less about the Ukrainian history during WWII, but the principle of blaming a whole people who were the victims of an invasion and great atrocities, and therefore not in control of their nation's governance, is nothing but bigotry by nationality. Blaming an entire oppressed nationality for the crimes perpetrated by their invaders, even if some members of that nationality collaborated, is guilt by virtue of being Polish. Maybe that wasn't your meaning, but that's where your words lead. Dcs002 (talk) 00:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC) Not involved here either, but regarding the statement "[Poland and Ukraine] happen to be the only nations outside of Germany that manage to kill hundreds of thousands of Jewish people during (and often after) WW2.", see Hungary, Romania,... — LumonRedacts 05:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC) although both of those countries were nazi allies, neither of them were directly complicit in the mass murder of Jewish people. It just so happens that Jews had a far lower chance of survival in Poland and Ukraine than even in Germany. SoHoBro (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC) So the governments, some of which willingly, allied with Nazi Germany are somehow not responsible for the Holocaust in any way... but the government-in-exile of an occupied country, which gave the very first official reports of the Holocaust and urged the Allies to help them stop it (e.g. Raczyński's Note and Witold's Report, etc.) as well as leading one of the largest and most effective anti-fascist insurgencies in the world to fight against the Nazis, somehow is responsible for the Holocaust... Fascinating reasoning. Also, I wonder if all the deportations of Jews from throughout Europe to Nazi-occupied Poland - carried out by German forces - had anything to do with Jews having "a far lower chance of survival in Poland [...] than even in Germany". --Pitsarotta (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC) "Also, I wonder if all the deportations of Jews from throughout Europe to Nazi-occupied Poland - carried out by German forces - had anything to do with Jews having "a far lower chance of survival in Poland [...] than even in Germany"." - They didn't. That statistics comes up only when taking into account Polish Jewish casulties as a proportion of its pre war population (death rate of far above 90% btw). Also, i never said anything about the responsibility of Polish Government in Exhile (which btw i consider one of the most exonerating things about Polish people when it comes to the Holocaust), but of Polish people who far too often found themselves actively engaged in the murder of the Jewish community. SoHoBro (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2023 (UTC) Then you are even more lost, because the Polish government - even with all its efforts to end the Holocaust and provide support to those stuck back home - was still a government-in-exile, meaning that they fled when the country's conventional army fell. It was the Polish people, ordinary citizens, who remained in what had turned into living hell for them. Schools above primary level were closed, officers and teachers were shot, use of the native language was repressed, mass executions happened in the streets, able-bodied men were being sent to labour camps, the Polish nation was reduced to slavery... And yet still a surprisingly huge number of individuals and organisations - under the threat of death - found the courage to rise up, be it through aiding Jewish families, performing acts of sabotage or outright armed struggle against the Nazi invaders. Without all those people on the ground, many of whom were civilians before they joined the partisan ranks, all the actions of the government-in-exile would have been impossible. --Pitsarotta (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC) That Polish and Ukrainian people took part in the holocaust, and anti-Jewish pogroms before and after WW2 is historical fact. But that's not your accusation, you accusation is that the Polish and Ukrainian nations actively took part in the planning and execution of the holocaust, which is ahistorical nonsense. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC) There also was not much of a Ukrainian nation to speak of at the time, there was of course the Reichskommissariat Ukraine (absolutely not representative of the Ukrainian people) and the USSR (arguably representative, but not involved in the Holocaust). From Collaboration in German-occupied Poland - "Czesław Madajczyk estimates that 5% of the population in the General Government actively collaborated, which he contrasts with the 25% who actively resisted the occupation. Historian John Connelly writes that "only a relatively small percentage of the Polish population engaged in activities that may be described as collaboration, when seen against the backdrop of European and world history." However, he criticizes the same population for its indifference to the Jewish plight, a phenomenon he terms "structural collaboration" (see more below)." - therefore it would be unfair to lump the entire Polish population as perpetrators of the Holocaust. Regardless, Rosa Luxemburg was born in a town in modern day Poland and spoke Polish. Something equally troubling is the users denial that anti-slavic attitudes were also a key component of Nazi ideology. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC) Well put. It's also worth noting that, even with groups like the UPA, it's absurd and highly offensive to hold the entire Ukrainian nation (which suffered from countless Nazi crimes too) accountable for the ethnic cleansing of Jews and Poles. In fact, some Polish families fleeing the slaughter were able to survive thanks to being given shelter by Ukrainian families, who were at risk of being killed for harbouring Polish refugees. --Pitsarotta (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Seeking feedback on my own behavior to correct a string of edits that I made in contravention of an editing restriction

I apologize for this notice, but I'm soliciting admin feedback about how to proceed after I have broken my own editing restrictions per Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Placed by the Wikipedia community. There are two restrictions there and one of them is related to an a 2019 WP:ANI thread. Since that 2019 thread, I had been blocked from editing Wikipedia and since that block, I have been given my editing abilities back. In the interim, I had simply forgotten that this restriction was placed upon my editing and I want to submit this in good faith to 1.) delete the relevant content, 2.) act in good faith to provide visibility over my actions and show that I made a mistake and did not deliberately contradict this restriction, and 3.) provide a perspective on how I could get this editing restriction lifted in the future. A list of the pages needing to be deleted can be found here: User:Koavf/delete. Note that this thread was not prompted by anyone else's solicitation, just me reviewing my own edits. Additionally, I have also added {{use mdy dates}} to pages that I have created. I don't have a list of all of those edits, but I can find them if the community requires me to find them to be removed from pages. I apologize and I want to act in good faith and edit properly from here on, reminded that I am not to add these kind of optional style format templates. Thanks and sorry. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Without comment on the other aspects (yet) the restriction regarding dates prohibits placing, removing, or modifying any template on any article recommending the use of [...] any date format [...] without seeking prior consensus for the change on a case-by-case basis; [my emphasis]. It does not address the placing of such templates on articles where you are the only editor, likely because it does not appear that was an issue brought up in the 2019 thread. I would say that adding such a template as part of the initial page-creation process is not a violation of the restriction, however adding it once it has become an established article (in mainspace for several days or has contributions from other editors, whichever happens first) would be. I have not looked to see which it is that you have been doing. Thryduulf (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I have removed several, but per the comment below, I'll leave the entire thing at rest until this thread is closed. I look forward to any other admins' perspectives and I hope to rectify these mistakes. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

As an addendum: I started removing instances of {{use mdy dates}}, but I don't want that to be construed as breaking the restriction on mass edits. I want to be as conservative as possible and provide transparency, so I'll stop removing those instances I've added until an admin gives me the approval to do so here. I've also notified the admin who unblocked me for his personal visibility. Finally, I want to be clear that I'm not defending my actions, simply elaborating on why they happened and I am committing that they will not happen again, now that I have reminded myself of these editing restrictions (tho I am hopeful they would be lifted, thereby making the issue irrelevant, but until or unless that happens, I won't add English-language varities or date style varities to pages or amend editnotices without consensus prior to the fact). For those who are wondering why my word would be different now, it is simply easy to forget things in two years of not editing, whereas now that I am editing daily, I can easily remember this, particularly after making this thread. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@Koavf: Can I ask what made you aware that you had been violating your own editing restriction? As far as what should be done now, I don't think I've ever seen a more sincere apology for violating a ban. Not just an apology, but self-reverting the changes too and posting here for review (apparently) unprompted. Unless someone comes forward with some more serious evidence that this wasn't in good faith, my gut says that we should issue a WP:TROUT, caution Koavf that if it happens again there might be harsher penalties, and move on. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Bickering with a non-Wikimedian on Reddit. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Is... there still a need for the editing restriction to be that broad? Not for nothing, but I feel like a restriction like "Editor X may not place a {{mdy}} or {{Use American English}} tag on an article that they created" seems a bit... much. The topic ban is more for mass-placing these tags on articles, but editors are generally allowed to choose their own ENGVAR so long as the article doesn't have strong national ties to an English-speaking country.

I'd be more than open to a request to modify the TBAN to not apply to the first addition of an EngVar template or a date format template articles created by User:Koavf. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

After this thread is closed and I do whatever someone may ask of me to rectify the situation, I will ask for the ban to be lifted or amended. The problem at the time was not adding {{use mdy dates}} or creating editnotices as such, but doing so en masse to existing articles. (My perspective.) ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Just notating here that if you want the restriction to be lifted or amended, its generally a good idea to show that you understand why it was enacted in the first place (I see some issues with this during the original 2019 discussion, but may not still be relevant) and that you can point to a record of being able to edit productively while complying with the restriction as written. After this thread is closed, it may increase your chances if you wait a month or two to be able to demonstrate the latter. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, 'smith. I appreciate that the indiscriminate mass addition was a problem and that editing shouldn't have happened, but I'll separate out that issue from the immediate issue that I messed up and I want to make it correct in the immediate term. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Closing of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rollback of Vector 2022

It has been requested at WP:Close requests for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rollback of Vector 2022 to be be closed. As I said at Close requests, I think this would be best served by a panel of administrators closing the discussion rather than one poor schmuck. Thanks, Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 02:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree; it should be a panel of schmucks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

↑What he said. Good luck to whoever is brave enough to tackle that one. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Two administrators deleted Casa del Cabildo (Cartagena, Colombia) without explanation

I created this article 1 year ago, at first I copied some information from another page, but after RenaatPeeters warned me that I had a copy, I immediately summarized it as much as possible, I only left key information such as when it was built and relevant data, without leaving opinions or forms to explain it. Cyrius deleted it immediately, I write to these two users but they don't answer me, I need someone to help me, because this may even be just a precedent for all the articles I've done, I imagine they didn't like it the origin of the article and they deleted it --BrugesFR (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Cyrius deleted the article as copyright violation. Ymblanter (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I restored the article so you can see that this is not copyvio, it only has little factual information.--BrugesFR (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

The new version that you have now looks like it is not a copyvio. The previous deleted version was, however this new version is vastly different. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: That was the last version I posted in the short time I had before they deleted it, this was the last edition and then they deleted it— Preceding unsigned comment added by BrugesFR (talk • contribs) 17:28, February 21, 2023 (UTC)

The version RickinBaltimore reviewed at 17:24, 21 February still contained copyvio, as it was a Google translation of the source webpage. I cleaned it at 23:36, February 21, 2023 and again at 13:05, February 22, 2023‎ (a minor tidy). Another editor has requested a case be opened at WP:CCI. There's more details at my talk page: User talk:Diannaa#Demographics of Russia. — Diannaa (talk) 14:12, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked BrugesFR given the recent spate of G12s and a previous CCI that was opened on them at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/BrugesFR. There needs to be clear understanding and assurance that there will be no further copyright violations if they are to be unblocked. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 14:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

The CCI has now been reopened at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/BrugesFR if anyone want to help out. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 15:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Moratorium discussion at Talk:2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake

Talk:2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake

Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask ^ ^

Can you do what's needed? DarmaniLink (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

This discussion to invoke a moratorium on additional move requests (there have been 3 or 4 such requests in the past two weeks, depending on how you count) has been running for about a week. Maybe an uninvolved admin could have a look, close the discussion, and -- if deemed appropriate -- take the necessary steps to enforce the moratorium? Thanks! Renerpho (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

 Doing... I'm reading it now and should have it closed momentarily Beeblebrox (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done I've closed the discussion and updated the edit notice and FAQ pages. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Long-term pattern of hounding and disruptive editing by User:The Banner

This December 2022 issue, relating to a long-term pattern of disruptive editing, came to my attention while following up on my 2023-01-28 notice of a FAR needed for Minneapolis, an FA I have followed intermittently since 2007.

History

The Banner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has two topic bans in place: a 2020-11-12 two-way interaction ban and a ban from nominating articles at AFD (more on that below).

Previous ANIs (there are more—I stopped looking after these):

• Hounding raised in 2017 and closed with no consensus by Kudpung
• July 2016 AFD related, closed by Fences and windows with another topic ban
• October 2015, AFD related
• January 2015, civility

Relevance to AFD and notability: 2022-10-31 banned from nominating articles at AFD by Vanamonde93 per this ANI discussion of hounding and improper use of AFD. The comments from other editors about competence merit a thorough read and reveal issues directly relevant to The Banner's December 2022 activity:

1. Fram raises hounding,
2. GiantSnowman raises the “clearly notable” aspect of The Banner’s AFDs
3. Several editors in that discussion point out the articles AFD’d are highly notable.
4. Star Mississippi mentions that The Banner has learnt nothing from this discussion or is being deliberately obstructive
5. Drmies says this is a good time to take those concerns seriously
6. Levivich says indef would be better
7. A unanimous topic ban from nominating articles AFD is enacted

which brings up to The Banner's related activity at Minneapolis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

December 2022

See these sources for the Owamni restaurant and their dates:

1. The New Yorker, feature, 2022-09-19
2. BBC, feature, 2022-09-28
3. PBS, feature 2022-05-05
4. NPR, feature, 2022-10-24
5. The New York Times 2021 restaurant list “50 places we’re most excited about right now”
6. NBC News 2022-11-24

In this 2022-12-16 discussion, SusanLesch proposed an image of the Owamni for the Minneapolis article which was created by Another Believer and which SusanLesch had previously edited on December 15, 2022.

• 17:59, December 17, 2022 SusanLesch points out the Owamni’s notability to The Banner
• 19:20, December 17, 2022 The Banner acknowledges having read that post
• 19:38, December 17, 2022 The Banner follows SusanLesch to the Owamni article and tags it as not meeting notability, non-neutral, and containing weasel words (I’m at a loss on all three of those tags)
• And in the ensuing talk discussion The Banner does not back down

Considering everything pointed to The Banner over years of discussions about AFD, notability and hounding (including a topic ban for same), following SusanLesch to this article to place not just the notability, but three gratuitous tags, suggests that stronger action is needed. The appearance is that, since The Banner can no longer AFD, they hoped that the notability tags would achieve the same end. This seems to be a continuation of hounding problems, and skirting of the AFD topic ban, while ignoring how clearly notable the article subject is, along with gratuitous tagging just to round out the civility, hounding and competence issues.

This editing is disruptive, has been going on for years, and comes in particular at a time when SusanLesch has been diligently laboring away at the lengthy lists I park on talk of things that need to be corrected to maintain FA status. It appears to me that Levivich had it right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• Notification: [65] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of Long-term pattern of ... User:The Banner

Thanks @SandyGeorgia. While I haven't interacted with The Banner since the fall AfD referenced above, I recall thinking and possibly commenting in the thread that the ban was going to be a bandaid, and the problematic conduct would just move elsewhere since, as quoted above, he hadn't learned or enjoyed obstruction. Star Mississippi 14:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

There are other pieces I have to add, but I ran out of time and have to get out the door for an app't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

User:The Banner--why did you make this edit? An experienced editor knows that this is exactly the kind of thing that should be able to stand with primary sourcing; it's a relevant comment in the context of the origin of the things they serve, and it's properly ascribed and gives motive for the restaurant's choices. I'm not putting this here to convince you, because I think you know this, and I know this isn't a revert of SusanLesch; I'm commenting on it because it is not a good edit and it seems to indicate a refusal to drop a stick that you picked up with this edit, an edit that I don't really understand: there were no weasel words ("decolonized menu" is NOT weasel words), there was no dispute (you posted on the talk page much later), and there was reliable sourcing for a nationally recognized award. While I believe that Another Believer's write-up of restaurants is sometimes problematic, and that I had a minor disagreement (if that) with SusanLesch (see Talk:Minneapolis/Archive_9), what I see in the history of Owamni--how is that not you following them, and then continuing on the talk page in that fashion? I have been your friend, colleague, and sometime defender for a decade or more and what I see on that talk page saddens me. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

iPad editing from car hotspot, Drmies, there is more ... keep looking, The Banner just keeps gutting reliably sourced and relevant info (as if a restaurant's architecture is irrelevant ?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• I had to ask The Banner to please leave me alone recently. The hounding, the retaliatory tagging, the repeated removal of sourced content, the combative talk pages discussions, actively interfering with my Good article nominations, etc, got to be too much. I do not want to interact with this editor and I do not want them interacting with me. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:36, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  Talk:Bailey's Taproom/GA1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, see the bottom of the review. Talk:Bluehour#Notability_/_Advertising is another example of interference, yet I was still able to get the article promoted to Good status. I could share more examples. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  Just as a note about GA: the process does not assess notability. I've pointed this out multiple times in similar discussions. The fact an article has a GA does not confer notability. FWIW, I understand and share the frustration of folks who repeatedly ask which sources support a claim to notability and instead in response get drowned by the addition of dozens and dozens of sources that don't. Valereee (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  No one has said GA status = notability, so there's no need to keep making this point. Has nothing to do with The Banner's inappropriate behavior. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:56, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

• I have never (to my memory) had any significant interaction with The Banner, but my assessment of these diffs provided by several different users above is not a good look on them. The repeated refusal to elaborate on things when asked is to me very unacceptable. If you tag an article, you'd better be darned sure to identify examples of problematic text. If they believed it was "the whole article", then it would be trivial to find a representative passage. Their refusal to do so means either a WP:CIR problem, or they are just being obstinate and disruptive. Either way, this is a symptom of a problem that has spread much farther than AFD. At minimum, I would expect to extend the topic ban to cover all discussions of notability, tone, npov, etc. But really, a full cban may be in order. Not going the be the first to propose something, but yeah, something needs to be done. This kind of behavior is an issue. --Jayron32 19:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
• I like The Banner. I think he often makes sense. But "refusal to get the point" when consensus goes against him is a long-running theme. It's basically what I indef'd him for way back in 2014 after a one-week block didn't get the point across. Following "enemies" around is clearly not appropriate or acceptable; nor is peppering people trying to improve the encyclopaedia with problems then refusing to engage in discussion to resolve them. Noting, though, that he hasn't edited for week so there's no need to rush this discussion to a conclusion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
• I have belatedly realized that The Banner is also over at the discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Minneapolis, where (if I had read thoroughly yesterday, I could have avoided doing all the homework of digging up the background in this dispute) they have been ascribing motives to SusanLesch's appropriate use of DR. I have also just launched an RFC to hopefully get the trainwreck that has been occurring at Minneapolis for over two years under control, so a Featured article review can focus on content. As I have taken a position in that RFC, I am no longer neutral in the image matter. But with a past topic ban, two current topic bans, problems in interaction with now three editors (past two-way ban, AnotherBeliever and SusanLesch), and with CIR issues apparent in both restaurants and Minnesota, potential t-bans, Levivich again seems right and there's nowhere else to go with this extensive conduct. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  What action are you proposing that the community takes? Shouldn't this be at ANI? GiantSnowman 21:44, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

  It was my impression that something that happened in December, and does not require an immediate decision, does not belong at the Incident noticeboard. I don't know whether this should be a site ban, indef, or topic ban, but if a topic ban, it's got to cover two editors, and several broad topics, so that doesn't appear to be the way to go. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Tangential discussion collapsed.

If I may comment about the photo of Owamni, there were a few discussions about photos of that restaurant, and few editors agreed that it should be included in the article. One discussion is at Talk:Minneapolis/Archive 9#RfC: photo in the Cuisine section. I'm not commenting on the behavior of The Banner; just contributing information to assist in your decision. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC) The Banner's behavioral issues being discussed here are unrelated to the image questions raised at the NPOV noticeboard (which is about your insertion of what most editors agree is a POV image), rather stalking/hounding, improper tagging related to their unique views on notability, and then obfuscation and stonewalling on talk--all amounting to disruption after already having multiple administrative actions and sanctions in that very area. You're "not commenting on the behavior of The Banner", yet this thread is about the behavior of The Banner, and their opinions on or previous discussions of a photo of the Owamni are unrelated to the problematic behavior discussed so far in this thread. I mentioned the other thread above for transparency when I belatedly saw that The Banner (an editor I had never before crossed paths with and whose name did not register with me) was also in that thread, because all the work I did to understand the background based on following through on what was at Talk:Minneapolis had already been done by SusanLesch at the NPOV noticeboard discussion about the Owamni, which I would have realized if I had read through it all before doing the work for this thread. (That is, I could have saved myself a few hours.) If there is a behavioral issue related to that photo discussion, it is separate and would be that you also followed SusanLesch to the Owamni talk page discussion to misinterpret her posts there, and then following on the NPOV noticeboard discussion, also stalked me to Tourette syndrome to make another ill-informed image edit which does not conform with MOS. Those matters of your behavior, however, are current and would belong at ANI, and not in this thread. Please don't create strawmen in this discussion (the sprawling problems at Minneapolis have seen enough of that already); it doesn't seem wise to provide further indications that David Fuchs' suggestions of a ban for you need followup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC) Again, I did not come here to comment on the behavior of The Banner, who genuinely has a lengthy rap sheet. I commented above because a significant piece of exculpatory information was inadvertently left out of your lengthy comment, which more-or-less implies that Owamni is the best thing to hit Minneapolis since the invention of the lake freighter, and only an idiot (or in this case, a disruptive editor) would fail to see that. In fact, there were several discussions about Owamni at Talk:Minneapolis and at dispute resolution, particularly this discussion which specifically addressed Owamni, and the discussions supported removing the puffery. Even at the current RFC there is lukewarm support for the Owamni photo. There is no doubt may people feel Owamni is a great restaurant, and you have advocated many times for this establishment, but there seems to be a consensus that the Minneapolis article needs more encyclopedic content, and less boosterism. I am disappointed you see my efforts to improve that article as disruptive, and that you have advocated for a topic ban to silence me. It's also important to remember that a consensus of editors overwhelmingly decided that magazine and newspaper "best of" rankings--such as the ones listed above, and the ones you stuffed onto the photo caption at the current RFC--are unencyclopedic cruft that have no place on US city articles. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC) And here we have a good example of the sprawl at Talk:Minneapolis, which besides misrepresenting my broad suggestion for "whatever [is] supported by sources" in a suggestion for an image captionh, refusal to get the point-- that the image discussion may have brought The Banner's attention to Owamni, but is unrelated to the notability and hounding problem for which The Banner was previously sanctioned. And unrelated to the gratuitous tagging and refusal to discuss on talk. This thing speaks for itself. Perhaps there is a need for a separate ANI here, but moving forums at this point makes little sense. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 12 February 2023 (UTC) Let me see if I have this straight. You want me site banned because I would not "get the point" at two-month-long discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Minneapolis that a picture of a burger restaurant was biased. Then when I suggest that an admin close the discussion, you instead start an RFC where you ask the community if that very same "biased" photo should be added to the article. You do realize an editor has already voted to keep that photo? Should they be site banned too, because they obviously didn't get your point either. This defies logic. SandyGeorgia, I have worked very hard to improve that article, and remove the truckload of puffery so it sounded more like a quality article and less like tourist brochure. At each step I have been blocked ostensibly by one editor, and again and again at various dispute resolutions I have nearly always been agreed with. Please stop trying to intimidate me, and let's try to work together and act collegially to improve that article. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2023 (UTC) I have pointed out to you multiple times in multiple discussions (eg here) that User talk:SandyGeorgia is that-a-way. This discussion is not about a page ban for you (if I thought that the best course to follow at this juncture, I would have already launched that discussion at ANI), and it is not about The Banner's image preference. It's about what The Banner did to two other editors and an article after he had a difference over an image at a different article. If you feel intimidated, feel free to discuss that on my talk, where we will explore everything that has occurred at Minneapolis con calma. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 12 February 2023 (UTC) This rapidly sprawling discussion has nothing to do with the original complaint and The Banner has not edited in a week. Perhaps it's time to close this thread? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC) Perhaps hat the off-topic Magnolia677 discussion instead ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Jayron32 above suggested a cban might be in order, but did not want to launch the proposal. GiantSnowman asked for my suggestion, which I hesitate to add, as I'm not an admin and don't feel qualified to say what precisely the proposal should be for this case (indeff, cban, or some very lengthy list of tbans and ibans for The Banner) and having never heard of this editor before, I don't know what other factors might be considered.

Without a proposal, I don't think it helpful to allow Magnolia677 to derail the real discussion here; they're already edit warring over at the NPOV RFC,[66][67] which is a separate matter; also derailing the discussion here should not be rewarded. It's making it easy to see why Minneapolis had become the most fraught FAR pre-FAR I've ever encountered, and it's clearly not because of SusanLesch.

As a non-admin, if I must put up a proposal for The Banner, it would probably be a tban along the lines mentioned by Jayron32, as well as all-things Minnesota, as they have followed Minnesota editors to pages and targeted them, as well as a iban from anything Another Believer or SusanLesch work on ... well, the tban and iban possibilities go on, so maybe indeff instead. I don't see the reasoning for a cban (which I believe is better for situations where there is socking etc), but not an admin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

There's still the issue that The Banner hasn't edited since the 4th so very likely doesn't even know this discussion is happening. Personally, I feel he should have a right of reply before we start seriously considering sanctions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't disagree, and thought that your original suggestion ("there's no need to rush this discussion to a conclusion") was reasonable and the way to go. Meanwhile, we had an entire tangent here muddying the water, and shouldn't let that be cause for closing this thread. So I again suggest hatting the tangent, and waiting for The Banner to show up. I don't know that editor, but an examination of their contribs seems to suggest that an absence this long is unusual. We shouldn't reward the issue often seen in arb cases, where editors stop editing to escape sanctions, so if The Banner doesn't show up in a reasonable amount of time, we might proceed to whatever sanctions are supported by consensus anyway. That is, however the arbs usually handle those situations where the subject stops editing mid-case ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

+1 ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Please do not close the thread altogether because of a tangent. Issues with The Banner still need to be discussed, IMO. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Adding a timestamp (bot archived this open discussion only four days after last entry so I unarchived); if there is no further input on which way to go from admins, I will lodge a proposal in a few days if I must. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not really "open" if there have been no comments in four days on one of the most-watched, most-edited pages on the wiki. The Banner hasn't edited since the 4th, six days before this thread started so there's no ongoing disruption and no reason to think he knows about this thread. I suggest it be re-archived and the matter can be resurrected if necessary when The Banner returns. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

My preference then would be to go ahead and take some action, lest they come back and continue this long-term pattern of disruptive editing. Since it doesn't strike me that a community ban is warranted (as my impression is that cban is usually reserved for instances involving socking and other more overt disruption), and the list of topic and interaction bans that would be needed/warranted is quite lengthy, then that leaves an indeff, which would be appealable via the usual means when/if The Banner returns. If it's an issue of seeing this thread archived when The Banner actively stalked and disrupted articles by at least two other editors, after a lengthy history of same, then I will launch an indef proposal. No action does not seem the best option here; what The Banner did at Owamni is quite shocking, considering the history. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

HJ? Should we proceed with a proposal, or put a no-archive on this thread to give more time for The Banner to re-appear? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia I don't really know what action(s) are appropriate to take, but please feel free to propose something before this thread is archived again. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I think you would struggle to gain a consensus for any action while The Banner is inactive. Had he stopped editing in the middle of the thread, that would be one thing, but he hadn't edited for a few days before it was opened. I myself don't know what action I would support without hearing The Banner's version of events. I still believe the best thing to do is to let the thread fall into the archive, then resurrect it as if it had never been archived if or when The Banner returns and does something disruptive. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I am willing to go along with HJ, but this is a disappointing outcome for WP:AN. Perhaps next time I see such an egregious breach of a previous sanction by an editor, I will wade back in to the toxic environment of ANI, where at least we will get feedback. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm also disappointed and frustrated. This should be addressed if the editor returns. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

HJ et al agree this should be addressed if the editor returns. There is just limited appetite to spend the time and energy required to address matters before they return, because if they don't it will have been effort wasted. They have made no contributions globally in almost 3 weeks at this point, so there is no urgency. Thryduulf (talk) 00:48, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Requesting revert restrictions for gender related articles

I'm requesting that an uninvolved administrator apply 1RR to the following gender and sexuality articles:

• Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism
• Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull
• Chloe Cole
• Gays Against Groomers

They are all subject to interrelated disagreements and edit warring, with spillover to BLPN, BLPN again, RSN, RSN again, and ANI. I think a revert restriction will help prevent the dispute from escalating while it's being resolved. For the sake of disclosure, I have left one comment on the ANI thread but am otherwise uninvolved. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC) Striking as I have since participated further in the discussion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Firstly WP:GENSEX contentious topics restrictions apply here so we can use those to do this. It looks like the semi protection of Gays Against Groomers (by ScottishFinnishRadish) will likely deal with the disruption on that page so I don't think any page restictions would be needed there, I expect that semi protection of Chloe Cole would likely have the same result. On revert restrictions for the other two, I don't think that revert restriction by itself would work effectively on these articles would be as effective as hoped. This is because the conflict seems to be between different groups of editors. Instead I wonder whether the consensus required provision might be more effective at preventing escalation by forcing discussion to occur first? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not totally well-versed in regard to the relevant tools, so my request is mostly one of the "do something" variety. For what it's worth, I think the consensus required provision looks like a reasonable option. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 08:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@Callanecc: I generally agree with the analysis you've provided above, but I do have a concern regarding Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull being under "consensus required". The article is known to have sourcing issues, and it's a bit hard to square the line in WP:BLP that says [c]ontentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion with this restriction. Given the sort of dispute, I would ask that WP:1RR be given instead; this would allow for editors to be able to take a single edit to make good-faith removals contentious BLP content in line with policy without the chilling effect of having a "consensus required" restriction and having to rely on the BLPVIO exception of WP:3RR applying. Previous attempts to make good-faith removals of contentious content on that page were met with repeated attempts to re-insert the content rather than following WP:BLPRESTORE, and "consensus required" restrictions favor the content that was present immediately before the edit removing content from the article (if that content is newer), so I fear that having this restriction will encourage BLPVIO to remain in the article for longer than it otherwise would. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: I'm happy to keep an eye on the article and intervene if that becomes an issue but it appears that a lot of this material has already been removed from the article so hopefully won't be a problem. Also worth noting the consensus requirements of WP:BLPRESTORE would still apply and isn't overridden by the consensus required provision. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Undoing Redirect

If an admin could please undo the redirect of Josh Hammer to Joshua Hammer so Josh B. Hammer can be moved to Josh Hammer. I was discussing this with Presearch (talk · contribs) as he implemented the redirect and as you can see by the discussion on his talk page, he said I need to ask an admin to undo the redirect. Presearch has no issue with the name change. Thank you. Apologies if I've posted this on the wrong board. MaskedSinger (talk) 18:22, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I've deleted Josh Hammer per WP:CSD#G6, so you can move the other page there. as I said in log summary, I'm AGFing on this being uncontroversial; it certainly *seems* uncontroversial... Floquenbeam (talk) 18:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! MaskedSinger (talk) 18:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Jo Pugh RIP

I'm sorry to report that my friend, and an incredible Wikimedian, Jo Pugh, User:Mr impossible has died ([68]). Please lock his user page per the process at WP:RIP. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Looks like this was done by HJ Mitchell. Andy, I'm sorry for your loss. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

So done. Rest in peace, Joe, and my condolences to your family. If any edits are needed to the userpage, please let me know. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Should their real world name be here/ oversighted? North8000 (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Reverse copyright issue

Happy Friday admins! I responded to a G12 deletion request today and discovered an art gallery website very blatantly copying from Wikipedia without credit. You can see Talk:Arran Gaelic for my analysis; basically I found that they copied a fairly recent revision of Isle of Arran and scrubbed most of the inline references, but not all of them. In some cases they've also left in bare URL links to other Wikipedia articles, and have copied some of our images (downloaded in some cases, others just link to Wikipedia). This seems to be affecting their more recent web gallery additions, and appears to be done with some kind of scraper that doesn't work very well, resulting in some amusing nonsensical reproductions, like a portrait of an English socialite reproducing our article coral. On less-recent pages they've added annotations, or at least paraphrased our content, and have also copied from other sources, but still there are no citations or acknowledgements anywhere.

I know I can add the site to Earwig's blacklist, but should anything else be done? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:33, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ivanvector (not legal advice) - any of the authors of that article should be able to send a Wikipedia:Standard CC-BY-SA violation letter to the infringing party to start a complaint. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Notice of global ban

User:PlanespotterA320 has been globally banned per m:Requests for comment/Global ban for PlanespotterA320 (2). AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 11 ("Request for Comment") of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case is rescinded. There are no actions remaining in force from this remedy, so the community are free to conduct and close these and related discussions moving forward. The Committee thanks Xeno and Valereee for their work as moderators; KrakatoaKatie, RoySmith, and TheSandDoctor for their work as closers; and all the editors who participated in these discussions to date.

For the Arbitration Committee, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing

inappropriate edit summary

Re this reverted edit [69]. An administrator may want to make the edit inaccessible in the history. Bob K31416 (talk) 13:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done. In the future, just a friendly reminder to ask an admin privately to remove the offending edit, as bringing it here brings a lot more eyes to the edit itself. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC) Fixed your link. Primefac (talk) 14:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Just noticed that when I'm logged out I can view the diff, via the link in my opening message, as visible. (When I'm logged in it's OK and not visible.) Bob K31416 (talk) 14:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

That's likely a cache issue (i.e. something on your end). Primefac (talk) 14:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Change to the Functionaries team

Following a request to the Committee, the CheckUser and Oversight permissions of Callanecc (talk · contribs) have been restored.

For the Arbitration Committee, Primefac (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Change to the Functionaries team

Need someone who can see deleted history to look at Horror comics

I'm trying to clean up old GA subpages, and found these two:

• Talk:Horror comics/GA1 from December 2008
• Talk:Horror comics in the United States, 1947–1954/GA1 from February 2009

Horror comics in the United States, 1947–1954 is now a redirect to Horror comics, and per this edit summary there was a histmerge done. However, the history of Horror comics only goes back to 2009, so I can't get the oldid for the 2008 GA. Can those old revisions be undeleted? Or did something else happen? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

And a related question: the most recent GAN was a pass, so the article should be GA. I don't see any delisting in the article history -- has that been deleted too? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

It looks like Horror comics only has 2 deleted edits, both from 5 February 2009 and were just deleted to make room for a page move. I have no objections to restoring if you like, but there isn't anything significant there except a redirect. It seems like the edit history you're looking for (the one that was originally created at Horror comics is now the history of Horror comics in the United States, 1947–1954, which does go back to 2008. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:16, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks; I should have thought of looking there, but when I saw the edit summary about the histmerge I assumed the histmerge would have happened to the article as well as the talk page. I had a look and it seem nothing but an image and a couple of references were actually moved when the merge finally occurred in 2011, so the article was effectively deleted, which answers my question. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Unban request for Sbb1413/Soumya-8974

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following was posted as an unban request for Sbb1413 (talk · contribs) (Formerly Soumya-8974):

I have already understood why I was banned by the English Wikipedia community. I was banned from the entire site for my disruptive edits, lack of competence and racism. Since then, I have attempted to reform myself in several other Wikimedia sites, including Bengali Wikipedia, Commons and Wikivoyage. After some time, some editors have commented that I have become a valuable contributor. So I think I should be unbanned in English Wikipedia and if I were unbanned, I will focus to the articles on West Bengal and possibly the whole India and avoid the areas that led me to my current situation. I may also use WP:AFC/R sparingly to create useful redirects in accordance to the relevant policies.

NOTE: Ban was last requested to be lifted in the discussion here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

• Not sure they're really addressing the cause of the ban tbh; it doesn't bode well that, in this request they promise to focus to the articles on West Bengal and possibly the whole India. While in the discussion linked to above, this very area was deemed problematic. Sdrqaz noted that Regarding competence on Kashmir pages, I have had limited interaction with this editor but I have nonetheless been left frustrated while Thryduulf considered a topic ban from Kashmir a bare minimum. Having said that... SN54129 18:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Looking at their user talk pages for activity since the en.wp block in October 2021, shows almost no evidence of collaborative editing and some evidence of problems being ignored. I'm not going to outright oppose at the moment, but this combined with the request does not fill me with confidence. I would definitely oppose a return without topic bans from redirects, Kashmir and possibly also India. Thryduulf (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

  Having thought about this a bit more, I am going to oppose until I see evidence of understanding of the issues they caused here and evidence that they are able to collaboratively edit elsewhere. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Thryduulf: "evidence that they are able to collaboratively edit elsewhere" – see their contributions on the English Wikivoyage. They turned themselves from one of that site's most disruptive contributors to being one of the site's most proactive and invaluable contributors. I presume that's not enough for you, though? --SHB2000 (talk) 08:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  I haven't got time to look again right now, but from the contributions across all projects I looked at I saw at lot of editing, much of it (on the surface at least) productive but very little collaborative - i.e. directly working with other editors on building content, rather than independent editing. I also saw evidence (although ottomh I can't remember on which projects) of issues raised with their editing being ignored or dismissed rather than addressed, and nothing showing any evidence of understanding why they were banned from here. Thryduulf (talk) 09:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• It's a bit silly to be making this request with a banner at the top of their talk page stating I have formally declared me as a former English Wikipedian (2017–2021) and will never return. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

  I have no opinion at the moment about this particular request, but must observe that if we banned people for silliness then we would have very few editors left. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

  Soumya was banned for a lot more than just silliness. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

• I have removed this from the archive, looking to get more input before accepting or denying this request. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Yamla, CactiStaccingCrane, SHB2000, Isochrone, and Rosguill: (along with an IP editor and Soumya themselves) commented on the last discussion but have not commented here, @Mutt Lunker, Sdrqaz, M Imtiaz, and Nardog: commented on the discussion that resulted in the ban but haven't commented above or in the previous discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not confident that this user will be a net positive, but I also don't have much to go off of; their contributions elsewhere are of the gnomish variety that are difficult for a non-specialist to analyze. I also don't see a lot of recognition of why the userboxes were a problem. That said, I'm not completely opposed to giving them some rope, but I would recommend a TBAN from redirects, from China, and from Covid-19. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
• I'd oppose weakly on the basis of Thryduulf's and Vanamonde's comments, but noting that I haven't re-investigated in detail since the last discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:08, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. The racism, in particular, disturbs me. Additionally, I think this is a weak unban request. I'm not going to be annoyed if someone goes and unbans, though I'd strongly recommend a TBAN as suggested by Vanamonde if that's the case. --Yamla (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support. They came back with a fresh start on the English Wikivoyage and have proved themselves to be one of the site's most productive and invaluable contributors. I do not see why they can't be trusted with a similar clean start (post-rename) on the English Wikipedia either. --SHB2000 (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. I will never support and unban request arising from a ban that involved hate speech, where the request does not contain a clear explanation of why the hate speech occurred, why it won't happen again, what the person has learned, and preferably an apology. The closest we have here is, in the previous request, I will respect all editors irrespective of age, gender, religion and ethnicity. That falls well short of the mark, in my opinion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Tamzin, and comments above regarding the tenor of the request. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. I too am concerned at the insufficient contrition for previous behaviour, particularly the racism. They were also prodigious in their pestilentially careless editing and I don't fancy having to clean up after them again. The weakness to my opposition is only a slight one, regarding the indication that they may have mended their ways and become a net positive at Wikivoyage. If there is any kind of return it should be accompanied with a broad topic ban to cover the very areas they have expressed an interest in returning to. I need more convincing. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Delete redirect request

According to the Election Commission, Khelafat Majlish and Bangladesh Khelafat Majlish are two separate organizations. Therefore, it is necessary to delete this incorrect redirect: Bangladesh Khelafat Majlish & Bangladesh Khilafat Majlis. I am interested in working on this topic.–MinisterOfReligion ^(Talk) 06:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@Owais Al Qarni You should list these redirects for discussion at WP:RFD 163.1.15.238 (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

A redirect can be WP:BOLDly turned into an article with the edit button, there's no deletion (or any other use of the admin toolkit) necessary unless you have a draft you want to move into that location. Courcelles (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

And if you do have a draft you want to move to that location, the place to request that is WP:RM/TR. Thryduulf (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Request for Close Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Close in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chivalry_of_a_Failed_Knight#RFC_on_Gender_of_Character_Nagi

Prior Dispute With Mention of the RFC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_227#Chivalry_of_a_Failed_Knight

In the above dispute resolution I was assured a closer would consider absolutely everything in question. The sources being mentioned, the whole talk page, the RFC votes, and the RFC discussion replies. That did not happen, and seemingly the only thing considered were the votes with absolutely no further thought applied.

