Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive351

Request for review of Discospinster as 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.

---

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.

---

• ChatGPT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Discospinster has undone the removal of unreliably sourced opinionated content and requested consensus for the removal. I believe he is purposefully leaving up misinformation due to his bias, when it should be removed until AFTER consensus is reached to have it up. ClearConcise (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

6 reverts in 10 minutes. How did you think that was going to work out for you? ValarianB (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

That was clear as day edit warring, as you went leaps and bounds over WP:3RR. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@ClearConcise: You failed to notify Discospinster of this thread, which is required.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, wasn't aware it was required, hopefully this is how you notify @Discospinster. @ValarianB... it's also 6 reverts from Discospinster, so how should it work out for that? Of course it's an edit war, and I'm perfectly okay with discussing it in talk and coming to consensus, but it should be removed until AFTER consensus is reached. The misinformation shouldn't be left up while it is being disputed. ClearConcise (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@ClearConcise: A ping is insufficient notification, please see the top of this page. 331dot (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I've done it for them.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@Bbb23 Thank you, cause I'm not following how to do a notification from the message in red at the top of this page regarding notifications. ClearConcise (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

For future reference all you really need to do is post a comment on their user talk page; the template does that in a way to save you some typing, but it's not required to use the template. 331dot (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, the template will give you a very formal message, but you can say "yo I reported you at ANI" and that's sufficient notification. Loki (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• So, moving on from so the somewhat minor infracture of failure to notify, perhaps Discospinster could tell us how, in their interpretation, their six reverts in nine minutes and then their blocking the party they were edit-warring with, fully complies with their responsibilities under WP:INVOLVED. SN54129 15:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  The editor continued to quickly revert even after I left a note on their talk page explaining the issue, with no response. Furthermore I changed the content to make it clear that the claims of bias were in fact claims (i.e. opinions). In my opinion, those further reverts were acts of vandalism and I was justified to make a partial block. ... discospinster _talk 16:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Discospinster: Your opinion should be based on policy: INVOLVED is clear (editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved), WP:VAND is also clear that Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. You misused WP:ROLLBACK to achieve your ends. Finally, WP:ONUS is also clear that The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. And yes, while all policies are caveated by "...except obvious vandalism", you of all people should know that this was a content dispute and that you went too far. I suggest removing the PB and everyone moving on.. fast. SN54129 16:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  My opinion was based on policy, and you referred to it above. Given the comment about "misinformation" (here and comments on ChatGPT's talk page: "These accusations are being used as a tool to try and garner pity for the so-called "victims" and they need to be removed from this encyclopedia article."), and the fact that the user has made few other edits, and none since 2017, it is even more clear now that User:ClearConcise is editing towards an agenda and not in good faith. I stand by my actions. ... discospinster _talk 16:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  I did not come to this article with an agenda and I am insulted by your accusation. I was merely reading an article and when I saw an agenda on the page and I took action to improve the article by removing the agenda. ClearConcise (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  Wait, let's get something clear - you want us to believe that you, in good faith, had no agenda, but you are not remotely willing to extend said good faith to Discospinster, whom you have described as "purposefully leaving up misinformation due to his bias"? --Golbez (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  I am willing to extend good faith to Discospinster and engage in talk and come to consensus. Shouldn't the disputed content be removed until that consensus is reached? ClearConcise (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  No, it should not, unless it's a BLP violation or something really, starkly, WP:INAPPROPRIATE for some other important reason. This is not such a case. —Alalch E. 17:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  No, that's not how it works. WP:BRD: You were bold, they reverted, now you discuss. It's not a BLP, it's not unsourced, so, you don't get to unilaterally declare it's not acceptable. You have to actually justify it, with your words. --Golbez (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  There is no notification of a message in my talk readily visible on the site (that I see anyway). I was not aware that you had left a note on my talk page. I have responded to it, and you have not responded to me, does that show that you are not engaging in good faith? It's not vandalism to remove misinformation that is pushing an agenda. In the same vain, I could just as easily say it is vandalism to continue putting it back. The content should be removed until AFTER a consensus is reached, and the fact that @Discospinster banned a user for removing their own "vandalism" and continues to leave this disputed information up until that consensus is reached is proof of Discospinster's bias. I have engaged in talk regarding this page, and I ask that Discospinster be removed from being able to admin a page they are showing bias on, and that I be unbanned. ClearConcise (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  Not only is there a message on your Talk page, but you responded to it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  The way I see it, you were both edit warring, as no exception applied, as far as I can see. So a block was certainly warranted, though Discospinster should not have been the one to impose it and, to be fair, they could have been blocked as well. —  Salvio ^giuliano 16:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  I agree. The harder part is what to do about it now.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  As far as ClearConcise is concerned, I was thinking that the block could be lifted as long as they accept not to make further edits to the article until the discussion on the talk page has achieved consensus, since there is no need to act quickly and we can let the discussion come to a natural conclusion. As far as Discospinster is concerned, on the other hand, I'd like to see some acknowledgment that their conduct violated WP:INVOLVED and reassurances that this was an occasional misstep unlikely to be repeated. —  Salvio ^giuliano 16:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  I agree, we both should be blocked but I will still ask that the disputed content be removed until there is a consensus on whether it should be there. ClearConcise (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  Well, so much for my suggestion. In that case, the block is still necessary to prevent further edit warring. —  Salvio ^giuliano 16:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  As mentioned above WP:ONUS, The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. I of course agree not to edit until there is consensus as you suggested, I just think it's clear it should come down until that consensus is reached. ClearConcise (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  This isn't how ONUS works, you don't get to remove something that had been included for a while and became subject to implicit consensus and enforce your removal through edit warring, demanding others to form a consensus until you yield. It's great to try bold removal, but once challenged, there's only one way: talk page. ...and if regular talk page discussion doesn't work there's WP:DR: ask for a third opinion, seek mediation, try the NPOV noticeboard and the dispute resolution noticeboard. There's tons of stuff available, and making six reverts is not among them. —Alalch E. 17:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  I agree I messed up with the edits, but I disagree that this is not how ONUS works. ONUS is specifically for this reason... to put the burden on the person who seeks to keep disputed content. ClearConcise (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  Not when there is already, as I said, implicit consensus. In either case, invoking ONUS means that your disputant can't WP:STONEWALL to protect the status quo and has to engage in a conversation if they want retention, but it doesn't mean that you can enforce removal through edit warring. ONUS is not a license to edit war. If someone is not respecting ONUS by insisting on inclusion and not engaging substantively in a discussion, you need to ask for a third opinion or try many other mechanisms of dispute resolution. —Alalch E. 17:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  Okay, thank you for the info. I'll read up on this 3rd opinion thing. ClearConcise (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'll let admins and others judge the actions of DS. I agree with ClearConcise in that policy is that something added is added through consensus and only shares that consensus until disputed and then ONUS is on the those wanting to keep or add to prove it belongs. However, I agree with Alalch E. that the where is the most important aspect and the most egregious breech with regard to the article. Consensus through discussion. Not discussion through edit summaries but on the talk page. --ARoseWolf 17:57, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• Well so much for WP:AGF and not casting WP:ASPERSIONS.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• You lost me; to whom are you referring?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• I've unblocked CC; it's clear that either that needed to be done, or DS needed to be blocked from the page too. Unblocking seemed the path of least drama. DS should not take any further admin actions on that page, and should re-read WP:VANDALISM if they honestly believe that's what they were reverting. That was not vandalism. I'm pretty disappointed in their doubling down. If either one of them makes a revert on that page again before there is a consensus for it, I'll block them for continuing to edit war. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  At some point, we should all acknowledge User:Rhododendrites; while we argue about who is to blame for what, he's been editing the article - without reverting - to improve it and address some of CC's concerns while not blanket removing it. Hat tip. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  I wholeheartedly agree with Floquenbeam's actions here. The least invasive approach while also making crystal clear which bright lines cannot be crossed.--⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• A clear cut wp:involved violation is a serious thing should as a minimum get what Salvio suggested which was: "As far as Discospinster is concerned, on the other hand, I'd like to see some acknowledgment that their conduct violated WP:INVOLVED and reassurances that this was an occasional misstep unlikely to be repeated." If DS won't do even that there a problem that needs fixing. North8000 (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• Vandalism needs to be clear-cut for the exception to 3RR to apply; doubly so for a subsequent use of admin tools. And what was the urgency here? Why could this not have gone to AIV? At the very least I'd have expected DS to post here for review. DS needs to acknowledge error here; this is a textbook violation of WP:INVOLVED. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  I have to agree, this needs explanation. Valereee (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  I also agree. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  1, I'm afraid. It would be hypocritical of me to say I've never got carried away in an edit war, but reverting the same edit by the same person on the same page six times in rapid succession then blocking your opponent is a poor show. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  I've looked into this a bit further, and there's some ameliorating factors. It appears DS had no history with this page, so unless someone has evidence to the contrary, I'm assuming he saw this at recent changes. In such a case, I have no problem with reverting and blocking for obvious vandalism. I question whether this was obvious, and especially whether it was obvious at the time. There were verifiability problems, as was made clear in subsequent edits. Also: if you're going to revert and block, why wait for six edits? Vanamonde (Talk) 21:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  Honestly if they rerevert, don't revert a second time, go to talk page (BRD) or give a warning or something, anything other than 3RR. SwampedEssayist (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• Discospinster is one of the very few administrators, perhaps the only of them, I ever had to warn about edit warring. That was three months ago, Special:Diff/1123628128, in response to this content dispute in the Kannada article. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  The IP in that case was removing well-sourced content with increasingly belligerent sniping in edit summaries. Without comment on anything else, reverting POV warriors in India related topics doesn't bother me; not being able to would rapidly degrade the quality of articles in that topic area. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  Looking at WP:GS/CASTE, I have to admit I can't really argue with that. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• I don't see a major problem here. One of the criteria for vandalism (WP:VAND) is "Removing encyclopedic content without any reason" and that's exactly what ClearConcise was doing. OK, DS should not have blocked them directly and should have reported them to WP:AN3 (where they would undoubtedly have been blocked), but the result is, in the end, the same. Black Kite (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  Of course there was a reason. It doesn't need to be a good one; the point is that anything done in good faith (such as demonstrated by the edit summary of [1]), no matter how disruptive, is not vandalism. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  Seriously? The edit summary was "This is an opinion piece cited by biased unreliable sources" yet they removed an entire section including sources such as the New York Post, Mint, USA Today, the Boston Globe and The Verge. Were they all "opinion pieces cited by biased unreliable sources". Here's a clue - no, they weren't. ClearConcise was not acting in good faith and was committing vandalism - they needed to be at least partial blocked. At the moment, they aren't, so we've failed on that one. Black Kite (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  Well, we have a shortcut for the New York Post at WP:NYPOST ("generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics"). I'm not saying ClearConcise was right content-wise, nor that they have not been edit warring. All I'm saying is that your vandalism accusation lacks actual evidence. At very, very least we can surely agree that this wasn't "obvious vandalism" of the type exempted for reverting by WP:3RRNO #4, unless you're now also questioning my well intentions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'll give you the New York Post (I was getting confused with the NYTimes - I'm not American) but I'm sorry, removing an entire section with an edit summary which bears no relation to what you're actually doing is, simply, vandalism. And of course I wasn't criticising your intentions, simply pointing out that CC needed to be removed from editing that article. Black Kite (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  Per WP:3RRNO: "Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language."--Bbb23 (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  Ahem. "Removing encyclopedic content without any reason" (WP:VAND). Black Kite (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  But a reason was given, here. I have no opinion either way on whether the content should be in or not, but it was not obvious vandalism. GiantSnowman 20:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  Which is the point where I'd say that the reason doesn't need to be a good one, closing the circle the discussion has now run. We're missing the point of this thread though: Discospinster has broken WP:3RR and blocked their edit warring opponent. As both is prohibited, an apology, clarification, something assuring that it won't happen again, is requested. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed, but as an absolute minimum. Blocking an edit war 'opponent' is a very serious mis-use of tools. GiantSnowman 20:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  Er, actually, the reason does need to be a good one ("Content removal is not considered to be vandalism when the reason for the removal of the content (is provided in) a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content" - WP:VAND again). This one was not only frivolous, but simply false. Black Kite (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  As long as ClearConcise believed that their editing was improving the encyclopedia, it wasn't vandalism. It isn't even vandalism if removals are made with completely unvoiced good intentions. The distinction between vandalism and non-vandalism disruption is about intent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  I hate to repeat this, but that's not what WP:VAND (which is a policy) says. It clearly says that removing encyclopedic content with no good reason given is vandalism. Giving a reason which is clearly untrue is not a good reason. Black Kite (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  There is a difference between having a reason and voicing a reason in an edit summary. The first sentence of the policy tries to explain this in bold and italic formatting. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, it clearly says, in bold and italic, "any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism". Removing encyclopedic content six times with an edit summary which is clearly untrue is not good faith. I'm not entirely sure how much clearer this could be. Black Kite (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Black Kite, what makes you so sure this was not a good faith effort? Crazynas ^t 20:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  Don't know how many ways you can be told, but just because you don't think it was a good reason, doesn't mean it wasn't. I still believe it it's a good reason, and now I'm only wondering how long I need to wait for Discospinster's lack of talk to be considered stonewalling so I can remove the section again (for good reason). ClearConcise (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  Um, so that's a threat to continue an edit war in the name of ending an edit war? Wow. — Trey Maturin™ 20:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  I've engaged in good faith talk, and I'm simply wondering how long someone is expected to wait before it is considered stonewalling. Why is everyone being so obtuse? ClearConcise (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  Good faith talk (perhaps) but appallingly bad faith editing on the face of it. You. Were. Edit. Warring. Whatever happened next was on your own head. — Trey Maturin™ 20:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  It takes two to edit war. There was no reason for Discospinster to vandalize my edit. (see, I can make meaningless accusations too) ClearConcise (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  It's not about the accusations now. You are now involved and have no reason to edit that page anymore. Philipnelson99 (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  "Vandalise" has a very specific and loaded meaning on Wikipedia, as you well know. Your use of it here is inappropriate, as you also well know. I withdraw my (admittedly sarcastic) agreement that you are talking in good faith. You're not. You're trolling. — Trey Maturin™ 20:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  1. I didn't really have an opinion on this discussion either way until they started replying in a hostile manner on this thread. And I'm starting to doubt whether this thread was begun with intentions of actually discussing an admin's conduct. I believe admin's conduct isn't a serious enough topic on the wiki, but acting this way isn't good for anyone. Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  1 as well. I was more in agreement with Black Kite on this and now seeing the editor's comments... EvergreenFir (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  I was banned by a party to an edit war, I've been called a troll by Trey Maturin, falsely accused multiple times of egregious vandalism, and now threatened by Black Kite to be perma banned, and I'm being hostile? Wow. ClearConcise (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  You came to AN of all places, did you expect it to be a cakewalk and that your own actions would not be scrutinized? Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  Is there some reason we should expect coming to AN of all places to be be difficult? Levivich (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  ClearConcise, if you are editing in good faith, there is exactly one single thing you can do to prevent digging a hole that is hard to get out of: Stop participating in this AN thread unless you are asked something. I hope that my messages above make clear that I'm not questioning your good faith, so perhaps you can take that advice from me without assuming it's hostile or biased against you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  In your case, about this one specific section? Forever. Someone else will have to do it; you doing it would be continuing an edit war. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  @ClearConcise Bare minimum, in a generic context (not specific to this dispute), if you have brought it up on the talk page and there has been no response for 24 hours and the person has edited within that 24 hour window, then you would be justified in taking action. However, in this situation, where you have already engaged in an edit war and the dispute is at AN, wait at least until this thread is closed, or a week, whichever is longer. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  Honestly, the people saying in this situation not at all, ever, are probably right. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  I would definitely not recommend that course of action. Philipnelson99 (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  While I'm thankful for your clarification that you have been editing in good faith, I should point out that you specifically should not be removing the section again in any definite amount of time. You have reached a point where discussing on the article's talk page, and trying to convince others to make the edit, is the only legitimate option left. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  I can assure you that a 7th revert on that article would be the last edit you would make here. Black Kite (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• Let me ask the admins commenting here: say you were to encounter a user with fewer than 50 edits, on a page you have never edited nor been involved with in any way, who is mass-removing content, refusing to discuss, and undo-reverting anyone who tries to make any change whatsoever within one minute of the edit, and prior to this the user has not edited in six years. Would you block them? I would, I often have in the past, and I wouldn't think twice about it in the future. Likewise I find myself not thinking twice about endorsing Discopsinster's use of admin tools to throttle a clearly disruptive and tendentious editor, per the "any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion" provision of WP:INVOLVED. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• Totally agree. Some people - including some admins - appear to wish to enable obvious disruptive editors. I am unclear as to the reasons for that. Black Kite (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  1. A decade ago, when I first dipped my toe into editing here, "involved" meant "invested in the article in question". Then it meant "invested in the article or editor in question." Then "invested in any way." Then "interested in any way." Then "has previously edited the article or spoken to the editor." Then "once commented on a thread about the article or editor." Now we're suddenly at "reverted what appears to be obvious vandalism by an uncommunicative editor and then blocked that editor." No comments on whether this was the correct course of action, just a belief that the very appearance of being "involved" is enough to condemn. Time to draw a line on this insane instruction creep. — Trey Maturin™ 20:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  I do not have your tenure, but I share your sentiment. DS should have sought redress at AIV. Or DS could have just blocked sooner and called it WP:DE (which it was). Or semi-protected the page. But because they reverted more than 3 times, we're here. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  I agree. It would be nice to have a discussion about admin conduct in these situations but I don't think this thread was made in good faith. Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'd say more communication with the editor and more formal warnings at minimum. Without them, it looks more like a content dispute than addressing WP:DE. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  Absolutely. Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'm in this boat too. I revert tons of editors on AP, gensex, COVID, caste and other similar topics when I see the obvious removal of sourced, consensus text. If someone were removing far-right or spread COVID disinformation from an article where it is well sourced and obviously has at least implicit consensus with an edit summary like "removing untrue information from biased sources" is it really revert or block for an administrator? That type of summary is so common in vandalism it triggers edit filters. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Please look at that history again and change or remove your accusation. Undoing the Undo of my change is not "undo-reverting anyone who tries to make any change whatsoever". ClearConcise (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