My reasoning for finding fault with this, other than what I can only take as some kind of inherent bias in the closure, is that the position maintained by Robert McClenon does not fit what is there. If restricting it to purely the votes in a vacuum then yes it does, but not when you factor in what else is supposed to be considered.

Robert's talk page, have laid out my concerns there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Robert_McClenon

To restate the concerns laid out:

The previous discussions that were supposed to be considered favored male only or a mix of male/neutral language. Was also brought to attention in those discussions that Wikipedia as a whole cannot authoritatively state one person is something other than what they are, and the end result of forcing purely female language does so by taking a stance that a male is not a male despite the author saying otherwise.

The voters for the RFC did nothing outside initial vote reasons being stated, not counting those that had previously discussed at length. They did not jump into the replies which only leaves the impression that they agreed with what someone was saying enough to not need to jump in. The results of those discussions once again came back to the previous discussions results of favoring a male/neutral mix, but with an added paragraph explaining the other side that includes a citation to a translator who worked on the English novel releases. That was deemed fair with no one questioning it, further discussions only being arguments after asking about a close and 3rd person narration.

The results of the narration argument showed two things: the author is either purely omniscient and is stating their view of the character, which is male/neutral, or is somewhat limited and is stating the character's thoughts, which is male/neutral. Both cases support the reached conclusion of male/neutral for the first paragraph, using the family name of Arisuin, and the second paragraph as mentioned above. This also supports the other arguing point of using character thoughts.

So when looking at what is supposed to be considered, from both Robert's own reply and the Consensus description in "How to Determine the Outcome," the current close result does not fit with policy nor is there any logic in it. It outright ignores the source text, which is the only fully correct version, to supplement based off reader interpretations of dialogue and secondary text sources in localized copies.

It is also important to note that other official translations stick to the original male and neutral language, but that seems to have been given no consideration.

It's my request the closure be reviewed and the result of AngusWOOF's reply (sticking to Arisuin as the name outside the full name used to start the section, using male + neutral language in the first paragraph and female the second) be selected. It had the most result when looking at everything overall. Draco Safarius (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I stand by my close at this time. I won't comment further at this time, but may or may not reply further in the next few days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 04:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse the closure, though I have a quibble. I see clear evidence that RMC considered the comments of participants, and not just their !votes. I do not see any sign that RMC has any "inherent bias", and I suggest that evidence be provided or the accusation struck. The OP suggests that the closer should have ruled in favor of an option raised near the end of the RfC, but I (a) see no way a closer could have found consensus for that option, which was considered by so few of the participants, and (b) am not seeing how the OP's description of the option can be reconciled with what was actually proposed.
  That said, I wouldn't have factored in Option A's status quo-ness as a reason to pick it over Option D. Given that RMC leaves the door wide open for further discussion of Option D, I think the result is reasonable and within closer's discretion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

More apologies to Firefangledfeathers and Rosguill in advance for the longer post.

Given that only two replies attempted addressing concerns, and one of them fell victim to them, I'm going to have to lay out points for the discussion. Only way this will be considered acceptable is if every participating member address/discuss them, or if you can't put no comment for the point, but that'll just be conceding you cannot argue against the point. Please don't deviate off of them, that'll also just be taken as conceding the point(s).

Here are all of the concerns and talking points.

1 Not all of the relevant discussion material was considered. This is the preceding discussion section and dispute resolution, the RFC material, as well as the raw text. Yes, this is all relevant as the prior discussion directly caused this and is part of the overarching issue.

2 Strength of arguments was not considered, as prior arguments debunk favoring this outcome.

3 Preceding arguments determined favoring the English release based on the tagline (maiden in a man's body) was original research as it conflicted with the source text and was an opinion.

4 Despite Wikipedia not being able to state something the page in question now states the character as female despite being male and ignores the name from official material/media.

5 The resulting end discussion of the RFC showed that both styles of narration showed the narrator (author) and characters' internal thoughts/feelings as use male/neutral language.

6 No arguments raised against the accepted outcome of something close to D with mention of the translator tweet. Given more than enough time any who had concerns to raise, and had not previously discussed them in the preceding talk section, would have put them in the replies when a compromise was being discussed had they anything to say in favor or against.

7 The closer, in response to me asking about it, said that consensus favored ambiguity, but their close of the page does not reflect that. The suggested close mentioned above, does, and this reason alone would be enough to switch it over.

And, to cut off some attempted reasoning that might be busted out:

No, adhering to policy if it conflicts with the text and basic logic does not okay the outcome. This is not something wherein the primary source can be considered unreliable and thus does not require a secondary source. And, were you adhering to policy and ignoring the text, it would just be in the vein of fan fiction.

No, weighting answers/considerations is not okay, that is in the same vein as bias for dismissing counter arguments. It must all be held to equal standard. Operate on the consensus you're supposed to as outlined in 1. Draco Safarius (talk) 05:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• I see no clear evidence of considering anything other than votes.

  Citing his seventh statement in the dispute resolution form: "If one of the editors has questions about the RFC process, they can ask them at the RFC talk page or Village Pump (policy). The closer will consider the strength of arguments as well as a numerical vote count."

  The above was in response to me asking on voter reliability, for providing arguments. Most did not choose to do so, as noted below and later on.

  Prior discussions have to be considered, which does not support the current closure. The RFC discussions and votes together have to be considered, and many of the voters voiced no concerns against ideas raised in the replies, or in the case of the mentioned AngusWOOF 180'd and supported opposite their votes. Because most no one bothered to argue against the newly raised options in the replies the only assumption at play is that they either did not care for the page enough to check the RFC status, or had nothing to add against these options. And, argument strength also shows this outcome to be unacceptable.

  If all of this was truly considered then there's only two things I can possibly see at play as it's beyond enough evidence to support not going with the current closure:

  Either bias, unconscious or otherwise, is present, leading to them seeking out a resolution they personally agree with.

  Or

  They did not follow proper closure procedure of considering absolutely everything involved, and thus went with a simple "most votes in support" closure.

  Personally I'd rather neither be true, but it's so incredibly overt that the outcome was not what it should have been that it leaves either of them as a strong possibility.

  Regarding the closer finding consensus, it's easy.

  If they'd read the previous discussion predating the RFC, which they attest they have in the previous dispute resolution, then they would have seen that there were more for a male + neutral outcome than were for female. There was a point raised you (Wikipedia) cannot state something as fact, which the current close is doing by attesting a male character is female due to the pronoun language used. There was discussion of the source text pointing out the original pronouns in question were in fact male and neutral.

  You stack the above with both the votes and RFC discussion. What you then end up with is still most people in favor of a mixed outcome, not outcome A. And, noting how long the RFC was open, if they'd have anything further to add not previously said or counters against that option being chosen then they'd have mentioned them. Nothing of the sort happened. The only thing that did happen was clarifications on finer points of the section, and an agreement that the narrator, regardless of the type of 3rd person, was following the original argument of proclaiming male and neutral language for the character.

  Regarding the second bit, about the RFC reply option consensus, it's already been stated. It fits as a perfect middle ground for both arguments made prior to and during the RFC. No opposition was raised against it despite far beyond ample time given, and it was previously agreed upon as a good option in the dispute resolution. The only one who shot it down as an idea was Robert McClenon, even though he also proposed it as an idea. I'll concede it would feel cluttered, but the support was overwhelmingly strong when you consider everything like how a closer is supposed to do.

  For how it can be reconciled I'm unsure of what you mean. It's literally just a merge of options that was agreed upon in two entirely different discussions. That gives it support based on each of the included options, and of all the ones raising points for individual parts for it. It leaves no room for further arguments as it states the facts and leaves concession to the changed versions so the parts the participants found relevant are included, with a source that was wanted.

  It would read as the current character section but substituting all except the initial name with Arisuin, stick to purely they/them/their in the first paragraph, and have a second smaller paragraph using Alice and she/her mentioning the tagline with the tweet citation from the translator/editor.

  Lastly, no, leaving it open for option D discussion is by no means acceptable or reasonable. The ones who were not checking the RFC are still not going to check it, doubly so now that it's closed, and the only ones who'd be discussing, myself included, would still just be the same people reaching the same conclusion for a third time on a dual style section. There is no reason it should not have been the default closure solution since the closer would be well aware of it, and had suggested it before.

  Edit: forgot to attach before I sent the reply, but it also bears note that on Robert McClenon's talk page he states that consensus was for ambiguity, and the current close also does not reflect this. The suggested close, however, does.

Draco Safarius (talk) 08:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry DS. There's no way I'm engaging with a comment that long. I read the first part, and I think it's trivial to disprove "I see no clear evidence of considering anything other than votes". RMC's closure includes the line "The criticism of Option B was that it explicitly states that Nagi/Alice is a transgender woman." This could not have come from just the votes, which do not mention this analysis. In the face of obvious evidence like this, your repeated allegations that RMC ignored all discussion are uncivil, and I urge you to stop. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Well unfortunately you're going to have engage to some degree or all I'll be left to assume is willful abstaining from debunking the claims which would constitute confirming guilt as far as I'm concerned. The part you just mentioned in question only relates to the initial vote reasoning for the RFC discussion, which is still just votes being considered. So, unless you can actually go about sufficiently explaining all the addressed claims, especially strength of argument points, then I'm going to count that as failure to prove it was a sufficient closure. Draco Safarius (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Should probably have been part of the parent reply, but I'll list out in a shorter form than my first reply what you've got to address to get anywhere close to sufficient reasoning:

Strength of arguments (the source text of narrator/character thoughts, translated publishers oftentimes not having to run things by the parent publishers/authors, documented history of parent publishers/authors forcing localized edits to be reverted in reprints).

Overall consensus (each individual person counting as one, going back to the previous discussion and the RFC discussions).

Failure of several voters to say a compromise was not okay despite ample time given.

Robert having previously agreed to the compromise by suggesting it.

Robert saying ambiguity was the outcome, but closing it as definitively female language.

Another official source contradicting this outcome. Draco Safarius (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the short version. I would like to address a few of your points in no particular order. Most importantly: you can't take silence as agreement or as "confirming guilt", whatever that means. I'm not sure what you mean by RMC suggesting the compromise. If you mean AngusWoof's proposal, then no, RMC didn't suggest it. I read RMC's comment on "ambiguity" as meaning that we can't state in wiki-voice that the character is a trans woman. i do think that's a sensible reading of the consensus. As a closer, I frequently like to read prior discussions, but there's no requirement that a closer consider anything beyond the RfC itself. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not taking silence. It's taking the other party being given the points that have to be addressed but choosing to not do so as confirming they can't, hence confirming some truth to the original concern.

The dispute agreement linked in the parent notice. Of three suggestions laid out by Robert, one of them was a compromise. Angus did also suggest this later in the RFC, however, yes, and it was agreed upon by all who were participating at that point.

Ambiguity, you're half there. You're right on not directing stating "character is X," but by ascribing pronouns and switching the name entirely you are doing so regardless, as it does away with the official name and lists the whole page as if the localized interpretation is correct, in which said version counts the character as transgender. This is why a mix or purely neutral is necessary.

Would argue it is not sensible, for all stated reasons previously.

The closer bit, I would disagree. You could bring in random voters and get something passed simply by consensus if you ignored previous discussions. Doesn't have to go back to the start of the talk page, but the previous discussion section is the start of the dispute resolution and RFC and must be directly considered or it can only be classed as purposeful ignoring information and points. Draco Safarius (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I would advise you to spend some time reading WP:BLUDGEON. In response to your comments like It's not taking silence. It's taking the other party being given the points that have to be addressed but choosing to not do so as confirming they can't, hence confirming some truth to the original concern. WP:SATISFY is particularly relevant - editors do not need to respond to your objections to your satisfaction for their opinions to be valid. Responding to every single person who disagrees with you with massive, unreadable walls of text where you state the same arguments over and over until they get fed up and leave is not how you form consensus, it is disruptive. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 00:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

By all means re-read the replies then, as you're quite heavily missing the point. The text you highlighted is saying that if the issue raised needs clear responses to be dismissed, and the other party(s) cannot do so, or purposely abstain, then the issue is left wholly unchallenged.

Also, opinions are always valid. That's what an opinion is, how you feel on something. That doesn't relate, however, at all to this. The issues raised need rebuttals/answers, to which none have been provided as of so far, minus the half correct reply from Firefangledfeathers on statements. Draco Safarius (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

It's taking the other party being given the points that have to be addressed but choosing to not do so as confirming they can't, hence confirming some truth to the original concern.

That's not how it works. You don't get to post a long screed then declare victory when we say "that's too long, we're not going to engage with it." It most certainly does not "confirm" anything. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Deferring to my main reply, will be counting this as concession. Draco Safarius (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse options A and D got near-unanimous support, and considerably more than any of the other options, so the result will be A or D unless there is a strong argument against those positions, such as a conflict with fundamental Wikipedia policy or a more widespread consensus. While the discussion has definitely suffered from walls of text I don't see such an argument there. The justification for opposing options B and C is that they use pronouns or descriptions which aren't supported by the source material and/or its English translation, which seems very reasonable and has some support in MOS:GENDERID. Hut 8.5 10:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  It's absolutely supported by the source material, and another official translation. If you're purposely ignoring the source, which is the literally inarguable most accurate version, and other versions to authoritatively declare a skewed view on a character then it does violate policy. No one has provided any argument against this, and it once again comes off as wholly ignoring all discussion like Robert McClenon. Draco Safarius (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  As far as I can tell from your comments on this issue (which don't have that much content considering how long they are), you're arguing that we should use male pronouns based on our own analysis of the Japanese text and/or translations of the Japanese text into languages other than English. This is the kind of thing which should be decided by the RfC participants rather than the closer. The closer is merely supposed to assess the consensus of the discussion rather than act as a supervote. Closers are justified in downweighting comments for reasons like conflicting with a wider consensus or being logically flawed, but that doesn't apply here by any stretch of the imagination. It is entirely reasonable for the participants to use the English translation rather than the other stuff you've brought up, and the closer wouldn't be justified in overriding that. If anything it's your position which conflicts with the wider consensus, WP:NOENG says Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians. Hut 8.5 13:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• Draco Safarius please refrain from WP:BLUDGEONing this discussion. Your perspective is quite clear, it is time for others to weigh in. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  Barring someone outright dismissing with no discussion will do. Draco Safarius (talk) 01:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment/questions It's funny, but I'm seeing some interesting parallels at the surface level between the discussions at Talk:Chivalry of a Fallen Knight, and a series of edits and discussions that took place on Bridget (Guilty Gear) starting in August 2022 after that character's appearance in the latest Guilty Gear game. In both cases, editors asserted that the English localisation was faulty through original research on translating the original source material. In the case of Bridget, secondary English language sources overwhelmingly described her as a trans girl, and in September it was "Word of God" confirmed by the series author that the English translation was correct. Got some questions here, in no particular order:
  1. From reading the article, there appears to be two English translations. One for the original novel, published by Sol Press, and one for the anime published/produced by Sentai Filmworks. Are the two translations consistent with each other on how they respectively refer to the character? Or does only one version refer to the character as trans? If it's only one version, which one and how does the other version refer to the character?
  2. Despite the rather large number of words expressed on the article talk page, I couldn't see any linked reliable sources that discuss or even mention a translation difference with regards to the relevant character. Are there any reliable sources that discuss or mention that the divergence of the English version from the Japanese version? If so, could those please be linked (ideally on the article talk page)?
  3. Was the original author involved in any of the translations?
  4. Has the original author voiced any opinion on or even acknowledged the divergence between adaptations/translations, either on social media or in interviews? If so, could those please also be linked (ideally on the article talk page)?
  5. In an edit summary, and on the article talk page, Draco has asserted that the English translations have been received "quite badly". Whose opinion is this? Are there any reliable sources that assert the English translation(s) as being "bad"? If so, could those please be linked (ideally on the article talk page)?

I think I've formed an opinion on the close, however before I give it I'd like to see an answer to the above questions as they may change that opinion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Based on the answers in the collapsed section below, I now feel confident in opining on the close.

Mostly endorse close with a tweak. Though I mostly endorse Robert's close, if I were to close it myself I would have found a slightly different consensus as follows:

In this Request for Comment, editors discussed four options for how to describe the character Nagi "Alice" Arisuin. This RfC comes amidst several prior discussions on this issue, and a discussion at DRN.

Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy, and not through a numerical vote. There is a strong consensus against option C, it did not receive support from the majority of editors, and has original research issues in the later half of its second paragraph, beginning from but language in the. Despite a majority of editors supporting D, there is a consensus against it. Like option C, option D has original research issues, in particular with the sentence beginning However, the narration in the Japanese version. Neither of the two sentences in options C or D are supported by the single secondary source presented in the RfC or related discussions, and to include either option would be in violation of the WP:NOR policy. In making this determination, I significantly lowered the weighting of supports and raised the weighting of objections for options C and D, due to the inherent policy problems those options present.

Despite a majority of editors voting against option B, there is a consensus for it. While some editors objected to option B in the discussion, stating that the narrative did not explicitly state that the character was transgender, it is nonetheless verifiable through a reliable source that the character is a transgender girl. There is also a consensus for option A, as it is verifiable to primary sourcing and the text of the series, without the significant OR issues present in options C and D.

In determining the consensus between A or B, because B is supported by secondary while A is supported only by primary sources, and because Wikipedia articles should be based primarily on reliable, published secondary sources, there is a slightly stronger consensus for option B over option A despite option A having the clear numerical advantage. In making this determination, I significantly raised the weighting of the supports for option B, and weakly lowered the weighting of support for option A.

In summary, there is a consensus for options B and A. And there is a clear consensus against option C and D.

As always, consensus can change, new sources can be provided and a new consensus can form around such sourcing. In ongoing and future discussions, editors are reminded that all content on Wikipedia must be verifiable to one or more reliable sources, and are encouraged when discussing future options to present independent, secondary reliable sources when proposing and discussing alternative content options. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Apologies to Rosguill above, but seeing as how this fits what I said I'd respond to, I'm going to.

C has no issues, it's literal.

D is also literal, depending on if you are reading it as neutral. It also has wide support.

A and B are declaring things not directly stated, only a person's opinion with no indication it went through the author.

Shifting weight for considerations around to both keep the status quo result and disinclude prior discussions is biased, like the initial open.

Deciding to go with secondary over primary is also problematic. If it were a news article versus what a state press release put out, yes, if a it's text form a book versus one guy's opinion on the book no.

You've almost unilaterrally fell into what Robert's problems were for this. So, unless I get the stuff laid out in my initial post and the first reply addressed, and it's equal consideration, I'm just going to accept this as inserting bias yet again and restore the page. I would really rather not have to jump the gun like this, but, barring one reply, you've all ignored stuff, weighted it to favor what isn't stated, and generally been unhelpful. Draco Safarius (talk) 04:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

All content on Wikipedia must comply with our three core content policies of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V. Deciding to go with secondary sourcing over primary sourcing is the only option that is enwiki policy and guideline compliant.

Varying the weighting of arguments made in any discussion when viewed through the lens of policy is not baised. It is a valid option open to editors who close any sort of discussion on the site, and enshrined in principle in the consensus policy.

You are of course free to disagree with my different determination of consensus just as much as you've disagreed with Robert's determination. As are any other editors who participated in that RfC, or who are reading this discussion. I will happily explain and extend on what I've written for why I determined the consensus this way should other editors wish to further understand my reasoning. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Not only does that not follow any kind of logic, it also just straight up ignores it in favor of what is just purely opinion based. Going to have to make a new requirements reply now. Draco Safarius (talk) 04:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion from Draco and Sideswipe

1. Yes just two, manga never got licensed. As far as differences/consistency it's moderately close from what I remember, minus occasional content not making it in like a lot of LN to anime adaptations. Also you're mistaken on the trans part. Neither version, or the original LN or manga release, cite that. When mentioning that I was saying that the current state of the page not using the character's official name throughout, exclusively referring to them as a woman and using female pronouns when they're a male, and the linked source of the former LN translator declaring their view of the character as transgender were stating that. 2. You'd have to be more specific. The original publisher was linked, which is reliable, and another editor confirmed the authenticity more than once. Beyond that I'm not sure what you're wanting, as I can't imagine there's a site/article comparing the two. 3. Not as far as I'm aware, overwhelmingly Japanese mangaka and web/light novel authors/publishers are not involved in a back and forth. 4. No, but they hardly ever talk about the series on any kind of social media and almost never even answer questions when asked about it, and as far as I'm aware have never given any interview on the related content for the question. 5. The mentioned JP fluent Fandom user from the talk page, another on that same section noting how the English changes names of things, almost every translator group I've ever seen translate the novels (agrees with the previous). Have never seen anyone praise it, only seen it called not good/bad when discussing quality. For reliability you'd have to define, as like mentioned above I doubt there's a site/article solely dedicated to denoting differences. Draco Safarius (talk) 02:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC) To clarify, you're asserting that both of the English translations refer to the character as a woman, with no trans qualifier? Then in what context does the character state "I'm a woman trapped in a mans body" or "I am a maiden born in the body of a man"? To clarify, I'm asking for secondary reliable sources, that is sources that are independent from the original texts and which the enwiki community considers to be reliable, that discuss or mention that there is a difference between how the English and Japanese versions of the material refer to this character. Thanks. Thanks. To clarify, you have no reliable sources, per how we define the term on Wikipedia, on the English translations being received as "bad"? Just hearsay and your own recollection of fan translator groups? Almost there, just a couple of clarifications left. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC) 1. You'd have to go back to the talk page for Lullabying's breakdown of that. 2. I understood what you were meaning as reliable sources, but of the kind you're talking about I am almost entirely certain what you're asking for does not exist. 5. If the ANN article used in the talk page discussing the writer's opinion on the anime is reliable then yes, they are, if ANN is not then no. And no, it would not be hearsay, as they confirm each other, and when looking at the raw text you can see it differs. Draco Safarius (talk) 02:28, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

A Few Comments and Questions

First, I have read the statement by Draco Safarius several times, and I am not entirely sure how they are saying that I should have closed the RFC. They clearly think that I should have disregarded the user vote count. Are they saying that I should have closed the RFC by selecting an option that wasn't on the ballot?

Second, in case it wasn't clear, I closed the RFC after I had originated the RFC, but had not !voted in the RFC, and I had originated the RFC after I had mediated discussion at DRN. I think that my previous roles with regard to the content dispute leave me neutral, and qualified to close the RFC; but if other editors think that I was involved and should not have closed, I will revert my close and withdraw as closer.

Third, should the other editors who participated in the RFC be pinged?

Robert McClenon (talk) 07:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Misreading it. Nowhere am I saying or insinuating to ignore votes. They're important. Equally as import are all related discussions. The end result close is fairly overt that not everything was considered, or if it was it was not considered equally. That is why I mentioned bias or possible inability to close, knowingly or otherwise, as leaving anything out or not giving everything purely equal consideration is one of those two things.

If everything is given the same consideration, and you're including all of what's in direct relation then the outcome is favoring the source, but having two sections to address both parts. That's just option D with the added citation. You suggested almost the same thing in the dispute resolution, so it was always an option on the table. Draco Safarius (talk) 08:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh my god stop responding to every single comment here!! 128.164.177.55 (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

As this sub-section appears to be addressing the user in question directly, IMO the "bludgeon" issue above does not apply to the providing a response down here. So please, clam down. ValarianB (talk) 15:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Next time you come in aggressively replying I'm gonna ask you be barred form conversing in replies to this. Draco Safarius (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Third, should the other editors who participated in the RFC be pinged? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Not sure why, the end results are still there. If it's felt necessary then sure, but I'll preemptively go ahead and say ThunderPX shows up and either starts personally trying to attack me again or dodging questions and I'm going to just say the whole thing failed and go change the page regardless. Draco Safarius (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Boomerang sanctions

I would like to suggest we consider boomerang sanctions for Draco Safarius. Throughout just this short discussion, Draco has been argumentative to the point of bludgeoning the thread. They have cast aspersions against multiple editors, claiming that they have ignored sources ([70], [71]), and have accused editors of bias ([72], [73], [74], [75]). They have threatened to edit war against consensus by restoring the article to their preferred version ([76], [77]). They have attempted to place multiple conditions on uninvolved editors contributing to this discussion, including requirements that any editors replying to this discussion respond to a list of 7 points that they have chosen ([78]) and that an inability to respond to those points, or that deviation from those points will be taken as conceding the point(s) ([79]).

However, this behaviour is not constrained to just this discussion. When looking at the article talk page and some related user talk discussions there are multiple demomstrations of assuming bad faith including further accusations of bias on the part of other editors ([80]), accusing editors of "rage editing" ([81], [82]), and accusing editors of stonewalling ([83]). They have also accused another editor of meat puppet behaviour ([84], [85]), and of engaging in off-wiki harassment ([86]). Finally, in addition to their issues surrounding a transgender character in Chivalry of a Failed Knight, they have also edit warred mass pronoun changes for another transgender character on List of Bleach characters ([87], [88], [89]).

In summary, I'm seeing a lot of WP:NOTHERE behaviour, with some pretty monumental assumptions of bad faith, and serious conduct accusations against other editors. The off-wiki stuff is something that ArbCom would have to look into, however their on-wiki is I believe sanctionable. Because this content specifically involves two transgender characters, it is technically within the scope of WP:GENSEX. At minimum I would suggest a logged warning for this. However the other behavioural issues seem to involve their general conduct, and likely amount to a WP:NOTHERE indef. It might be prudent to check the behaviour of two other editors in relation to the discussions on the article talk page, but I can only deal with the editor I currently have in-front of me. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I think some kind of sanction is warranted just based on conduct displayed in this discussion. The big one for me is their repeated insistence that failure to respond to their walls of text amounts to a concession that their points are correct. Coupled with their stated intention to edit against consensus to impose their version, they've espoused a view incompatible with collaborative work and announced their plan to edit disruptively based on that view.

I'm referring specifically to two comments above, where they say "So, unless I get the stuff laid out in my initial post and the first reply addressed, and it's equal consideration, I'm just going to accept this as inserting bias yet again and restore the page here" and "I'm going to just say the whole thing failed and go change the page regardless" (emphasis added). The bad-faith assumptions and incivility make an already bad situation worse. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked Draco Safarius for three days for disruptive editing. That should be enough time for things here to come to a conclusion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

You're generous, especially in light of their continued poor response. They clearly do not understand how things work, and I see no evidence they'll be a collaborative editor. They need a PBlock from that article at minimum, but likely a broader topic ban. Star Mississippi 02:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive Admin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello,

User: @Kalogeropoulos on the Greek Wikipedia is an Admin but there is a lot of backlash on him by the community about deleting pages without giving a notice or making them private as draft.

Please address the issue and make Wikipedia a more friendly space. Gkaridis (talk) 14:46, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IDHT on a sensitive issue

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The editor Thomas Peardew (talk · contribs) wants to add the subject's (alleged) history of repeated bouts of gonorrhea to a biography article, based on a lover's posthumously published unexpurgated diary [90]. I removed the edit, and when the editor complained on the talk page that I was censoring, I explained wiki guidelines and policies, in particular the need for independent third-party sources.

I have stressed the need for third-party sources that are independent of the subject (particularly for sensitive issues in a biographical article) four times, but the editor doesn't hear it and instead posts very verbose replies, to the point tendentiousness. Since this is a case of IDHT on a sensitive issue, I would be grateful for any admin input. The discussion is here: Talk:Terence Rattigan#Content. -- Softlavender (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Softlavender, you are a highly experienced editor so I think that you know that administrators do not adjudicate content disputes. Perhaps you should request a third opinion or write a Request for comment. Cullen328 (talk) 03:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion this is not a content matter, it's a behavioral matter. Did you read the diff and the conversation? I do not want to post or suggest an RFC because the subject line would be "Should we mention that Terence Rattigan had gonorrhea three times?" which is a glaringly tawdry use of a talkpage and RFC in my opinion. It's not a BLP, but Rattigan died in 1977 so he's not that long deceased.

I came here because this is a behavioral issue of an editor who cannot abide by clear Wikipedia policies that were clearly described to him four times. I also came here because in my opinion the subject matter is not one that should be should be lightly bandied about on Wikipedia (since the subject died less than 50 years ago). I would hope that an administrator or highly experienced editor would come to the defense of Wikipedia's policies and stop a highly tendentious editor from continuing to disrupt Wikipedia to make his preferred point. Softlavender (talk) 03:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree. A diary is a very obvious WP:SPS, and using a diary to support an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim suggests WP:POVPUSH or WP:CIR, because it's obvious that we wouldn't use the diary of a lover to source a claim that a biography subject had a history of venereal disease. Levivich (talk) 04:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

It has indeed come to the point where CIR is a concern, or the possibility that this is a returning LTA (although I don't notice any problems in his editing before this). Softlavender (talk) 04:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not used to contributing on the admin noticeboard, so if I am addressing the wrong points please accept my apologies: the question as it appears to me is whether use of the diaries is actually prohibited by policies here. The diary in question has been published twice now, in 1968 and in three volumes, by Penguin, in 2020 - 2022. It is not self-published. In both cases the Diary was edited by a reputable editor or editorial team, most recently by an academic historian. It has been widely reviewed, and - help me here - there are other Wikipedia instances of the use published diaries: see for example the use of the diary of Channon's contemporary, friend, and fellow MP, Harold Nicolson, where the citations are a mix of reviews of the diary (secondary sources) and direct quotes from the diary. The Rattigan article still contains material directly sourced from the diaries (not inserted by me) and I have been feeling that this dispute may have something to do with an old-fashioned prejudice against talking about STDs, rather than the reliability and use of a primary source. Channon's diaries, for those who don't know, are not the "kiss and tell" memoirs that might be supposed from the reference to Channon as Rattigan's "lover" - a word I have avoided. Channon was immensely rich in his own right, he was in his time better known than Rattigan, and he could gain nothing from the publication of the diaries: they were lodged with the British Library with an instruction that they should not be published until 60 years after his death. Thomas Peardew (talk) 06:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Even if this isn't an SPS, it's still an autobiographical, primary source. It's not even close to an WP:RS and cannot be used to support WP:REDFLAG claims. If this stuff were WP:DUE, you'd be able to cite some other RS for it besides Channon's diary. Channon's diary is only good for WP:ABOUTSELF. If Rattigan having STDs was so important, someone besides Channon would have written about it. Levivich (talk) 07:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

If you look at the dates, the unexpurgated diaries containing the claims only came out last year, so it's a bit early for anyone else to have commented on the matter. I have no opinion on whether it is due to include or not. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Out of consideration for relatives etc, WP:BLP policy extends beyond the death of the subject - but not over 50 years. Not even remotely. And I can't see any evidence of disruption. What I see is a content dispute. Sexually-transmitted disease was, and is, a part of life, and as such, if appropriately sourced, not a subject to be hidden away. The only questions, as I see it, are whether the source being cited is valid under Wikipedia policy, and whether inclusion is due under normal considerations of balance. Which are questions for dispute resolution of you can't resolve it amongst yourselves. AndyTheGrump (talk)

I never said that BLP policy extends beyond over 50 years. Rattigan died 45 years ago. This is a behavioral matter, as Wikipedia's policies on sourcing have been clearly explained to the editor four distinct times in four distinct ways and he refuses to acknowledge or accept them and in fact makes absurd claims instead to suit his preferred point. Softlavender (talk) 04:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you understand what the phrase 'not remotely' means? Or the phrase 'content dispute'? Neither are particularly difficult to understand... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Andy, you'd agree that the diary of Cleopatra is not an RS to say Mark Antony had venereal disease, yes? Levivich (talk) 04:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I suspect that if such a diary entry existed, it would have been discussed extensively in secondary sources. Back on topic though, would you agree that WP:ANI is not an appropriate place to engage in content disputes? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, but this isn't a content dispute, and treating these things like content disputes is a mistake. "It would have been discussed extensively in secondary sources" is exactly the point. If an editor is not trying to use secondary sources, but is instead insisting on using the diary itself, to support content not in secondary sources, then that's a problem of not following our WP:PAGs, which is a conduct issue, not a content issue.

A content dispute involves a dispute about policy-compliant options. If an editor is trying to pursue a non-policy-compliant option, that's a conduct dispute. Breaching a content policy is a conduct issue. Levivich (talk) 04:59, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

It's fundamentally a bad idea that we would expect Softlavender or any editor have to argue with someone else about whether it is or is not OK to use someone's diary to source claims of someone else's venereal disease. That's a waste of her time, and she's likely to give up and walk away rather than argue sword-skeleton theory. It's a mistake that when people come looking for help because someone is making an unreasonable argument, we send them to argue with the unreasonable person because "content dispute". It's a mistake we make so often that years ago I wrote a Burma-shave about it: NEW AN/I THREADPROBLEM ACUTE!CLOSED WITHOUT ACTION"CONTENT DISPUTE"Burma-shave Levivich (talk) 05:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Andy - IDHT, CIR, POVPUSH, TE, DE, TIMESINK, POINT, and WALLOFTEXT are all behavioral matters. Softlavender (talk) 04:24, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

(ec) They are. You have however to provide evidence of such, and I don't think you have, with regard to Thomas Peardew. The two of you disagree. Get outside opinion. Just not here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I have provided the evidence. I linked to the discussion. Did you read it? Softlavender (talk) 04:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I saw a content dispute, where as far as I'm concerned, both parties have been using some questionable reasoning. A dispute that would benefit from external input. AndyTheGrump (talk)

What "questionable reasoning" did I use? Softlavender (talk) 05:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

The idea that people who have been dead for 45 years or more broadly less than 50 years are subject to some sort of extended quasi-BLP protection as a "sensitive" issue. If you hadn't gone with that angle I think you would have got a more receptive response that actually focused on the conduct of Thomas Peardew. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. Who exactly is this a 'sensitive issue' to? People who would rather not think about playwrights catching the clap? Personally, I'm of the opinion that a bit more knowledge about the prevalence of said diseases amongst people who didn't have the benefits of modern medicine, or the benefits of a more enlightened and open discussion of such subjects, would be a good thing. There may well be good arguments for not including this matter in the Rattigan biography, but not upsetting the readers isn't one of them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:44, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Andy that the alleged STDs of somebody who died 45 years ago is not a "sensitive issue". It would be if it was a BLP, but it's not, and the article never was a BLP to begin with given they died :::::::a quarter-century before Wikipedia's creation. There are considerations about WP:DUE, but this is a classic content dispute that should be discussed on the talk page. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

It is being discussed on the talkpage. Did you read the discussion? The editor is refusing to listen to Wikipedia policies and instead is subverting the discussion by posting absurd claims and repeatedly ignoring what is being explained to him.