They're completely correct. The only mistake that Discospinster made was letting you vandalise the article six times. You should have been blocked well before that. Black Kite (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take another look.

• 21 March, 18:10-18:20 ([2]): You removed approximately 4,000 bytes of material you disagreed with, eventually the entire "accusations of bias" section and a portion of the "limitations" section, calling out the sources as opinion pieces. The opinions were notable opinions published in relevant reliable sources and were attributed either to those sources or to the individuals or organizations who originally stated them as opinions, per WP:OPINION. This was your first edit since September 2017, and your removal was reverted in parts by five two (corrected below) different editors over the next couple days.
• 22 March, 14:09 ([3]): you returned and again removed the entire "accusations of bias" section and the same section from "limitations". Thus, you undid any edit anyone had made in the interim.
• Over the next few minutes, Discospinster's first edits to the page again restored the reliably sourced sections, with explanation, and they began copyediting presumably to clarify your concerns. You reverted to restore your version within three minutes.
• You then began blanking the content with no explanation at all, and each one of your reverts is within one minute of the previous edit. This did not stop until you were blocked, and you did not attempt to discuss at all until 14 minutes after you were blocked from editing the article.

Allow me to also point out that WP:ONUS says that "[t]he responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content", not "all content must be removed unless and until User:ClearConcise personally approves of it". Numerous editors contributing to the section including the six three (corrected below) who restored the content after you removed it are a good sign that it was your removal that was controversial, and per WP:EW and WP:BRD (and numerous other policies and guidelines) the onus is on you to explain why the information should be removed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I think this pretty much settles this entire issue. Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, I don't think anyone has yet observed that Discospinster part-blocked ClearConcise specifically from editing only the article, which I've also done to force an editor to engage rather than blocking them outright. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• I suppose I would ask the administrator why they choose to revert six times? Look, we don't edit war with vandals, we block and move on. The fact that they (Discospinster) continued to revert and not report or block implies to me they knew that this was not prima face vandalism, and means this falls on the side of being a content dispute. Does anyone looking at this edit history think that after Discospinster's fourth, putting their toe across the line, revert that ClearConcise would suddenly get the message and stop? Crazynas ^t 21:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  If they were seeing it as straight up vandalism, then yes. We extend a tremendous amount of rope to vandals. We extend a preposterous amount more to people who should know better. We extend an almost infinite amount to obvious trolls. The one edit warring here was the original troll, not the sysop. Perhaps the admin should've blocked the troll earlier/quicker rather than extending the rope the troll was dishing out for themselves (not an admin, but I would've blocked after the second revert), but that decision has to lie within the realm of admin discretion. — Trey Maturin™ 21:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  This is why I have stock in rope companies and glue factories EvergreenFir (talk) 04:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Ivanvector, for me it's the so-many-reverts-so-fast of an edit that wasn't actually clear vandalism, then block that needs explaining. We can argue whether it was clear vandalism -- although in this case it doesn't actually look like it; the edit summary was "This is an opinion piece cited by biased unreliable sources. Are you going to post a summary of all "accusations" that are made by biased unreliable sources?" -- but certainly this removal wasn't anything that was urgent. This wasn't a BLPvio or anything close to egregious. It was content being disputed and removed because of a concern about sources. Why not instead of edit-warring, open a talk section and ping the other editor for an explanation? If there's no answer, revert again, and if they revert again without coming to talk, sure, p-block from that article to force them to the talk page.

  That said, I think this is an issue that just needs to be acknowledged and not repeated. I kind of feel like maybe DS got caught up in things. Valereee (talk) 13:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Some of this looks surreal. A two person clear cut edit war and a 3RR one, (BTW I would have agreed with DP in that content dispute) and one of the two users involved uses admin tools to block the other. And some are saying that there's no problem here. And not even a response from DP to the graceful easy way out suggested by Salvio? North8000 (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• Agree with Black Kite here, and from the initial comments in this thread I did not have that view, but actually looking at the edits reverted I cant see them as good faith edits. Making some vague wave to a single source while deleting a whole chunk of material along with other sources is not a good faith edit. I think an involved block to stop the immediate edit-warring was fine, but it should have been brought for some review at AN3 or elsewhere shortly thereafter. nableezy - 21:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• Yep, this is a very long thread considering we are clearly being trolled here. If I wasn't about to go to sleep, I'd seriously consider a block here. Someone else may want to consider that. Black Kite (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  Not an admin (because why the fuck would I put myself through that hell in order to get more fucking hell all of the time) but yes, this is clear and outright trolling. Block the troll and then we can talk about whether the sysop actions in question need further consideration. But not until we block the troll. — Trey Maturin™ 21:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'm afraid I don't see the problems with the block that others do. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  What nableezy said. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  Wait. Six other users reverted op? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  Actually, looking at it. It looks like one other editor reverted the removal prior to DS getting involved. [4]

  I might be missing something though. Philipnelson99 (talk) 22:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  No? Where would you even get that from? — DVRTed (Talk) 22:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  See the above comment by @Ivanvector: Numerous editors contributing to the section including the six who restored the content after you removed it are a good sign that it was your removal that was controversial, and per WP:EW and WP:BRD (and numerous other policies and guidelines) the onus is on you to explain why the information should be removed. Philipnelson99 (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I counted five before DS restoring portions of the first removal, but I see now that I miscounted. The partial reverts that led to all of the removed content being restored were by LightNightLights ([5], [6]) and Félix An ([7]). Three other editors also edited different parts of the article before CC reverted again, and then DS reverted. So to be "fair" they were reverted by three editors, not six. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Also agree that ClearConcise's edits appear to be vandalism. look at the edits they were making yesterday before the edit war, e.g. claiming There is no article supporting this claim. while deleting a citation to an academic paper [8]. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

What I'm seeing here is an admin and a non-admin engaged in an edit war over POV, and the use of admin tools to win said edit war. Everyone agreed that it was clear-cut until a couple other admins arrived and tried to endorse the use of admin tools to win an edit war, using a blatant misinterpretation of WP:VAND and attempting to WP:BAIT OP. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I think you may win the award for "worst take in the thread". 192.76.8.84 (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Seconded. From what I can tell, DS hadn't interacted with that article until now, so it seems a bold claim that he did it "to win an edit war". I tend not to care about edit wars on articles I'm not actively involved in. It also smells of not assuming good faith, which, I mean, would certainly match the OP's attitude. --Golbez (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

yeah, you clearly haven't read all of the comments here then... Philipnelson99 (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

1. I'm glad somebody suggested OP to stop actively participating on this thread and they decided to do so because the attempts to bait the OP on this thread is painfully obvious. — DVRTed (Talk) 22:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

no I'm saying YOU haven't read all of the comments here. this situation is far more nuanced than your description suggests. Philipnelson99 (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't responding to (You) nor was I questioning whatever you said (or didn't say). — DVRTed (Talk) 23:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Pardon my interruption, but I think your repeated comment that you clearly haven't read all of the comments here is discourteous and not conducive to a collegial atmosphere. In general the temperature in this thread is already far too high, and I don't think comments like these are helping much. Would you consider striking them? Shells-shells (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• Hm. It's okay to use admin tools to win an editing dispute if the other bloke is a badwrong vandal type? I smell Boris Johnson level hypocrisy.—S Marshall T/C 23:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• For the record, I dont think DS was in an editing dispute, I think all their actions at that page were administrative in nature. Its not like DS had some past editing history showing that they really wanted this material in the article. So I dont think thats an accurate description of what happened. I was about ready to scream bloody murder after the start of this thread, but actually looking at the sequence I see legit nothing wrong here. nableezy - 00:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

If the "editing dispute" consists of a "vandal type" vandalising an article by repeatedly deleting massive chunks of sourced content giving explanations which are evidently false [9] then yes, it is acceptable to use admin tools. It is quite clearly spelled out in relevant policies (WP:INVOLVED WP:EW etc) that cleaning up after "vandal types" is an acceptable reason to overrule policy. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 00:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

In addition see no evidence that there was an "editing dispute" in the first place. Discospinner did not contribute to the article text, was not involved in the editorial process at all, and their only involvement in the article was reverting the blanking and a block, both of which are administrative actions. The only edit they made was a trivial wording tweak [10], which in no way reaches the level required for WP:INVOLVED to be an issue. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 00:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

And yet no editing dispute has been presented. There was unproductive behavior and editing that an admin was correcting in an article they had no previous involvement with. The desire to stretch WP:INVOLVED to encompass such activity is strange. At best, a criticism not reporting to AN for review by other admins is due. The idea that an admin should be admonished for attempting to resolve the issue through editing, instead of immediate page block is well... Backwards. Slywriter (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I re-added the content on the ChatGPT article about the AI praising Biden while refusing to do the same for Trump, citing Snopes, which is a reliable source according to Wikipedia. Félix An (talk) 02:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

No. I reject what Slywriter and 192.76.8.84 say. Once you've edited an article, you should not perform administrative interventions resulting from editor behaviour on that article. This is quite simple and easy to understand.—S Marshall T/C 08:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Except not that simple at all. Obviously, if you have been editing as a normal editor on an article, you should usually refrain from taking administrative action on it except in the most obvious of cases (and even then, not if you have been in dispute with the editor concerned). However, as in this case, if your interaction with the article has been limited to an administrative one (in this case reverting the repeated removal of sourced content with a fraudulent edit summary) then there is no issue. Black Kite (talk) 11:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I think reverting is an editorial action and not an administrative one. I think it's as clear as day that DS should have gone to AN3 about this. We need these rules about involvement because they (imperfectly, but importantly) help prevent various kinds of abuse.—S Marshall T/C 11:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

That's a ridiculously oversimplified way of looking at the issue. Whether reverting is an editorial or administrative action is context dependent. If someone replaces an article with profanity or deletes all it's content or replaces it with spam then reverting them is simple vandalism clean-up and is an administrative action, reverting becomes an editorial action when you revert someone in a good faith content dispute. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 11:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I think an administrative action is an action that you need administrator tools to perform, and an editorial action is one that any editor can perform. The only scope for complexity that I see is whether rollback is an administrative action; I don't think it is but you could defensibly argue the other side. Reverting without using rollback is normal editing that you don't need to pass RFA to perform and doesn't invoke WP:ADMINACCT. It's a pity because if DS had just used AN3, this would have been a straightforward case of RBI.—S Marshall T/C 13:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I think an administrative action is an action that you need administrator tools to perform, and an editorial action is one that any editor can perform. Bullshit. There's a whole range of administrative actions that do not not require administrator tools to perform. Closing a thread at WP:AE is an administrative action, but only requires editing a page. Giving an editor a logged warning under the contentious topics regime does not require administrative tools, but is an administrative action. Closing a contentious XFD as "keep" does not require administrative tools, but is an administrative action. Closing a thread at AN/ANI with consensus to topic ban an editor does not involve the use of the tools, but is an an administrative action. Closing a contentious RFC does not require the use of the tools, but is an administrative action. You need to look at the context of what the admin was doing, not just the technical means used to do it. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

If your position is that issuing a DS warning is an "administrative action", then I don't just disagree, I also don't understand how you can think that? A DS warning is a prerequisite for some kinds of administrative action but it's something any editor can do and is routinely done by involved parties. You also bring up discussion closes, and I agree that a discussion closer ought to be accountable for their close and WP:ADMINACCT applies, but, it's called a "non-admin close". The clue's in the name there, I would think.—S Marshall T/C 17:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

A logged CTOP warning goes in the AE log. It's an entirely different issue than issuing a DS alert, which any editor can do. An alert does not presume misconduct, whereas a logged warning is only given in response to such. Courcelles (talk) 18:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Did you actually read what I wrote? When I said "giving a logged warning" I meant "giving a logged warning", not "giving a contentious topic alert". I meant following the CT procedures, giving an official warning as a sanction and recording it in WP:AE/Log. That is an action restricted only to admins but no admin tools are required, you only need to be able to edit a semi-protected page.