By the way, I never said this was a BLP matter; if it had been I would have taken it to BLPN instead of here. Likewise, if we were talking about long-dead people like Shakespeare, Byron, or Wilde (all of whose sexual exploits have been thoroughly discussed or speculated upon in independent RS), I would not consider this a sensitive matter. But Rattigan is a contemporary playwright, and I see no reason to throw away decorum simply because he is dead. Softlavender (talk) 04:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, 'decorum' isn't one of the five pillars. And it certainly isn't something to enforce at WP:ANI. Start an RfC or something. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

This isn't ANI. Softlavender (talk) 05:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Just as I said at the beginning of this thread, I agree with Hemiauchenia that this is a content dispute. Softlavender, I happen to agree that this diary by itself is a poor quality source, but my opinion on that is not relevant because administrators do not adjudicate content disputes and a content dispute does not become a behavioral problem just because you have not yet been able to persuade the other editor. The various forms of dispute resolution are available to you, and are more likely to achieve your objective rather than arguing your case at this noticeboard. Just a hint: even mentioning BLP policy any further in this matter is likely to be counterproductive to your goal. Cullen328 (talk) 04:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Cullen, I am not asking, and never asked, for adjudication. I asked for input. It would be nice if an administrator or experienced editor opined in the talkpage discussion, to wake the editor out of his IDHT. Opine not about content, but about Wikipedia polices on sourcing, which I have explained to him four times. I already told the editor that if the matter was discussed in reliable third-party sources that are independent of the subject, it could be considered for inclusion. So it's not about the content, it's about Wikipedia policies on sourcing, and the editor's repeated refusal to hear. Softlavender (talk) 05:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It seems we will lose the ability to edit for a period of time

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

According to meta:Tech/Server switch, we will lose the ability to edit for up to 1 hour, starting in about 20 minutes from now, at 14:00 UTC. Posting this here in case someone is confused and happens to come across this page (although the banners are quite noticeable). — Nythar (💬-❄️) 13:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Nooooo! What will I do without the ability to edit Wikipedia! I don't know if I'll survive! ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks like either it's done, or hasn't started yet? RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

All done — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 14:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Already? There were no edits between 14:00 and 14:02, from my observations. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 14:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

If our disruption continues, next time it'll be 4 minutes. Levivich (talk) 14:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Wow that was quick. I didn't even notice anything! ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Yup :D here's a graph showing Wikimedia-wide successful edits — was a nice and quick maintenance window — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 14:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be a great idea for humanity to just; shut down the user-facing portions of the entire internet for approximately 1 hour a week. Call it the, "global go outside and touch grass" hour. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

The first thing I noticed while reading that was the inconsistent ENGVAR within the same paragraph!

...first and secondary data centers. ; ...one data centre to the other. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 15:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Administrators' newsletter – March 2023

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

Administrator changes

The Wordsmith

• Fuhghettaboutit
• Spinningspark (deceased)

CheckUser changes

Callanecc

Oversighter changes

Callanecc

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, F10 (useless non-media files) has been deprecated.
• Following a request for comment, the Portal CSD criteria (P1 (portal subject to CSD as an article) and P2 (underpopulated portal)) have been deprecated.
• A request for comment is open to discuss making the closing instructions for the requested moves process a guideline.

Technical news

• The results of the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey have been posted.

Arbitration

• Remedy 11 ("Request for Comment") of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been rescinded.
• The proposed decision for the Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case is expected 7 March 2023.
• A case related to the Holocaust in Poland is expected to be opened soon.

Miscellaneous

• The 2023 appointees for the Ombuds commission are AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, JJMC89, MdsShakil, Minorax and Renvoy as regular members and Zabe as advisory members.
• Following the 2023 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Mykola7, Superpes15, and Xaosflux.
• The Terms of Use update cycle has started, which includes a [p]roposal for better addressing undisclosed paid editing. Feedback is being accepted until 24 April 2023.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Revoke my Autopatrolled status

I do not think I have a good understanding of notability. Please revoke my autopatrolled permission. Thank you. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 08:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Done Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Urgent help needed in copyvio maintenance category

• Category:AfC submissions declined as copyright violations

There are currently 154 pages in this category, automatically categorized by the {{AfC submission}} template by the cv switch. I came across the category just now and started to randomly select some articles, and found that about half are cleaned drafts where the reviewing admin didn't set that switch to cv-cleaned (which moves them to Category:AfC submissions cleaned of copyright violations), while the other half or so still have the copyvio in them - the AfC reviewer did not request redaction. Some copyvios are quite old, and I'll admit that I've left some cleaned drafts behind myself since I didn't know about that switch.

I'm going to start going through each page in that category to check for visible copyright violations, removing and revdeleting them, and properly setting the switch. Ideally that category should not have any members. Any admins familiar with WP:RD1 redaction who would like to help are invited to start on any article still in the category.

-- Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

At one point I was able to keep that category at 0, but it's a category that almost no one pays any attention to so if I stop patrolling it for a day or two it skyrockets. Honestly, I'm debating changing the category structure so that it dumps it directly into the RD1 request page so that our more regular RD1 patrollers can help out. Primefac (talk) 09:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Secondary discussion regarding the reviewer-side of things started here. Primefac (talk) 09:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I did not realize there was a cv switch that needed to be changed after a revdel. I'll keep that in mind for the future. -- Whpq (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Whpq, would this help to make it more obvious (for those reviewers who don't follow AN)? Primefac (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that would probably help. For me, I think it's a case of banner blindness. The big red message would cause me to click on the link and read. -- Whpq (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Some of it could be handled with a pre-loaded AWB run; clear out all the ones that need more work like actual removal of content/revdel requests, then go through and put the cv-c in. Sennecaster (Chat) 18:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Um... if you're going through and manually checking all of the pages (which is what is necessary for this) then what is the point of then re-visiting them later on with AWB? Just change the decline note at the time. Primefac (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Threads need closure

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Bludgeoning and edit warring by Newimpartial and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Advocacy editing by User:TheTranarchist would both benefit from a closure, sooner rather than later. We're firmly into "causing unnecessary stress and pain to the subjects, unrepairable harm to relationships, and harm to the community" territory. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:09, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• I concur. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
• There are a couple folks on the fence still. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  We don’t stop everything until everybody involved has made up their minds, for very obvious reasons. — Trey Maturin™ 20:37, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Both threads are trainwrecks. One was started by a user who was later blocked as a sockpuppet. Neither thread makes us look good and taken together the effect is compounded. The longer this goes on the worse it gets. It must be horrible for the subjects. Neither of them deserve this ongoing inquisition. I'm pretty sure that anybody with anything to say has already said it. The sooner it ends the better. DanielRigal (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom needs to seriously consider reexamining the GENSEX area, given that issues related to it are taking up an ever-increasing percentage of the community's time. This is becoming seriously disruptive. Partofthemachine (talk) 05:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Independently of whether it's time to close the threads, I disagree with the hand-wringing expressed in this thread. It seems that at least one of the subjects has at least appeared to have taken the advice and criticism on board, and something good may come of that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• I agree as well. Since there's obviously no consensus in either discussion, they should both be easy to close. Nythar (💬-❄️) 21:12, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• I also agree that whether the closing admin chooses to issue sanctions in these cases or not, there isn't anything more to be gained from keeping it opened except more and more drama. There don't seem to be any new perspectives or arguments that haven't already been given. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 01:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• As the user who started one of the threads, I also believe it has run it's course and would benefit from being closed, with whatever decision the closing admin takes (As someone who never edits in GENSEX, never interacted with the users in that field, and filed a report purely based on RSN, I never imagined how it would explode with so much bad faith on both sides. I doubt anything productive will come out of keeping it open any longer and disengaged from it myself days ago). Jeppiz (talk) 02:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• Shut her down. Everything that needs to be said has been said for both sides. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 04:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
• Having read the NI thread, I feel compelled to note that one of the purposes DS played, which Contentious Topics as it's successor plays, is letting admin make decisions with some degree of finality on behalf of the community. This is why there is a first mover advantage (it's a brightline violation for an admin to overturn a CT imposed sanction) and why appeals require a higher degree of consensus than normal in order to be accepted. This protection goes both ways - it protects someone closing with a warning or no action just as much as someone closing with a sanction. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  Barkeep49 sorry to be such a non-admin noob, but can you bring that down to a fourth-grade level so I can grok? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry I wasn't clear having prioritized the why/how over what I was saying. One of the ideas behind CT is to give admin the push to act before a conversation reaches that level of community involvement and once it does the confidence to act in a way that will stick. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• Note to closing admin(s): Whatever the end result is, I think it might be a good idea to suggest that for future issues in this topic area it might be a better idea to bring them to WP:AE rather than ANI because they have a more formal structure to better deal with enforcement requests of this type. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:11, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  I would tend to agree that AE is a much better option than ANI. With the type of accusations being wilded against established editors that edit contentious topics like that, it's best for the ultimate decision to be made by non-involved administrators with input from other editors. It would help avoid a sort of mob mentality that can occur, and alleviate concerns that there is a mob attacking someone because of their editorial stances. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 04:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  I think the structure and inherent limitations of AE helps in cases like this, more than it avoiding a "mob mentality". A mob can still form at AE, however with statements from editors usually limited to 500 words and 20 diffs, it discourages general back and forth discussion between all of the editors, while focusing it on the back and forth between the editors and admins. That said, AE discussions can still go off-the-rails and become train wrecks, particularly when editorial frustration is built up and accusations (founded or otherwise) of bad faith editing are thrown about. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  Everything you say is true, but what I'm trying to point out is I don't particularly like seeing peoples editing rights being limited because a consensus happens to form during an ANI discussion of editors who may, or may not, have a full understanding of the nuances of the particular situation or even WP behavioral standards. Many people who participate in such ANI discussions probably do a 2-minute skim of the discussion and just !vote with their gut. Whereas, at AE the decision is made by usually experienced admins who can look at the situation for what it is and apply their community-vetted judgement. ANI is liking having a bunch of protesters outside the courthouse decide if someone is guilty vs letting a panel of judges, who actually know what they are doing, determine it. What I've pointed out about ANI process is what I see as a fundamental flaw in WP's version of due process. Sure a mob can form at AE, but the mob isn't going to make the decision of whether someone loses their right to edit or not. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 05:04, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  Admins at AE also may, or may not, have a full understanding of the nuances of the particular situation or even WP behavioral standards. Given the choice, I'd take ANI over AE every time; the common wisdom is that the structure of AE lends to making better decisions, but I remain unconvinced. The upshot is AE threads are usually shorter, so less costly. I think the accuracy rate is about the same, but I guess AE is cheaper. In any event, my thanks to whomever steps up to close these ANI threads, however and whenever they're closed. Levivich (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  Both noticeboards have their positives and negatives for this sort of issue.

  ANI is less structured, decisions on how to sanction an editor or editors are made by community consensus. It's easier for knowledgeable editors in the relevant topics or articles to contribute as to where they see the problem is, as it can often be different from a discussion's OP. But the more free-form nature of the discussion does make it more likely to have mammoth length threads that can devolve into public slinging matches.

  AE is more structured, decisions on how to sanction are largely made by a consensus of the admins contributing. But if you can't fit the nature of the complaint, or a defence to a complaint into the word and diff limits, which can easily happen on more complex cases, it can be difficult to convince the admin panel. The biggest problem with AE (and to a lesser extend ANI), at least to me, is its inability to handle WP:CPUSH. Recognising CPUSHing, particularly when it involves more subtle subversions of NPOV and RS, requires editors to have familiarity with the underlying source material to recognise where content is being added that is not complaint with policy or sourcing. Unfortunately by the time many admins have the familiarity with the source material to potentially agree with editors who report CPUSH problems, they are often seen as too involved to actually be able to contribute as part of the admin consensus panel. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Is there no admin willing to close?

I know it's a big job (either one), but it's been a week since this plea for closure was posted and the core discussions were growing stale even then. It doesn't seem fair to the two contributors in question to leave them in suspense for so long. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, I had read through NI's discussion after the original message here was posted. But then I got (in a hatted section) to an editor who has knows their way around ArbCom (and who seems quite passionate but is, to my knowledge, UNINVOVLED) seriously suggesting this might come to the committee. Because there are lots of admins but only 15 arbs (and at the moment less given a few who inactive or inactive in most areas) I decided I would be the wrong closer. So that's why I made my generic note above about. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The threads appear to have been closed at this point. I think this section can be closed and archived in light of this. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

User claiming to be an admin

I came across a problematic userpage of a new user claiming to an admin. I would like a real admin to look into this. Thanks. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 12:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert, Fancy Refrigerator. I have blanked the userpage in question and written to the user. Bishonen | tålk 12:42, 3 March 2023 (UTC).

Update: Now CU-blocked by Ponyo. Bishonen | tålk 18:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC).

Moving an article without proper reason

This user moved unconventionally the article NCAA Season 98 volleyball tournaments to Draft:NCAA Season 98 volleyball tournaments to Draft:Draft NCAA Season 98 volleyball tournaments to Unknown editor for unknown reason. Then created this article NCAA season 98 volleyball tournaments, the the user just lower case the word 'season' on article title page and copy-pasted all the contents from the former. Here's user contributions. — 9️⃣8️⃣🐯♒️•(🆃🅰🅻🅺) 02:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

98Tigerius, doesn't the capitalization of the current title better reflect the guidance of the Manual of Style? If so, why does this require discussion at an administrator's noticeboard? Cullen328 (talk) 05:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Probably because it's a cut-and-paste move? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

LilianaUwU, I did a couple of cut and paste moves as a new editor back in 2009, until more experienced editors gently explained the proper procedures to me. Nobody dragged me to WP:AN over that. Cullen328 (talk) 06:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328 because the user did it for second time but the user has been editing the now deleted article and I help a bit on that but I was taken a back when the user moved the article in an unconventional way today so I open a discussion here to seek guidance. When you see the history of the deleted article NCAA Season 98 volleyball tournaments, it was a mess. — 9️⃣8️⃣🐯♒️ • (🆃🅰🅻🅺) 07:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Have you tried talking to the editor? Because it doesn't seem like you've tried talking to the editor. Or even notifying them that this discussion had been opened. I've taken the liberty of doing that for you. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 06:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

General backlog building at WP:RFCLOSE

There are 14 discussions that are currently red at WP:RFCLOSE, including a large number that only an administrator is capable of closing due to relevant policies surrounding sanctions and deletion discussions. I plan to take some time to see if I can close some other discussions posted there, but more admin eyes (and hands) are urgently needed on that board so that the numerous aged discussions posted there can be brought to a timely close. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:55, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

14 red discussions don't strike me as an inordinately large number of red discussions? Especially because over half that number are RfD closes which is a specialty area so it's not surprising (at least to me) when it takes longer for someone to close. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

In fact, I would strongly suggest that old XFD should almost never be listed at ANRFC. IznoPublic (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Primefac (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

On this point, I've removed the entirety of the RFD listings. All of them were routine, and a few were already closed. @LaundryPizza03, please avoid listing old routine XFD at ANRFC. Old XFD already have a list at the relevant fora and do not need special tracking.

You'll be able to tell when an old XFD is not routine when they have many participants who do not agree with each other. Think north of 10 people. IznoPublic (talk) 18:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The TOC format in the new skin obfuscates the backlog, which may explain why WP:RFD is suddenly getting persistently backlogged to the point where the main page is difficult to load. I would recommend either creating a custom in-text ToC that makes the backlog easier to navigate, or hiding all of the open RfD log pages like what we currently have at CfD. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

That's not pertinent to my comment? :) Please don't list routine XFD at ANRFC. Thanks. Izno (talk) 06:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, nobody else was acting to keep the RFD page from overflowing with old discussions awaiting closure. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:21, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@Redrose64, since you reverted my removal, you will wish to discuss that reversion here. Izno (talk) 06:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Your two edit summaries (one, two) did not give any indication that there was an ongoing discussion. At WP:CR, we do not simply remove requests unless (a) it was your own request and hasn't been replied to or (b) WP:TPO applies, such as prohibited/harmful material or duplicate requests. The way that we deal with premature or frivolous requests is to mark them {{not done}} with an explanation (example), set |done=yes in the {{initiated}} tag (if there is one) and let ClueBot III archive the thread(s) at its next run. The instructions at the top of the page (last paragraph, beginning "To reduce editing conflicts") make this explicit. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:07, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Why do we want to archive premature or frivolous requests? Levivich (talk) 02:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

To preserve the comment that explains why they were not actioned. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Please revdel per WP:BLP

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brahim_Ghali&diff=1141701020&oldid=1140124065 ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:42, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Mersi y danke, amigo. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:23, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Bitte sehr -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) User:Star_Mississippi repeatedly accuses me of a COI on Art and Language, and refuses to accept my denial.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Admin User:Star_Mississippi repeatedly accuses me of a COI on Art and Language, and refuses to accept my denial or make a formal complaint. I think that he/she should be more polite, and would welcome assistance explaining this to him/her. I have tried to discuss with him/her on Art and Language talk page, and his/her talk page but he/she insults me rather than answering me. Surely there is a way to stop false accusations of COIs from Admin? ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 00:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

• L'Origine: I am pretty f*cking sure that if you ask me if I am COI editing and I say I am not have to either accept my reply or make a formal complaint. Yep, I'm the one with the politeness issue. I have not insulted you, and your temperament here, my Talk and there is the exact same that got you blocked before. To quote someone, I forget who, AGF is not a suicide pact especially when there's editor overlap that points to the COI. To anyone reviewing this, I'll just point you to the article's Talk where I am not the only one to raise concerns about L'O's conduct around this article, from which she should be p blocked at a minimum. I may be able to provide additional info if needed.

Star Mississippi 00:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Star Mississippi I find it insulting when you repeatedly accuse me of COI editing, especially when your accusations take the place of explaining your edits and you make no formal complaint, not even a comment on my talk page. You think you have behaved correctly ? Please provide any 'additional information' here, in public. I would like to add that I do not understand your reference to my previous block, which followed a pretty unique set of circumstances. I think you deserve a month's block, to help you think. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 00:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Comment I find Star Mississippi to be a reasonable and level headed editor. I was just posting on their talk page yesterday and I saw this kerfuffle. I am sorry that you have been accused of COI, I certainly know what that feels like. If you have no COI just move on. This particular issue does not seem like one for ANI. This area of the project is a cesspool IMO. I feel bad that you posted here because now your own behavior and language will be fair game. Boomerangs are a reality here. Lightburst (talk) 01:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Comment Star Mississippi has been rude to me. Above he/she justifies it as copying the other editors, but I think that as an admin who personally accused me of not understanding policy he/she should be required to follow the correct official policy. Claiming that he/she just joined in a group attack on me shouldn't work as an excuse.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 01:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Lightburst I want to move on. I told User:Star_Mississippi explicitly I had no COI, and straight away he/she accused me again of having a COI. What else can I do to stop lies being spread about me? As far as I can see first he/she should post on my talk page, then, if not happy, he/she should make a formal complaint in a special place. He/She hasn't even posted on my talk page.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 01:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I think Star Mississippi (and Netherzone) have been patient, and the talk page discussion isn't intractable. I think it would be best for all concerned if this was just closed before someone says something they'll regret. Mackensen (talk) 02:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I am strongly of the opinion that there should be penalties for administrators who choose to make repeated unfounded accusations of COIs in unconventional ways, refuse to apologise, and claim justification because other editors made similar accusations.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 02:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Star Mississippi seems to have gone to some length to not escalate this and keep it an editing dispute confined to the article (and its talk page). You seem determined to bring this before a wider audience and on my second read though the article talk page that's probably not a good idea on your part. Mackensen (talk) 02:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I also think it would be best for all concerned if this was just closed before someone says something they'll regret, L’Origine. Take the hint. — Trey Maturin™ 02:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Admin User:Star_Mississippi repeatedly accuses me of a COI on Art and Language, and refuses to accept my denial or make a formal complaint. I think that he/she should be more polite, and would welcome assistance explaining this to him/her. I have tried to discuss with him/her on Art and Language talk page, and his/her talk page but he/she insults me rather than answering me. Surely there is a way to stop false accusations of COIs from Admin? I am not happy with the previous discussion. It seems to offer no escape from false accusations of a COI from an editor who is selectively quoting me.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 02:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I've tried to do you a favor, which you seem to be disregarding. I think that's a mistake, but it's up to you. 331dot (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for Unblock (Partial Block from 4 months)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, I want to request that the partial block is no longer necessary. I was blocked from editing the article List of highest-grossing Punjabi-language films 4 months ago (6th November 2022) for disruptive editing, which I did by mistake due to the lack of knowledge about the policies and it took me time to understand things. I have been editing Wikipedia for 5 years and never did any disruptive editing before this incident. Now, I understand this and doing editing carefully. Even suggesting others to stop any disruption. 4 months ago, from 6th to 8th November, things got heated. My conduct with fellow editors before and after the incident remained good and objective. Even when a couple of users got personal, I did not lose my calm.

These problems / block reasons cease to exist 2 months and 3 weeks ago i.e. 12th December 2022 and I made an unblock request on 21st December 2022, which eventually got declined on 5th January 2023 after lots of discussion. Because the blocking admin gave new reason (unrelated to the original block) that I have been editing only one article List of highest-grossing Punjabi-language films since 2018 from which I was blocked (which was NOT actually the case). Though I was the major contributor to that article but I used to edit various other articles too. And now, 2 more months later, I have been regularly updating various other articles. So, the new reason for keeping me blocked from the article in question also cease to exist.

So, Kindly unblock me from the article in question so that I can continue with productive and constructive editing to it, as this article only has a limited number of regular editors. Talking about other articles, I am already contributing to those.

Thanks & Regards, SunnyKambojLive (talk) 09:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I am the blocking admin. While I was away for a few months, this user posted an aggressive rant on my talk page @User talk:El C#Discussion regarding Injustice and Suspected Admin Abuse. I don't know why they try to circumvent the normal unblock process, but I suspect it's due to their last three unblock requests having been declined. El_C 09:47, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@SunnyKambojLive: Can you reconcile this information from El C with what you wrote above. My impression is that your conduct after was not good. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Deepfriedokra If you go through the whole scenario from start to finish, you will get to know what I am talking about.

I can't know when User:El_C will be active on Wikipedia and when not. They objected my unblock request on 30th December 2022 and I posted on their talk page just 1 week later i.e. 6th January 2023. So, I can't know if they are seeing my discussion or not. As they never responded to it. And, what they are referring to as an aggressive rant is basically the normal procedure suggested by Wikipedia if one suspect Admin Abuse. To have a discussion with the Admin. Circumvent is the wrong word used by them as what I did is our right given by Wikipedia if one suspects Admin abuse.

And, I actually suspect it is them who are trying to circumvent my unblock process by giving a new excuse every time I apply for unblock (reasons completely unrelated to why the original block was placed). That's why I suspected it to be abuse of Admin power at the first place. SunnyKambojLive (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose removal of partial block and suggestion that it might be wise to extend its duration. I see no indication that user actually has learned from the experience.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  User:Deepfriedokra Kindly acknowledge me why you feel so, for anything that I did from almost last three months? i.e after 12th December?

  Disruptive Editing = Did not do it.

  Any misconduct = Did not do it.

  Any sockpuppetry = Did not do it.

  Single purpose account = Not anymore.

  Tried to have a discussion (as per Wikipedia rules) = Yes. (That too not after 6th January 2023, i.e, 2 months)

  Don't you think good conduct should be mutual? And we should not confuse a discussion with conduct?

  Thanks. SunnyKambojLive (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  Pinging User:JBW, User:331dot, User:Rosguill and User:Izno as they all went through the whole process or scenario. Some of them even suggested me what to do for getting unblocked. And, I did the same.

  Kindly help me get justice. SunnyKambojLive (talk) 16:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  My involvement here was to tell you to WP:DROPTHESTICK at El C's talk page in early January. Your method for appealing the block here does not fill me with confidence that there is a good reason to remove the block at this time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:17, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  What method? Can u acknowledge me with that? I did not get u. SunnyKambojLive (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  You're trying to appeal the block on the basis that there has been an abuse of process and that this is all some great injustice targeting you. That isn't going to get you anywhere, people have investigated the circumstances surrounding your original block and don't agree with your descriptions of it. The one way to argue your case here, which I've already pointed out in the past on El C's talk page, is to take a step back, make productive contributions to other articles that demonstrate your ability to work well with others and respect Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and point to those as evidence that you can work on Wikipedia without causing disruption. The more you make this about the validity of the original block, the less likely you are to have a successful appeal, especially since it seems that you tried to sockpuppet your way around the block. Sockpuppetry is a serious breach of the community's trust, and it is a long uphill path to come back from that. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think there is some confusion here. I appealed Unblock request based on the reasons for which I was blocked, and I did not repeat them.

  I did exactly what you suggested. I took step back 2 months ago. Made positive contributions to other articles.

  The Validity of original block - this thing started when El C commented with yet another new reason. And I already faced consequences for the Sock (that I did by mistake as I did not know we can't make 2 accounts).

  But your suggestion is good as to add my contribution as evidences. I forgot to add those.

  Thanks & Regards, SunnyKambojLive (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  @SunnyKambojLive When admins look at an unblock request relating to a topic ban they are looking for a number of things. They want evidence that you understand why your behaviour was disruptive and why you got blocked (ideally this would come with an apology for said behaviour). They want some evidence that you have improved your conduct and won't repeat the same behaviour in the future. They want a reasonably large history of productive contributions outside the block.

  The problem here (and the reason everyone is opposing) is that two months ago you posted a massive rant about how you were blocked due to admin abuse and how you want justice, and you are continuing to make the same remarks in this thread. That is a massive red flag for any admin reviewing your block - it shows that you think that the block is the fault of the admin, rather than due to your behaviour. It signals that you don't really think you did anything wrong and that you think the block was incorrect in the first place. It shows that you are more interested in arguing bureaucracy and legalese than what is best for the project.

  This unblock request has a 0% chance of succeeding, and this has nothing to do with "admin abuse". You need to spend some time reflecting on what you did wrong, rebuild the trust you broke when you resorted to sock puppetry, wait at least 6 months to a year, then come back with an unblock request that takes a completely different approach. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  User:Rosguill is it you? As it is from an IP address. SunnyKambojLive (talk) 19:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  Nope, I'm not Rosguill, I'm just a long term IP editor. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  It's The Anonymous IP of Oxford"! (always good ro see you around.) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks! 192.76.8.84 (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  User:192.76.8.84 Bro, first I voluntary asked for 2 months break, then an admin suggested for another 3 months break. Now, u r suggesting another break of 6 months to 1 year. I can do whatever u said but I will need guidance. Because every time I work for the unblock process, a new problem arises.

  And, tell me one thing. Even If I do, whatever u r saying. Will it eventually help me? As the blocking admin just made a statement that they will "object for the foreseeable future".

  Thanks ... SunnyKambojLive (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  @SunnyKambojLive The exact length of time isn't what matters here, it is your actions that count. What matters is showing that the disruption on that article won't resume when you've been unblocked - if you just wait 6 months and write another appeal in the same tone as this one it will be declined again.

  From reading your talk page it looks like the issue you had is that you were displaying WP:OWNERSHIP towards the article, which resulted in edit warring and bludgeoning, combined with some generally uncivil conduct. Since being blocked you have resorted to sock puppetry to get around the block, flooded your talk page with unblock requests and arguments about how unfair the block is, are currently forum shopping to try to find someone to unblock you and are now trying the "Unblock me at AN or I'll go to arbcom" route. The fundamental issue with your editing was that you were obsessed with one specific article to the extent that it was disruptive and no-one else could edit it, can you see how your actions since the block will lead people to the conclusion "as soon as the block is lifted they're going to go back to try to control the article again"?

  Go spend some time editing other articles, show that you can resolve disputes in a civil and productive manner, show that you can keep your cool and remain civil when you disagree with someone, and go rebuild your status as a trusted editor, then try appealing the block. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Having looked at the previous discussion, and given that when they were originally pblocked from the article, they used a sock User:UCoE Freaks to circumvent it, that would suggest to me that an inability to edit a single article is not a great loss for this editor and a net positive for Wikipedia. Black Kite (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  Kindly note I already faced consequences for it as User:Izno put a full block of 1 week on me for this mistake. Thanks. SunnyKambojLive (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  Not able to edit an article, to which one has given 5 years is definitely a Great loss. Especially, when there remains no reason to keep getting blocked from editing it. SunnyKambojLive (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  @SunnyKambojLive: Your continual quest for "justice," renewed above, speaks volumes as to the need for this partial block. You continue to treat this as some sort of judicial proceeding. It is not. This is not crime and punishment, it is preventing continued disruption. I agree with Black Kite. Your not editing that article is not a loss for Wikipedia. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  User:Deepfriedokra That was a single instance when I created a new article for List of Highest Grossing "Indian" Punjabi Films. That was 4 months ago when I did not know the consensus issue and I created the new article. It was termed Disruptive Editing and I got blocked. Neither before nor After that, I ever did any disruptive editing.

  Even while using User:UCoE Freaks, I only made positive contributions to the article. When User:Izno objected, I stopped doing that too. So there is No "Continued" Disruption from my side from last 3 months almost.

  My only quest is to get unblocked from an article, for which there is currently no reason to keeping me blocked. That too after discussions with various admins and doing what they suggested for getting unblocked.

  I even don't know how asking for help or demanding justice constitutes for keeping someone blocked for no actual reason (currently).

  Me not editing that article is a loss to that article and ultimately Wikipedia. You should check my contributions to that article before reaching any conclusions. SunnyKambojLive (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  Pro forma acknowledgement. still not inclined to reverse my position, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose conduct here and at El C's Talk show they have not learned and will continue in the same vein. This block was lenient. Star Mississippi 18:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  Still don't understand how discussing something has to do with conduct? Is putting your point across constitute misconduct on Wikipedia? SunnyKambojLive (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  The point you're putting across appears to boil down to Wikipedia missing out on your wonderful edits if you're not allowed to make them. To be honest, I reckon the vast majority of people here can live with that terrible struggle. — Trey Maturin™ 18:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  Editors have made Wikipedia what it is today. Every single edit by every single Editor matters. As the definition of Wikipedia says "created and edited by volunteers around the world".

  Majority ultimately means the core readers of the article in question. It may not be of any use for some people but it caters to 102 million Punjabi language speakers worldwide. That's a majority in itself. SunnyKambojLive (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• This user pretty much only edited the article in question since 2018. After the p-block from it by me due to acute WP:OWN, and after failing several unblock requests, they decided to instead WP:SOCK to circumvent the failed unblocks. After a WP:CUBLOCK of that account, which made them cheating the system ("justice"?) in that way no longer viable, they're back again to their raison d'être (i.e. that page). I have no idea why they weren't sitewide blocked indefinitely immediately after the deceptive act of socking. Now, in this discussion, four six separate admins (not including myself) oppose their unblock. If they are not sitewide blocked after this, there's no need to ask me if I object to their unblock from that page — I object for the foreseeable future. El_C 18:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  User:El_C Now, you are clearly twisting the facts and instead, instigating other Admins to block me sitewide? I mean, really? This clearly shows you are having some personal problem with me.

  1) I edited a large number of articles since I started editing. I was the major contributor to the article in question, which does not mean it's wrong or not allowed on Wikipedia.

  2) Any Admin can check the whole discussion from the start and can judge there was nothing like WP:OWN. I was just unaware of some of the policies and the core discussion was whether to include Pakistani Punjabi films in this article or not. Which after reaching consensus, it was me only who added those.

  3) After one failed unblock request, I used another account User:UCoE Freaks. Which had nothing to do with the failed unblock. It was just to make latest and productive contributions to the article. When Admin User:Izno objected and I asked them to educate and help me, I stopped using that account and did as they suggested. First, got out from the full block and then requested for Unblock process (2nd time). Admin User:JBW investigated and thought of giving me a second chance, ultimately stopped by User:EL_C as they said that the account is Single purpose.

  4) After that I made many contributions to the various articles for 2 months and made unblock request 3rd time i.e. yesterday (5th March 2023). And now, User:El_C is instigating other admins to block me sitewide? And not ready for unblocking me, as they said - " for the foreseeable future". If this is not the abuse of Admin's power, then what may?

  This matter should be taken to the Arbitration Committee or Dispute Settlement Committee.

  This is too much. SunnyKambojLive (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

SunnyKambojLive, I'd advise against WP:FORUMSHOPPING, but you do what you must. Please do not ping me here again, though. Thanks. El_C 19:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

User:El_C It is not WP:FORUMSHOPPING. I raised the abuse issue with you, once on your talk page. And here only after what you wrote above.

And, Please tell me when and how this problem will end? A small issue of Unblock request (Partial Block, One article) have been turned into ugly mess. SunnyKambojLive (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose removal of page block Two weeks after being pageblocked, this editor created a sockpuppet account and actively evaded their block for a month. This deceptive behavior is unacceptable and I think that many administrators would have imposed an indefinite site block. I think that it is time for this editor to drop the stick and move on to other articles. Cullen328 (talk) 19:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• Before I say anything else, I'd like to point out a little background to my involvement here. I reviewed an unblock request for this editor. I put some time and effort into doing so, including asking questions of the editor, and waiting for answers, rather than just pasting a templated decline of the request. At the end of that process I consulted the blocking administrator on the possibility of unblocking. I put time and effort into going through that, rather than just spending a few seconds closing the unblock request, because I hoped to be able to unblock the editor, so I tried to give them the opportunity to justify doing so. It was with reluctance that, in view of the blocking administrator's response to my request for comment, I decided I had to decline the unblock request.
• I have now read both the editor's statements above, and comments they have posted elsewhere since my reviewing of their unblock request. It is difficult to imagine how they could have done a better job of persuading me that I was wrong to extend to them so much assumption of good faith. They have provided abundant reason why we should decline their request for unblocking now, why we should be very doubtful about ever lifting the block, and why we should very seriously consider whether to convert the partial block to sitewide. There would be little if any point in my listing all the reasons, because most of them have already been mentioned by others, but I will mention one more detail. Amongst other parts of their ranting on the blocking administrator's talk page is the following statement:"I came here to discuss with the blocking admin because after this I wanted to go ahead to Dispute settlement committee or complaining to Arbitration Committee for suspected Admin Abuse." Translation into plain English: "I'm not really here to discuss the problem with the blocking administrator; I'm just going through the motions of doing that, because I have read that I need to do so before I take a case to the Arbitration Committee, which I intend to do so in order to seek revenge." Lift a block on an editor whose approach to a disagreement is that? Absolutely not. JBW (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  Revenge? But this is what Wikipedia asks and allows us to do in case of suspected Admin Abuse. SunnyKambojLive (talk) 19:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  I have converted the block to a sitewide one for WP:NOTHERE. When digging a hole, stop digging. Six different admins concurred the block was valid, and not only did they double down, but they triple, quadruple, quintuple and sextupled down. There's no abuse here, and the socking to get around the block honestly would been enough to block sitewide as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you. After one failed unblock request, I used another account User:UCoE Freaks. Which had nothing to do with the failed unblock. It was just to make latest and productive contributions to the article. shows their continued failure to get it. Star Mississippi 23:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• Good block! Well earned.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Requested_move_26_February_2023 has been under discussion for over 7 days. Please could an administrator close it and move the page accordingly. - Tbf69 🛈 🗩 17:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Tbf69: Sorry this is off topic but I just glanced at your contribs and may I ask what you're doing with other users' userboxes? Levivich (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Levivich, I've responded to you on your talk page. - Tbf69 🛈 🗩 18:09, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Close Review: Tranarchist Topic Ban

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Lest we have another thread like the previous one, and since the discussion appears to have died down, I'm closing this discussion as close endorsed. Those who disagreed with the close raised issues about its validity mainly because a sockpuppet created the original topic and the !vote count was seemingly incorrect.

While it is true the OP was a sockpuppet, the time to close the discussion was when that was revealed, but none stepped up to do so, and that is a mistake we made as a community. As many noted, we allowed the discussion to proceed, and editors continued to give their opinions and !votes in good faith, so, it would be unfair to them and a massive waste of contributor time were we to consider the close invalid due to the poisoning of the well by the sockpuppet.

On !votes, most participants here agree that, while it was not a perfect count (these never are, as we use an open system of discussion where people can !vote for options that weren't initially proposed, or offer compromises etc.), it is clear that the result was well within the closer's discretion. A different editor could have closed as "no consensus", or "consensus to some sanction, but which specific one to be further discussed", and it would have been just as valid, such is the nature of WP:CONSENSUS. Different people can give different weights to each of the arguments presented, and arrive at a different conclusion. CaptainEek presented their arguments and they were mostly not refuted, with a majority of editors here (involved or otherwise) agreeing with them.

On a personal note, I will say that this whole ordeal was very unfortunate to all involved and has shown that the topic of gender and sexuality is one we have great trouble following and enforcing our policies and guidelines. Another thing to keep in mind for the future is to be more proactive in closing threads opened by bad-faith actors. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 15:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

---

Listen, I'm as loathe as any of you to open a close review on such a long and frankly taxing ANI discussion as the recent discussion regarding alleged advocacy editing by TheTranarchist (talk · contribs). However, after going through the !votes I have good reason to believe that CaptainEek (talk · contribs)'s close was against consensus.

The main reason I believe this is that their counts are simply wrong: they seem to have ignored the fact that many of the editors who supported some sanction other than a topic ban explicitly opposed a topic ban. They say there were around 35 support !votes to around 25 oppose !votes, but there are actually by my count 35 editors who said they opposed a topic ban, of which 29 opposed any sanctions. Conversely, there are 38 editors who supported some kind of topic ban, but only 32 who supported the actual result of an indefinite (or unspecified) topic ban. The other 6 supported either time limited topic bans, or domain limited topic bans, such as a topic ban only on GENSEX BLPs specifically.

I understand that consensus is not a vote, but certainly a consensus should not go against what the majority of editors supported without a good reason, and especially a consensus largely based on the alleged fact that a majority of editors supported it, when they didn't. I think there's a rough consensus in that discussion for some sanction (44 to 29, and I say that as one of the 29), but pretty transparently not one for the specific sanction imposed (32 for versus 35 explicitly opposed, and 6 others).

If you want the full details, I have them below. I'm using noping because I feel notifying every single participant in said discussion is very excessive (but if any of them want to challenge my characterization of their !vote, feel free):

!vote count

Support (indefinite) T-Ban (from GENSEX): Ganesha811, Springee, Kcmastrpc, DoubleCross, The Wordsmith, BilledMammal, David_Fuchs, SandyGeorgia, JoelleJay, Xxanthippe, YouCanDoBetter, Jweiss11, Thebiguglyalien, Nil Einne, Indy beetle, GabberFlasted, Lulfas, Czello, Levivich, Scorpions13256, Maine_Lobster, Crossroads, The Night Watch, SMcCandlish, Ficaia, GretLomborg, Nemov, Loksmythe, LindsayH, Snow_Rise, Jevansen, Pincrete, Support time-limited T-Ban: Iamreallygoodatcheckers, 2600:1700:1250:6D80:FD27:AF83:F025:53FA (note: this IP is an SPA who has only posted to vote on this ANI) Support domain-limited T-Ban: Red-tailed_hawk (note: especially notable because many of the support voters based their reasoning on his), Cbl62, Beccaynr, Rlendog Support any other sanction (including warning): Slywriter (oppose topic ban, support BLP restriction), Tamzin (oppose topic ban, support warning), Dumuzid (oppose topic ban, support warning), Sideswipe9th (oppose topic ban, support mainspace restriction), Rhododendrites (oppose topic ban, support warning), Cdjp1 (oppose topic ban, support BLP restriction) Oppose all sanctions: rsjaffe, Sativa_Inflorescence, LegalSmeagolian, Black Kite, Licks-rocks, Silverseren, Partofthemachine, Newimpartial, LokiTheLiar, Pinguinn, Timothy (supported only on condition Tranarchist's opponents in topic area were also topic banned and explicitly opposed otherwise), Colin, Hatman31, HandThatFeeds, buidhe, XOR'easter, Neonorange, Ppt91, Sundostund, SarekOfVulcan, JayBeeEll, DanielRigal, Lizthegrey, Aquillion, Parabolist, Maddy_from_Celeste, Hist9600, Sceptre, Galobtter

Loki (talk) 05:51, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

One obvious correction: the IP you say is a SPA is not. Izno (talk) 06:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

My apologies to them, and that comment has been stricken. However, the rest of my post stands, as I did include them in my counts and they were one of the 6 people who voted for an alternative topic ban anyway. Loki (talk) 06:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse close which is well within an administrator's discretion to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of various arguments regarding policies and guidelines. Raw vote count charts are of no value. Cullen328 (talk) 06:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  The problem is that Eek themselves said the close was based on the fact that the votes in favor outweighed those opposed by a wide margin, when they didn't outweigh those opposed at all. Loki (talk) 06:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse close based on the arguments presented in the close. An Arbitrator, who is voted on and trusted by the community to determine consensus and handle the most difficult of user conduct disputes, feels that it was necessary and left a rather lengthy explanation of the reasoning. The closure was within the bounds of reasonable Administrator discretion, and most supported some form of sanction. I also note that consensus is not required to issue a topic ban due to Discretionary Sanctions applying to this area (though it seems it hasn't been properly logged as such yet). The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 06:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
  • It's good form to note that you participated in the discussion being appealed, when opining on whether to endorse/overturn. Also, the reason this isn't logged as a CT (previously DS) sanction is that it isn't one; rather, it's a community sanction that defines its scope by incorporation of an ArbCom decision. There's an informal precedent that admins generally don't impose CT sanctions when there's an ongoing proposal for a community sanction. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

    It's good form to note that you participated in the discussion being appealed, when opining on whether to endorse/overturn. - Fair enough, though I didn't believe it necessary since my support for the topic ban was listed just a few lines above. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:54, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• I'm involved here, so no boldfaced !vote, but I worry that the close has failed to consider to what extent the support !votes are applicable under the WP:TBAN policy: The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid editors from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive. A large number of support !votes cited only off-wiki comments; such !votes should have been given substantially less weight. We do not ban people for expressing political opinions off-wiki, perhaps outside cases where doing so creates an inherently unsafe editing environment (which I don't think anyone argued was the case here). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  And FWIW, if I have one regret about the Athaenara affair, it's that I was merely neutral on the GENSEX TBAN; I should have opposed. It suffered from the same defective logic, citing bias outside of GENSEX content as basis to ban from that topic area. Although given its unanimity I can't fault that close. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this, I was wondering if I should myself lol. I just want to note some quick considerations on three listed !votes.

• Snow_Rise later also expressed support for limited sanctions as opposed to a full topic ban being something that could work.
• Springee consistently called me back here whenever there was an editorial disagreement in the slightest. If you look at their most recent post on the thread, they accused me of being problematic due "walls of text" (discussions with another editor that resulted in us developing a working lead) and they cited me restoring removed content as evidence I was removing details (and it bears noting that generally their comments on the Cole talk page (including their proposed lead that didn't follow the body and mentioned nothing other than her campaigning against minors) have consistently sought to POV push the framing that Cole is only opposed to transgender healthcare for minors - the details I "removed" by restoring were the full details of a bill Cole supported that notably went far beyond concerns about minors transitioning). Multiple editors throughout the course of the discussion raised issues with their own editing and the flaws/hypocrisies in their allegations (and POV-pushing in other GENSEX articles). Speaking just to their latest post, Maddy From Celeste, who has been involved in the page, described their comments as highly disingenuous and noted they had been working against a lead consensus, leaving tangential WP:IDHT comments, and insinuating sources had issues without evidence.
• JWeiss11 called for a TBAN based on my user page mission statement (trans people exist), "pattern of edits" without specification, "lengthy defenses when challenged" at my own ANI case, and accused my polar political perspectives of effecting articles. Any admin who has access to the arb-com email I sent - please confirm that JWeiss11 has a COI on FAIR I raised concerns about weeks ago. Also, when I quoted in response what I can describe no better than their polar political perspective that they believe that the mean and distribution of genetic drivers for intelligence is not identical for each every and ethnic group of humans. Basic logic demands me to believe that - their response was Evidently you have a problem with basic logic.... Not to mention the whole WP:IDHT and cries of censorship when he deadnamed Brianna Ghey, a trans girl who was just murdered, for no other reason than to say "it's not like Voldemort". Should this editors' !vote and reasoning really count? I can't be the only editor who sees an issue with an editor who pushes race science and has edited an article without disclosing their COI calling me a POV-pusher, right?
• Additionally, I want to note that I repeatedly asked people to provide a single problematic GENSEX edit outside of WP:BLP and WP:BLPGROUP, and nobody has yet to do so. If a single editor can link to a single diff where anyone in that conversation brings up such an edit/article, please link it here, otherwise I would hope Habeas Corpus would apply. If any editors want to testify to the lack of that specific corpus, that would also work. Outside of my articles specifically about anti-trans individuals and group, the only comments my general GENSEX editing have received has been 1) praise for sticking to WP:MEDRS, WP:RS, and dealing with WP:FRINGE, and 2) vague insinuations the BLP / BLPGROUP problems might carry over without any evidence they have. The issues raised were all specifically my articles on anti-trans groups/people (and even then, not all of them). My writing and gnoming of LGBT history articles, LGBT rights articles, trans healthcare articles, and trans public/historical figure articles were never mentioned in any negative context. In fact, I feel somewhat remiss that nobody pinged @Reagle, despite quoting his quote in the Atlantic about how my work on Gloria Hemingway was explicitly wiki-policy based, not culture-warriorish.

In short, I believe that the weight of !votes, both numerically and argumentatively, did not constitute a consensus for a GENSEX topic ban. The only evidence raised points towards issues with my articles on BLPs/BLPGROUPs, and even then only anti-LGBT ones. Considering that calls for no sanction and a TBAN were about equally represented, some type of sanction (perhaps even a TBAN) is probably called for on those specific types of articles, but AFAICT there has been no compelling evidence that completely cutting me off from all even marginally LGBT related articles is called for or would be beneficial to the encyclopedia. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 09:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I want to clarify: relative to the larger culture war and Twitter, I found the Wikipedia discussion regarding Hemmingway commendable: Wikipedians, discussing, arguing, and reasoning together; and that was the POV expressed in the The Atlantic article. (Not that my comments there should have any authority here.)

However, relative to Wikipedia, I subscribe to #Wikipedia on Mastodon and coincidentally saw TheTranarchist's posts about their activity, which seem more activist than encyclopedic -- i.e., gloating about unfavorable representations of biographical subjects on Wikipedia that the subjects object to. Similarly, LarstonMarston lists on their user page "People/organizations I strongly personally dislike", including Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, but is actively editing that article. That concerns me. Reagle (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• No, this is a very poor close (Note: I opposed sanctions). But this is not a difficult one. It is absolutely fine to close a discussion one way or another when there is little numerical consensus as long as you explain why you are giving more weight to the comments provided by the side you close in favour of. If you don't do this, and you specifically close it on the basis of numbers ("the votes in favor outweighed those opposed by a wide margin") when that is clearly not true, then that is a bad close and you don't even have the argument that it "was within discretion". It should be vacated. Black Kite (talk) 09:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  It wasn't solely closed on numbers, though. While CaptainEek did go into a lot of detail talking about numbers of !votes (so I can understand why it was interpreted this way), they also detail the content of TheTranarchists issues around editing. Furthermore there doesn't appear to have been a good enough defence of her editing to over-ride the arguments in favour of sanctions. — Czello 09:52, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  There isn't really a good definition of the reasons why, either, though. Far too many of the !votes for a TBAN are "per someone else", or they're editors who are in the opposing camp when it comes to their advocacy, and at least one is clearly a sock. And whilst the fact that the whole discussion was started by a sock of a banned editor who is almost certainly laughing away now at Wikipedia may be a minor point, it still exists. Black Kite (talk) 11:06, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think the OP being a sock really matters. If everyone took the Tranarchist's side I'd agree, but it clearly sparked a very legitimate conversation to which many uninvolved people contributed. Clearly, there's an issue - regardless of OP's motives. I found Eek's explanation of the reasons why to be sufficient, particularly in the 5th and 6th paragraphs. — Czello 11:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  And Black Kite is engaging in a blatant fallacy here, that "per someone else" = weak rationale. What a "per someone else" !vote means is "someone else already laid out the reasons I, too, have, so I'll spare you all the tedium of me repeating them at length". "Per someone else" is a good thing; it keeps these discussions shorter. If it were a weak rationale categorically, we would not use it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  Maybe, but see WP:PERX. And people already use weak rationales all the time; there is no stopping it. Shells-shells (talk) 06:23, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  This isn't a deletion discussion. But I'll bite anyway. Read the entire passage: "If the rationale provided [by the 'someone else'] includes a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of [one result over another], an endorsement of [that] argument may be sufficient." It obviously is often sufficient, or the majority of editors who are well aware of the essay you're improperly thumping would not continue to save everyone headaches and eyestrain by using "per someone else" comments in discussions like these. Fortunately most closers already understand this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  Good comment, I have nothing to add. (Except to say that I don't mean to thump anything, and I apologize if I gave that impression.) While you're around would you consider adding some advice down below? Shells-shells (talk) 06:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• @LokiTheLiar: Normally, the first step in challenging a close is to discuss it with the closer. I can't find that discussion anywhere; if I have missed it, can you please link the discussion - otherwise, why didn't you discuss this with CaptainEek? BilledMammal (talk) 11:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, honestly? Because I hadn't read that guideline. Honestly I really wish I had brought this up to CaptainEek first, because I think they are one of the most likely people here to not relitigate the argument and just admit their counts were wrong. Loki (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  There was a brief discussion on CaptainEek's talk page, where there is a continuation of behavior we already saw in the extremely verbose ANI discussion above (nit-picking details and selectively ignoring concerns). IMO, the arguments in the aforementioned novel were strongly in favor of a TBAN and the counter-arguments to them were weak. Even in the talk page discussion mentioned above the sanctioned individual admitted to seriously compromising wiki values but still insisted on trying to negotiate the sanctions. Additionally, it appears this closure review has sparked TTAs hopes for a reversal on their talk page, which has gone relatively unchanged and links to the, still unchanged, social media account. While I suspect there is no policy against this, it speaks to the disruption TTA will undoubtedly cause if allowed to edit in this topic area in the near future.

  
  

  I also find it interesting that the person who filed this decided to summarize the votes the way they did, without pinging the involved editors but challenging them to "dispute" the category they landed in. I've already spotted one error, representing an editor who struck their original vote and changed to sanctioning, in the oppose section. I wonder how many others are in there? Wikipedia isn't a democracy, consensus is more than just a raw count of votes, but everyone here already knows that (until it doesn't serve in their favor, of course).

  
  

  Endorse Closure - the arguments spoke for themselves, and keeping this open for any additional discussion is causing serious harm to the wiki community. Recommend SNOW CLOSE.

  Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  Agree entirely with this assessment. This close review is bordering on frivolous, frankly - and I suspect is born out of a personal dislike of the community consensus. — Czello 14:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  nit-picking details and selectively ignoring concerns - how did I do that? I think Habeas corpus should apply, editors did raise issue but specifically the only issues raised were in a narrow set of articles: anti-trans BLPs/BLPGROUPs (if I am wrong in that assessment, somebody prove me wrong). Nobody raised issues with my GENSEX edits/articles outside of that narrow range, and I think a close should take that into account. I believe that a sanction of some kind on BLPs/BLPGROUPs was called for and should be left up to closer discretion, I wouldn't have minded either the AFC sanction or even a TBAN, but so far nobody has yet to provide a compelling reason why the ban should extend to all of GENSEX. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not going to engage in a debate with you, the discussion was already closed. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  You just called into my question my behavior after the close... TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  TTA: I suggest you stop participating in this and let your advocates argue for you. You're not helping your case here. Lizthegrey (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  Fair enough (thank you for stopping me jumping in too wholeheartedly). I've said all I wanted to say in regards to the case, to summarize: I am fine with any resulting sanctions at any severity to the area that showed problems (WP:BLP/WP:BLPGROUP/WP:ORG) - I just want my overall well-received contributions to GENSEX outside of that intersection to be taken into account. With that, it is once again in the community's hands, and I leave to see how this plays out and get some work done on the Crown Heights Tenant Union. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• The close seems to be a reasonable one of a discussion longer than The Martian Chronicles or Brave New World --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose close simply based on the fact that the OP of the thread was a sock - it should've been closed when that was found out. I guess banned users can still get what they want. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 14:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  Repeating what I said above: I don't think the OP being a sock really matters. If everyone took the Tranarchist's side I'd agree, but it clearly sparked a very legitimate conversation to which many uninvolved people contributed. Clearly, there's an issue - regardless of OP's motives — Czello 14:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  There were multiple editors who chimed in and mentioned they were considering opening an ANI. I don't see how the OP sock status has any weight compared to the novel that proceeded independent of the banned user being outed. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:14, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  I guess the question is whether this would have ended differently had this been knocked on the head and then somebody else, who was an editor in good standing, had started a new thread? I don't know but I do think that it would have been vastly better if that had happened instead of this. This gives the impression that sockpuppetry can be an effective tool for getting what one wants. I'm not saying that it actually is, but people will see this and they can't be blamed if they come to that conclusion. This may well embolden other bad actors to try the same thing. It would be wise to watch out for any repeat performances. If it happens again the best thing would be to the close the thread immediately, without prejudice to somebody else starting a new one. DanielRigal (talk) 14:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  This gives the impression that sockpuppetry can be an effective tool for getting what one wants. I'm not saying that it actually is, but people will see this and they can't be blamed if they come to that conclusion. Me. It's me. I have come to that conclusion. All a sockpuppet has to do is prompt some remarks from people who hang out at drama boards, and their actions are nominally legitimized. XOR'easter (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse close I did not take part in the discussion. My view is that this close is within administrator discretion. It was awaiting closure for days on end and someone else could have come in and closed it as no consensus, but the fact is no-one did. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• If the count is wrong, maybe Eek could just go back and fix it. While they're at it, give the !votes they miscounted a once-over to see if the change in numbers/opinions affects their thinking. If so, reclose it or leave it to someone else; if not, we can move on. The sanction which emerges from the closing statement is within reasonable determinations of consensus, but when a[n apparently inaccurate] headcount is framed as the starting point for assessing consensus, that affects how people feel about the outcome. [involved] — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:17, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
• A thought on the concerns that the OP was a sock. I spend a lot of time responding to sockpuppetry, and commonly strike or revert their contribs and delete their drafts and articles - I'm not pro-socking. I commented a couple of times early in the thread, but when it became clear that the OP was a sock I stepped away from the thread because I am not willing to spend my time investigating behavioural concerns raised by someone who ought to be editing here. However, many editors in good standing saw fit to bring their own concerns to the table after the sock had raised theirs. We cannot ignore procedurally valid concerns just because they followed on from some procedurally invalid ones. Maybe it would have been better in some ways for the initial thread to have been closed, and a new one started, but the end result would likely have been the same; lets face it, there are other venues where people who may be blocked or even banned here can go to complain about stuff, and those complaints do sometimes result in action being taken by editors in good standing on-wiki. As for the close itself, I don't envy CaptainEek for the time they must have spent reading through it, and I thank them that they were willing to take it on. I think the best course of action now would be to leave the closure as it is, and for TheTranarchist to spend six months working in different areas (there are lots), demonstrate that she has learned from this experience, and request the ban be lifted at that point. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose close (Note: I opposed TBAN or any other sanctions). This close might be within administrator discretion, and the discussion surely was extra-long (longer than even some novels/plays, as some users already noted). But, the fact is that consensus/vote count wasn't at all convincing and overwhelming to justify a full, indefinite TBAN (or any other sanctions). The only logical thing was to close this as no consensus. And, there still remain the unpleasant fact that all of this was started by OP who was a sockpuppet of a perviously banned user, and that fact alone sounds really ludicrous to me. Having all that in mind, I see no logic or justification that a TBAN was imposed on a constructive and productive contributor like TheTranarchist. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 16:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment These users probably don't belong in the `Oppose all Sanctions` camp (feel free to correct):

• Pinguin did not outright oppose -> Oppose sanctions, warning at most
• Colin did not vote
• XOR'easter neutral on warn -> Oppose TBAN, neutral on warning
• Ppt91 did not vote
• SarekOfVulcan neutral on warn -> Oppose TBAN, neutral on warning
• Lizthegrey reversed oppose -> Warning, mainspace creation only through AfC
• Hist9600 supported warning -> Oppose sanctions, warning at most

I did not bother going through the non-opposes, because as I suspected, the OP is purposefully misrepresenting votes to try and badger the closing admin. Should we be considering sanctions against @LokiTheLiar? (the users name is not lost on me). Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

It's you who is trying to misrepresent votes. Colin (talk · contribs) and ppt91 (talk · contribs) didn't bold anything but clearly said that they opposed sanctions. Pinguinn (talk · contribs) and Hist9600 (talk · contribs) said they opposed sanctions explicitly, it's incorrect to say that they supported a warning because they were were willing to allow a warning at most. I admit XOR'easter (talk · contribs) and SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs) did indeed only oppose a topic ban explicitly, but they didn't support any other sanction, and the topic ban was really the sanction at issue here. So that leaves only Lizthegrey (talk · contribs), who I admittedly didn't catch had changed her vote to supporting a warning (but still opposing a topic ban). I've pinged all these people so they can verify if my characterization is correct and that you have in fact not said anything that would change the actual counts by even one vote. Loki (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Your characterization of my position is correct. XOR'easter (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

That's true, I don't think a warning is really necessary. If the editor was oblivious and unwilling to accept criticism, then a warning would make sense, but I don't think that applies here. Hist9600 (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

It's frustrating to see my attempt to find consensus and a more reasonable middle ground is now being held up as evidence that sanctions were warranted. Yes, I originally opposed all sanctions, but changed my mind in response to other posters, and would wish that others would similarly be willing to walk back from the edge of full TBAN sanctions. This will encourage people to not change votes in future in response to discussion, and stick to the extremes and force closers to deal with extremely polarised !votes that are sticking there only to push the Overton Window rather than allow the community to reach a more reasonable compromise. To see a result that is a TBAN (one of the polar ends of the spectrum) rather than somewhere in the middle is disappointing. Lizthegrey (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• The count is not entirely clear to me. I came up with 37 in favor of outright topic ban of some sort, 11 in favor of some sanctions, 2 warning only, 23 no sanctions. Just on a quick examination I notice that LokiTheLiar seems to have miscategorized Lizthegrey as opposed when they changed it to in favor of some sanctions, and Pinguinn as opposed when they changed it to warning.

my !vote count

Support T-BAN: Red-tailed hawk, Springee, Kcmasterpc, DoubleCross, The Wordsmith, BilledMammal, DerWohltemperierte Fuchs, JoelleJay, Xxanthipp, YouCanDoBetter, Jweiss11, Thebiguglyalien, Nil Einne, Indy beetle, Timoth, GabberFlasted, Dumuzid, Lulfas, Cello, Levivich, Cbl62, Scorpions13256, Maine, Crossroads, The Night Watch, SMcClandlish, Ficaia, GretLomborg, Nemo, Loksmythe, Beccanyr, Rlendog, Lindsay, SnowRise, Javensen, Pincrete Support some sanction: Slywriter, Ganesha811, Iamreallygoodatcheckers, Lizathegrey, Sideswipe9th, Rhododendrites, Cdjp1, 2600:1700:1250:6D80:FD27:AF83:F025:53FA, Tranarchist, Softlavender Warning only: Tamzin, Pinguinn Oppose all sanction: rsjaffe, Sativa Inflorescence, LegalSmeagolian, Black Kite, Silverseren, Newimpartial, Loki, Hatman31, The Hand That Feeds You, buidhe, XOR'easter, Neonorange, Sundostund, SarekOfVulcan, JBL, DanielRigal, Aquillion, Parabolist, Madeline, Hist9600, Sceptre, Galobtter

• I don't personally have an opinion on the T-BAN or the close, but I was curious that there was such an apparent discrepancy in the numbers. If anyone wants to reconcile Loki's list vs. mine feel free, this is about as much time as I care to spend on it. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

For some of the discrepancy see my response to kcmasterpc above. In addition, I didn't count Tranarchist themselves at all, nor the original sock who opened the thread. Loki (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and you have Timothy as a support when he said he was supporting only on the condition that several other problematic editors were banned and oppose otherwise. As that didn't happen and frankly was never a realistic possibility, I counted him as an oppose. Loki (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I also want to add some more granularity is called for in regards to calls for the TBAN. Some were explicit they considered the intersection the problem, other comments were ambiguous as to whether they supported the intersectional ban or GENSEX in general, and editors like Snow Rise expressed support for limited sanctions and their position could be characterized more so as opposed to no sanctions rather than wholly supportive of a full GENSEX ban, (@Snow Rise correct me if I'm wrong in that assesment). So if we split the categories into 1) those who supported a full GENSEX ban and 2) those who opposed it, either calling for no sanctions or limited targeted sanctions, there seems to be a majority considering the GENSEX ban proposed by the sock was overkill. That's also not even considering that some (certainly not all as many were in good faith) of the oppose votes were hypocritical at best (per my JWeiss11 example). And in terms of arguments raised, every criticism was specifically to WP:BLP and WP:BLPGROUP/WP:ORG (I also want to note that in my previous comments were I said WP:BLPGROUP, WP:ORG/WP:BLPGROUP would have been a better characterization) articles, and even more specifically anti-trans ones, with nobody at any point raising a single problematic edit/article outside of that narrow intersection (despite repeated requests to multiple editors that they do so). TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

That's correct with regard to my position: I was open to supporting a less onerous sanction than a full TBAN, and specifically was willing to endorse the "proposed articles must go through AfC" approach, with the caveat that I preferred a full TBAN over no sanction/sanction without any restrictions whatsoever. That being said, in my opinion, I do not believe Eek's close was an unreasonable read on overall consensus, complicated though it surely was to distill from that particular discussion. I would have liked to have seen an intermediate outcome prevail there, but due to the nature of the ANI beast, it was a long shot by the point it started to gain traction. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse close per Kcmastrpc. I've made my points elswhere in the thread but repeating them again here. I voted for the TBAN, for full disclosure. Ultimately WP:POLL applies (and even if it didn't, more users were still in favour of a TBAN than against) - discussion and consensus is what matters. I do believe a consensus developed during this discussion, and I believe CaptainEek adequately explained said consensus in the 5th and 6th paragraphs of the closing note. — Czello 17:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
• ( Peanut gallery comment) Now before anything I will point out that I am barely extended-confirmed with very few non-trivial mainspace edits, so I guess you can feel free to disregard my post here. (My edit count and account age are both inflated, not accurate as a judge of my experience.) I must note that the closer's breakdown of notvotes is simply not harmonious with reality. It's probably true that something like 35 users did explicitly support some kind of topic ban, but it is not true that only 25 users explicitly opposed it. I don't think it's 35 (Ppt91 and Colin were neutral), but even discarding Timothy's conditional oppose there are at least 32 explicit TBAN opposes. To me this number appears incontestable (and I looked through it myself and drew up a table).
  Consensus is not determined by a simple tally, which is why I was astounded to see the claim that the votes in favor outweighed those opposed by a wide margin (which, by my reading, is inaccurate), followed by The !votes indicated that the community was generally in favor of a topic ban, so I then considered what factors might weigh against a topic ban. Clearly, the basic tally highly influenced the closer's view by shifting the burden of proof onto the defense (as it were) instead of the prosecution. In the closer's summary there was not much mention of any arguments in favor of a TBAN, just that the community was generally in favor of it; there was no discussion of whether that conclusion was warranted by the arguments. To make things clear: to me, it seems like the only substantive reason presented for a TBAN was the existence of a significant numerical majority favoring that outcome. That significant majority does not appear to exist; therefore, this close was unwarranted. If there were other reasons for a TBAN, I think it would be good for those to be mentioned in more detail somewhere.
  P.S. One major effect of this close is to send a loud message that newer users are frankly unwelcome in the GENSEX arena. If you make a newbie mistake, you can be sure it will be hauled out at you when the inevitable ANI filing comes, and the hammer will come down. Punishment (don't kid yourselves with the "sanctions should not be punitive" platitude) has replaced correction in this content area. (And, just by the way, I am not even convinced that this TBAN is a bad thing. It might really be helpful. But it feels like part of a larger anti-pattern.) Shells-shells (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• You are certainly correct in that it appears that is now simple for editors with a certain POV (including sockpuppets of banned editors, one of which started the discussion) to remove other editors who oppose them from contentious areas without using the correct venue, which would be AE. This, IMO, is not a good thing. Especially in this case, where we - like many other social media fora - have a significant number of "gender critical" editors flooding the encyclopedia to push their views. Black Kite (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed. One possible outcome of this (and the other thread) is that the bar for getting dragged to the boards is lowered to the point where reporting people one disagrees with becomes worth a punt. In all probability we will see some of the "gender critical" editors dragged up here as well as it becomes a Twitter like game of who can report who's opponents the fastest. I'm not sure who wins that game but I'm 100% sure that Wikipedia loses. DanielRigal (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  If there are "gender critical" editors who are also being disruptive in this topic area, then yes their behavior should be brought up for admin review as well. Past evidence has shown that removing the most disruptive editors from both "sides" of a controversial topic area is usually the best way to break the back of an intractable content area like this one. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse close. I’m somewhat uninvolved with this. I was involved in the discussion at BLPN, and I made a single comment during the discussion. This is clearly well within admin discretion. Counts in large discussions of this sort will always be slightly wishy-washy, but if we take Loki’s numbers, it’s obviously a reasonable reading of consensus. If the numbers are 44 to 29, assuming reasonably equal weighting among arguments, there is a clear consensus for some sanction. Now, looking at the discussion with the understanding there is a consensus for a topic ban, we look at those supporting a sanction, and by Loki’s numbers 32 of the 44 supported an indef topic ban. That is reasonable to read as a consensus for an indef topic ban. There is nothing standing out that would be the obvious misreading of consensus or procedural issue that meets the threshold for overturning a close.
  As for the thread was opened by a sock argument, it has nothing to do with the close. The thread was open on ANI for a long time, and that would have been the place to shut the thread down. That the thread lasted as long as it did, with a significant amount of good faith input, is clear consensus that the thread should not have been closed. Arguing that now isn’t going to work because the horse is already out of the stable. Yes, it sucks that an editor is being sanctioned as the result of a thread started by a sock, but the actual consensus is among editors in good standing.
  It’s clear from the discussions here that this was a huge and difficult thread to close. There’s not even agreement about the total numbers. We should be thanking CaptainEek for spending the huge amount of time and effort it takes to read, parse, and absorb a discussion of this size, then weigh the arguments and provide their close. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'd certainly like to make it clear that, while I am am critical of the way that this went down, I'm not putting any of the blame for this on CaptainEek. This was a trainwreck long before they became involved. The fact that nobody else wanted to close it shows that it was already a no-win situation by that point and they clearly did their very best to unpick it. Whether this gets overturned or not, CaptainEek deserves our thanks for biting that bullet. DanielRigal (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  My true final comment here (I swear lol), I just want to also support this statement, @CaptainEek actually stepped in when the case had been dragging on for weeks and even while I disagree with their close I am immensely thankful to them for being the one to step in and actually bite the bullet. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  Ah, I must say I hold no ill feeling towards @CaptainEek, who is clearly far more of a net positive to this site than I am. Whatever the close had been, people like me would have given it some very sharp criticism, and I sincerely respect the admins willing to open themselves to that. Shells-shells (talk) 00:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  If the numbers are 44 to 29, assuming reasonably equal weighting among arguments, there is a clear consensus for some sanction. Now, looking at the discussion with the understanding there is a consensus for a topic ban: I hope you understand why this is an equivocation? There was consensus for some sanction. There was not consensus for a topic ban specifically, any topic ban. No option reached a majority, and the biggest plurality was no sanctions (even though the total votes for all sanctions combined were greater than those opposed to any sanctions).

  In theory, any close option would have been reasonable, but the one we got was simply incorrect about the facts of the discussion, and should therefore be reversed. Loki (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  If there's an RFC to choose a color for something, and 30% say blue, 25 percent say red a, 20 percent say red b, and 15 percent have opinions between red a and b, we don't count the obvious non-consensus blue, despite being the plurality, when deciding which red to go with. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  One obvious problem with that analogy is that in this case many of the people supporting Red B explicitly supported Blue over Red A. (I.e. many of the people supporting non-topic-ban sanctions explicitly supported no sanctions over a topic ban.)

  But also, it's your reading of the situation that "topic ban" and "warning" are more similar to each other than "warning" and "no sanctions". I think most of the people who supported a warning would dispute that. Loki (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed. I was a "blue, but if not blue, red A" and then got talked to straight Red A. Lizthegrey (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  Is a warning even a sanction? WP:Sanctions are explicitly defined as restrictions on editing Wikipedia. Shells-shells (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• As noted in the !vote count way up there, I was involved in this discussion. I had decided to wash my hands of it, figuratively speaking, and live with the outcome whatever it might be. However, having been pinged, I ought to say that I don't think this was a very good close. I generally agree with Shells-shells' comment above, as well as the concern about imposing sanctions based in part on off-wiki activity, and the "fruit of the poison tree" issue regarding sockpuppetry. Speaking generally about the last point: Even if comments by later editors raise serious, legitimate concerns, a bad opening can set an acrimonious tone and unduly sway the !votes of those who make up their minds at the top of a thread. Here, the argument seems to be that because the sock was so good at what they did, they should get a pass. From the premise that a consensus exists, it is deduced that how the thread began doesn't matter. I am wary of this. XOR'easter (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  Here, the argument seems to be that because the sock was so good at what they did, they should get a pass. No, I think the argument is that when 73 editors participate in a discussion, we shouldn't just toss it aside because it was started by a sock. Levivich (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  Toss it aside? Probably not. Look askance at it and work extra hard to evaluate arguments on their strengths rather than by their numbers? Probably so. XOR'easter (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  I believe the closer worked extra hard to evaluate arguments on their strengths rather than by their numbers, as evidenced by the closing statement. And anyway, why should we look askance at the !votes of 73 editors, just because the thread was started by a sock. Do you think my vote was somehow influenced by the sock? Was yours? Why should our votes be looked at askance? "Started by a sock" is just a technicality... what is the substantive reason why "started by a sock" has any bearing on 73 !votes? Levivich (talk) 19:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  The closing statement was exactly why I felt too much evidence was put on the numbers.

  If anyone wants to question my motives or judgment, hey, they're welcome. There probably has been some acrimonious drama-board development on this site with that many editors that wasn't a case of too many cooks spoiling the broth, but it's hard to think of one. XOR'easter (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  To say it another way: perhaps the difference between our views is encapsulated by how the more you repeat "73 !votes", the more I think "ANI is a disaster area that was the wrong venue for this in every way". The fact that it is wide open to sockpuppet attack only compounds the basic problem that it is a parody of a justice system where the accused has no representation, the jury is whoever decides to show up, and speaking in one's own defense counts as further indictment. ("WP:BLUDGEONing this very discussion!") Regardless of the outcome, this incident seriously weights the scale for me in favor of thinking that Wikipedia people can't solve problems. XOR'easter (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not a court system, it's a collaborative project. If someone is, on net, causing problems, they can be banned by the community. It's not like this is a life sentence either - she can appeal in the future, same as other topic bans. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  Do you think my vote was somehow influenced by the sock?. Yes, it certainly was. For the very plain fact that if that sock hadn't posted at AN/I, you wouldn't have very critically examined this new editor who was creating articles in the most politically difficult topic domain on Wikipedia. I think that if we neutrally applied the "Levivich standard of editor perfection" towards the many clearly-activist-but-not-stupid-enough-to-boast-about-it-on-social-media editors in the GENSEX domain, there'd be a whole lot fewer of them. Maybe that would be a good thing, but it doesn't make what you did fair. -- Colin°^Talk 20:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  Repeat: WP isn't a system of justice. Many things are short-term "unfair" in protecting the project from PoV pushers. As someone else here observed, NPOV is not served by pushing more PoV, by pushing the opposite of someone else's PoV. It's served by removing all the PoV pushers. That has to start with someone. Whoever is first to be removed from the topic area is always going to feel they were treated unfairly, but in the long run they were not. Even in the pretty-short run; it's clear that this editor was headed for proposed sactions from other parties anyway, and it's highly unlikely that the results would have been different if they had. That this particular discussion was opened by someone who later turned out to be a sock is a moot point, because the umpteen good-standing editors who participated in it were not socks. Their input is not magically invalidated by one participant being a bad actor. But this kind of excuse-making is rampant in the subject editor's own posts, e.g. that all the good she does in the topic area should make for mitigating circumstances (an ends-justify-the-means fallacy), and those of her backers (e.g. that WP "needs" her to fight off other bad-actors, which is fallacious for multiple reasons).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• I did not relish topic banning TT. Were I the Lord of Wikipedia, I'd probably have let her keep editing. I am unhappy at how our LGBTQ articles are covered, and TT was making a difference. But I'm not the Lord of Wikipedia. I'm an editor. I have to follow the rules. As a closer, it is my job to assess what the community wants and if that can happen within the limits of policy. Sometimes that job is very difficult. I spent a great deal of time working on this one. As the different vote counts above show, there are numerous ways to count the votes. Depending on how those numbers are presented, they could have supported several different outcomes. Here, the raw vote count was for a sanction. Of those supporting a sanction, the majority supported a topic ban. But that's the point: closing is about more than just counting. Otherwise, we wouldn't have closers. The bottom line is that the consensus of commenters agreed that TT was being tendentious and disruptive. As much as she filled a valuable niche, she was breaking a lot of rules to do it. Now, a number of editors, including in this close review, suggest that in removing TT from the topic area, it will only make things worse. This goes against almost every policy we have. The solution to POV pushing is not to have more POV pushing. POV pushing is not solved by having someone push the opposite POV. Its solved by removing all of the POV pushers and then following policies like DUE. If we're concerned about POV pushing in the topic area to the point that losing a single pro-trans editor is seen as a catastrophe, we have a much, much deeper problem.
  I thank Loki for acknowledging that they wished they'd have discussed this with me first, that might have simplified matters. I had discussed this close with TT on my talkpage, and I expressed a willingness to tweak my close to reflect that some felt the topic ban was better focused on BLP/BLPGROUP: I suggested a timed 6 month GENSEX tban (which some participants suggested, though I did not initially consider since there has been discussion in the past of timed sanction inefficiency), along with an indefinite BLP/BLPGROUP GENSEX tban. TT also objected to that, and at that point I disengaged, as TT was Wiki-lawyering with me. In fact, she is Wiki-lawyering in this very thread by trying to bring habeas corpus into this. We've expensed an entire book on this dispute; its time to let this one retire. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:45, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  If we're concerned about POV pushing in the topic area to the point that losing a single pro-trans editor is seen as a catastrophe, we have a much, much deeper problem.