Closing any kind of contentious or controversial discussion is an inappropriate thing for a non admin to do per WP:BADNAC point 2. Closing those discussions is an action restricted to administrators, despite no admin tools being required. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 18:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree with S Marshal. Editing an article is editing an article. Doing it as part of your recent changes patrolling does not "supercharge" your edits with a priori justifiableness, imbue your edits with an aura of indisputability etc. Recent changes patrolling is just why an editor arrived to a certain article, but once they have edited it, this editing is equally subject to the normal editorial process as any other editing of articles, and they've taken upon themselves to conduct themselves as a "normal editor". —Alalch E. 11:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Except that's not how it works in reality, otherwise an admin who had reverted, even once, a good-faith but disruptive edit would not be able to prevent an editor from continuing their disruption. And that's good-faith disruption; in this case there wasn't even the first tenet of that, IMO. Black Kite (talk) 11:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that's too black-and-white. For one thing, I really don't think we should be requiring admins to check the edit history to see if they've ever edited that article before they semi it for a few days. But even in cases where they have edited it heavily and/or recently, I don't have an objection to an admin doing what they believe any reasonable admin would do. Reporting something like obvious vandalism by multiple IPs because the subject is in the news just turns what could be a few seconds of one person's time into multiple minutes of two people's time, possibly significant time of the first admin because they may feel responsible for babysitting the article while waiting for help to arrive. Valereee (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• Discospinster does a lot of recent changes patrol. She had no connection to that article. She reverted a non constructive editor, warned, and then blocked them from the article. This is in no way inappropriate. And I will add that ClearConcise, on the other hand, does give the appearance of editing with an agenda. Perhaps someone should review their edits?-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
• I'm not happy with the precedent being set here. Essentially, if an editor removes (what they believe to be) inappropriate POV language, then anyone who "has no previous activity on the article" can come along and violate 3RR to put it back, but only the remover is at fault. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Correct, it is an unhappy precedent to give so much attention to this person who showed up today to revert sourced content six times without discussion, comes here, accuses an admin in long standing of bad faith while simultaneously they couldn't be arsed to do the bare minimum requirements for a post here, and their punishment was solely that they were blocked from the article that they were edit warring on without engaging in any discussion. Yes, it is an unhappy precedent that people pointing this out are accused of baiting and misrepresenting policy. --Golbez (talk) 04:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Reading through this entire discussion, my opinion has gone back and forth about this incident. But looking at Discospinster's recent contributions, they spend most of their time reverting vandalism and blocking disruptive editors. I think they just happened upon this article and had no involvement in it prior so this wasn't a content dispute. They might be chided at reverting an edit that many times but we are talking about an active administrator making an error, not a serious case of INVOLVED that needs to be pursued. I also might have brought the page block here to AN for discussion but we don't know what was going on with DS today, this could have happened in the middle of the night for them or they had other work to take care of. This is not making excuses, this is just an acknowledgement that this is a volunteer activity for all of us and we don't have to respond on other people's desired schedules. This is not the way that I would have handled this incident but, honestly, I don't deal with vandalism a lot and I try not to second-guess admins who focus on areas of the project I have less experience in. At this point, I just hope Discospinster returns to make a final comment after reading through these comments, not to make an abject apology but just to present their side of the story and most likely confirm what others have said here. Any way, I agree with a lot of what has been said but I also understand how editors in good faith could see this situation differently. I think it helps to look beyond this one article to look at the edit histories of those involved to put this dispute in some context. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I did make a couple of comments above that explained my intent. I've read through the comments here and really the only thing that stands out is to is the suggestion that I'm in the wrong because I should have blocked sooner. That's a new one for me. ... discospinster _talk 13:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

DS, I hate to pile on, but you wrote above (bolding where IMO you turned yourself into an editor having a content dispute): The editor continued to quickly revert even after I left a note on their talk page explaining the issue, with no response. Furthermore I changed the content to make it clear that the claims of bias were in fact claims (i.e. opinions). In my opinion, those further reverts were acts of vandalism and I was justified to make a partial block.

And, really, the other editor responded in two minutes to your post on their talk with an explanation of why they thought the removal was justified. I'm not sure why you're doubling down on this. We all have the experience of looking back and thinking, yeah, I could have handled that better. Valereee (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Discospinster: if the only thing that stands out is that you should've blocked sooner, then that's worrying; as multiple editors and admins have commented, you shouldn't have blocked at all. The chronology is a red herring. SN54129 15:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I think @Liz is spot on. I deal with similar instances, even on articles I've edited in the past. IMHO, WP:INVOLVED does not mean admins cannot used tools to stop disruption on articles they've ever edited before or on topics they have been involved in. It does mean you cannot use tools to "win" or to punish someone you disagree with. It also means you should refrain from using tools if there is an appearance of bias. But none of that is the case here with DS.

Despite what @Serial Number 54129 has said, I 100% think DS should have immediately used warning templates and, after level-3, blocked the user for their disruptive editing. Or DS could have semi-protected the page for WP:DE. Note that the disruptive editor had been reverted by other users and had been engaging in the behavior at least a day beforehand. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, if you want to split hairs, EvergreenFir; the point is, they should not have got into an edit war at all, whether they wanted to block or not. SN54129 11:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• That edit was obviously not vandalism, because it hits multiple criteria at WP:NOTVAND. Someone patrolling for vandalism shouldn't have even touched it, because it's not vandalism. The edit warring wasn't WP:3RRNO exempt (it was just regular edit warring), and the block was WP:INVOLVED. Good unblock. I agree with those above that this was a content dispute and a textbook INVOLVED violation. Now I think we also have an WP:ADMINACCT issue due to lack of meaningful engagement here. Levivich (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  I agree wth all of that. I'm completely baffled by many of the posts in this thread. But that's nothing new. DeCausa (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  By my count, five or six admins have now demonstrated in this discussion that they misunderstand the WP:Vandalism, WP:Edit warring, and WP:Dispute resolution policies in a way that affects the use of admin tools. This was such a minor issue that could have been solved with a "whoops my bad", but now it's looking more like a systemic issue. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Lying in your edit summary while blanking material does not magically transform the vandalism of blanking reliably sourced material into something other than blanking reliably sourced material. Does anybody actually think that blanking was done in good faith? If not, an admin responded to disruptive editing the way disruptive editing is meant to be responded to. nableezy - 18:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think lying is a very strong word here. To me this look like POV-pushing by someone who may sincerely believe the sources were unreliable. Don't get me wrong, I think CC is a problematic editor and I doubt they'll be here long if they don't straighten up and fly right, but can we really conclude they were intentionally lying? Valereee (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  The initial summary was All of the claims are unverifiable claims from sources that are themselves biased and/or opinion pieces. A, no they are all verifiable, and b, no the sources are not all biased or opinion pieces. Fine, maybe lie is too strong. How about making manifestly untrue claims that do not withstand even ten seconds of scrutiny? nableezy - 18:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Valereee How is this [11] anything other than lying? There is no article supporting this claim. they say, while deleting an academic paper that directly supports the claim. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  As usual, 192 nails the exact point. Black Kite (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think I've unfortunately taken us on a tangent, but wrongheadedness is not the same as lying, and it doesn't constitute vandalism. Valereee (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don't know I thought the follow up edits removing things saying they were opinion pieces looked like bad faith removal of properly sourced content. I could be wrong though. Philipnelson99 (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Not sure I'm following, but absolutely agree if there were bad-faith edits that removed properly sourced content, that's absolutely a bad thing, and we need to deal with it. But it's still not necessarily vandalism that is an urgent issue that justifies 6 reverts in 9 minutes, an edit to try to deal with the complaints, and then a block. Valereee (talk) 19:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'm specifically talking about this edit. I'm honestly to the point where I don't know if DS's actions were justified. It certainly seems like edit warring, but I feel like I would've probably reverted the linked edit above. Philipnelson99 (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Valereee How is that edit "wrongheadedness"? They claimed that There is no article supporting this claim. while deleting the citation that directly supported the claim. They were flat out lying about content not being supported by citations. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  IP192, I have seen multiple well-intentioned editors who completely disagree on what a source says. I'm not actually sure this sheds any light on this issue, though: whether or not the editor was lying, it's still not vandalism. It still doesn't justify edit-warring. Valereee (talk) 19:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  The article

  Yet, research suggests that ChatGPT exhibits a pro-environmental, left-libertarian orientation when prompted to take a stance on political statements from two established voting advice applications.

  The source

  Prompting ChatGPT with 630 political statements from two leading voting advice applications and the nation-agnostic political compass test in three pre-registered experiments, we uncover ChatGPT's pro-environmental, left-libertarian ideology.

  I don't know how you could present that as the article not supporting the claim.

  it's still not vandalism Illegitimate blanking of encyclopaedic content is vandalism, it's litteraly listed at WP:Vand#Blanking. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  I would have asked if by "no article" he meant that it was a WP:PREPRINT and then agreed with the edit if no further publication info could be found. fiveby(zero) 21:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  We appear to be disagreeing on what "where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary" means. Which is fine, we can disagree, but at some point I think it would be valuable for experienced, well-intentioned editors, and especially administrators, agree on whether misinterpreting sources -- even intentionally -- constitutes clear vandalism and exempts one from 3RR and especially from INVOLVED once you yourself have edited the contested content. Valereee (talk) 12:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  It also hits multiple points at WP:VAND. Frankly though, if I'm seeing an editor with 40 edits reverting six times to remove a mostly RS-sourced section in an article, I'm going to assume that's disruptive, if not vandalism. I'm actually astonished at the number of people who think DS has done something wrong here, and am wondering why they are supporting an editor that is blatantly trolling us. Black Kite (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don't agree with the edit, I think CC is likely a net negative, but I do think DS overstepped, yes. As I said once above, as he appears to have seen this at recent changes, I don't think he's using admin tools to further his POV: but it's borderline enough that he should have sent this to AIV, or asked for independent review. This is not the standard I've seen applied to identify disruptive editors; ARBPIA and ARBIPA topics would be a lot quieter if admins editing them could do this sort of thing non-controversially. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  I dont think that last part is true. It seems to me more about consternation about admins generally than the edit specifically. And I was on that side based on the description in the OP and the initial comments too, like wait what they reverted how many times and then blocked???? But all the reverts are straightforward vandalism patrol, and I put that in the administrative tasks bucket even if that is something that non-admins can do (like say close RM or RFC or AFDs, as keep at least). I dont get how anybody can actually look at the edits and find anything to blame DS on besides her not issuing the vandal warnings prior to p-blocking. nableezy - 19:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Agree with Vandamonde. Valereee (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  I give up. You're being trolled and there are loads of people who I actually respect criticising an admin for dealing correctly with a troll. That's the situation we're in now. Black Kite (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  But, BK, it doesn't actually matter whether in this case, this is someone who should be blocked. What matters is that we come to some agreement on how admins should arrive at that. Valereee (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  But the relevant rule here isn't even WP:VAND but WP:3RRNO, which allows edit warring only over obvious vandalism (their emphasis), which is defined as edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism. There's a bunch of well-intentioned users here who don't agree it constitutes vandalism. So, that's it, Discospinster can't edit war over it.

  Also, obviously, once you're in an edit war you don't get to block your opponent for vandalism. I don't really care about Discospinster's motivations at that point: I accept that they had perfectly good intentions, but despite that, all of their actions in this situation were wrong.

  (Furthermore I really think Black Kite is misreading WP:VAND, because it gives wide latitude for any good faith reason for removing content, and the rest of the page is clear that mere "disruptive editing or stubbornness" is not vandalism.) Loki (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  An edit summary that is a flat-out falsehood is not a good faith reason for removing content as has been pointed out multiple times above, most notably by the 192 IP. But, whatever. Black Kite (talk) 19:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  It's not a good reason for removing content, certainly. But that's not what "a good faith reason" means in this context. Even obviously disruptive reasons are good faith as long as they're not deliberately intended to harm the project. And I don't see any evidence that this was: it was an obviously bad edit but not a bad-faith edit and therefore not vandalism. Loki (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Discospinster, maybe there is a "middle of the road" was to resolve this. If this happenned again tomorrow, and that exact same full set of reverts had already occurred, what would you do? North8000 (talk) 19:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

That's a bit unfair, since if it happened tomorrow, this conversation has already happened, and could have a chilling effect. For example, I'd probably be less likely to do these actions, not because I disagree with them, but because of waves arms wildly at this trashcan of a thread. Not worth the hassle. --Golbez (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Of course this situation would influence it. I think that "guiding effect" would be a better term than "chilling". North8000 (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, boy. I've been on Wikipedia maybe 5 days, but what the heck, I'm going to comment. I think that DS acted inappropriately, but that CC is legitimately wrong. I think that too many people are trying to figure out whether DS or CC is wrong, but the reality is that both wrong. I won't speak on the subject of what action to take, but let this be another opinion to consider. (I'm so probably going to regret this soon >-< SwampedEssayist (talk) 19:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• I think the core issue here is the conflicts that arrive when multiple levels of AGF begin to interfere with/reinforce each other. A clear example of the cascading effect is this: On the first level we have an AGF question, whether or not the edits were vandalism (the difference is of course intent)... On the second level we have another AGF question, given that the edits were reverted as obvious vandalism we would appear to be required to AGF that to Discospinster they did appear to be obvious vandalism (a question that is IMO completely independent of whether the edits actually were vandalism). On the third level we appear to have the question of whether this conflict was brought to this noticeboard in good faith, and in the ensuing conversation we seem to get into fourth and fifth layers even. To me AGF here means that we cut both of them a break and trust that both have learned their lesson, if in the future this becomes a pattern we can revisit the limits of AGF. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  While I'm a little more critical here, I agree the appropriate response on a practical level is "no action". Loki (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think I agree with that sentiment. Philipnelson99 (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  I support that. SwampedEssayist (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  I broadly agree. AGF to me means that we should assume everyone thinks that they're doing the right thing, but not necessarily that they are. As far as a "solution", Floq solved the issue two hours after it started by unblocking and setting an expectation of no further edit warring. At this point, I'm much more worried about the fact that there's no agreement, even among admins, about the most basic readings of policies like WP:Vandalism and WP:Dispute resolution. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'm also somewhat concerned at how DS got drawn into edit war as an admin... SwampedEssayist (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• I've got no idea how to resolve the conflicting interpretations of whether this was a vandalism situation or an INVOLVED block. And let's face it, at this point we're not likely to resolve this to anyone's satisfaction. But I would like to point out that the OP's editing philosophy, as stated on his userpage, is as follows: Given the username, you should see I'm here to keep the internet clean and simplified. When you've removed all you can remove, what's left is beautiful. While their recent controversial edits may align well with their own editing philosophy, said philosophy does not align well with how we do this whole encyclopedia thing. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed. Philipnelson99 (talk) 01:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yes! Yes! Yes! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think the best way to "solve" this is to carefully review some of these policies to be more in harmony and harder to bend toward one's own interpretation, as throughout the whole thing everyone has used the same policies against one another. Is there a way to reach a new consensus on WP policies? I'm not too good with the noticeboards yet. SwampedEssayist (talk) 02:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  While policies are technically subject to revision, the realistic answer is that we are not going to revise major policies such as INVOLVED and VANDALISM in the aftermath of a minor controversy that will be all-but-forgotten within a few days. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  This is minor? >~< I'd hate to see a big one. SwampedEssayist (talk) 13:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