  That's precisely the issue though: this decision just kicks the can down the road, while removing one of the few editors who prevented things from getting skewed out of proportion. TT's behavior was not ideal, and she should not have come out of this unscathed, but I'm seriously concerned this is going to result in a much worse conflict in the near future. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

• I am sorry to sound blunt--TheTranarchist, you know I support your sincere commitment and editorial work in what is obviously a very challenging topic, but this entire discussion is turning a form of WP:BLUDGEONING in and of itself. One would think that a close performed by an experienced admin (and an arbitrator) of a thread that amounted to a Dostoyevsky novel would suffice, though here we are again. CaptainEek's close may not have been perfect--and I have doubts regarding their methodology per Shells-shells thoughtful analysis--but it nonetheless was considerate given the circumstances; they acknowledged TheTranarchist's contributions and determined the best course of action based on a variety of factors, including legitimate concerns about WP:ADVOCACY and WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. And now, we're back to the drawing board with yet another complaint. There is always "ok, I agree, this is fair, but..." and another voluminous chapter dissecting every single word of every single participant from all possible angles ensues. I am alarmed that there is no end in sight. And for the record, I had not cast a vote in the original thread. In fact, I had reiterated my support for TheTranarchist as a committed editor while explicitly recusing myself because I had previously helped her in editing Gays Against Groomers to conform with NPOV (there is still a lot of work to be done, though that is besides the point). Again, @TheTranarchist, I am not trying make it seem like I am against you, but you have admitted that there are other important topics you haven't had the time to focus on due to the GENSEX exhaustion. Just focus on those for now (as with other topics, I'll always be glad to lend a helping hand to the best of my abilities) and let's please move on. Ppt91^talk 19:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Ppt91 Just to clarify, TheTranarchist didn't start this close review. And thanks for the thoughtful analysis comment. :) Shells-shells (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  ^{@Shells-shells Yes, fair, I should have made that clear. But @TheTranarchist did provide another very long retort and there seems to be ongoing engagement with no end in sight. @CaptainEek's comment about Wikilawyering is spot on in this case. And @Loki I truly appreciate your efforts and know you're coming from a place of genuine concern. I just really think this has gone too far and we're not being productive here.} Ppt91^talk 19:50, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  I agree very much. I'm going to WP:DROPTHESTICK and back away, and hope others will too. Regardless of whether I feel the result is flawed, it is a result. Lizthegrey (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  If the community disagrees with me that the close is wrong, I'll back off, but not before then. I have no intent to "just move on" while (I feel) a good editor has been topic banned based on an alleged consensus that did not, in fact, exist. Loki (talk) 01:20, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• I think what CaptainEek wrote above is better than what they wrote in the closing comments. Wrt the closure, a problem with fully explaining one's rationale is that the more points one makes, the larger the surface area for attack, and the weakest points will be attacked first, making folk forget your strong point. I think it was a mistake to lead with a vote count, particularly when the division is contentious and disputable. Sticking a ! in front of the word vote is not a get-out-of-jail-free-card to then given vote counts merit. Really, when my time comes, I don't want to be at the mercy of a numerical count of how many haters turned up (or more likely got recruited) to lend their votes.

I think the whole section was unfair. I wasn't neutral but nor was I opposed to a TB. If you were suddenly required to sit your driving test in 30 minutes time, and if you failed, faced an indefinite ban on driving (you can resit your test no sooner than six months), how would you fare? For some of you, on a Saturday evening, you might not even be below the drink driving limit. How dare you exist with blood alcohol, you wretched person! For most of us, our lessons were so many decades ago that we'd quite clearly fail, and be hopeless in our knowledge of the Highway Code. How terrible that all these dreadful drivers are on our roads. Ban the ignorant and incompetent! That section should have been speedy closed as soon as we knew it was a banned sock. It wasn't and shame on Wikipedia for letting ourselves be abused by them. But it wasn't and I can understand the pressure CaptainEek faced to make the best of a bad situation. It would take a brave person to, at that point, tell everyone they had wasted their time. Might still have been the right thing to do, though.

When judging a closure, we need to weigh whether it was reasonable, not whether we agree with it. I don't think the penalty was unreasonably deviant from the views expressed.

But while I'm here.... The closure said While I think TheTranarchist was there in good faith, editors pointed out that she was approaching her editing from a WP:RGW perspective. Editors pointed out that her work on Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull was evidence of her creating near attack articles. That some editors cited RGW doesn't mean the closing admin has to uncritically repeat that. (And they didn't actually create that article, or contribute a large portion of it) This explanatory essay has become a misguided WP:UPPERCASE for a while now. Editors who disapprove of another's POV will cite RGW to discredit them. Please, read the linked text. This is actually about editors who wish to "correct" the facts contained in reliable publications and the opinions of respected knowledgeable published experts, with The Truth that "mainstream" have yet to grasp. In the case of medical treatment, mainstream medicine, in the case of law, current legislation. In the case of Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, for example, this is someone campaigning against mainstream medicine and existing equality law. Reliable sources do not regard them favourably. This is not different to Andrew Wakefield who we openly describe as a fraud. Editors may vary in whether they think our existing medical approach wrt trans issues is the correct one and whether they think we should start banning some people from bathrooms and gymns, but lets be clear, in terms of stretching beyond what reliable sources and mainstream medicine advocate, it is the editors that The Trananarchist set themselves up against who are WP:RGW. So I'm disappointed that the closure repeated this falsehood. They may well have been over-enthusiastically battling for the mainstream/reliable-sources side (and plenty editors have foundered on those rocks, Jytdog being the classic example) but they aren't guilty of WP:RGW. If you want an essay that seeks to ban editors with a declared POV, please create a different one. -- Colin°^Talk 21:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

(And they didn't actually create that article, or contribute a large portion of it) I'd just like to point out that TheTranarchist objectively did create the article [91] and over the article's history has contributed 80% of the text to it. [92] That initial version does seem to qualify as "near attack articles". Not quite a G10, but much closer to G10 than acceptable BLP. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:06, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd been watching a show with a friend so just saw this, thank you for the correction! But I would like to say, that initial version is well-sourced and doesn't contain the problematic sources or content mentioned in the ANI case, and the most apparent issue to me with that version is that it's chronological instead of well-sectioned and therefor a bit of a jumble, but I did later work to section it out. The biggest problems came after she insulted me and I took it too personally and let it cloud my judgement in source selection, which I freely admit and profusely apologize for. I just read through and compared that version to the most recent one, and most details there are still present in the article. @Beccaynr, as the one who did the most work improving the article, could you comment on the state of the article and your view of my edits/work on it? Also perhaps this case and your thoughts on the evidence behind an intersectional or fully GENSEX ban. Whatever you feel about it, as the person who did the most work to clean up the article where my conduct most poorly reflected on me, I'd appreciate your comment and think everyone would find it valuable. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

TTA: please stop trying to re-litigate this. I don't think at this point the decision will change for the better, no matter how much evidence is presented. Take your lumps for now and give the issue some time to settle. Lizthegrey (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

My apologies, I am not trying to re-litigate, and I have been deliberately avoiding this thread as much as possible, I was just objecting to The Wordsmith's characterization of my initial version of KJK, and thought Beccaynr best to comment on it. As I was writing I figured I should ask for their general opinion, since whatever they say I feel it would be highly valuable. They fixed the KJK article, extensively went through my edits and sources, and also provided a thorough review on Gays Against Groomers. I have no clue what their opinion is on the close but just know they are in a good position to judge my case either way. Since I initially said I would step away, my only comment before this one was just to affirm that I thought CaptainEek was making the best of a bad situation and express my thanks to them. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

At this point, I think it would be better to let my comments from the AN/I thread about the KJK article at creation and afterwards stand (e.g. [93], [94]). I would have preferred the more orderly process of Arbcom to present evidence instead of AN/I, and I think that process in this instance could have helped address many concerns that are raised here now about the AN/I discussion. But we have a result after a long discussion that provides an opportunity for reflection and development, which in my general opinion, is a benefit for the encyclopedia, and I am glad you continue to engage in that process. Beccaynr (talk) 09:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

TheTranarchist (and The Wordsmith), this page is not to re-debate the quality of your edits to that page. My quotation of that sentence was to argue against the misguided citation or WP:RWG by the closing admin. Just because several people say something wrong, and very clearly wrong if you actually read the link, doesn't justify repeating it in closing arguments. TheTranarchist, I recommend recusing yourself from commenting on this discussion. -- Colin°^Talk 23:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@Colin: I strongly disagree. Our articles will expose Andrew Wakefield for the fraud he is because this is well documented in reliable secondary sources. By the same token, they will often document the nonsense in the gender critical movement and among right-wing opponents of transgender rights. However in all areas, we cannot get ahead of the curve or 'expose' stuff that has not already been documented in reliable secondary sources (or more rarely primary or tertiary ones). It does not matter whether an editor's general viewpoint is largely in agreement with reliable sources, they still need to limit their editing to writing balanced encyclopaedic articles which document what reliable sources say about a subject.

With Andrew Wakefield most of the time this isn't an issue. His nonsense is so well documented in reliable secondary sources that there's rarely a question. However with some of the people and groups TheTranarchist wants to expose, there's a fair chance this is not the case. (While in many ways a minor thing the category issue is one that comments to mind.) But in any event even with Andrew Wakefield, any editor here need to recognise that their purpose here has to be first and foremost to write balanced encyclopaedic articles in accordance with our policies and guidelines. If the editor believes that this is likely to expose Andrew Wakefield for the fraud that he is and that's a great thing an incentive for them to edit, that's fine provided they never forget the main reason they're here.

Actually the wider pseudoscience area is one where IMO we do have problems because editors seem to sometimes forget this but this isn't the place to discuss how we can fix that. Although I will note particular problem we have is how to handle cases where someone has said something whish is clearly against mainstream view as documented in reliable sources, and what they said has received some attention in reliable sources so that there may be justification for including it, but no one has particularly documented how what the particularly thing they said is in disagreement with the mainstream view, which is one thing anyone editing extensively GENSEX is likely to encounter a fair bit.

Using a different example, if an editor says they're here to write encyclopaedic articles which will document war crimes and other crimes against humanity commited by the Russian forces in Ukraine, that sounds fine. If an editor says they're here to expose the Russian invaders for the war criminals that they are I'd have deep concerns. I think it's fair to ensure that this editor understands their editing needs to be in accordance with our policies and guidelines. If they don't seem to be able to understand or keep insisting that there's no difference, then yes, I'd fully support topic banning this editor from the subject area for WP:RGW and other reasons no matter I may have sympathy to their goals or that their view is fairly mainstream.

A final example, personalised and hopefully you don't find this offensive. It's well documented that the US medical system is a mess complicated pricing structures that make big profits for questionable value, and require complicated things like app for people to navigate even simple stuff like buying pharmaceuticals. However this doesn't mean it's okay for editors to go around adding US drugs prices to help expose this mess. Again the primary purpose for editing here should be writing balanced encyclopaedic articles documenting what reliable sources have said in accordance with our policies and guidelines. It's fine for their secondary purpose to be to help correct some imbalance (especially WP:SYSTEMICBIAS) but this should never get ahead of their primary purpose. (To be clear, I'm not suggesting anyone involved was trying to RGW, simply using it as an example of why being in the mainstream doesn't mean all editors are fine.)

I've said this before and since I haven't convinced you before I don't think I'll convince you now so this will also probably be my lost comment on the matter. But again IMO you're clearly wrong on RGW. You incorrectly think it's more limited than it is, and it matters whether an editor's views are 'right' or 'wrong' or in accordance to the mainstream or not. While editors who's views are against the mainstream are more likely to have RGW problems, even an editor who's views are in accordance with the mainstream can have problems with RGW if their primary purpose here is to correct a 'wrong' no matter how well accepted it is that there is a 'wrong'.

IMO there's nothing in the essay, or in the policies and guidelines they come from to suggest the contrary. If you disagree, you need to start an RFC or similar to resolve this. In the absence of that, I'm entitled to cite RGW, and the close is entitled to read my view of the essay and the policies and guidelines from which it derives as a valid intepretation and to cite it as such. In the absence of community consensus on how RGW should be intepreted, you don't get to claim my view is wrong so must be discarded by the closing admin.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

In my view your statement that an editor who's views are in accordance with the mainstream can have problems with RGW if their primary purpose here is to correct a 'wrong' no matter how well accepted it is that there is a 'wrong' is directly contradicted by If, however, the wrong that you want to address has already been sorted in the real world, and if you have the reliable sources to support it, then please do update the articles (from WP:RGW). But I agree with you more than I disagree. In any case, would you consider leaving some useful advice down below for TheTranarchist? Shells-shells (talk) 08:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Nil Einne, you have argued passionately about a WP:RGW that is in your head, and may well be in the head of other editors who cite it, but it isn't what is written on that page. Some of your arguments about problematic editor motivation have merits, but they also have problems, and isn't actually what that page describes. You describe a fear that an editor who has expressed views might go too far. What that page is about is an actuality that an editor has added things to the page due to their motivation (and keeps adding them after being reverted, hence that are not supported by reliable sources, or are supportive of views that are fringe. The essay notes early on that all editors have bias and Bias is not in and of itself a problem in editors, only in articles. What happened on that ANI was that people saw "motivation" on the Mastodon page, and assumed they were RGW from the shortcut name alone. We aren't the thought police. Anyway, you are right that settling this matter belongs on another page. -- Colin°^Talk 09:21, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah, @Colin, this is a good point. I could have sworn I'd seen this phenomenon before, where the title of a page has become the commonly accepted meaning of that page, even when the actual content says something very different. Good on you for making WP:UPPERCASE.

This use of RGW bothered me a lot when reading the discussion. WP:RGW quite literally says that If, however, the wrong that you want to address has already been sorted in the real world, and if you have the reliable sources to support it, then please do update the articles (to be fair, this was only added by WhatamIdoing less than a year ago—though it has always been implied by the text). In this case it is already well-established in the mainstream that anti-LGBTQ activism is a wrong. Paradoxically, just because you may indeed want to right great wrongs does not mean your editing behavior falls under WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS—nor does having strong beliefs mean you are being WP:TENDENTIOUS. Shells-shells (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

And when I say always, I mean it. Diff from 2006: We can record the righting of great wrongs, but we can't ride the crest of the wave because we can only report that which is verifiable. To me, this statement directly implies the text quoted above. Shells-shells (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

When people have disputes about what's plainly verifiable/supported by WP:RS because they disagree on what's reliably out there, then it's back to yelling at each other about inappropriate WP:RGW though. :( Lizthegrey (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The Wordsmith I stand corrected. I looked back through some pages of history and clearly got the wrong impression. I've struck that but don't think it changes my point. Shells-shells, I'm not making a point about which side is right or wrong, which is part of why RGW is a terrible shortcut because editors will identify with the "right" side and their opponent with the "wrong" side. Mainstream medicine doesn't always get it right and neither does the law or public attitudes. But Wikipedia is here to document primarily the mainstream and be aligned with our best reliable sources, even if they are "wrong". I wonder if CaptainEek would consider striking that part of their close. Closure comments have a tendency to be cited as gospel. -- Colin°^Talk 23:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

No disagreement here. :) Shells-shells (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse close (involved). That the discussion was originally started by a sock is of essentially zero weight; arguing to dismiss it because of that (as was done in the original thread by some as well as some here) is, to be frank, basically WP:WIKILAWYERING and a case of the genetic fallacy. We are not a bureaucracy; the rest of the discussion is still valid. It is also very, very likely that had the sock never been there, a discussion would have been started soon thereafter by someone in good standing anyway, in which the rest would have followed much the same - that is where the numerous existing heated article talk page and content-noticeboard discussions were headed.
  Also, some of those opposing sanctions used invalid rationales along the lines of 'but we need her to resist the bad guys'. Furthermore, I don't recall opposers really addressing why this was different from the Stuartyeates case which ended up with an indefinite topic ban. The closure was well within CaptainEek's proper discretion as an admin and arb on a Contentious Topic. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse close While I did vote in favor of a temporary topic ban, I believe the administrator correctly evaluated the arguments regarding [user:TheTranarchist] and their behavior. The close was more than fair. The community consensus was clearly in favor of a topic ban, either temporary or permanent. Attempting to split hairs does the entire project a disservice. We have spent enough time and energy on this discussion. It is time to move forward. The amount of arguing currently occurring is ridiculous. 2600:1700:1250:6D80:BD7A:3F1A:4C6B:2AD0 (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't mean to edit war, but I really think it was improper to uncollapse this section. It's moot, it's inflammatory, it's off-topic, there is nothing of worth here. Please just let it lie. Shells-shells (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Update: I know I said I wasn't posting here again, and I absolutely didn't want to, but I was just charged with violating my TBAN at AE for discussing this case and I want people to weigh in.[95] TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC)TheTranarchist I noticed that as well, and while I feel it's somewhat frivolous, I suspect you're going to contend with this type of action if you continue to engage here or elsewhere with regards to GENSEX. Please consider starting your editing on other topics whose distance from GENSEX is considered in astronomical units. Continuing to engage with other editors, whether its to argue here, call attention to others actions in the GENSEX arena, or shaking down the closer, this all seems a lot like WP:BLUDGEON. Additionally, for every ones sake, can someone please close this discussion? Kcmastrpc (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC) Are you... seriously canvassing WP:AE? Please strike the comment. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC) I am making sure admins who've discussed my case here are aware of a discussion about whether I've violated my TBAN by participating here... WP:CANVASSING is going after those you think would support you, quoting WP:CANVASSING: In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. Many people here even supported the TBAN... For the love of god, please just leave me alone. I have no clue why you seem so out to get me and figure out just how much salt you can rub into a wound, but I want it to stop. I've already left GENSEX. You said me saying I left GENSEX on my userpage was GENSEX ffs. Stop dragging me back here to rake me over the coals, again. Everyone here agrees we're sick of this case, I don't know why you're trying to re-open it. The more you do this the more I question whether I even want to eventually return to this hellish cesspool of a topic area, or even contribute to the encylopedia at all if there's no respite from the pettiness. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC) I am not out to get you, nor am I out to see you blocked (if you read the AE filing, I am asking for someone to issue a formal reminder, which is substantially less than a warning). That all being said, you are presently TBANNED, and this edit contains a bright-line TBAN violation. People do not get 1 free polemic after they are TBANNED; the current political climate around trans people is getting steadily more genocidal (a term I don't use lightly) is in no way covered by WP:BANEX, and it clearly falls within Gender-related disputes or controversies, broadly construed. Please don't make edits that stretch into the scope of the TBAN; you have potential to improve as an editor (and I did not support a siteban for that reason), but stretching a TBAN is not the way to do so. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC) I’m just an uninvolved IP with very few edits and a penchant for seeing what’s up with ANI from time to time, so take my comments with the grain of salt that entails, but: claiming an accurate description of the current political climate around trans people on a trans user’s page falls under the TBAN here is absolutely fucking absurd and downright offensive. If a Black editor was TBANNED from the topic of race and later, purely within the remit of their user page, stated “anti-Black racism is getting even worse in some parts of America”, would you seriously drag them to AE over it? You’re not seeking to help TTA improve as an editor, you’re plainly grasping at straws to rub salt in the wound. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:91AC:81D2:65A8:414D (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC) (edit conflict)Thank you, uninvolved IP, for your opinion. But I will simply point you to WP:TBAN, which says that Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic, as encapsulated in the phrase "broadly construed". If you're banned from "climate change", and you post on your user page that the global crisis of climate change is going to cause substantial problems for countries in the Global South over the next thirty years, that is a TBAN violation, even though it is true. If you've received a TBAN from "Armenia", and you then make a post on your userpage that "Armenia is a country", that is a TBAN violation. Broad means broad. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:40, 5 March 2023 (UTC) Just to confirm: you're saying that if an Armenian editor is TBANNED from "Armenia", it would be a violation of their TBAN worthy of dragging to AE if they added the two words "I'm Armenian" to their user page? And that a trans editor TBANNED from the topic of gender and sexuality is now forbidden from ever mentioning the fact that they are trans on their user page? Except, as you've quoted yourself, GENSEX only covers Gender-related disputes or controversies and associated people. How is acknowledging the accepted fact that transphobia both exists and is getting worse a disputed or controversial statement? Is stating "racism exists" also disputed or controversial in your eyes? (Because the only people who would dispute that are, well, racists, and Wikipedia policy is very clear on not giving undue weight to such views.) 2600:1700:87D3:3460:91AC:81D2:65A8:414D (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC) As to your first paragraph, I will simply point to my comment here. As for the second and third, I see no need to respond to flagrant straw men. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC) This is going nowhere, as expected, so I'll leave this by saying that calling "GENSEX only covers disputes or controversies; how are statements simply acknowledging the very existence of bigotry (statements supported by virtually every reliable source imaginable) considered to fall under 'disputes or controversies' in your judgement?" a straw man signals to me that you don't have an answer to that perfectly reasonable question. At least, not an answer you'd like to share. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:91AC:81D2:65A8:414D (talk) 00:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC) Whether that was a TBAN violation was found debatable by the closer. A single sentence on why it's so difficult to edit in GENSEX, in a comment on my own userpage in a section about my current GENSEX TBAN, does not seem to be a TBAN violation unless you're really stretching it and ignoring the spirit of the rule if not the actual lettering. I said out to get me based on 1) taking me to AE for something so trivial (note, you actually filed the request over the material covered by WP:BANEX, and only mentioned my userpage as an afterthought), a straw that broke this camel's back, and 2) accusing me here of canvassing by reaching out to the discussion you accused me of violating my TBAN in. Since you cut out the context, the full text is Somehow, despite the hell it normally is for anyone to edit in the GENSEX area, let alone as a trans woman in a world where the current political climate around trans people is getting steadily more genocidal (a term I don't use lightly), I'll miss editing there. See you again. And that statement's just true. States are making it illegal to be gender-noncomforming in public. Banning medical transition they started at "just the kids" and have moved onto the adults, either under 26 or everyone covered with public funding... Banning social transition in public schools public and private, sometimes because "parents rights" and sometimes just no matter what the kid and parents say. Banning teaching that trans people exist (including just talking about or training doctors in providing gender-affirming care even in higher education). Banned from even the fucking bathroom. Politicians are calling for federally forcing all that, and more. Did I mention the increase in murders? Because you don't see all of it in the news but feel it in the community. Also, mass shootings, calls for armed violence, extermination, elimination, etc. Organized white supremacists, far-right politicians, and anti-trans activists, are working together on all that. Would it be more appropriate if I add some citations to my userpage statement for you? Perhaps even the full explanation as above? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)TheTranarchist In addition to ignoring another editors request to take this elsewhere, you're continuing to issue statements that are well covered under your TBAN, not to mention you've repeatedly said that you were going to stop posting here at least 3 times (I've lost count). Please WP:STICK, for not only every one else, but for yourself. Kcmastrpc (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• Not a good close. Uninvolved non-admin. The logic that a majority supported a sanction and of that, a majority supported a topic ban, is not how consensus is supposed to be read. If there's no consensus for what kind of sanction, the discussion should continue. However, I think this close is within acceptable discretion, but that doesn't make it a good closing statement nor does the statement within this discussion make it better. Consensus means that the preponderance of the policy-based argument should be in favor of a specific action but is not about counting votes or counting majorities. It is not unanimity, it is not a democratic exercise of majority voting. It is about a policy-based discussion that has to have weight and rationality considered in terms of our policy. It is possible that there would be such an outcome through discretion at any rate but again, that does not make it a closing statement that adequately explained how it was arrived at. Andre🚐 22:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
• Weakly endorse close (involved). There was clearly consensus for some form of a TBAN, and the closer has provided a rationale that seems reasonable enough to me. I am not sure that I would have closed the same way (I would have opted for the more narrow TBAN in light of the comments made), but I don't think this was outside the bounds of admin discretion, and I may be biased in that I wanted the tban to be a bit narrower than most who wanted a tban. That being said, I do think that the editor has the potential to show improvement, and I would earnestly entertain an appeal in six months so long as the editor abides by the existing TBAN going forward. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse close - CaptainEek did a good job here. --Malerooster (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose close – Gonna be honest, this really does stink something rotten. It was very clear that people were using the discussion to try to ban someone on the opposite side of an editing dispute. Wikipedia already has an institutional transphobia problem; this only serves to entrench the hostile environment against trans editors. Sceptre (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse close as someone who is actually uninvolved, has no interactions with Tranarchist and didn't participate in the ANI. CaptainEek's rationale seems fine and a lot more thought out than what's typically found at ANI, even for contentious decisions. Looking at the above comments its clear that 1) almost everyone is involved, 2) editors who supported restrictions all endorse the close and 3) editors who opposed restrictions all oppose the close. i.e., it's just a resuscitation of an ANI thread that has run its course. Unsurprising, and unless actual uninvolved editors have concerns on the closure it's time to drop this WP:DEADHORSE. Also, worth noting that CaptainEek was specifically asked by Tranarchist to perform the close. Not that it means anything, but you would think that would reduce the no. of complaints on the restrictions being unfair... and yet here we are. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 00:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse close I didn't comment at ANI and I don't contribute in this topic area. As an uninvolved editor I believe that CaptainEek acted well within Admin discretion, his reasoning was sound and his decision reflected the (policy based) views of most editors who commented. It's clear a topic ban is necessary to reduce disruption in the area - the off-wiki commentary was enough in itself. No need for another time-sink War & Peace-like thread. --DSQ (talk) 07:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse close After reading through the entire lengthy thread on ANI, I don't see how the closer could have come to any other conclusion. -- Mike 🗩 21:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose close I have to agree with Sceptre here. This discussion, I admit, it a bit hard to follow, but the rationale of those who want a TBan seems flawed in more ways than one. From my experience, the edits by TheTranarchist have been fine, and I only see this ban as furthering existing problems on here. It also seems strange that people are on the case of TheTranarchist for "violating" the ban, even though those comments are primarily on this discussion.Historyday01 (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

How can I improve as an editor?

However this goes, either a BLP/ORG or a GENSEX TBAN, I want to receive all the advice and key takeaways people have from all this on what I should be doing to improve and prove myself as an editor - I will not reply to them here but demonstrate them in the coming months with my behavior. I confess to wanting to at least be able to wiki-gnome in LGBT articles such as medicine, rights, and history, where my edits haven't been contested and only praised, even just as suggestions on talk so I can prove my contributions worthy, but I have already been sorting out which non-GENSEX topics I'll also be working on regardless. The way I see it, about half called for a GENSEX ban, about half opposed, and many in the middle or on either side expressed support for a targeted sanction or TBAN on GENSEX WP:BLPs/WP:ORGs, which I feel the most proportionate and consensus-based response, while accepting that the community differs and holding myself to it. I'm not about to shoot myself in the foot by evading the outcome of this, I have already recused myself completely of GENSEX until such time as the community finds me ready to join again. This is my final comment even here, as I'm not touching GENSEX with a 39-and-a-half-foot poll until I'm expressly granted the ability to do so. I appreciate any and all's thoughts on what I'll need to have demonstrated in the coming months and ways I can prove myself capable of writing in the BLP/ORG and/or GENSEX area in the future. I believe it's fair that there's a standard to which I can expect to be held for my appeal.TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)TheTranarchist

( Peanut gallery comment) Of course it's only been three hours (I'm sure the comments will start flowing in soon enough), but I would point out that some concrete editing advice here or at TheTranarchist's talk page would go a long way towards changing my current opinion that Punishment […] has replaced correction in this topic area. Shells-shells (talk) 03:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Tranarchist: I'm very relieved to see that this situation has not discouraged you from continuing to contribute here, even in the short term, as it very easily could have done. To be honest, this request is already the best possible start on making clear why you would be fit to return to the area in question at the earliest opportunity.

As to the request itself, my recommendation would be to find a couple of topic areas that you think you would be able to contribute valuable content or guidance to, but which you are completely agnostic to, where it comes to the most divisive issues of said topic area. This is the easiest way to develop a compelling "muscle memory" (if you'll forgive an attenuated metaphor) for parsing controversial determinations, which reflexes will impact your approach when you edit in the areas you are more passionate about. Or, if you want the same effect from a psuedo-randomized process, you could peruse the WP:FRS list and sign up to participate in randomly-selected RfCs from particular topic areas. I did that relatively early in my time here, and now that I think about it, I think it might be the influence which most directly contributed to my being a more well-rounded contributor (if indeed I am one at all--opinions may vary on that count). SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I note you say you have expertise in a historical topic area... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Create rules for yourself about the number of times you're willing to participate in a discussion, and stick to those rules even when someone continues to be wrong. A wise Wikipedian once told me that if he finds himself in an argument, he tries to limit himself to two comments and then walks away no matter what. That way he puts more thought into those comments and avoids repeating himself. I'd add that it makes other people more likely to read what you write if you have that kind of reputation. Personally, I don't go by a number, but try to step back if I find myself feeling emotionally invested, find that I'm repeating myself, or realize I'm in a hopeless back-and-forth (as though my response, twelve indents deep, is going to change someone's mind or influence the discussion in any constructive way). Also, making sure that you have some less controversial article projects helps, too. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:50, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

My advice would be to find a subject area that interests you, but that you don't care passionately about, and get stuck into writing articles about that for a while. Get into the habit of writing with the simple objective of summarising what the best sources say about the subject, without any other agenda. You might find that people still disagree with what you write or the sources you use, but you won't be so invested in it, which will make it easier to resolve disagreements amicably. Personally, I mostly write about historic buildings; try to find your own niche. People will recognise and appreciate quality content work devoid of drama, and will likely be content to give you another chance at the GENSEX topic area in a few short months. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I would recommend taking an article that's uncontroversial and a quiet area, maybe a stub/redlink or one that needs extensive cleanup, and taking it through DYK, Peer Review and GA. FA would be great too, though those standards are a very high bar. I did it on White Night riots a long time ago (which I now see needs some more work, but standards were lower at the time) and it was an incredibly rewarding experience that taught me a lot about proper researching, sourcing and weighting. Part of it even included contacting a BLP subject and learning how to properly interact with them, while I reached out to photographer and activist Daniel Nicoletta to convince him to license his iconic photo of the event. I'm sure there's an uncontroversial topic that you're interested in that would benefit from that treatment while still giving you the opportunity for outside input without the pressure cooker that is the GENSEX area. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that if you achieved that, and didn't have any further conduct issues, I would almost certainly endorse an appeal in six months. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Seconded. @TheTranarchist please feel free to ping me when the time period has elapsed and I'm genuinely looking forward to seeing your contributions. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I suggest that this discussion be held on your talk page. I don't think the administrators' noticeboard is a good place to fill up with personal recommendations. isaacl (talk) 05:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wanli and Jianwen Eras

Mass nonsensical reverts without discussion or comment, including removal of improvements and improved formatting, links, etc. and insertion of duplicate sections and assorted nonsense in the middle of edit warring by User:Ylogm. Just get 'em to stop and at least talk and/or force them to sit through a mediation to at least discuss why they prefer the worse wrong version of the page. In particularly, the current "translations" of the Chinese names are wrong and worse formatted and the discussion of the Yongle Emperor's reversion of the Jianwen Era is wrong/worse. Thanks. — LlywelynII 03:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Wanli Era edit history with my comments and requests and Ylogm's ignoring of them.

Jianwen Era edit history with my comments and requests and Ylogm's ignoring of them.

Talk:Jianwen_Era with my request for comments and (so far) Ylogm's ignoring it.

Amid the edit warring, Ylogm has also duplicated the entire content of the page without noticing/caring, in an attempt to avoid having any discussion or bring their revert to my attention. — LlywelynII 03:07, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@LlywelynII: You are required to notify the user of this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm looking through Ylogm's edit history and seeing a lot of seemingly pointless edits and self-reverts. Unless Ylogm adequately explains what that's about, I'm inclined to block per WP:NOTHERE. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Happened again at Wanli Era. I originally reverted a bunch of their moves, and I agree with the statement of WP:NOTHERE. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that's about enough of that. Blocked, and it might be worth looking through Ylogm's other edits too. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

It seems that after Ylogm was blocked, an IP address 2402:800:62B4:B7AF:951C:C333:582D:DB6F (talk · contribs · WHOIS) started to edit the same articles (such as [96] and [97]).--Stevenliuyi (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested page protection ~ Eejit43 (talk) 15:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at 14.241.212.176 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? Also appears like Ylogm to me. --Stevenliuyi (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Based on contributions alone I'd say they probably are, especially as both IPs are from the same location. (Non-administrator comment) ~ Eejit43 (talk) 15:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Adminbot discussion

Per the WT:DYK discussion, I have requested admin rights for DYKToolsBot. Please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DYKToolsAdminBot. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Maxim Davydov

Hi, I recently closed an AfD as "delete" for this person. However, I then got a message on my talk page claiming that the article had been hijacked and that an earlier article on a different person, but with the same name, had been overwritten. I checked and this seems to be correct. However, the original article is a badly sourced BLP. I'm a bit at a loss on how to handle this, any advice would be welcome. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 13:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The article, before being overwritten, has one source and is not negative in tone so is isn't a BLP violation A silver medal in orienteering at the World Games is a credible assertion of importance so speedy deletion would not be appropriate. Restoring the article to the version prior to the overwrite would respect the AFD decision that Maxim Davydov the MMA fighter is not notable, and allow for editors to work on the topic of Maxim Davydov the orienteer. That person may or may not be notable and the regular editing processes and policies for Wikipedia can be applied. -- Whpq (talk) 13:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Will do, that's what I was thinking, too, but given how unusual the situation is, I wanted to have another opinion. Thanks a bunch!! --Randykitty (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Help needed with large backlog of cases at CopyPatrol

Hello everybody. There's quite a few cases listed right now at CopyPatrol, and they seem to be coming in at a higher rate than in the past. There were more than 150 new cases posted today! You don't have to be an admin to do this task. Please stop by my talk page if you have any questions. Thanks for any assistance; much appreciated. — Diannaa (talk) 00:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• Link to copyPatrol
• Documentation page and detailed instructions

RfC on providing an external link to the Sanctioned Suicide forum

Should Sanctioned Suicide include an external link to the Sanctioned Suicide forum, as it currently does in the infobox? Comments welcome at Talk:Sanctioned Suicide#RfC on linking to the forum. Johnuniq (talk) 07:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

What's the relevance to administrators of this RfC 🤔? Endwise (talk) 09:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Please revoke my IP Block Exemption

I possess the IPBE user-right, but do not have a need for it (and haven't since my IP's gblock expired in September). Please remove the user-right from my account. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 15:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

•  Done—  Salvio ^giuliano 15:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 15:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Unsalting

I'm looking to get Rahart Adams unsalted. The salting admin is not currently active. The subject was salted over seven years ago. Notability has changed since then. I have started an article at Rahart Adams (actor) and would like it moved to the primary topic. Can someone here do it or point me to the right place to get it done. Thanks. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

The previous, now deleted, revisions, never had any content, but were just sparse template fields. Since notability has never been asserted in the first place (the deletion log doesn't show A7 or G11), I don't see a problem with moving it to the basic title, so I've done that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you sir. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

User:JRRobinson - problematic editor on darts articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is a follow-up to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1121#Problematic editor, darts articles, which was archived without any action being taken. After speaking with Star Mississippi and Jayron32, I've decided to bring it back again, since they are continuing their behavior of using only primary sources, despite it being explained that this is not enough numerous times. Just today, they created 2023 Dutch Darts Championship, again solely using primary sources. They also reverted redirects of 2023 DPA Tour series, 2023 PDC Nordic & Baltic ProTour series, and 2023 DPNZ Tour series. While no more personal attacks have occurred, they still have yet to admit that they did anything wrong with their prior personal attacks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban from darts as I don't think article creation would address the broader issue. While I think sourcing could eventually be proven to exist for the 2023 articles, there is no valid reason to contest a redirect until such time as sourcing exists and the article merits spinning out. Editor refuses to take the advice on board because he believes he knows better than non darts editors. And yes as @Onel5969 referenced, I'm on board with the revival of this discussion as something needs to change here. Star Mississippi 02:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from darts. Premature article creation is one thing, but exhibition of battleground behavior for years is a different matter entirely. MarioJump83 (talk) 10:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban from darts, primarily to address the ongoing WP:IDHT behavior.--⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from darts This editor seems to think that darts is exempt from WP:NSPORTS and our core content policies. That needs to change. Cullen328 (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support topic ban How does someone clock up 43k edits since 2006 but be IDHT on really basic policy? DeCausa (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Name dispute

Can someone remind me what the proper venue is to dispute a page name. On January 17, 2023, Hermes Europe got moved to Hermes (company) by User:Tbf69. There is no indication that this move was a result of a consensus somewhere. I think Hermès would be the more desired search for readers who enter Hermes (company). There are a number of subjects to dispute the primacy of this company at Hermes_(disambiguation)#Businesses.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

My apologies for the undiscussed move, I've changed my ways. I'd suggest opening a WP:RM on the matter, or reverting my move via WP:RMT or manually. - Tbf69 🛈 🗩 22:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

If I had a preconception of what should really be where, I would have gone there. I am not sure what exactly belongs where, but I will try to muddle through that process to seek optimal naming for all pages concerned.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• User:Tbf69, Feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests#Requests_to_revert_undiscussed_moves.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

User talk:DougsTech

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User talk:DougsTech · ( logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

DougsTech (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Firstly, I apologise for potentially causing even more drama. Anyway, DougsTech was indef blocked a long time ago, and their talk page was deleted, then undeleted, then deleted per WP:U2 incorrectly (the user still exists) then deleted again per WP:G6 when it was re-created. Per the policy WP:UP#DELTALK, user talk pages are not normally deleted. All but one of the admins involved have been desysopped, so they can't help me. While people shouldn't really care about this, the user has recently been brought up in a discussion, and I think non-admins should at least have the opportunity to follow the links given to understand what point was trying to be made. —Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• Maybe I'm missing something really, really obvious, but this seems so straightforward that I've undeleted it for now. Feel free to delete later with my blessing if I'm being obtuse. Courcelles (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• Original delete was an incorrect U1 (I checked, and it did say "not user talk pages" at the time). The second deletion was an incorrect U2, which is only for non-existent user accounts. And the third deletion was an incorrect G6 cleanup. Three admins, three apparent mistakes, but all seems well now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• It took five admins to arrive at the correct conclusion of letting the talkpage exist? I guess there are too many administrators currently. On a more serious note, the restoration seems like the right call (if a little belated) and I doubt anyone will object. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I made an INVOLVED NLT block.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I blocked BiggerBrat for NLT based on this edit. I recently removed a pile of synth/OR/blpvio from the article, so I'm somewhat involved. I throw myself upon your mercy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

It's too bad, you had such a promising admin career ahead of you. Anyway, I did a WP:DOLT check of the BLP article and Camp Bucca and as far as I can tell, the claims in those two articles about Bucca in 2003-2004 are verified by the sources cited, so I don't see any WP:BLP problems. Levivich (talk) 02:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

No rabbits for you, must eat only lettuce. Kidding aside, good block. They're welcome to retract the threat and edit productively if they wish, but that wasn't productive. Star Mississippi 02:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

UPE with no intention of improving encyclopedia. Good riddance Slywriter (talk) 02:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

They did have a point regarding the Stacy Garrity article, which had serious pov/synth issues, but their approach was totally off base and not conducive to getting it fixed. Thankfully ScottishFinnishRadish has done a thorough job cleaning it up. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Unless I've missed something, they didn't raise any complaints about the article until many hours after the cleanup was already done. Levivich (talk) 03:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

(EC) Well it seems fairly unlikely SFR was randomly cleaning up an article then an editor came to make a legal threat about the inclusion of content which had been around for a while but which SFR had just removed. I assume they saw this earlier comment from BiggerBrat at BLPN [98] or something else which came before the cleanup like this edit filter report [99]. It is correct however that BiggerBrat is continuing to complain about content that has already been removed. Nil Einne (talk) 03:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I missed that that the BLPN didn't name the subject so it's unlikely SFR figured out what article BiggerBrat was referring to just from that. But the false positive report obviously did as this the attempted edit that resulted in it [100]. I also didn't look and see if there were complaints elsewhere perhaps as anons, and of course another editor having seen something may have mentioned it or maybe even there was VRT etc contact or offsite comments. Alternatively the subject might have been in the news recently for unrelated reasons. SFR could explain more themselves if they wanted to, but as said, it just seems unlikely it was a complete coincidence SFR fixed a problem which had been around for a while and then later someone came to complain about the content from before the fix. (The only way this is likely is if BiggerBrat was monitoring the page but somehow only noticed the removal rather than when the content was added and got confused.) In any event, it seems clear they were complaining about the Bucca stuff which was removed so they had a point, even if raising it in an unacceptable way and continuing to complain after it was removed. Nil Einne (talk) 04:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

It was actually here that I learned about the article, and figured I'd take a look. There was a legitimate issue, so I cleaned it up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• Good block. Endorsed. BD2412 T 03:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks like a good block to me. SQL^{Query Me!} 03:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• Just gave a quick look. IMO your "somewhat involved" is not "involved" and kudos for submitting for review. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse Block seems rather cut-and-dry, Clear NLT violation. --Jayron32 13:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
• Good block I respect your coming here to make sure, but no worries this was to the letter a good block. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse block Seems a pretty obvious legal threat, the (reverted) comment on WP:BLPN refers to apparent legal action already taken against the Wikimedia Foundation. However, like Nil Einne, I do wonder if their complaint was effectively resolved by the extensive cleanup work done earlier in the day, so it might be worth me having a chat to get some more detail. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
• Good block and not involved Good block, and I don't think you were involved. Simply editing an article doesn't automatically make you involved with an editor, and double true when the editor in question is a drive by single edit editor. You were not involved in any editing dispute, had no interaction with that editor and were not in an edit war. All's good. Canterbury Tail talk 16:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm just going to throw into the mix that the article was created by MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk · contribs), who was later blocked by Drmies with the rationale "CU block". Does that mean the article was created by a sock? A significant amount of content was later added by an IP - possibly evading a block? In which case does the article potentially qualify as WP:G5? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Given that Garrity is a statewide elected official in Pennsylvania, and ScottishFinnishRadish has cleaned up the article (thanks), I think that we should leave well enough alone at this point. Cullen328 (talk) 17:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking more that some "bad actor" element might be an explanation why the article might have been problematic, invited legal action, and has now had some serious cleanup. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't remember the particulars of that, but I do remember that two, three years ago those right-wing socks (of NoCal, HiddenTempo, and many others) were a dime a dozen, but since I noted nothing in the block log it may have been IP socking. I agree that we should just leave it be, like Cullen said, though one does wonder about the edit history of this particular account. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Noting that the MPUWT "retired" [101] about 2 months before they were blocked, likely in part because their edits started to attract scrutiny [102] [103] it could be simply because they didn't "retire" but instead were socking to evade scrutiny (whether IPs or other accounts). At least one other account was later blocked as them [104] and if I had to guess, this was them as well [105]. Whether that was the first time they'd "retired" or they had other previous accounts perhaps even an LTA it probably doesn't matter much. Nil Einne (talk) 13:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Seeming sockpuppet

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Crycry27378 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of Cryingtears555111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)/Freshworth72688 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I don't think it warrants a CheckUser as it seems to walk like a duck. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Non-constructive IP(v6)-range user - Puyo Puyo fan

Not sure whether I'm at the good place, please refer me to another one if necessary. Anyway:
Anonymous Special:Contributions/2001:8003:A0A5:F300::/48 was (were?) barely active before 2020, and almost all their edits since November 2022 got reverted. Does their activity justify a block? Is there any way to send an appropriate message/warning to the IP-address range? --CiaPan (talk) 13:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Reporting Vandalism to block

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have encounter a disruptive editing on Star Awards and Star Awards 2023 page, Special:Contributions/223.25.74.34. Also, same attitude were reported ahead before the editing. Please do investigate the movements, considerate a block as well.(Unknown152438 (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC))

@Unknown152438 report to WP:AIV. Lightoil (talk) 16:09, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@Lightoil Thank you. (Unknown152438 (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC))

Um, I don't think the IP's conduct warranted a report here; nor does it warrant a report at AIV.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@Bbb23 I'm heading to AIV now, Thanks a lot. (Unknown152438 (talk)) Unknown152438 (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

You obviously misunderstood my comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@Bbb23 I understood, I'm just to report the movements, to block or not is up to the decisions. (Unknown152438 (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC))

No, that's not the way it works. If an administrator tells you that the IP's edits are not vandalism and not to go to AIV, your taking it to AIV is disruptive. I've declined your report at AIV, a foregone conclusion and a needless waste of time.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:28, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@Bbb23 Got it, Thanks for the knowledge using Wikipedia. (Unknown152438 (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC))

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requesting 1RR at Tucker Carlson

It appears that there have been multiple edit wars on this article in recent days (including one that I may have accidentally provoked other editors into starting). I think 1RR will help keep things orderly as larger changes are being discussed. For posterity, I'm self-imposing 0RR on this article while I'm involved in any disputes regarding it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I think such a remedy would be reasonable on this article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 19:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Definitely a contentious AP2 article. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The Enforced BRD restriction is a much more effective page restriction. Particularly when there are likely to be a large number of editors making the disputed edits and a much smaller number of editors at the page who will quickly exhaust their one a day quota of 1RR fixes. SPECIFICO talk 02:18, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes BRD is actually much better. Thankfully, that's wha Isabelle Belato implemented on Carlson's page. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 21:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Best thing to do for the page & for the editors. GoodDay (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

 Administrator note: I've added the restrictions to the article, as suggested here (permalink). Feel free to note if I made any mistakes. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 14:42, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Woman hater alert

That LTA who hates it that women menstruate (you know, the one who is obsessed with that movie about the girl panda), has now set his sights on The Last of Us. Please keep an eye out, on Recent changes, and suppress whatever needs suppressing. My log and CU log will tell you where it's at. Dinner time! Drmies (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

And also involved in Look for the Light as an edit war. CastJared (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

High time for the WMF to put their money where their mouth is. Drmies (talk) 00:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Block review: WikiWikiWayne

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

WikiWikiWayne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I blocked WikiWikiWayne for 48 hours yesterday for a 3RR violation on Wikipedia:Drafts. I was pinged to offer a third opinion on a dispute that had broken out there, which I did. WWW did not engage in the discussion after an initial reply. When he reinstated his contested change a third time, I left him a very clear warning and he stopped editing. I assumed that was the end of the matter but a little over an hour later he reverted again (without commenting on WT:Drafts or his talk page), his fourth revert in about two and a half hours, so I blocked him. WWW has indicated that he doesn't trust the {{unblock}} process but is accusing me of bullying him. I don't think further one-to-one discussion is going to get either of us to see the other's side, so I think it's best if I hand it off and open a community review. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I just revoked TPA because of the user's latest screed. My revocation was simultaneous with the opening of this thead. As an aside, I endorse HJ's block.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Bbb23 - WWW is lucky you didn't also extend the block for that tantrum. Yeesh EvergreenFir (talk) 13:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Sometimes post-block conduct can trigger an extension of the block, e.g., if the user is blocked for personal attacks and continues to make them after the block, but in the case of hissy fits and attacks against the blocking admin, I think revocation of TPA is sufficient. That said, if the user doesn't move on after their block expires, a longer block should be considered.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I suppose you're right @Bbb23! I do think the editor knew that the talk page comments were too much and would likely draw more scrutiny, not sure why they did that though. Philipnelson99 (talk) 13:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm not fazed by the comments directed at me and I don't think extending the block would be helpful or necessary. Long-term editors are often upset at being blocked. It's one of the reasons we prefer discussion and warnings first. I'm surprised at how badly WWW responded to a short block for a clear 3RR violation but it's human to get upset and lash out. We shouldn't hold it against someone. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Good, lenient block. Have a feeling it will get longer, unfortunately. Star Mississippi 12:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi SM. Well, that crystal ball was fogged up. The three of us stopped reverting my single small edit before the block. The block prevented no harm to the WP:DRAFTS essay. Also, 24 hours or less is the guideline for a first time 3RR block. And, I had 2 net reverts, but I'm not going to bloviate in this spot about the details. Thanks. No biggie. Take care. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 00:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

An editor is not entitled to three reverts. The prohibition is against edit warring, and a fourth revert is considered prima facie evidence of edit warring, not the beginning of it. Which is to say, "good block", and that I have little sympathy for someone who tries to get unblocked from edit warring by counting reverts and accusing the blocking admin of bullying. Courcelles (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Courcelles. Yes, you're right. 3RR, if counted correctly, is a bright line breach. Any warring is actionable or scrutable. Fortunately, in this case, the three of us were reverting in good faith (or inadvertently), and we were discussing when available. Take care. Thanks. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 00:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Please forgive this editor. This is so incredibly, incredibly, sad. —Alalch E. 12:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

The editor accused the blocking admin of misconduct after clearly violating 3RR, forgiveness isn't necessary and this isn't a place to discuss forgiveness. Philipnelson99 (talk) 12:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not an admin but I had watched this whole thing play out and agree that the editor certainly deserved a block for violating 3RR. I think the block should be upheld, and arguably extended due to the comments they made on their talk page. Philipnelson99 (talk) 12:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

There was no 3RR or warring by any of us 3 reverting editors. This block never should have happened, but that's water under the bridge. Things moved very quickly, and you could not possibly have seen the whole thing, as I did not, and HP did not, plus there is a lot of IRC chatter in these blocking matters. Nobody has the whole picture. No worries. Take care. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 00:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Good block. Perhaps too lenient if anything. EvergreenFir (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

EvergreenFir. Do I rub you wrong, or do most of your replies all over to everybody assume bad faith, and expanded punishment? I'm asking. Sincerely. I don't follow you, so I don't know. I will listen.

But, every time you comment in my vicinity its veiled bitterness, and I feel picked on. Let me know if that's just your norm, so I won't mistake it for a personal targeted bias against me. Words hurt. But, maybe I am misunderstanding.

When the admin guideline is 24 or less if guilty, why do you feel 48 was lenient? Thanks. Take care. {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 00:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Huh. All caps fisking would be the last place I'd go to in order to appeal or critique an admin decision. I think the block was a good one, and per Bbb23, is an appropriate amount since occasional blocklash is to be expected. I sympathize with Alalch's desires for... sympathy. But a line on improper conduct needs to be drawn somewhere. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Hey, thanks. Yes, Fisking format with all caps as the speaker delimiter. All caps is a very old school Fisk reply delimiter (circa 1994), but it came across as shouting, which I did not intend. Sorry. I went back to edit to sentence case, but my talk page, and everywhere was locked down. When I get home, I'll sentence case it, and remove any other unintended inferences. Give me a few hours. Thanks. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 23:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• Because of an e-mail WWW sent me (they have been e-mailing others as well), I have disabled e-mail access.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  *sigh* I had hoped this could resolved by just waiting out the block but I anticipate that they won't be too cordial after their block expires. Philipnelson99 (talk) 13:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  Philipnelson99. I play off my audience. Take care. Cheers. {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 00:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  Hi, no worries. You blocked me from all communication avenues on the Wiki. Our instructions are to email the blocking admin since we can't use other means. I sent a fairly flaccid email to HP Mitchell about his block requesting an unblock. He did not reply by email. My email to you got no reply either. It just got me locked down. I only asked you to open me up to reply here at AN, if I recall correctly, plus a quick timeline and some facts. The emails were per that instruction. I mentioned that when I emailed you. Take care. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 23:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• Good block, support talk page access removal. As an aside, I know it's de rigueur to throw around the terms "bullying" and "gaslighting" these days, but I find it's most often used flippantly on Wikipedia whenever an editor is told something they don't want to hear. Such baseless accusations of bullying take away from the real instances where individuals really do need support. If you're crying "bully!" when you're correctly criticised for your edits, you really really don't know what the word means. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think I said I felt bullied, as my block did not comport with the admin block guidelines for first offenders. I will defend my two net reverts elsewhere. Take care. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 23:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• Very clearly a good block: WP:3RR is a bright line policy and WWW indisputably stepped over it. It's a clear violation of the rule, although the policy is also clear that the bright line need not be crossed for an editor to be blocked for edit warring. Also, in their third revert at 16:14 they inserted "please stop edit warring while we are discussing" into the article instead of into the edit summary, which they admitted on their talk page was a mouse-click error, but in their next revert at 17:22 they restored that text again. That's a good indication to me that they weren't bothering to look at the text they were reverting, they were just hammering the undo button to prevent anyone else making any change. I can accept that that was a heat-of-the-moment mistake, but it's exactly the sort of mistake that we have 3RR to deter. Good block; I might not have made the block longer after the talk page outburst, but I absolutely would have when they still kept carrying on by email. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  Greetings. I only had two net reverts, but I won't bludgeon you about the details. There were 3 reverting editors, and we were working it out, or making reparations before the block. It looked uglier than it was. Whoop, whoop! Take care. Cheers. {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 23:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• A couple of things. WikiWikiWayne is the editor formerly known as Checkingfax, who I think Cullen328 knows in real life, and recognises him as a well-meaning editor who is occasionally disruptive by over-enthusiasm. The most obvious question I have is why was WWW not partially blocked from Wikipedia:Drafts instead of the entire site? If there's evidence that we suspected WWW was highly likely to disrupt other pages, then fine, but I can't obviously see that from their contributions. Alalch E. appeared to be edit-warring just as much on that page as WWW, at first glance, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they were simply reverting to established consensus while discussing the issue.

As things currently stand, I think the block and TP removal should stand as WWW clearly needs to calm down a bit before attempting to edit again; I just think with a bit more tact and diplomacy (plus a use of the tool designed to stop the problems a site block can give us) we could have managed things a bit better and maybe avoided the meltdown a bit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I was not aware until now that these two accounts are the same person, but yes, I know this person in real life and Ritchie333's description is accurate. Wayne has been kind to me and my familily. Accordingly, I will not say anything more about this specific situation except to say that it saddens me. I do endorse Ritchie's recommendation that judicious use of page blocks is often a better solution than site blocks, especially when dealing with a long term productive editor. Cullen328 (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

When someone blasts straight through 3RR like that, without participating in an ongoing discussion and after a very clear warning, it is suggestive to me of a broader problem that a partial block would only displace. And judging by the reaction to the block, my guess is we'd be discussing a partial block in at least five different venues until it was eventually converted to a full block, probably for a lot more than 48 hours, and we'd be no closer to reaching a conclusion at WT:Drafts. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

HP Mitchell. I bristle when you say the three reverting editors did not discuss this. We did. Others did too. I have told you about the discussions. Old tapes are toxic here. The 3 of us were working it out, raggedly, but we were circling around to a conclusion when you threw gasoline on things with:

• Unseen warning
• Double-sized block (48 vs 24 or less)
• Not replying to my email
• Missing both ANIs
• Starting this AN
• Flipping out over a small fix on an Essay
• Letting others lockdown all my communication and damage control avenues

That being said, you had some softness and suggestions here and there and I acknowledge and truly appreciate it. And, if I had seen your buried warning... Take care. Peace. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 00:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

* {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 00:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Hey, I could nitpick some details, but your reply is super on spot, and thoughtful. More later. Take care. Thanks. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 23:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• 'Endorse good, lenient block and subsequent actions to stop disruption We can only hope @WikiWikiWayne: calms down and learns from this experience, though I doubt he does. Most of the edit warriors I've seen feel justified in their actions and are not amenable to reason.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  Deepfriedokra. It was not intended to be as ugly as it looks. As for lenient, no, I got 48, and the guideline is 24 or less for a first-timer. I'm not going to die on this hill or cry over spilled milk, so no worries. A lot of mistakes were made, by everybody, but in good faith. The reverts and fixes were done before the block. Also, I recall in my revert edit summary that I suggested that the words be changed, and not reverted. I had 2 net reverts, maybe 7 total between the three of us that were involved, but we were discussing it, as were others, HP just missed it, as he missed the ANIs, and he was an editor on the Essay. None of us meant to war. There's more. Not gonna bore you. Yup. Take care. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 00:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikimania 2023 Welcoming Program Submissions

[Crosspost from WP:VPM

Do you want to host an in-person or virtual session at Wikimania 2023? Maybe a hands-on workshop, a lively discussion, a fun performance, a catchy poster, or a memorable lightning talk? Submissions are open until March 28. The event will have dedicated hybrid blocks, so virtual submissions and pre-recorded content are also welcome. If you have any questions, please join us at an upcoming conversation on March 12 or 19, or reach out by email at wikimania@wikimedia.org or on Telegram. More information on-wiki.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MediaWiki message delivery (talk • contribs) 15:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

33 AfDs in 3 minutes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

If I counted correctly, Dawid2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) started 33 AfD discussions in 3 minutes, probably using a bot, copy-pasting the same rationale, not notifying relevant editors, and obviously not performing any WP:BEFORE. His targets are wives/partners of footballers and the rationale is "She is famous because of relationship with her parthner. Apart from that what is her independet notablity? For now article is quite poorly sourced", when in many cases the articles have decent sourcing, the subjects were notable before and beyond their engagement to footballers and are even more notable than their counterparts (eg. Giorgia Palmas has a prominent 20 years career on Italian television and is certainly not notable for her relationship with Davide Bombardini, or Elena Santarelli is better known than her husband, who in fact is the subject of articles titled Elena Santarelli: Who is her husband Bernardo Corradi?. I was going to vote "Speedy Keep" on any of them as disruptive, but I really think they should be speedy closed on procedural grounds. Cavarrone 09:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

They also didn't add the AfD template to any of the articles they nominated. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 11:05, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I've speedy closed the lot as disruptive AfDs where clearly no WP:BEFORE at all was done, and in many cases the article wasn't even read apparently. None of them had any delete votes, a lot had keep votes with evidence of notability, and the few articles I spotchecked also were about notable persons in their own right. Fram (talk) 11:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Good call. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Fram—I was going to do it myself, but I think you have to be auto- or extended-confirmed to use the Script. And I gulped at closing 33 AfDs manually! SN54129 13:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I did it manually :-) Fram (talk) 13:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I would like to sorry for that incident. I will never do again so non-patient and fast approach. I have did it after revievind massviews from the category:Association footballers' wives and girlfriends too fast and have choosen articles with bit few references. Most articles I nominated to improve them but I had not any bad faith in that to be honest. Next time I will be more careful. Sorry for disturbing time of some editors and not clear view at afd now.... but it was too fast accident from my side, not understand me very wrong, I regret. Dawid2009 (talk) 13:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Nice work Fram. Bots should never be used to open a series of AfDs or the like, too much chance of things like this occurring. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) No great harm done, but just remember that women can be just as notable as (or more notable than) their male partners. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User is adding unsourced information and reverting talk page messages in a purely disruptive manner

In opposition to WP:V and WP:OR (as well as WP:COLOR), BrickMaster02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding unsourced information, reverting my edits, and removing talk page messages. Note that in the particular page (Supermarket Sweep), there is an explicit third opinion to not add unsourced information, which he keeps on doing. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I said that I would move it to another article, heck I would've even added reliable sources. But you reverted the edits, and blame me for doing it. Also, haven't you been banned indefinitely four times for disruptive editing, like you have? If you want me to add citations, I will, but don't go THIS FAR by adding me to a report when I didn't do much "vandalism". BrickMaster02 (talk) 22:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

"Also, haven't you been banned indefinitely four times for disruptive editing, like you have?" This doesn't make sense. Please don't add unsourced information to Wikipedia or remove talk post messages. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Note that he has also made a spurious AIV post and falsely claimed that I "won't let him talk". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

But you didn't. In case you didn't read my reply, which you seemingly didn't because you're spamming these threads, you said and I quote "Please do no add unsourced information to any article, particularly this one." Had you said something like "Can you explain why you reverted my edit?" or mentioned it on the article's talk page, this whole thing would've been over. BrickMaster02 (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I asked you on your talk page if you had read WP:V and WP:OR. You removed the thread without responding. This is not a forum for you to litigate with me endlessly, so I'm not going to engage this. I hope the admins see your behavior here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I already reinstated your edits. If the admins do see this, then I deeply and sincerely apologize. And I absolutely mean it. I just wish we could've avoided the "drama" and I always ruin everything. No one likes me on this website, and whenever I try to make a useful contribution, I get verbally crucified. I know I have a lot to change about my behavior, and I doubt anyone will forgive me, but I want to let everyone know that I regret all of my actions on here. BrickMaster02 (talk) 22:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Self-requesting community review of revision deletion

I just revision-deleted 122 revisions of Pea Ridge, Arkansas going back to 2009 under RD1 due to about half of the article being a copyright violation from [106] and [107]. While normally we don't nuke that long of a span of article history for copyvios, I felt that the massive scope of the situation warranted it. Have placed a message on the article's talk page to explain the removal/deletion and have left a copyvio warning for the editor who added the material, as they are still semi-active. Given the extensive amount of revision deletion I did, I would appreciate an informal community review of the scope of the RD1. Thanks! Hog Farm _Talk 16:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@Hog Farm “While normally we don't nuke that long of a span of article history for copyvios, I felt that the massive scope of the situation warranted it.” Reluctance to do revdels like this has only very recently become “practice”— it’s not actually based in any policy, more just how some admins feel right now. They were done for years previously with no issues. As far as that revdel goes I’d say it’s very safely in discretion; I’ve revdeled much more going back much longer. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Speaking only in general, I'll echo Money that we might decline to do certain RD for Streisand reasons and where it'll have such a huge impact on the article history. But the alternative of leaving blatant copyright violations in the history doesn't strike me as much of an alternative. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Given the extent of the copyrighted material introduced in the article, the decision to apply revision deletion is well justified. -- Whpq (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks like a solid use of RevDel here. No issues I can see. Deleting that much history is never what we hope for, but often necessary. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

The chapter and verse says "Administrators hold discretion on the appropriateness of revision deletion for each case." so what you did was perfectly within policy. Given that appears to be plagiarism of an offline source, it's no wonder it sat around for years. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Is there any point to these self-requested community reviews? The very fact that review has been requested indicates that the action was almost certainly correct. The actions that are questionable are those that are kept under the radar. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Is there any point to these self-requested community reviews? Appears to this editor as an admin looking to demonstrate transparency and accountability. Also demonstrates behviour to be modelled; if you're uncertain, it's ok to ask, rather than default to self-confidence. As method, it's a for me. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I think so. The community should encourage a collaborative environment where editors feel free to discuss actions they've taken and openly discuss pros and cons. isaacl (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that this was necessary, but nonetheless, it was necessary. We certainly should not be leaving copyright violations in article history. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

( Peanut gallery comment) I can understand your sentiment a bit, I once got a bit suspicious of an article and reported it and watched edits going back to ~2010 get stripped away (article was very low visibility). But at the end of the day, the point of cleaning up copyvios is to keep Wikipedia a law abiding website (or as law abiding as you can with editors leaking the addresses of whoever they're mad at at the moment), so with that in mind, you did your job well and used the tool properly, even if it nuked a lot of the page. Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 16:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

ANI thread titled Japanese help needed

It no longer needs Japanese-speaking help, as the translations have been confirmed to be awful.

As I understand it, this is the situation: Dekimasu has asked for a closer. The problem extends beyond Japanese, according to several other editors. The editor in question has promised to fix their work but to my (inexpert) eye their example of good work that they have done is nearly impenetrable. I myself am only involved to the extent that I clean up some different messes at WP:PNT but the ever-increasing backlog there doesn't need another prolific producer of automated translation, and the erroneous Chat GPT articles probably will just go straight into main space unnoticed if nothing is done. Elinruby (talk) 01:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done, I've closed the discussion. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Closure Request: V22 RFC

Resolved

 – Closed by Isabelle Belato and Ingenuity. the wub "?!" 15:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rollback of Vector 2022 is overdue for a close. A request made at WP:RFCLOSE#Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rollback of Vector 2022 has been sitting for several weeks now, and it would be helpful if some brave soul(s) would attempt the close. Experienced closers are recommended, as with ~3000 edits it is one of the largest RfCs ever conducted on enwiki (second place by my count behind WP:BLPRFC1). Given the complexity and importance, it has been suggested that a panel of admins volunteer to close it collectively.

Regards, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 01:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Might be best for someone to hat the discussion while a closer or closers are found - I took a look at the page history and it looks like another ~15 comments were added yesterday which continues to make the job even more laborious. 104.247.245.249 (talk) 11:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

May I urge that this be closed as soon as possible? Discussion is devolving into attacks. I get that this is a mammoth RFC, and that a good many people have weighed in and are inelligible to close it, but this has become an open sore, and leaving this as an open sore on our encyclopedia is not a good thing. schetm (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

As I said on RFCLOSE, I am uninvolved and can be part of a panel close if needed. Multiple people have expressed that they would like an administrator to help close, so if any admin could volunteer that would be great. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 00:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Isabelle Belato has come to the task! Aaron Liu (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Close needed

Resolved

 – Closed by Isabelle Belato and Ingenuity. the wub "?!" 15:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello. The big discussion Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rollback of Vector 2022 has been open for a long time and there has been a request at WP:Close requests for the discussion to be closed for almost a month. This discussion really needs to be closed. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 03:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I spent half an hour drawing up a closing rationale. Then I realised I'd opposed at the RfC so had to bin the whole lot. If anyone wants to take my notes, drop me a line. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I've marked the RFC as doing. If you want to email me what you wrote down, Ritchie333, I'd appreciate it. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 18:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Isabelle Belato: thank you for having the courage to tackle this close! :) Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 19:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

And, likewise, have the courage to subsequently watch the WMF override the entire discussion whichever way it falls, and impose it as an Office Action... 😄 SN54129 20:35, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

🙃. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 21:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps not the WMF, but I guess we can keep this section open for a closure challenge. Independently of what the closure says. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I intend to challenge the closure regardless of what it says.^{[just kidding]} Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Isabelle! InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Isabelle Belato: Ingenuity previously expressed interest in helping close this as well. Could you two work together on the close? Thanks! InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Bruno Rene Vargas – topic ban violation

@Bruno Rene Vargas: is topic banned from moving pages. @Dreamy Jazz: and @Cullen328: have previously blocked him for violations as articulated here and here. He has again breached the spirit of the block. Draft:The Movie Critic was created by an IP editor on the 14th, and a couple of hours later, Bruno deleted the content to redirect to an older draft that was earlier deleted (he has recently returned to Wikipedia and has been getting older deleted draftworks restored despite if they were earlier recreated by someone else). His time away has not prompted a change in his edit behaviors. Rusted AutoParts 20:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, hopefully they give me a permanent and indefinite blockade just like in the Spanish Wikipedia. I'm tired of trying to contribute here and then being persecuted by users like you who know how to point out other people's mistakes but can't recognize their own. I retired for two years, I tried to start editing here again but I see that this will never change. Now if I withdraw permanently and I myself ask for my definitive block, thank you very much. Bruno Vargas _{Eñe'ẽ avec moi} 20:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't wish to have to keep having conflict here, but the persistent editing tactics you have been previously been blocked over makes it hard to. You left for a period of time, yes, but you essentially just kept doing what was the cause of many an editors frustrations. We wouldn't be here if that stopped but it unfortunately has not. Rusted AutoParts 20:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, the one who requested that editions that contributed little or nothing to the draft that I create years ago be recovered was you, and you did that only so that I also did not appear as the creator of the article just because you were not satisfied with the decision that I take the administrator. In addition, you are the one who spends time looking at my edition history and looking for the slightest error on my part to come and report it. But now I don't care exactly about the decision that is made here, I myself ask again that they block me permanently so as not to return even from here at a time in case I want to return. I, Bruno Rene Vargas, request my permanent block on the day of the date. Bruno Vargas _{Eñe'ẽ avec moi} 21:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

This thread is about the Untitled Quentin Tarantino film draft edits. Rusted AutoParts 21:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

What do you think about this 🖕🏽? Bruno Vargas _{Eñe'ẽ avec moi} 21:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Don't you two have some sort of interaction ban? You've been at each other at ANI and elsewhere for so many years i can't believe that's not in place. DeCausa (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

One was discussed but never came to fruition. I think he had either left the site for a period of time or the matter died down. Rusted AutoParts 21:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• Without looking into the topic ban itself, I've blocked Bruno Rene Vargas for 48 hours for the above comment. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 21:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Isabelle Belato See the ANI here 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:2992:69E4:7BD:B2A5 (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• I would have been willing to remind Bruno Rene Vargas that he has a topic ban and that he must not violate it moving forward. A simple, "oh, OK," might have sufficed. However, the explosively inappropriate response here leaves me cold. Perhaps extending the block to one week as a firmer reminder of the topic ban and of the conduct issues is needed. The IBAN between Rusted AutoParts and Vargas is needed as well. Assuming Vargas does not wind up indeffed.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

  It looks like per this users page, User:Bruno Rene Vargas has permanently retired. I’m assuming a heat of the moment retirement. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:2992:69E4:7BD:B2A5 (talk) 09:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

  Well, we may as well just unblock him and get on with our day. Yes, retirement after a sanction is most often regarded as an effort to avoid further sanctions by making other users think that the disruption has stopped for good. However, Wiki-retirement is not binding in any sense, and some editors will claim to be "fully retired" while still participating in discussions or article editing. In this case, it's likely an off-shoot of WP:ANIFLU.--⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

  I have to fully agree. Perhaps an indef block as a going away present? When they are willing to participate in a civil manner, we could consider unblocking. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• I've made it an indef block, rationale (and path to lifting it) explained [108] on the user's talk page. Courcelles (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

60.234.239.169

The blocking admin passed away last year and I don't know where else to take this. Is there a reason this IP is blocked indefinitely? I thought it was standard practice not to block IP addresses forever. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 02:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Standard practice has evolved over the years. I've lifted the block. Honestly, I don't expect it to last that way for very long, but hopefully the next one won't be indef. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Why is it that so much vandalism comes from schools? Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 03:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

A lot of people with a lot of time. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

And students are paired 1 to 1 with devices and use Google (which feeds to enwp) to look up stuff. Pair that with teachers being very overwhelmed and not able to monitor everything students do on those devices, and what we get is sort of inevitable. Courcelles (talk) 14:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I usually like to put it down as "a bored schoolkid", altho school IPs don't only vandalize, it's just that usually they do because you can have thousands of kids on 1 IP (or 1 range of IPs). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm actually a teacher, so have experienced daily the struggle of keeping children on task and not doing... other things. I often fail at this goal... Courcelles (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

On another note, I've added the Shared IP template to the talk page. You'd think that by the time they get to college they would stop vandalizing Wikipedia. Guess not. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The problem is every year, a fresh batch of bored people go into the computer lab and experiment. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Courcelles: I know what you mean. Even in adult classes for work, the mind sometimes wanders. Boredom sets in . . . . -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Other things are fine. We all need "brain breaks". We just want those not to be destructive to other's property or peace. Either in the physical classroom or cyberspace. Courcelles (talk) 18:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

We will never be free of this. — Trey Maturin™ 18:19, 10789 September 1993 (UTC)

"Don't let these shakes go on! // It's time we had a break from it,"-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Topic-ban appeal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think the topic-ban for me on darts is OTT. I do positive things on the darts pages, I make them accessible for many people. I try and improve them as much as possible, but it isn't easy, hence most are normally starter pages with primary sources, but it's a starting block, they improve over time. If I have perceived to have done any personal attacks, I'm sorry, but that just shows how passionate I am about this topic. But, please undo the ban, it's detrimental to the site, not just me. JRRobinson (talk) 10:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, suggest WP:SNOW close. Topic ban was imposed by the community here, just a week ago. It seems like you are saying you are so passionate, you are unable to avoid personal attacks. That's all the more reason to leave your topic ban in place. You don't even bother to address the significant concerns raised in that thread and you were caught violating your topic ban just days ago. In any case, I strongly suggest a WP:SNOW close as this is much, much too soon to be considering lifting the topic ban. --Yamla (talk) 10:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'd concur with the SNOW close, given that it's so recent, and JRR says nothing that significantly adds or resolves the TBAN initial discussions. I'd advise a 6-month minimum before appealing, coupled with a 6 month cycle for additional appeals (obviously always subject to change by future AN). Like Yamla, being "passionate" is an abysmal defence to personal attacks, as it just suggests that you won't improve. Still, since I'm not aware of additional personal attacks since the original TBAN discussion was bought, there's no need to escalate anything at this point. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose an appeal of a topic ban imposed a week ago isn't likely to succeed unless there was something fundamentally wrong with the discussion which imposed the ban in the first place, and there doesn't seem to be here. Articles do need to be based on third-party sources, and if there aren't any then we shouldn't have an article on the topic (see WP:V). I suggest writing some articles in other areas and ask again in six months or so. Hut 8.5 13:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
• Reject - I do not see any attempts whatsoever to address the cause of the topic ban, which is a prerequisite to any such discussions about lifting the ban. Also, one might refer to WP:YANI in regards to the ban being "detrimental to the site". --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Backlog at redirects for discussion

If anyone is interested in some likely easy closes, there's a significant backlog at WP:RFD again. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Topic-banned

Товболатов (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello, my violation of tipped edit in several articles, especially this Feb 16th edit (Special:Diff/1139722862, Special:Diff/1139722968, Special : Diff /1139723019, Special:Diff/1139723084, Special:Diff/1139723110, Special:Diff/1139723167, Special:Diff/1139723254, Special:Diff /1139723211) User talk:Товболатов. I did not know. In the future, I promise not to do this and not break the rules. Please reconsider the topic limit. Товболатов (talk) 14:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Rosguill Tagging you as you are the admin who placed the restriction. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I have a few concerns here. One is that I stand by my prior assessment that copy-pasting the same block of contentious text across half a dozen articles as part of a prior dispute with another editor is clearly tendentious editing, to such a degree that simply saying that they didn't know it wasn't OK stretches the boundaries of AGF, especially as it came after days of informal warnings for a variety of different bad behaviors (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive350#Reiner_Gavriel among other archived discussions). I further have a concern that Товболатов's English skills may not be sufficient to contribute to contentious topic areas, as their participation thus far (up to and including this request) shows clear signs of relying on machine translation to participate here, and has led to significant communication difficulties in resolving discussions with other editors. Meanwhile, their editing history to other topics since the ban is practically non-existent, giving the impression that their intent is to continue to be a WP:SPA in a contentious topic area, rather than to build an encyclopedia. Finally, there is also an unresolved sockpuppet investigation where a CU has found some evidence of sockpuppetry but it has yet to be closed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse and maintain Topic Ban. I see no indication the TBAN is no longer needed.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the reply, I don't want to edit in contentious topics. sockpuppet investigation It's not me. --Товболатов (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, I understand, but I will say one thing if I had a goal to argue, I would not create a doll. And I would have done as they do, changed the ip-address and provider and continued to edit. A new participant cannot immediately rule well on controversial topics. But I won't do this. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dzurdzuketi/Archive. I'm sorry, but I couldn't resist saying this.--Товболатов (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the Reiner_Gavriel link. Rosguill Yes, you invited me to discuss this topic (argument) when Reiner Gavriel stopped responding. It shows that my opponents justify me at the beginning and say that I am not needed in the dispute. Then 2 days passed abruptly on their part, attacks began on my two new articles that were not in dispute. They did violations on kickbacks, for some reason you did not notice their violations. Later, after that, they redid all the contentious articles without discussion and are still making changes there. But that's their business, I'm not going to argue there anymore.--Товболатов (talk) 06:49, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Opt-out from future global edit filters

A proposal to enable global abuse filters managed on the meta-wiki is being discussed. Should it pass, local projects would need to opt-out if they want to only continue to use their local edit filters. Links and local discussion are open for comment at our edit filter noticeboard. We can pre-opt-out if there is a local showing of support. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 09:53, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Gustavo Bonatto - Gustavo Bonatto

Hello, I'd like an admin to provide me with the content of this deleted page - draft, because I'd like to create the page again, adding reliable sources and links. Thank you. Lynxavier (talk) 08:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@Lynxavier: Morning. Did you ask @Ymblanter:, the deleting admin? Best.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:56, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done Ymblanter (talk) 11:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Armenia-Azerbaijan 3: Arbitration case closed

An arbitration case about the conduct of editors in the Armenia-Azerbaijan topic area has now closed. The final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• Abrvagl (talk · contribs)
  • is topic banned from pages about Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • may make only 1 revert on any page in any given 24 hour period. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • is indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, ZaniGiovanni anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions). This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Dallavid (talk · contribs)
  • is topic banned from pages about Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • may make only 1 revert on any page in any given 24 hour period. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Olympian (talk · contribs)
  • is topic banned from pages about Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • may make only 1 revert on any page in any given 24 hour period. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• ZaniGiovanni (talk · contribs)
  • is topic banned from pages about Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • may make only 1 revert on any page in any given 24 hour period. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • is indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, Abrvagl anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions). This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Golden (talk · contribs) and Grandmaster (talk · contribs) are placed on indefinite probation. If any party to this case is found to be edit warring within the area of dispute by an uninvolved administrator, the administrator should impose the following sanction: [Editor name] is indefinitely topic banned from all pages about Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts, broadly construed. Topic bans imposed via this remedy may only be appealed to the Arbitration Committee. For a topic ban imposed under this remedy, an editor may make their first appeal at any time; further appeals may be made every twelve months after an unsuccessful appeal.
• When deciding on whether or not to issue an Arbitration Enforcement sanction, Administrators are encouraged to consider all behavior, including the seriousness of the violation and the possible recidivism of the editor in question. For instance, users who do not heed warnings or who engage in sustained, low-level misconduct should be sanctioned rather than re-warned. Where editor conduct frequently results in enforcement requests that are dismissed or closed with warnings, administrators are encouraged to impose robust restrictions on editors.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Armenia-Azerbaijan 3: Arbitration case closed

Use of WP:CLEANSTART

It was reported to me that H-influenzae (talk · contribs) is Computer-ergonomics (talk · contribs). It is now  Confirmed. H-influenzae was subject to this ANI before disappearing to "cleanstart" under Computer-ergonomics. Computer-ergonomics edits the same areas and this essentially violates both WP:CLEANSTART#Criteria and WP:SCRUTINY. It's not a clear cut case, but it's enough to warrant concern to see if the community feels there should be sanctions or not. -- Amanda (she/her) 17:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not trying to hide that I am H-influenzae and I have been avoiding the pages where I was having conflict with specific users. The issue was not the topics that I was editing, it was that I did not understand the social norms of Wikipedia, nor did I understand the specific social norms of the pages I was editing before. I would prefer to quietly make pages about music and fashion very far away from the users I was having conflict with as they made me feel very intimidated. The fact that there is a little overlap is simply because that is what I am knowledgeable about. Thank you Computer-ergonomics (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I would also like to note that you can find on my original page (which I cleaned because it looked ugly, not to hide) that users were asking me to come back and continue editing long after I went to full clean start so the idea that I am disobeying social sanctions seems a little like some mixed messages are being sent. Computer-ergonomics (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• If the edits under current user name are free of problems, then I say leave be. However, if the old problems have returned anew, then a TBAN and perhaps partial blocks are in order.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  Hopefully my contributions page is illustrative of a lack of combative behavior Special:Contributions/Computer-ergonomics I have also added to my user page that I used to be H-influenzae in order to dissuade the notion that I am trying to avoid scrutiny for any past indiscretions. Thank you Computer-ergonomics (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  Please ensure you link in both directions. Nil Einne (talk) 14:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Close review of MRV: 1948 Palestinian exodus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See also: Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2023 February § 1948 Palestinian exodus

As loath as I am to ask for this and prolong the process again, I would like a review of this closure by Vanamonde93, because I don't think the result can reasonably follow from either the close or the discussion:

• First, regarding the moratorium: I'm not too fussed about my imposition of a moratorium being overturned, but I would ask admins to keep an eye on the talk page of the article to prevent any sort of disruptive gaming of the system.
• Most – not all, but definitely a strong majority – of people who wished to see the close overturned predicated their arguments entirely on the RMCI definition of INVOLVED. This was rather contentious, both within and outwith the move review (see VPP and WT:RM discussions on the subject), and Vanamonde described the argument as "somewhat weak", which I agree with. I cannot, then, see how a consensus can be formed from those arguments.
• However, they also made the assertion that there was consensus "that the closure did not reflect the substance of the discussion" as reason to overturn the RM anyway, and on their talk page, Vanamonde seemed to argue that the only parts of the RM-MRV-RM-MRV-RM merry-go-round this article that should've been considered was the last RM ("RM3"). There are several problems with this:
  • This goes against how we generally determine consensus; generally discussions tend to have a precedential value for a not insignificant amount of time. Certainly, the consensus in an RM doesn't become spent after a only few weeks, let alone an hour (if we're assuming "MRV2" as an extension of "RM2").
  • This would leave us unable to effectively deal with disruptive abuse of process; I don't think one can seriously argue that the opening of RM3 (less than an hour after MRV2 closed) wasn't disruptive. Typically, discussion closers tend to be given a decent amount of latitude to side-step abuse of process.
  • Of the few people who brought up the substance of the close (as opposed to the process), there was no consensus that the closure was incorrect on this basis, and arguably a consensus that the closure was within discretion.