If I were trying to troll AN in to spending hours discussing edits that literally nobody thinks are good I could not have done it this well. Round of applause for the OP. nableezy - 02:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• Well said, Nableezy. Also, I'm with Black Kite. These edits were vandalistic--they removed verified content with a false edit summary, and then they come here to hang DS out to dry? NOTHERE. Pity so many of us were biting. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  Removing content sourced to a WP:PREPRINT is vandalism? Asking for a friend. fiveby(zero) 04:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  No, but claiming all the sources are opinion pieces when the sources cited include this straight news and this straight news is. nableezy - 05:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  Some users cannot come to an agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes against consensus. Edit warring is not vandalism and should not be dealt with as such. Dispute resolution may help. See also: Tendentious editing. Editors that do not understand this should refrain from editing until they read the relevant policy, and admins that do not understand this should have their user rights called into question. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  How do you come to agreement on a lie? Those are not opinion pieces. Somebody is repeatedly removing something and claiming what they are removing is not what they are removing. And, since you missed the several times it was quoted from the relevant policy, Ill try to quote it again for you. Removing encyclopedic content without any reason, or replacing such content with nonsense. Content removal is not considered to be vandalism when the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary. Yes, there was an edit summary. That edit summary was simply not true. Whether it was intentionally not true or unintentionally not true, it was not true. And literally nobody is defending the edit. But yet we are going on two days of this section lol. nableezy - 06:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  The fact that we disagree with the reason doesn't mean that there's no reason. That's the difference between vandalism and other types of disruptive editing, and it's an important difference when admin tools come into play. If it's unintentionally not true, then accusations of vandalism are not only incorrect, but actively disruptive. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  I am not saying I disagree with the reason. I am calling the reason a lie. The disruption is removing things with a lie as the reason why. Disruptive editing, and not just vandalism, is also revert-worth. And also block-worthy. nableezy - 06:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  I "bit", as Drmies would put it, because I think that WP:INVOLVED matters and I do not accept that reverting vandalism is an "administrative action". I have raised no objection to any proposal to block the OP, and in the circumstances I would not object. But we apparently do need to nail down what's an admin action and what isn't.—S Marshall T/C 08:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Drmies: Amen, brother. Amen! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  There is clearly sincere disagreement, here, Drmies. Whether or not the OP was attempting to troll us, we clearly need to come to some agreement on whether an admin should be blocking even an editor who should be blocked after that admin has started editing the disputed content. It's not somehow taking the bait to be able to see that this is actually a point where experienced, well-intentioned editors are in sincere disagreement. Maybe we need to take the OP and DS out of the picture and just open a discussion about when and how an admin turns themselves into an editor. Valereee (talk) 11:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  I strongly agree. SwampedEssayist (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

IMHO most people would identify the original edit as a problematic edit, not vandalism, that there was a two way edit war and a 3RR one, and that DP was wp:involved. And we have folks here trying to say that all three of those statements are false, and you need to determine that all three are false in order to determine that the block was OK. And worst case scenerio DP just needs a trout. We might be seeing a process problem here inherent to admins reviewing an admin action. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree. This is definitely revealing some problems with how WP cases are handled, because we're now at each other's heels over policy interpretations, was it "good faith", was it "vandalism", etc. before we can even move on to what should be dished out to the parties involved. This is highly inefficient handling of a case and we need to figure out a way to wrap this up soon in a way that everyone (quote unquote) can agree with. SwampedEssayist (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with N8 that no more than a trout is needed, but the need for even just a trout does first need to be acknowledged by DS. I'm going to share a blast from my own checkered past. Reasonably similar concern. Someone pointed the issue out to me, I said, "That's fair, it felt to me like [X] but I can understand how it didn't feel that way [to the other person]." That was the end of it. Not even sure I actually got a trout, IIRC. Valereee (talk) 13:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I am dissapointed noone noticed Cite arXiv, no damn clue if that is what the OP was saying, and probably doesn't matter. but that template should cause any editor to look twice. fiveby(zero) 13:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I guess so. I do want to emphasize that it's hard to be familiar with every discussion about every citation template especially ones from seven years ago. I'm not saying that excuses adding it back it or that there isn't an obligation on an editor restoring an arXiv citation to check to see if it is actually WP:RS. Philipnelson99 (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

additionally, if you didn't know that arXiv allows user uploaded content, it's actually kind of hard to tell that it's NOT published academic content and the edit summary There is no article supporting this claim. seems like an outright contradiction if working under that assumption. Philipnelson99 (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

It's a deceptive template, and almost all legitate usages should probably be turned into {{Cite journal}}. I have no idea when or if an admin stopping edit waring should look at the content. But i would expect that, when it did become a content question and editors felt confident enough to start throwing out 'troll', 'vandal', 'lying', etc., they would have exercised their due diligence. They didn't. arXiv should have been an immediate read flag. It might be a contributing factor nobody needs blamed or shamed over, just if admins are not aware of WP:PREPRINT, they should be. fiveby(zero) 14:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Without getting into whether these edits meet the definition of vandalism, or not, am I reading this correctly that there is an actual belief that if an admin reverts vandalism, that we are now considered WP:INVOLVED? If so, that's so asinine, that's actually comical. If that comes to pass, I might as well turn in my mop. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Why {{ec}}? SwampedEssayist (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

No, @Jauerback, you are not reading this correctly. The question is whether DS became involved when they started editing the disputed content and continued to revert the other editor when DS's edits were reverted. Other are arguing that because the OP is probably NOTHERE, no harm no foul. Valereee (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe S Marshall needs to clarify, because he has made these comments throughout this discussion: ...because I think that WP:INVOLVED matters and I do not accept that reverting vandalism is an "administrative action"... and I think reverting is an editorial action and not an administrative one. I think it's as clear as day that DS should have gone to AN3 about this. We need these rules about involvement because they (imperfectly, but importantly) help prevent various kinds of abuse... and I think an administrative action is an action that you need administrator tools to perform, and an editorial action is one that any editor can perform. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

An admin who blocks his opponent in 3RR edit war sounds like WP:INVOLVED to me, but CC was clearly making bad edits (what I would say is vandalism, but the good faith thing...). Not very professional or admin-like imho. SwampedEssayist (talk) 15:09, 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.