For these reasons, I don't think the result follows the arguments of the either the discussion or the close, and as such, I think the result should be overturned to endorse the closure (but with a decent amount of trout-slapping all around, including to myself). Sceptre (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• I provided my reasoning in considerable detail at both the MRV and on my talk page, so I'll try to keep my comments brief. Sceptre is mistaken on several counts. If there is a disruptive move request, it needs to be handled as such at a dedicated forum. Otherwise, it needs to be handled on its merits, which Sceptre has essentially admitted they did not do. Also, the moratorium they imposed was completely out of process. Also, there is considerable irony in the extent to which they are prolonging this process, given their previous complaints about how the RM process was drawn out. Finally, I said the RMCI argument was weak, but the totality of Sceptre's behavior above makes it clear they have strong feelings here, and should not be closing: as a contentious discussion this should have gotten an admin closure in any case. There's simply no way that discussion could have been closed as "endorse".
  Stepping back from the minutiae for a moment; all my close does is establish that the RM should be reclosed. Why is that worth contesting so hard? Vanamonde (Talk) 21:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

For somebody who claims to have no interest in the outcome you seem awfully attached to your no consensus close, first attempting to impose a year long ban on any challenge to your judgment, and now instead of just allowing an uninvolved admin, who has already signed up to the task, to close the discussion challenging the very clear consensus at MRV. Wee bit odd. nableezy - 21:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The only investment I have in my close is to ensure that disruptive editing isn't rewarded, which I fear is what this closure does. After all, sea-lions should be free to swim in our oceans and not cooped up in the aquarium which is Wikipedia. Sceptre (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The only disruption that occured was your close. I agree it should not be rewarded. Perhaps a ban on performing closures? nableezy - 21:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

My friend, you have on your user page a userbox complaining about "political correctness" of editors who think controversial userboxes are a bad idea. I thought the boxen wars were settled back three POTUSes ago, and yet... Sceptre (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe the two of you should take a break and let others participate? Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 21:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse <I commented in the October MR but am otherwise uninvolved.> I might have given a bit more weight to the RMCI-based involvement concerns (since the purpose of an MR is to determine "whether the closer properly followed Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions") and a bit less weight to the NAC-based concerns (since "the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is never sufficient reason to reverse a closure"), but the outcome of the MR seems quite right to me (and, at the absolute minimum, within discretion). The overturn !voters had reasonable arguments based on both substance and process, and while the current RfC might shed some more light on how INVOLVED and RMCI apply in the RM context, until then I don't see a strong basis for discounting their !votes. I also agree that there was a consensus that the moratorium was out-of-process, as explained by Vanamonde93. Thankfully an uninvolved admin has agreed to reclose the RM—here's hoping that we can finally bring this Jarndyce-esque saga to an end. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
• I'm going to note that I've re-closed the requested move as moved. Galobtter (pingó mió) 23:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'll undo this closure if this review of the MRV overturns the result to "Endorse", to avoid any further confusion. I also have to say I agree with Vanamonde that I don't understand why Sceptre is so opposed to the discussion being closed by someone else. Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn as disruptive abuse of process (involved in one of the original RFCS) (non-admin comment) Andre🚐 02:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  Please elaborate, Andrevan, as at the moment you appear to be accusing me of "disruptive abuse of process". Vanamonde (Talk) 03:01, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  I apologize Vanamonde, what I meant was that continuing to file more RMs and move reviews when there was no consensus, until the desired result is obtained, is a disruptive abuse of process. I am not specifically commenting on the close itself since the close should have never happened, the abusive repetitive RMs should have been procedurally closed. Andre🚐 03:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  Well then, you should take issue not with my closure, which is what is being discussed here, but with Galobtter's, which isn't yet but I fully expect to be. Nothing you've said impinges on the consensus at MRV. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  I guess I am opining to overturn Galobtter's closure but I think the MRV should also be overturned inasmuch as an MRV should consider the entire history and not just the last RM, though it is not an abuse of process or in any way improper in terms of being against policy and may be within discretion, but I still overall think that the move and the reopening to be reclosed should all be overturned. However, I suppose, if there's a separate thread I could move this comment there; this however, does seem to be the thread, so I'm inclined to let my comment stand, nuanced as it is, and not an indictment of you Vanamonde. Andre🚐 04:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse - obviously, and I take issue with the incredibly absurd claim of an abuse of process. As with the silly sea-lioning claim. Nobody has ever once confused me with a civil POV-pusher, that is certainly a new attack. But the only abuse of process here has been the attempt at maintaining the status quo through filibustering. On the process and the on the merits Sceptre's close was improper, as nearly every single one of the oppose votes, including Andre's, was uniformly poor. Andre objected to a title that included expulsion and flight with the reasoning not everybody was expelled. I do not quite understand how anybody could repeatedly ignore what the proposal was and still feel that their argument against it was sound. That was the case for nearly every single unsubstantiated vote. The abuse of process comes when claiming that prior no consensus outcomes precludes further discussion. The abuse of process comes when claiming that a prior no consensus outcome somehow means the consensus in an RM doesn't become spent after a only few weeks, let alone an hour (if we're assuming "MRV2" as an extension of "RM2"). How much more basic can it get, no consensus does not mean there is a consensus in an RM. No consensus means, and has always meant on Wikipedia, continue discussion and attempt to draw in a wider audience so that a committed set of editors are not able to maintain their preferred version through filibustering any change through no consensus. In any number of disputes over the years, if there is a consensus against my position I have no problem stfu'ing and moving on. But the idea that one can filibuster their way to forever maintaining a NPOV violation in our articles is, to me at least, the only abuse of process in this entire mess. This should have been closed move in the past move request, Sceptre's closure there was likewise poorly substantiated and the only reason it was maintained was that there was not a consensus to overturn it. Finally, there is zero reading of the move review that supports anything other than an overturn result, and this review of the review is just one more attempt at filibustering. And it should be ignored. The entire argument here is that following a no consensus move review of a no consensus move request that further discussion should be banned. That is the literal antithesis of our entire DR process. nableezy - 04:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  No consensus means keep discussing but it doesn't mean keep proposing something which failed to achieve consensus absent new arguments. That is what I consider an abuse of process. Opinions were split. You can say some arguments were bad. But it was fairly closed and the close reviewed. It's process abuse to reopen the RM proposal absent new arguments or new facts or information to discuss, and keep doing that until you find that enough people have tired of the process and another closer is willing to weigh the arguments in a certain different way given that reasonable minds might reasonably differ. The status quo has precedence if there's no consensus for a move, and WP:COMMONNAME is indeed an argument - the idea that NPOV means that "exodus" is less NPOV than "expulsion and flight" and therefore COMMONNAME doesn't apply doesn't hold up. Andre🚐 04:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  Andre, there wasnt even consensus for a no consensus close there. Jfc. nableezy - 04:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  And maybe there won't be any consensus on this thread, but usually when there isn't a consensus, things stay the way they are. Andre🚐 04:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  And in that case any editor is free to continue to attempt to find consensus. Hey look, it happened! nableezy - 04:26, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• Procedural close as an excess of process. I have no opinion about the merits of the move discussion, the move review or its closure, but at some point one has to stop contesting everything. We have had two admins assess community consensus in a move discussion and a move review. That's quite enough. A third layer of review should be allowed by the community only in the case of obvious and serious errors, which as far as I can tell are not alleged here. As an aside, I find Nableezy's aggressive conduct in this discussion inappropriate and perhaps worthy of discretionary sanctions, or whatever the current term is. Sandstein 07:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Sandstein: Glad I'm not the only one bewildered by this DS Contentious Topics stuff. Good Lord, I've gone cross-eyed, but agree in principle with procedural close. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:01, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  I havent been aggressive. Sceptre has made claims of disruptive and tendentious editing against me across a range of pages without evidence (I believe we call that WP:ASPERSIONS), eg here, here, and on this board here. For challenging a close that was both overturned by consensus and participating in a move request that was closed consensus to move. I have done nothing disruptive, nor have I been aggressive. nableezy - 15:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Nableezy:Did not say you were. Just said this needs closing, cause wow. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry, was responding to Sandsteins "aside". nableezy - 15:44, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• Close this is a request to review the closure of a request to review the closure of a request to move a page, which was a sequel to another request to move the page which was itself the subject of two requests to review its closure. I agree with Sandstein that this level of process is only justified in exceptional cases. This isn't one of them. It clearly isn't the case that not acting here would leave us unable to effectively deal with disruptive abuse of process as claimed. Hut 8.5 11:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse/Close Per Hut8.5. Even if I go by merits, I do not see anything wrong in V93's close. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse/Close - The horse is dead, time to stop beating it (opposed overturning at MRV). BilledMammal (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
• (!voted in the here reviewed MR, otherwise uninvolved) Procedural close per Sandstein; in the case of this not being procedurally closed endorse, because the closer correctly found consensus to overturn the RM around a view that the RM close inappropriately, i.e. inconsistently with the spirit and intent of Wikipedia common practice, policies, or guidelines, did not truly consider the substance of the arguments, when those arguments did in fact show a good faith discussion. —Alalch E. 22:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse/procedural close (involved): This discussion was closed in a perfectly well-reasoned and measured way by an admin - exactly the kind of attention that the preceding move request process had been sorely lacking. There were no substantive issues with this admin closure, and there is no good reason to continue to drag the process out (somewhat ad absurdum at this point). Iskandar323 (talk) 06:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse. Good close. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cast section in The Rock

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is a clash of cast section of the article of the film The Rock between me and another user name Jmg38. This diff cast section is what I think it should have since it has more notable actors who have uncredited cameos and such. Jmhh38 made the cast section like this, which takes away some necessary details needed in the cast sections. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

As summarized in edit summary "MOS:CASTLIST - cast and order per closing tombstone stand-alone credits, roles per closing credits scroll", and further discussed in notes shared w/BattleshipMan, per longer explanation at MOS:CASTLIST that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", and the edit made does already include "in addition" of characters played by actors Wilson (a strong representation of secondary military/Pentagon bit players) and Grant (a strong representation of secondary executive branch bit players), as these two characters have longer narration than others in those two “areas” of the plot, this covered the collective high level aspects happening away from the director/producer’s defined main cast of the plot, as shown in the main credits, who are the driving plot participants at the prison and at the police/FBI/SEAL situation control center near the prison. A brief appearance from non-main credits performers like character actor Stanley Anderson, late in the film, or Anthony Clark, the barber for a lead character, ignore "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Jmg38 (talk) 05:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I feel obligated to point out that BattleshipMan left me directly a message regarding this thread, and based on their contributions did the same for several other users, which gives me the uncomfortable impression of canvassing. On the other hand, I'm surprised to see that they didn't raise this at WT:FILM or even the Talk page for the film. I'm forced to recommend that this be closed as a content dispute that doesn't belong at this venue. DonIago (talk) 06:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I was also "invited" to this section but have no understanding of why I would have been. I know nothing of this article or this conflict. -- ferret (talk) 13:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, I don't think asking a few experienced editors to comment is necessarily canvassing, but this does seem like a content dispute that could be resolved through dispute resolution. If there isn't any edit warring, overt canvassing, personal attacks, or retaliatory hounding involved, it probably doesn't belong at WP:ANI (and certainly not here). That said, uncredited cameos would probably require a citation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closure review of RFC on Vector 2022

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to request a formal review of the closure of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rollback of Vector 2022. The closure in question does not at all constitute an accurate reading of the discussion and has been the subject of considerable controversy. The closer was not neutral in their assessment but was rather excessively critical and dismissive of support comments while not at all subjecting similar oppose comments to the same scrutiny. They also failed to properly address a serious amount of canvassed comments on the oppose side, which had been triggered by someone from the WMF itsself. Most importantly a decisive absolute majority in favor of a certain action was unfairly dismissed. There had already been a preceding RFC on the subject and that one's close contained equal inaccuracies and should probably be reviewed as well. All in all the closure of the most recent RFC amounts to nothing but a supervote. Attempts to have the closers review their actions through talk page discussions were unfortunately futile as they applied the same dismissiveness as in the close itself. This inappropriate close should just not be allowed to stand and I'm honestly surprised that no-one started this review earlier.

In my humble opinion, given the massive implications this RFC has on the site, it should never have been closed by one person, with a second looking over the shoulder for verification, but by a panel of at least 10 administrators. Tvx1 18:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

• First. Also, a panel of at least 10 administrators. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  Okay, now that I've had a while to calm down, Endorse as a reasonable reading of the discussion. 60/40 isn't enough to even be considered by the crats at RFA, so saying it's some rock solid majority in the wikiworld is disingenuous. Reading and assessing a discussion isn't support=1*weightmodifier oppose=-1*weightmodifier, add em all together and if the result is >1 support wins (or I'd already have a spreadsheet to do closes for me). A detailed explanation was given, and it's reasonable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I bet there is going to be another closure review of this closure review after this closure review is closed. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 19:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Could it be possible to actually comment on the issue instead of throwing out this unnecessary sarcasm? Tvx1 19:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

It's hard to take seriously a request that mandates a panel of at least 10 administrators, something that has never been done before (nor is it clear what it would accomplish). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I didn't mandate anything. It's a suggestion and not at all the most important part of the challenge. And an RFC like this regarding the entire base interface of this site is also pretty unprecedented. Desperate times call for desperate measures. Tvx1 19:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

While I disagree with the closure arguments, for instance for using the fallacy from authority, I think the no consensus outcome is a reasonable read of the discussion. The discussion has dragged on long enough now. Let's focus on writing an encyclopedia, and putting pressure on the WMF to address the remaining accessibility issues. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. And a 10 administrator panel? Since when in the history of Wikipedia has that ever been warranted? What is that meant to accomplish? Inevitably they would be deadlocked and that too would result in no consensus. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 19:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

It's meant to ensure that there is wide participation in the closing so as to limit the chances of super voting. We already used the usual one or two closers approach and it resulted in a farce. Having a considerable group of administrators judge is something that actually is used frequently such as for site or topic bans. But again, it's not the crux of the challenge. Please focus on the actual inaccuracies in the close.Tvx1 19:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that this new interface actively makes reading and writing this encyclopedia more difficult. We have to address that before we can even contemplate continuing. Tvx1 19:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

As someone who doesn't have issues with editing or reading while using the new skin, please don't speak on my behalf. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Nice for you, but you are not alone on this site. A decisive absolute majority has stated what I claim during the RFC, so I'm not making this up. Tvx1 19:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

A majority that comprised people who bothered to respond to the RfC. Seeing as there were other neutral thoughts aside from mine and a substantial amount of those who opposed the rollback, I agree with the closer that there wasn't a definite consensus established given the arguments used. Again, RfCs aren't votes. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

And I never suggested it was. Nevertheless, such a decisive majority should never be dismissed like it was. If you are going to request everyone to participate in RFC before a clear majority position can be declared valid, every RFC whatsoever should be closed as no consensus. You're never going to achieve anything with such an attitude. Tvx1 19:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

If you are going to request everyone to participate in RFC before a clear majority position can be declared valid, every RFC whatsoever should be closed as no consensus. The most affected are unregistered users, so if it really were as severe and detrimental as you claim it to be, I would've expected much more participation from them or new accounts they've created. The closers noted that a fair amount of the responses in support were akin to WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, a weak argument in itself, and I personally think it would have been better to describe how the changes contravened existing policies or guidelines, like WP:ACCESSIBILITY. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Arguments boiling down to IDONTLIKEIT were equally represented on both sides. Unregistered users flooded other pages with negative comments, including here, here, and here (see archives). Æo (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

You never suggested that the RfC was a vote, but you point to a numerical decisive majority. EpicPupper (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I feel like Vector 2022 is more for a general audience (more for reading) than Vector Legacy, which is more for editing. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 19:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The RFC suggest's otherwise. All most all of the complaints regarding V2022 were about readability. It's really sad to see that so many still refuse to acknowledge that. Tvx1 19:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

And the fact that the closers dismissed all concerns on readability/usability as WP:IDONTLIKEIT seems to have the same energy as "Devs have told us we will not get any improvements unless we turn it on." —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 19:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse - the close provides an overview of arguments presented and correctly assigned greater weight to perspectives based on the available research, resulting in no clear consensus. The concerns about WMF-sponsored canvassing are mooted by the focus on arguments (there would be cause for concern if the scenario was a clear consensus in favor of the new design on the basis of a high vote count, but that is not the scenario here). While 355/225 is a majority, it's only 61% (less if you count neutrals), which would be consider an outright failure if this were an RfA, to give a comparison to one of the only other examples of a Wikipedia process that draws this much participation. The closure challenge is overly reliant on hyperbole to impart a sense of urgency and wrongdoing, but boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It also ignores that, like every other anti-WMF crusade, participation almost certainly overrepresented those with an axe to grind against the new design and underrepresented those who were either in support or indifferent. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The ten administrators comment aside (you would have had much more luck if you said "three" as panels of three administrators have certainly been used before for similarly contentious RFCs), I actually do agree that the closure didn't seem particularly accurate to me. Loki (talk) 19:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

• Another point is that the question was essentially:

1. 2022 as default?
2. 2010 as default?

And the close deciding which one was chosen. North8000 (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse Support review per concerns already raised by myself and others here and here.--Æo (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think you meant overturn. Endorse means you agree with the closure. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  Corrected. Æo (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

To specify, I don’t really have an opinion on Vector 2022 so I’m not gonna vote here. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 20:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse close (involved). With a final numeric count of 355 in support versus 226 opposed (61%-39%), a plurality of 129 votes, the closers ought to have had a good reason not to find consensus support. They explained in very fine detail what those reasons were; nearly 850 words' worth of rational analysis and explanation. Given their detailed explanation, in particular their discounting of personal opinion commentary which dominated both sides of the discussion, I don't see how one could read the discussion any other way than no consensus. The closers also mentioned their consideration of the many editors who have been working to identify specific problems and complaints about the new interface, and working with devs to correct them and improve the user experience, which seems like a better outcome for everyone than continuing to forumshop this dead horse. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Snow Close - This is not going to accomplish anything, and we need to stop beating a dead horse. Assuming we can't resist dragging this on interminably, Endorse Close as a reasonable reading of the discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't know, I think there's still a few tomats left to squeeze from this stone. How large of a panel should be assigned to close this review? I think a score of wikiproject coordinators should do just fine. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse close - I thought the closing rationale was an excellent summation of a messy discussion. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Changes to the functionaries team

At his request by email to the committee, the CheckUser permissions of ferret are removed. The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks ferret for his service as a functionary.

For the Arbitration Committee, Izno (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Changes to the functionaries team

Major issues with "Climbing" article

Hi there, sorry if this isn't the right place to post this, but the Climbing✓article is currently overwhelmed with irrelevant content , including multiple convoluted paragraphs about The Beatles'album "Rubber Soul" and some other text about glaciers and ice formation. There's also a "personalised message" of sorts preceding the article that IMHO qualifies this irrelevant content as little more than puerile vandalism. I attempted to remove the junk myself, but Wikipedia's ridiculously hypervigilant automated system seemed to think I was trying to erase the entire article, which I definitely wasn't trying to do.

Considering how commonplace the article subject is, it definitely needs to be fixed! 1.157.113.75 (talk) 05:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks like someone fixed it. Thank you! 1.157.113.75 (talk) 05:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted to the last good version. Thanks for your notice. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

User posting spam or some sem-literate and confused messages

Special:Contributions/चन्द्र_राव_काकडें. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I blocked them indefinitely and notified them which you should do, even in cases like this. Johnuniq (talk) 09:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Mass deletion

A sock of a blocked (and globally locked) user has been making hundreds of redirects; I don't want to leave them hanging around so they can sneak back with a new account/IP and convert them into articles under the radar, but deleting them by hand will take a while. I'm wondering if anyone can suggest a handy 'nuke all creations that have not been edited by anyone else' script? Girth Summit _(blether) 16:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js is quite what you want, as it's a mass roll back, not a mass delete. But perhaps Writ Keeper has one that will work? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Girth Summit, there is Special:Nuke that allows you mass delete pages created by a user, but you still have to check the history of each page (there is a handy link), because the extension does not allow you to only select pages that haven't been edited by anyone else. —  Salvio ^giuliano 16:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I can get you a list of redirects created by this user that haven't been edited by anyone else, if you can provide their user name. BilledMammal (talk) 16:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Assuming I have the correct user, the list of redirects created by them and only edited by them is:

If you need it in a different format please let me know. BilledMammal (talk) 16:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks BilledMammal - yes, that's the right account. I was actually OK just going from their contribs - if the creation has a bold 'N' next to it, that tells me it's a new creation, and if it has '(Current)' next to it then I know it that nobody else has edited it. I'll have a play with Special:Nuke now. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

There are nine that they edited multiple times but that no one else has edited:

2022_Ilam-2_(A)_election

2022_Ilam-2_(B)_election

2022_Jhapa–1_(A)_election

2022_Sunsari-2_(A)_election

2027_Sunsari-4_(A)_election

Govinda_Giri

List_of_governors_of_Gandaki_Province

Ram_Bahadur_Magar_(Nepalese_politician)

Ramdev_Yadav

BilledMammal (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: if Nuke doesn't work, copy BM's list to a user subpage then use Twinkle's "d-batch" function. It can delete every page linked from te subpage (so use a clean one!). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks - that d-batch function looks interesting. I've done most of them with Nuke, but might come back and have a play with that to see how it's done. Got to go out now though, will return to it later. Cheers all. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks all for the speedy suggestions. I think I've pretty much nuked everything they did with that account now. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Comma-crazy editor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

TobadoDobato (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is spraying commas seemingly at random across many many articles. Others have contacted them about it already but they have only accelerated. Seems like a clear case of WP:NOTHERE to me. Thank you,  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mistake

I have made a huge mistake archiving threads at the ANI noticeboard. Could someone please reverse it. A healthy dose of trout, too, please. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 01:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) That should do it! I've also left a U1 deletion tag for the archive since it was, at least, the most likely case. If it isn't might as well give me a dose as well. Otherwise, here's a whack! Update: Aw, I skipped past G7! If anyone wants to whack me, go ahead! Tails Wx 01:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Cheers for that Tails Wx. I'm sure there's plenty of fish to go around. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 02:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Killing of Tyre Nichols, copyvio?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi everyone. Currently, the vast majority of Killing of Tyre Nichols is blanked due to copyvio concerns raised by WikiWikiWayne. WWW has not explained which sources are supposedly copied from or closely paraphrased. They have acknowledged at the talk page that they're too tired and beset by some personal issues to narrowly tag just the copyvio material. As I understand it, the process at WP:Copyright problems takes many days, and no editors that aren't clerks or admins can edit the copyvio tags. One user, Combefere, has already been blocked for doing so (see WP:ANI#Combefere removed copyvio notice twice). I checked every source in four sections of the article and did not find any copyvio or CLOP. Would an admin mind taking a look, and removing the tags if appropriate? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers – Thank you for your good work! Did you check section blocks of text or did you check sentence by sentence? I did sentences, but let me tell you my workflow. The lead had bloat. I raked it for cruft and fluff and got it close to MOS:LEAD quality. Then I spied a weird sentence in the body that looked copied or closely paraphrased. Yup. Guilty. Then they kept coming so I tagged the body from the lead end to the top of See also. Then I look up and the lead has been partially reverted. One sentence looks like a vio. I follow the ref and the sentence is a fraternal twin of the ref's headline, so I just tag the sentence and report my tagging to the copyvio notice board. I included the source ref. Fourteen hours later, that one-sentence vio is still up and ugly. I am not safe to blank anything of any size at this juncture. Sigh. Life goes on and Bob's your Uncle. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 04:19, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I checked every sentence and source in the sections I mentioned: §Tyre Nichols, §Autopsy, §Grand jury indictments, and §Court hearings. The version I checked is this one. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I’ve unhidden the text given the check by FFF. Basically, WWW has stated that they have a family emergency. Therefore WWW cannot identify specifically where the problems are. In that case, we should not hold the article hostage unless someone, anyone, can point to which sections the copyvios are. starship.paint (exalt) 09:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Posting a comment of mine from Talk:Killing of Tyre Nichols as it's relevant to this discussion: Thanks to an editor an ANI, I was to able identify an edit in the revision history that added copyrighted material to the article. This edit introduced text from https://web.archive.org/web/20230207230916/https://wreg.com/news/local/tyre-nichols/city-8-more-officers-may-face-charges-in-tyre-nichols-case/. The text was removed in this edit. This may not be the only case of copyright infringing text being added but at least it's something to work with going forward. Philipnelson99 (talk) 11:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC) I identified these edits using the wikiblame tool. Philipnelson99 (talk) 11:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Wait, so the only infringing text was added by WWW to begin with? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

It's so hard to tease out exactly what WWW objected to. They referred once to the headline of this CBS piece, and there is article text that says the same thing as the headline. To me it's obviously a WP:LIMITED situation, but I do think WWW had a good-faith CLOP objection. That said, I thinking tagging/blanking the whole article for the two lines (one in lead, one in body) was sub-optimal. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

In isolation, effectively blanking a whole page, failing to identify a clear reason why, while simultaneously profusely responding to talk page and ANI comments, only for it to turn out that the only identifiable potentially-offending content was added by them in the first place, on a politically-charged AP article, is a pattern behavior that stretches one's ability to assume good faith. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Rosguill I'm not sure what WWW was talking about when they effectively blanked the page. And maybe they were indeed confused about how the template worked but they have repeatedly accused editors trying to understand the situation of bad faith. When another editor identify directly copy/pasted potentially infringing text, I was surprised to find the editor that added it was WWW. The copyright close paraphrasing may be an issue but WWW accused a single editor of adding copyrighted material when WWW had added a direct copy/paste over a month ago. WWW went to WP:DRN and called the other editor "rabid" and "militant". WWW may be going through personal issues but this conduct is not good for the encyclopedia.

WWW if you take issue with my comments here and accuse me of stalking and harassing you, I just want you to know that was never my intent.

Philipnelson99 (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, having read the discussion here, at Talk:Killing of Tyre Nichols, and at DRN, I'm going to go ahead and indefinitely block WikiWikiWayne for WP:GAME violations (i.e. the false copyvio alarm) and personal attacks (primarily against AgntOtrth at DRN and the talk page, but WWW has also been pushing at the limits of civility with others as well). AGF leads me to assume that all of this behavior can be explained away by off-Wikipedia stressors, but it has gone on long enough and disruptively enough that a block is needed until WWW's life calms down, at which point they will be able to make an adequate unblock request. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks SP! If any admins agree with that move, could they please consider unblocking Combefere, who came to the same conclusion about the lack of specific copyvio concerns? Pinging the blocking admin, Stifle, in case he'd like to weigh in. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and unblocked Combefere, as a block seems clearly unnecessary at this point. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Neutralhomer unblock request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Neutralhomer has requested an unblock. They previously requested an unblock almost a year ago here which was declined (strongly) by the community. I make no claims of endorsement; I am copying this over as a result of monitoring unblock requests. I will ping the prior closer, Sandstein, as well as the admins involved in indefinitely blocking this user. --Yamla (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I am requesting an unblock with the standard off. What I plan on doing if unblocked is coming back to work on a couple articles that I brought to GA/FA status. What I won't be doing is making waves or causing scenes. I would like it that my potential work speak for itself instead of other's "feelings" about me. This block is approximately a year and a half long at this point. I believe the potential "harm" to the community by me being unblocked has long since passed. If unblocked, I will be the most monitored editor in the history of the project if unblocked and I'm quite OK with that. Finally, as previously stated, I am open to working with an admin regarding any and all edits I make, 1RR restrictions, and the like. I'll leave this up to you all. If you require a response, give me a couple to respond as I won't be monitoring this appeal constantly. Full disclosure: Should a CU be requested prior to unblock, I have changed ISPs, so my IP will most likely register differently from where it previously was. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

• A few questions: Do you understand why you were blocked? Do you have anything to say about what the block was for and why it was issued? Do you feel the block was justified based on what you did? And lastly, what corrective actions are you taking to avoid being blocked for the same reason in the future? Answers to all of these questions are a minimum prerequisite to the consideration of an appeal. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 16:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
• Finally, you should also be aware that a site ban was considered in your last block appeal. You may wish to review very closely and reflect upon the actions that you took that led to a site ban being considered. I am dead certain other editors are likely going to bring that up as well, so you should be prepared to explain that. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 16:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

(Copying from user talk Valereee (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC))

Do you understand why you were blocked?

Yeah, I went off the rails in the "defense" of another user. I went too far and was blocked for it.

Do you have anything to say about what the block was for and why it was issued?

As I said above, I took my "defense" of another user, who I saw as being bullied, too far. That's on me.

Do you feel the block was justified based on what you did?

This will be a controversial take, but I don't believe an indef block was necessary. 6 months, sure. 1 year, understandable. But indef and even after 6 months, compounded by a complete disaster of a thread above (where all my forms of communication were blocked/ignored), I believe it ran into punitive instead of preventive. I can already hear the "but blocks are not punitive" arguement and while I acknowledge the rule, I think we have to also acknowledge that blocks are issued for reasons that are not necessarily fair or correct. Wikipedia and it's editors are not very forgiving nor willing to correct an incorrect action. That said, I live by a "restorative justice" frame of mind. That actions can be punished, but the person can repair that harm they caused. I believe that a year and a half is sufficient time to protect the project.

[W]hat corrective actions are you taking to avoid being blocked for the same reason in the future?

I will be staying away from AN and ANI. Not involving myself in any discussions that I am not a part of. Ignoring users who are looking to start a fight or what I might preceive as a fight. Basically, keeping to myself.

I am aware of the site ban discussion, but I don't believe it took place (I could be wrong). If one did, I was not made aware of it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

• There was no site ban. The block log was clarified to say there is no site ban.'-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I specifically said that a site ban was considered. I did not say there was a site ban in place. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. There doesn't seem to be much of a change from why I opposed the last unblock request per my post here. Neutralhomer, you're still going with "going too far in defence of another"? No, that's not why you were blocked. You were blocked because you made outrageous personal attacks on other editors. It's that simple. Do you accept that or not? DeCausa (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  Oppose. NH's answer to the above That is what I meant by "going to far". I was told not to rehash things from the past, but stick to the potential future. I'm trying to do that. I don't buy that. NH, if your answer to WaltClip's first and second questions were "I made gross personal attacks for which there was no justification" that isn't re-hashing anything. Instead you used weasel words that not-so-subtly tries to imply it wasn't wholly your fault. Similarly, your third answer doesn't explain why you won't behave so badly again - it's about avoiding those who put you in that position. If you return with that thinking it's just going to happen again. DeCausa (talk) 07:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I think this appeal falls well short of what is expected given the events that led to the block and the revocation of talk page access that ensued. "I would like it that my potential work speak for itself instead of other's "feelings" about me" insinuates that any oppose is based on "feelings" as opposed to evidence. Also, "I believe the potential "harm" to the community by me being unblocked has long since passed", with scare quotes around harm, makes it appear, to me, as mocking the block as unncessary. The replies to the questions posted by Valereee above set off so many alarm bells. My read of the appeal and responses is that Neutralhomer doesn't really think they did anything deserving of an indef block, that it was some sort of over-reaction by the community. Finally, their response that they will avoid any future blocks by "keeping to [himself]" just isn't viable on a project that's built on cooperation, collaboration and communication. It's a sad truth that some individuals just aren't capable of editing here effectively despite their best intentions. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  Those were actually questions from Waltcip, I just copied the answers over. Valereee (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I meant the replies that you posted. Sorry if that was unclear.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  No worries, just didn't want to take credit for someone else's work. :) Valereee (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

• Still inclined to oppose because Wikipedia and it's editors are not very forgiving nor willing to correct an incorrect action is still indicative to me that he thinks he's in the right, but could support a conditional one where he's blocked from Wikipedia space to enforce the keeping his nose clean element because otherwise I think we're back here all too soon. Star Mississippi 00:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

  For the record, no I'm not willing to mentor you and I do not wish to hear from you via email, which is why I deleted it unread. And your two sentences were: I think we have to also acknowledge that blocks are issued for reasons that are not necessarily fair or correct. Wikipedia and it's editors are not very forgiving nor willing to correct an incorrect action. I see no acceptance there and more of the same including comparing block logs. No thanks. I think we're better without their edits. Firmly in oppose now. Star Mississippi 02:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

  as I clearly need to spell it out per this. NeutralHomer, I am not interested in mentoring you. Because I say you would benefit from one, does not mean I'm volunteering to do so. You are not owed mentorship, but it's possible someone would volunteer. I am not and will not be volunteering as it would not be a good use of my time. You'll note I was willing to possibly support before you continued to litigate last year. That is not moving on. Star Mississippi 16:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock. I am among many administrators who have blocked this editor. Neutralhomer has been blocked over 20 times, going back over 15 years to 2007. This editor's offenses include gross personal attacks, edit warring, harassment, incivility, baiting an administrator, incivility, sockpuppetry, more sockpuppetry, gross incivility, saying that certain editors should be executed, edit warring, disruptive editing, wikihounding, misuse of Twinkle, false accusations of vandalism, severe off-Wiki harassment, edit warring, battlefield behavior, bludgeoning ANI, baseless accusations of racism, battleground mentality, a spurious but intimidating legal threat, and sending unwanted emails to several editors. This editor has been indefinitely blocked four times. A large majority of productive, long term editors have never been blocked. Their time and energy is an invaluable and limited resource, and this editor has been a massive time sink ever since the days that current high school students were infants in their cribs. I am all in favor of last chances, but believe that this editor has used up their last chance. I feel compassion for the person behind this username who is clearly intelligent, and hope that they can find a less stressful hobby that they will enjoy. But all the evidence indicates to me that they are chronically unable to edit Wikipedia without severe conflict with other editors. Cullen328 (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose with regret. I typically look for reasons to say yes to unblock requests, especially if the user has been gone for over a year and there is no evidenceof WP:BE. But I'm afraid I just can't go there with this one. Neutralhomer has one of the longest block logs I can remember seeing, and almost all for the same behavior. At some point you have to just admit that some people are temperamentally unable to work on a collaborative project. Looking at this objectively, if I supported an unblock here I think people would question my judgement. And they would be right. Frankly, I'd probably support a site ban if one were proposed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
• Carrying over a batch of replies

@Deepfriedokra: I didn't think there was, but I wasn't sure. For the record, I was replying to WaltClipper's question, not making insinuations. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@DeCausa: That is what I meant by "going to far". I was told not to rehash things from the past, but stick to the potential future. I'm trying to do that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ponyo: The "harm" (with quotes) was actually me quoting a user from the previous discussion. Nothing scary, just a quote. Keeping to myself is, quite literally, GNOMEish edits. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said I thought I was right. I, quite literally, admitted I was wrong (and have previously). I would like to note that I previously asked you if you were willing to do a mentorship. You "deleted" that request unread. So, I renew that request. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Could you show me where I said "that certain editors should be executed"? Also, would you mind adding my responses (it's supposed to be done by an admin). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, I found this on your talk page: You have been blocked for 1 month for suggesting on Talk:Equality Maine that another editor should be tortured and executed. (I've been trying to post this damned notice for the past five minutes...) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Cullen328 (talk) 02:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

In reponse to my comment, Neutralhomer posted the exact quotation on their talk page: You should be blocked, banned, tarred, feathered, and sent to the gallows for the way you have acted. Uninvolved editors can decide whether or not this quote is exculpatory. It was hyperbolic but also exceptionally intimidating to the editor on the receiving end of the death threat. I realize that this specific incident was a long time ago, but it is part of a longstanding pattern of misconduct that continued right up until the most recent indefinte block. Cullen328 (talk) 04:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

carried over from user talk -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Another Further (to Cullen), while you are correct, I have been blocked over 20 times (for the record, twice by you), I wouldn't say "[a] large majority of productive, long term editors have never been blocked." Calton was blocked a total of 18 times, twice indef, and still continued to edit up until 2021. He was everything you described (of me) and more and yet, he was allowed to edit. He started in 2006 (I in 2007) and we had the same number (give or take) of edits. I, in my opinion, have been the better editor with GAs and FAs. So, not all "time sinks" are indef-blocked. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Carried over.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Y'all might want to check for responses and perhaps cary them over. Going to bed, myself.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock and Support Site Ban I think we are at the point where a site ban might be best. It's becoming clear the community does not want to lift the block on NeutralHomer. Their block log is extensive to say the least, and as Cullen said above this goes back 15 years. It's not just a recent string of events that has done this. We've gone past any last chances at this point and it's time to end this once and for all. Wikipedia is the "encyclopedia anyone CAN edit" not the "encyclopedia anyone SHOULD edit". This is not a criticism of the person mind you, just that I don't think their mindset will work collaboratively with the community anymore. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I haven't previously encountered Neutralhomer but this block log is pretty appalling. I count 21 separate blocks including 4 indefinite blocks. The reasons cover most of the possible block rationales including incivility, harassment, edit warring, sockpuppetry, personal attacks and "Don't say that editors should be executed". Many of these blocks were undone with some conditions or a promise to change behaviour which obviously haven't worked. I can't think of anything we could possibly gain from unblocking this person which would justify it. Hut 8.5 13:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - I badly want to hear from someone who thinks Neutralhomer ought to be unblocked. I know we on Wikipedia have been a fan of saying "okay, this is your last chance, the really really last chance! No more after these, we mean it!" but I can understand why this is the case; we want to preserve those editors who are still able to contribute significantly to Wikipedia either with GA's or FA's, as well as understand that some editors do have personalities that predispose them towards language that may be considered uncivil. If anyone at all can see a reason to lift this block, I really want to hear it, because I'm at a loss. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

  I guess I'd prefer to see NH conditionally unblocked with some very strict limitations based on their past behavior and zero tolerance for any repetition of any of the long list of those behaviors, and maybe close monitoring by someone willing to do so. But I also think that NH could have had a much, much stronger case here if they'd gone to, say, simple wiki and contributed there for all these months productively and unproblematically. Valereee (talk) 13:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - at some point, we just have to say "not a good fit for the project". And per Cullen. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
• Reluctant Oppose I'm someone who believes that inclusion is important, even if I disagree with them. So it pains me to !vote this way. First, I think the phrase noted above "You should be blocked, banned, tarred, feathered, and sent to the gallows for the way you have acted." is clearly hyperbolic. If someone took that as a death threat, I think their skin needs to be toughened up a notch. For the record, I've been accused of murder on WP and had actual death threats IRL to the point that the FBI visited my home more than once and a police cruiser was outside my home 24/7 for 45 consecutive days...my point is that I'm not numb to the threat aspect, but that's pretty weak for an indef block. I concur that a punishment preventative action certainly was in order to discourage future discourse along these lines, but for that alone it's too much. But after further reading, it's clear that this is not an isolated incident, but one in a VERY long string examples of inappropriate conduct. I could certainly see a time in the future where we could change our minds, but I don't see that today. My suggestion: do something that demonstrates you can control yourself in online discourse in contentious matters and come back after a year with a clean record as an example. That will certainly assuage some concerns, though I'm not saying it will be a cake walk. Buffs (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Unblock - I haven't been involved in any of the previous disputes with Neutralhomer, but have observed some of the past drama, and have looked at their block log, which requires scrolling to view on a full-sized free-standing screen. (Maybe I should view it with a 60% view.) I am deeply wary of unblocking an editor who has been blocked for both incivility and sockpuppetry. If we give this editor what we say is one last chance, why will "one last chance" be taken seriously either by this editor or by any other difficult editor? Didn't we already give Neutralhomer at least one previous last chance? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - I will support a Site Ban if one is on the table, but I am not sure if one is on the table. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think the site ban issue as moot as user is de facto site banned in that no one would unblock unilaterally. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• Noting Neutralhomer has withdrawn their unblock request.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• I blocked Glory Be To Jog a few moments ago. A CU who is watching this thread might wish to run a check...or not.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  Looks like a LTA making our lives interesting. But who? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  So many to choose from.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  I am the opposite of a skilled sockpuppet detective, but I suspect that this vicious sock attacking me is some random sad sack on the internet trying out a JoeJob instead of the editor we have been discussing. At least I hope so. Cullen328 (talk) 04:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  I just got hit again by presumably the same disturbed person socking in an unfriendly fashion. Please watch my talk page. Thanks. Cullen328 (talk) 05:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tool

Is there a tool that allows the user to view another editor's edit on a talk page before they post it, for example when the other editor previews it? And is this tool supposed to be only available to administrators? If so, is it a violation for an ordinary user account to use the tool? Bob K31416 (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

. . . How . . . would that even work? Maybe I'm not understanding the question, but it seems impossible to see the future in that way. Perhaps you mean see the text while they are typing it? Like some messaging apps? I don't think Wikipedia has such functionality. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

When an editor presses the "Show preview" button, I thought they were sending their work to Wikipedia, which then responds by sending the preview to the user's screen. Is that how it works? Bob K31416 (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

No, the Preview page only is shown to the editor working on the edit, and not sent for publishing. It's not going to be available to anyone but the editor. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

How does the preview display get on the users screen? Is all the processing done somehow on the user's computer? Bob K31416 (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

When you preview a page for editing, the page reloads with the edit shows as how it will look when published. There is not a way for anyone else to see this at all, the edit doesn't exist until the Publish button is pressed. In other words it's local to the browser you are using to make the edit. You could access Wikipedia on a 2nd device in your home, go to that exact same page and not see the edit you're working on, until it's published. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I had an after thought. Re "In other words it's local to the browser you are using to make the edit." — I tried to test that by going to the sandbox. I composed an edit. Then went offline. Then pressed "show preview". Instead of previewing, I got a message that I was offline. Not clear why I would have to be online to preview the edit if it was local to the browser. Bob K31416 (talk) 12:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

It's local to the browser by saying if you are logged into Wikipedia on that specific browser you can see it. You can't on any other browser. But again, no one else is able to see that edit until you publish it. And if you close the browser or logout, that edit is gone. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore "[I]f you close the browser or logout, that edit is gone." I'm not sure that is the case any more, at least if you are using the new reply tool. Most edits (e.g. to articles and non-talk pages and ones where I pushed "edit" to use the normal source editor) seem to behave as you have said, but I've noticed that with the new reply tool if I don't push cancel, and leave the page or close the browser and come back to that page, the reply tool reloads with my abandoned comment. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Same. It's actually kind of useful. I can write my reactionary screed, close the page without publishing, walk away and sleep on it, and when I return 15 days later get an excellent relearning of an important lesson. Valereee (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Fenetrejones

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Fenetrejones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has made 4,077 edits, and does not appear to understand categorization.

• With this edit on October 7, 2020, they added an unsourced category, which was reverted here by User:Elizium23 with the edit summary "WP:CATV unsourced". A warning was left on Fenetrejones' talk page here.
• November 30, 2020 - warning about categorization by User:Binksternet.
• January 5, 2021 - Comment by User:Beyond My Ken: "Please note that there is a requirement that any category added to an article must have evidence supporting that category in the article. It is not sufficient to cite outside sources, you must have confirmation in the article. You've been adding cats without support. Please stop."
• On February 10, 2021, there was a dialogue with User:Binksternet about adding unsourced categories at User talk:Fenetrejones#Categories must be definitive.
• On July 3, 2022, another lengthy discussion by User:Praxidicae and User:25stargeneral about unsourced category additions at User talk:Fenetrejones#Categories.

I could fill this page with diffs of warnings and explanations I have left recently for this editor about categorization--both about adding unsourced categories, and about overcategorizing articles--but this editor does not appear to "get it"...and being Catholic from Kentucky must also mean you are Catholic from the United States. I hate seeing BLPs get messed up. The assistance of others would be appreciated. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I tried several times to explain categorization to Fenetrejones after they kept messing with the biographies of Nazi leaders Hans Fritzsche and Wilhelm Keitel, classifying them as religious based on a description of them talking to a chaplain right before they were executed. See the discussion at User talk:Fenetrejones#Categories must be definitive. Fenetrejones is guided by their own rules, frequently violating WP:No original research. I don't see any good way forward from here, with stubbornness combined with WP:CIR problems. Binksternet (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I stopped original research a while back. Fenetrejones (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Some of these edits are old and I have learned from those like the Mugabe one. Fenetrejones (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

can you at least provides diffs that aren't almost a year old? Slywriter (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• Today - The category "Catholic from Rhode Island" was already on the article, so they added the category "American Roman Catholics" too.
• March 7, 2023 - This person is a Baptist and is in a Baptist category, so they added a category for being a Protestant too. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  Cause that category includes many notable people Fenetrejones (talk) 01:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Fenetrejones:Probably the "Baptist" category populates the "Protestant" category, so adding it is redundant. Ditto with Catholic from Rhode Island. Populates American Roman Catholics. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  okay thank you Fenetrejones (talk) 03:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

You keep saying "ok thank you", but nothing changes. With this edit On March 7, 2022, I specifically told you:

Please read WP:CATSPECIFIC: "Each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs." This means if you add the category "food from Chicago", you would not add the category "food from Illinois" , because that would not be the most specific category. The policy also says, "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories.

But then you kept doing it. Just yesterday, you must have done it 50 times: [109][110][111].

The same is true for adding unsourced categories. On March 7, 2023, at Ralph Abraham (politician), you added the category "Protestants from Louisiana", even though there was nothing in the article about his religious affiliation. On your talk page I asked you why you added this unsourced category, and you responded: "there was a category that said 'Baptists from Louisiana' already there".

And that's why I'm here, because editors keep telling you stuff, but you're not listening. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• Topic-ban from categorization. This user clearly doesn't understand how the categorization system works, and is not learning despite a lot of input.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Support topic ban from categories. I don't think improvement will happen. Binksternet (talk) 23:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from categories.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - @Deepfriedokra, Binksternet, and SMcCandlish: There doesn't seem to have been an improvement. Please see this edit today where the category "Catholic politicians from Massachusetts" was added. However, the parent category "Catholics from Massachusetts" was already in the article. There are many more examples, and another warning about categories on their talk page. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

  I've unarchived, hopefully to right board. Never was closed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic-ban from categories. The use of categories is a feature of Wikipedia that editors do not need to use, and that is technically subtle, so that the rule that competence is required can be applied strictly. An editor who doesn't understand categories but uses them incorrectly should be prevented from using them, and can edit articles instead. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support TBan from categories. Robert McClenon puts it perfectly - editors do not need to use categories to add/improve content, a ban from them is no kind of impediment to editing productively. They should only be edited by people who understand them, or by people who are eager to understand them and can demonstrate a clear learning curve. This editor keeps on making the same mistakes, and seems to be unwilling or unable to take on board the advice they've been given. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:18, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support category TBan, mainly per Robert McClenon. There are significant BLP concerns with categories; if you have a demonstrated and continued history of inappropriate categorizing, as is the case here, you should be prevented from introducing the errors.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

  support topic ban but can it be temporary? Fenetrejones (talk) 01:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support category TBan also per Robert McClenon. And the comemnt immediately above this, re: "support topic ban but can it be temporary?" by Fenetrejones. It just seems to reinforce the WP:CIR rationale. Heiro 01:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban from categories. Indefinite does not mean forever, but this editor needs to make an articulate and convincing unblock request in at least six months or more, showing that they fully understand categorization and what has been problematic in their editing to date. Cullen328 (talk) 05:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support TBAN from categories and categorization. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rollback Talk:GamCare

Hi. Could someone with rollback rights please rollback this talk page to the last edit before user Ajmain000 vandalised it? TIA Gbawden (talk) 10:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

•  Done It was just the three most-recent edits, no special tools needed to undo that. DMacks (talk) 10:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried to undo the first edit and I got a message that it couldn't be done due to intervening edits. Thanks for your help Gbawden (talk) 10:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@Gbawden Did you try to Undo the edits, or use Twinkle? The rollback-like function on Twinkle does basically the same thing as rollback, and I suggest that you try it out when you need to revert multiple edits in the future. The Night Watch (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

There's also manual reverting if you don't want to install Twinkle. AP 499D25 (talk) 01:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

If you're going to revert edits one-by-one, you need to start from the most recent, not the oldest. (But also there are much better ways to do this, e.g., by using the history to open the last good version.) --JBL (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Anti Vandalism (patroller) tool for Wikipedia Android App

Hello all,

The Android team has heard many requests from the community to have ways to ensure that the edits made in the apps are of good quality. With the team's recent release of a native watchlist, contribution history, and edit history, as well as the addition of the undo and rollback button on the diff screen, there is an opportunity to create a moderating solution in the app. We would like to do this in partnership with the community.

We would like to invite you to test the first iteration of the patrolling tool designs. Your input at this stage will allow us to improve the tool before development as well as gather important feedback for the second iteration of the tool.

If you are interested in joining, please reply to this post or send me a message.

Thanks. ARamadan-WMF (talk) 05:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@ARamadan-WMF: I’d be interested in participating! EpicPupper (talk) 06:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @EpicPupper, I will email you right now. ARamadan-WMF (talk) 06:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, ARamadan-WMF I am a productive editor and administrator who has been editing on Android smartphones for well over ten years. My recommendation is the same as it has been for the last ten plus years. Shut down the Android app and all alternative sites because the misnamed "desktop" site works just fine and is fully functional on Android devices. My long and prolific edit history proves that what I say is true. For many years, you guys have been promising that maybe sometime soon, the Android app would be fully functional. All along, the fully functional option has been available to you for free, the misnamed "desktop site". Rename it the "universal site" and all your Android app problems will be solved instantly, for free. You can read my essay User:Cullen328/Smartphone editing which I wrote eight years ago, but you and all other WMF staffers will always ignore it, because it reveals what a massive waste of time and money all this app and mobile site nonsense really is. Here's the bottom line: The misnamed "desktop" site works vastly better on Android devices than any of the software solutions that have been developed by the San Francisco supervised code monkeys since George W. Bush was president. I say that as an editor who has loved San Francisco and coders for half a century. Cullen328 (talk) 08:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Well said. An Android App vandalism fighting tool is attacking the symptom, not the root of the problem. casualdejekyll 14:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Honestly I'm attempting to assume good faith here and try and think of a reason why an android app might be better than simply using the mobile version of the website in the built in browser. Really the only thing I can think of (with my limited knowledge of how web browsers and stuff function on smart phones) is that some older smartphones and/or mobile web browsers may not perform nearly as well as a desktop/laptop/computer/whatever you want to call a non-mobile device for editing. Other than that I can't really think of anything. Maybe the time and effort on the Android app would be better spent developing a version of Wikipedia for the Nintendo Switch so people don't have to use the unofficial web browser. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, nowadays people generally expect everything on mobile to be "an app". ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 18:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Sure. I need a way to revert vandalism on the go. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 01:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Close Challenge: AMPOL2 TBAN of Korny O'Near by ScottishFinnishRadish

Re Proposal: WP:GENSEX topic ban for Korny O'Near, broadly construed. My challenge is not about GENSEX, but about ScottishFinnishRadish's closing comments and imposition of an AMPOL2 ban on top of a GENSEX ban.

1. The topic heading did not hint about an AMPOL2 ban.

2. The closer comment says "clear consensus", ScottishFinnishRadish later admitted there was no clear consensus for AMPOL2 and suggested rough consensus instead, but "clear consensus" is still there.

3. The closer comment only mentions "consensus" but the WP:CBAN requirement is "consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute". I asked ScottishFinnishRadish which if any critics were excluded due to this, and got a non-answer.

4. Even if the unstated decision was that all the critics were uninvolved, and even if the critic who merely said "Though I think a topic-ban from American Politics would help as well" is included, and even if the critic who was an IP was included, that's only 13 or 14 out of over 30 participants. Not much greater than the number (9) who opposed any tban at all. (I'm mentioning counting because ScottishFinnishRadish mentioned "ratio" in the closer comment and mentioned "majority" later).

5. CBAN also requires to "assess the strength and quality of the arguments made", and that should mean not including the critic who said Korny O'Near made an edit in "support of Nazis", and should mean including diffs. So I asked "what diffs in the ban proposal are AMPOL2 and not GENSEX?" and later "what diffs, supplied by the AMPOL2 accusers, in the ban proposal, are AMPOL2 and not GENSEX?" adding "The diffs in the lists you mention (from 17:59, 8 March 2023 and 23:30, 8 March 2023) would all fit in GENSEX broadly construed, except these two talk-page comments re Jordan Peterson 7 July 2022 and 7 October 2022." ScottishFinnishRadish seems to believe that something which was GENSEX-plus-AMPOL2 justifies an AMPOL2 ban, I believe the ban on GENSEX covers such a thing so adds nothing to justification of an AMPOL2 ban, and so the only relevant diffs were those two comments on the Jordan Peterson talk page.

6. Three minutes after Korny O'Near wrote that 7 July 2022 talk page post (to support keeping a quote), ScottishFinnishRadish wrote in the same talk page thread indicating no objection to keeping the same quote (it's still there). Yet eight months later it's okay as tban support.

7. The critics in the discussion emphasized WP:CPUSH, ScottishFinnishRadish mentioned civil POV pushing in the closer comment and a later comment -- but CPUSH is just an essay. Emphasizing an essay violation should not in my opinion be regarded as strength of argument; I would have asked ScottishFinnishRadish's opinion but could not because ScottishFinnishRadish decided to stop replying (see the Korny O'Near talk page) after it had gone on for a few days.

8. Initially ScottishFinnishRadish made a remark, later retracted, which could have discouraged discussion of the tban by others while it was shown.

9. About 12 editors participating in the proposal discussion, including ScottishFinnishRadish, mentioned disruption. But only 3 of them were supporting an AMPOL2 tban.

10. In the proposal discussion, only one comment mentions "indeffing" near the same place as AMPOL2. Yet ScottishFinnishRadish imposed an indefinite ban.

11. ScottishFinnishRadish more than once hinted or suggested that the proposal could or should have gone to WP:AE. An obvious question is: so then why not close the proposal and say move to WP:AE? Korny O'Near had received a DS/Alert. If the proposal had gone there, the requirements for clarity, and non-old diffs, and explanations of how a remedy or sanction is violated, and no IPs, and examination by a special board, would have made matters much tougher for the accusers.

... So I (to quote WP:CLOSECHALLENGE requirement #1) "believe the closure was not a reasonable summation of the discussion". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

UPDATE: two editors made changes to my post and I restored the original citing WP:TALKO. Also I fixed a bad link in my post, apologies to ScottishFinnishRadish about that. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I WP:BOLDly changed the format (not content) of your post to make it more-readable by converting numbers to MOS:NUMLIST format, so that it was less of a WP:WALLOFTEXT. But if you want your post to be in this wall-of-text format, be my guest. I also changed the section heading to be more logical and useful, which is explicitly allowed in the WP:TPG. Edit: It appears an anon has again BOLDly split up your walloftext. I would support that edit, but it is, as you've said, ultimately up to you how your post is formatted.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I find it telling that at not point do you contend that the block isn't necessary to prevent further disruption. From my perspective you look like a lawyer trying to get a guilty client off on a technicality. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll contend the tban isn't necessary if contending is necessary. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

1. Topic heading doesn't determine consensus. Not sure why this matters.
2. Yeah, I didn't bother updating the close because it was already archived and there is no functional difference. A topic ban isn't less topic banny because the consensus had a different adjective.
3. The underlying edit dispute was Wes sideman and their interaction with Korny. Unless I should investigate the full edit history of everyone who responded to determine their level of involvedness with GENSEX and AP topics, and run an interaction analysis on each editor and Korny there's no way to disregard huge swaths of responses as would be necessary to change the consensus.
4. I don't recall the exact count, and I don't have my notes from the close, but assuming 13 or 14, that was significantly more support for an AP tban than no sanction, and importantly, it was also more than the support for a GENSEX topic ban alone.
5. Similar arguments were made during the discussion, and they did not seem to strongly sway the views of those responding, unlike many of the support statements, which were cited in multiple other supports.
6. I didn't have a problem with a single edit 9 months ago considered in isolation? Also, the diff doesn't work, so I'm not exactly sure what I didn't have a problem with.
7. I didn't want to see Korny respond and then have to block them for a topic ban violation on their own talk page. Responding to As I'm sure you've realized, WP has a leftist/establishment bias which permeates controversial articles here. You seem to be "fighting the good fight" by trying to "restore balance" and fairly represent the other side. wouldn't have been exempted from the topic ban, and I was hoping to stop a discussion Korny couldn't take part in from expanding more than it already had. When Korny objected I reverted my close.
8. The other responses mentioning behavior that they thought was disruptive but didn't characterize by invoking the word "disruption" can't be considered when assessing if there is consensus that the behavior was disruptive?
9. Most responses didn't mention a time, and by default topic bans are indefinite.
10. Because "I'm stopping community discussion and consensus building to move this discussion" isn't covered in what an admin can do when dealing with WP:CTOP. If only someone thought of opening a community wide discussion on how to handle this.
11. I know Peter didn't have a number 11, but I'm adding one. Can we try and object to closes within a week or so? 10+ days is a long time to remember my train of thought and internal weighting when assessing a long discussion.

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

1. It matters because headings saying gensex turn away people (e.g. me) who don't care about gensex but would have cared about ampol2, and it matters because the natural meaning of "support" alone is "support the proposal" rather than "support all off-topic additions". 2. It matters becaues the closer statement is supposed to reflect actual consensus and this is one of the ways it doesn't. 3. So now we discover that the underlying dispute wasn't gensex or libsoftiktok or ampol2 it was solely a clash with another editor. 4. No disputing, it's one of the points where I can't understand why you think it matters. 5. If by "similar arguments" you mean several people asked for evidence and diffs,true, so for specifically ampol2 there should have been more than two. 6. Sorry about the link, it's fixed now. It wasn't "in isolation" it was specifically about one of the two ampol2 diffs. 7. This is a reasonable explanation and I withdraw this point. 8. I fail to see how you know what "they thought was disruptive" if they didn't say so. 9. Some which did mention a time mentioned less than indefinite, you can call it default but it's still the case it wasn't a summary of the discussion. 10. CTOP says consider whether a "regular administrative action would be sufficient to reduce disruption to the project". 11. I have to allow for possible discussion, including waiting for answers, before challenging. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Endorse SFR's close (involved as I participated in the discussion, though I opposed an AMPOL2 TBAN) - This close challenge has very little (if any) merit:

1. in reviewing a close, it is only our job to determine whether the closer was equipped to perform it, and that their assessment was fair and within the realm of acceptability. Not whether or not we agree to the close in every single aspect. I did not vote for an AMPOL2 TBAN in the discussion as I thought Korny O'Near's contributions to that area had some merits and did not see enough evidence for me to support it. But I think an AMPOL2 was well within the realm of possibility given the arguments proposed and preponderance of those arguments among participating community members.
2. Peter Gulutzan's points 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 are pure gobbldygook and have no merits in this discussion.
   1. Their pt 1 is irrelevant, as CBAN discussion closes are about the entire discussion, not about the header. There is no basis in policy or guideline which requires the final close to be reflected in the initial section header.
   2. Their pt 2 is clear and obvious WP:WIKILAWYERING, as SFR refers to clear consensus in the overall close, which could reflect the GENSEX TBAN even if the consensus for the AMPOL2 ban was present but less "clear". It truly does not matter and this point is a waste of all of our time.
   3. Their pt 3 is an absurd burden on any closer, that they should individually participant-by-participant evaluate the "involved" nature of each commenter? That would result in no discussions ever being closed. It falls on the participants themselves to identify their involvement (and the involvement of others), and several participants did this. SFR is not "required" to describe the involvement of each participant in their close. To do so would be an undue burden on any administrator, and to invoke it here is, again, patent WIKILAWYERING.
   4. Their pt 6 appears to be a paltry attempt to claim SFR is somehow "involved". If OP cannot describe in easy terms how SFR's off-hand participation in that thread nearly 12 months ago in an entirely unrelated topic renders them "involved", then this is also patent WIKILAWYERING.
   5. Their pt 7 is an attempt to say that essays such as CPUSH should not be used in discussing closes. This is absurd, as CPUSH is an obvious argument in favor of tendentious editing. Citing an essay is an extremely common practice in these discussions, as long as that essay contributes to a violation of policy or guideline. If such were not allowed, then doubtless there would be legions of disruptive editors all over this site, and no one would ever get banned by the community.
   6. Their pt 8 describes a comment that was up for 60 minutes that stated absolutely no opinion on the matter. It simply advised others (and most notably KO) that responding to the discussion could be a problem since TBANs are broadly construed. As such, the discussion has risk of "taunting" KO. This has absolutely no bearing on the close, was an entirely advisable statement, and would make no difference to this discussion or close if it had been left up. It simply stated facts.
   7. Their pt 9 is patent wiki-lawyering, as numerous other participants described obvious disruptive behavior even if they did not use those exact words.
   8. Their pt 10 is also irrelevant, as it doesn't matter what participants say about duration. Duration is the discretion of the blocking admin, in order to prevent future disruption.
   9. Their pt 11: ScottishFinnishRadish more than once hinted or suggested that the proposal could or should have gone to WP:AE. An obvious question is: so then why not close the proposal and say move to WP:AE? Because that would be a major waste of time and effort (and a violation of WP:FORUMSHOP) to have all participants reproduce their arguments elsewhere. Our job is to write a wikipedia, not to administer a due-process court system.
3. Their pt 4 is counting WP:NOTAVOTEs, which is not how closing discussions works, and not how evaluating consensus works.
4. Their pt 5 is just arguing that they disagree with other participants, and I disagree with it en face. It's also an example of OP attempting to re-litigate the dispute, rather than the close itself. The disruption on Jordan Peterson was not related to gender-related disputes, even if Jordan Peterson broadly has had such disputes on that talk.

All in all, this is an obviously meritless close challenge based on OP's attempts to throw everything at the wall and see what sticks. That is not a great way to argue anything on this site, as it dilutes the strength of any arguments which had even a small ounce of merit. This discussion should be speedily closed itself as pure wiki-lawyering from a cheerleader of the blocked user's opinions. Frankly, this gets quite close to being a WP:BOOMERANG for OP, but I think a WP:TROUT would be enough in this instance. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• Involved, but my involvement was to express non-support due to lack of provided evidence. Some evidence was later provided, but I hadn't made up my mind by the time it was closed. Suffice to say I think the case was borderline. Regardless, the close looks within the range of reasonable closes which could emerge from that thread, and that's what matters. There was clearly support for some kind of sanction, and most of the people who supported a topic ban explicitly mentioned AMPOL. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• My eyes! Sorry, I don't think I can make it through that first post, but I'll repeat what I said at KON's talk: What I'm seeing on a brief run-through at that discussion is that pretty much everyone who specified added AmPol to the mix. Some folks simply !voted support, but if they mentioned GENSEX they were highly likely to also mention AmPol. I think this close was justifiable. Valereee (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
• Korny has said a few times now that they're done with Wikipedia (1, 2, 3). It would be reasonable to close this on WP:NOTBURO grounds, as the outcome of this discussion will not have an effect either way. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
• Involved in the general area, involved in the ban discussion. I was honestly not suprised by the result, not because I found the evidence compelling (I voted in opposition) but because of the Tranarchist and Newimpartial topic ban discussions that had closed five days before this one was closed. And if you take a look at those discussions you'll find that a lot of the people who opposed the topic bans for those two were well in favor for the topic ban for Korny. Further the differences in alleged misbehavior and evidence is starkly different. In those two you had allegations of BLP violations (with diffs) and bludgenoning (with diffs) whereas for Korny had allegations of CPUSH (with diffs). Simply put the Korny topic ban was a WP: SANCTIONGAME where editors were more willing to let go of misbehavior by likeminded individuals and were more willing to sanction someone harshly if they were opposite the ideological aisle. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Are you talking about the Tranarchist discussion that ended with a t-ban on GENSEX (by a closer who identifies as queer) and the one about Newimpartial that also closed with a t-ban from GENSEX? Valereee (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Those are the discussions yes, though they both got larger outside input than the Korny discussion did. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, @Kyohyi, I'm not following your point. You said they both got larger outside input than the Korny discussion did. Can you clarify what you mean w/re the close review? Valereee (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  The Tranarchist, and NewImpartial discussions had larger community participation than the Korny discussion did. This demonstrates that those discussions had a more proper consensus than the Korny discussion did. There were a non-trivial number of editors who supported sanctions against Korny who opposed sanctions against Tranarchist and NewImpartial. Considering the allegations, evidence presented, and political leanings of the sanctioned editors, the Korny discussion had a number of editors who were willing to overlook BLP and Bludgeoning issues (the Tranarchist and NewImpartial discussion) while asserting Korny was disruptively pushing a POV. This, to me, looks like WP: SANCTIONGAME, and since there was less participation than the other two discussions, we have a greater risk of a false consensus based off of it. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  If I hadn't been involved I would have closed both of those threads far earlier than they got closed, with less community participation and the same end result. Sometimes we don't need to leave a discussion open for two weeks of the subject getting kicked in the teeth and hanging in the wind to continue having the same consensus that was apparent a few days in. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  That doesn't address the argument being made. The argument is that some editors opposed sanctions when the arguments and evidence was BLP violations and bludgeoning when the people under scrutiny were of one ideological bent. In turn those editors supported sanctions when the arguments and evidence was CPUSH when the person under scrutiny was of an opposing ideological bent. This, I'm saying is sanction gaming. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  We could look at it that way. Or, we could just say that these are three complicated cases with different kinds of evidence about nuanced issues that require independent consideration on their own merits, and then proceed to focus on the actual case at hand rather than assume bad faith. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  BLP issues are subject to their own discretionary sanctions. We are supposed to hold BLP's to high standards, but having been involved in the Gensex and Political arenas, it's largely a crapshoot whether or not that becomes the case. Certain BLP's find themselves at BLPN a lot more often than others. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  That's possibly the most nonsensical take on a discussion that I've ever seen here. And I've been here 17 years. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Your opinion is noted. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Perhaps we should ask these editors why they opposed bans on Tranarchist and NewImpartial but supported on Korny, instead of assuming bad faith. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  You say this as if they didn't provide their rationale's in the votes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyohyi (talk • contribs) 13:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse per Valereee. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse close (note I supported a GENSEX ban but was neutral on an AMPOL ban). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse close per Valereee. I have been involved in this area (outside of this wiki) to know that GENSEX-related topics in here especially intertwine with AMPOL for most part. MarioJump83 (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse - while I view 10 days as by no means particularly unreasonable, most of the remainder of @ScottishFinnishRadish:'s rebuttal works fine. I too prefer to see each significant sanction be prominently noted in bold, but it's a) not required, b) reasonable to assume that you would read the discussion and it's clearly noted at the start of almost every participant what they're !voting on. It's not clear consensus - it's rough consensus, certainly. In fact, on AMPOL when I was counting the policy backed !votes, it actually went back down to a "net zero" around the middle, before a significant shift (to c. +6, if anyone cares). SFR could have gone for a timelimited TBAN on AMPOL (as opposed to GENSEX, which was clearcut on indef nature), but an indef tban would appear to be the more commonly requested one, and so the obvious choice. I do want to partially dispute one position above - that of INVOLVED participants. If Gulutzan was able to demonstrate that various users were involved, then that would be fair grounds to ask for a reconsideration by SFR. Likewise, a sanity check by the blocker on the issue is worthwhile, but they are not obligated to do a detailed from-scratch verification on the discussion participants. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Re involved: ScottishFinnishRadish now says the underlying dispute was about interaction with a single editor rather than GENSEX or AMPOL2, so the unstated answer to my question (how many critics excluded due to involvement) = "one", by definition. I can't contest ScottishFinnishRadish's defining of involvement, just as I didn't contest ScottishFinnish's defining that got us eventually to an answer to my question (how many ampol2-and-not-gensex diffs) = "two". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Wiki pages should not be contradictory

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Dear community,

I am writing to seek your help with a concern I have regarding some information on a Wikipedia page. Specifically, I am confused about the principles for identifying perpetual motion machines and how they apply to certain energy conversion devices that are not isolated systems.

I have noticed that the information on the page appears to contradict other sources, and I am unsure how to proceed. Additionally, I have concerns about the inclusion of information regarding patent applications that may be harming the scientific credibility and authority of the US Patent Office and the interests of patent holders.

I am wondering if anyone in the community can help me understand these issues better and provide guidance on how to address them on the Wikipedia page. I believe that accurate and reliable information is critical for the integrity of the site and the benefit of its users, and I appreciate any assistance you can provide.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

CAIVY

CAIVY (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Santiago Claudio

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm not sure if this the right place to post this information, but here's my message. Santiago Claudio (talk · contribs) is slipping back to his old habit again editing this article, even though, it will be checked, verified & removed eventually? The information is moved on the article's Talk section & this is the response I received from the user:

Sorry, I don't go out of my house most of the day for many years now, and I've never went to that library for that reason. Santiago Claudio (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

This isn't a response. It's more likely that the user wants to avoid or dodge my message. The user does it in that article, previously. That user has done it in other articles in the past before the infinite block of 49 days. That page is based on original research, but majority of my post are still there & some of them are deleted for a reason. The user still continues & I never bring back deleted post that's been checked, verified & removed previously. My post is verifiable. While, the user's information is already covered in the section. The user does this deliberately on-purpose, especially on inactive articles that haven't been updated for a while or long time. Why? Just because an article hasn't been updated for a while doesn't mean it's inactive. Perhaps, users are trying to find & research useful information that's pertinent to the subject. It takes a very long time to check/verify information & sources. I only edit certain materials, such as, punctuation, spelling & sometimes updating outdated internet pages that are no longer available. The user just edits everything in sight, is very impatient & wants to move forward quickly. I only have 944 total edits to my name compared to 33,359 total edits to your name. Wikipedia seems like a game or competition to that user, that is, "How many articles can be revised & edited in 24 hours?". The user brings previous information that's added & deleted to be very entertaining. The reason that I'm not active is because reading & writing messages can be long & intimidating. Also, if an issue arises regarding my post, I will likely be inundated with posts on both article & personal page of the Talk section. I have a limited time replying to messages. The user must be here for attention, credibility, notoriety, popularity, recognition & reputation. I'm here to bring information that wasn't brought to this site's attention before. That user should leave articles alone, especially relating to languages in Wikipedia. I want a proper follow-up response, in hopes that the user will never do it again & a resolution to this matter. The errors that user makes are frustrating, irritating & displeasing. NKM1974 (talk) 07:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@NKM1974, it sounds like you're frustrated, and I'm sorry for that, but I'm not sure you're in the right place. This board is to inform about/discuss things that aren't chronic or acute behavior problems but that administrators might want to be aware of.

I'm thinking maybe go to WP:Teahouse and post a much shorter and clearer description of the issue, with 3 or 4 WP:diffs illustrating what kinds of edits the other editor is making that you feel are problematic, and ask for advice on how to handle. The folks there can tell you if there's a noticeboard you should be at. Valereee (talk) 16:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Valereee, I will go to the WP:Teahouse & gather all the evidence of that user before & after the ban. NKM1974 (talk) 03:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@NKM1974, don't gather too much evidence! No one wants to look at 40 diffs or even ten. Find the 3 or 4 that best illustrate the problem, and if you have others, you can mention that you can provide them. But if you provide ten and the first three someone randomly looks at aren't compelling, most people won't bother looking at the rest. Valereee (talk) 11:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@Valereee, Right now, I have a weak case. If there's another user(s) with a similar case, I might have a strong chance resolving the issue. NKM1974 (talk) 07:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@NKM1974, this really does seem to want to be at WP:Teahouse, so I'm going to close this. Valereee (talk) 11:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.