The close mentioned other venues for possible further discussion but omitted Wikipedia:Administrative action review Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Which was a fairly sensible omission under the circumstances, as a thread there would almost surely become a duplication of this one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

And it's deprecated.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:38, 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.

User:Jasper Deng’s closing of a discussion

Jasper Deng recently closed Talk:Hurricane Orlene (2022)#RfC - User created map or NHC Map as an non-admin, uninvolved closure. In the closing comment, Jasper Deng singled me out saying me stating a neutrally worded RfC was “inappropriate and disruptive”. Per Wikipedia:Closing discussions, the closing comment sure be neutrally worded. In the discussion, there was previously no mention of the discussion being disruptive or inappropriate. I then attempted to work the situation out on Jasper Deng’s talk page in User talk:Jasper Deng#Request for a strikethrough. My request for the comment to be made more neutrally worded (with support from myself, the RfC starter on the closure) was met twice with no. Based on their full wording of the discussion closure, “Elijahandskip In light of the RfC we already had, this is inappropriate and disruptive. At the least, this is the wrong forum; such a change would have to be projectwide and discussed at WT:Weather. We will not be using the NHC-made maps.”, I highly suspect this user should not have closed the discussion as they appear to be biased and refusing to stay neutral in their closing remarks. The comment sounds more like something you would see in a RfC comment, not a closing discussion remark. In closing discussions, one person should not be singled out under any condition, let alone being pinged in the closing remarks.

As such, I request the closure to be overturned and request a new person to close the discussion (As noted on Jasper Deng’s talk page, I support the closure of the discussion). Jasper Deng also appears to not have any idea about how to properly close discussions, so a potential warning or topic-ban from closing discussions should be considered until they can properly show that they understand how to stay neutral in closing discussions. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• Important Extra Note: Discussion was originally started at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jasper Deng’s closing of a discussion, but was noted to have been placed at the wrong venue due to it involving an RfC. This is an exact copy/paste of the discussion starting message on that page, as directed by an admin. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. From what I can gather, this is a dispute among the members of the same project about an article within the scope of that project that implicates a possible WP:CONLEVEL-type conflict of consensuses where on one side there is the outcome the project-wide RfC (involving a template with a pre-collapsed portion of the caption), and on the other there are MOS:COLLAPSE and MOS:PRECOLLAPSE. This should have been addressed in a dialogue about: (1) whether objectively there is a discrepancy; (2) how to resolve the ostensible discrepancy, probably within Template:Storm path. Has there been a significant discussion about the appropriateness of collapsing? The underlying cause for this appearing on a noticeboard is how the RfC starter was talked to prior to starting the RfC: "no consensus", "works fine", "no reason to change" (ignoring the stated reason). So maybe something needs to be done to help these editors move along, and ANI definitely didn't seem like the right environment for that. But I'm not sure if I'm correct on all the facts; I prefer not making any further comments in this discussion. —Alalch E. 02:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Partially correct. The main reason I brought this to the noticeboard wasn’t more of the WP:CONLEVEL issue (as I didn’t even think of that at the time), but the improper closure of the RfC and borderline personal attacks through a non-neutrally worded closure. The WP:CONLEVEL is an issue, especially since it was used to justify closing the discussion pre-maturely. The closing comment was more of an actually !vote rather than a closing comment. That was why it was brought to the noticeboard. Somewhat a stem off of WP:CONLEVEL, which was the justification for the closure. So I see two interlaced problems: the WP:CONLEVEL closure ideology and the use of the RfC closure as a way to “get back” at what the person calls a “disruptive” editor. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• This is getting out of hand. What do we need to do in order to curb these ongoing incidents? Is it now necessary, as Robert McClenon suggested, to declare that weather and tropical cyclones in particular are contentious topics?--⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  Some topics are contentious topics because they have battleground editing because they are regions of the world that have been historical battlegrounds where people have died. Tropical storms also tragically cause human deaths. Does that in turn mean that tropical storms are subjects of battleground editing? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think in this case it is because of people who have died, but for some reason the Wikiprojects around weather-related topics seem to have become a hotbed of WP:OWNership, WP:CONLEVEL issues and off-wiki canvassing to an extent I haven't seen since WP:EEML in the ancient times. The latest big dust-up is at WP:ARBWPTC (I know you're aware of this, I'm more summarizing to give context for people who may not be). Contentious Topics, Discretionary Sanctions and General Sanctions are typically declared not because the topic itself is contentious, but because there are repeated user conduct disputes that the normal tools the community has are unable to break. The Shakespeare authorship question, for example, hasn't killed anybody as far as I know but is still designated a Contentious Topic. While AE wouldn't be adept at dealing with off-wiki coordination due to the private nature of evidence, it might not be a bad idea for AE to get a crack at handling the conduct disputes. Perhaps it could be folded in with WP:ARBCC to cover "weather, storms and climate change" by motion in the same way that WP:GENSEX was created. Community-level General Sanctions could also be another option. Additionally, it might be a good idea to hold a Community-wide RFC to discuss CONLEVEL and the role of WikiProjects versus local talkpages in determining consensus, since it might need to be updated or clarified. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  User:The Wordsmith - I was being sarcastic about the deaths. But, in my opinion, there are at least two classes of contentious topics. There are those that are contentious because of nationalistic editing, because the subject matter is inherently contentious, and those that are contentious because one or more editors are just stubborn. And you know that I was aware of an ArbCom case in which I provided evidence. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  Exactly I saw that you had posted evidence on the case, so I made a note indicating that my summary was more for other editors who hadn't seen the history. And noted on the sarcasm, it can sometimes be hard to pick up on in a place like this. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yes. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  At the moment, the biggest problem with the Weather/Tropical Cyclone projects at is that we have just updated the general colour scheme, which is/was expected to cause a lot of disruption, as this is a big and major change that several people who use our maps don't like and want RV'd but were needed for us to meet Wikipedia's standards around accessibility criteria. I will note that during the various discussions surrounding the colours, an RFC was held that went over the track maps in detail and noone brought up using the NHC maps. Probably because it creates problems around what maps to use in other basins, where we are not able to use maps from the RSMC/TCWC for various reasons, including them not being generated or being allowed on Wikipedia for copyright reasons.Jason Rees (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  That seems odd. Per the closing remarks in the RfC I started about NHC maps, Jasper Deng eluded to it already being discussed, saying “We will not be using the NHC-made maps” while calling the discussion, “innapropriate and disruptive”. But on the noticeboard discussion, you point blank just said it was never brought up? So what, WP:CONLEVEL and WP:OWN are legit major issued right now. Jasper Deng solely closed an RfC, speaking for the WikiProject as a whole, for a discussion that had not taken place before. That right there seems to be enough grounds to support a topic ban from closing discussions. Jasper Deng has edited Wikipedia for a long time (over 14 years), and clearly has an understanding of the rules and processes on Wikipedia. What is everyone’s thoughts on the topic-ban proposed? Elijahandskip (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Elijahandskip: My best advise for this whole issue, drop the stick. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Elijahandskip: I feel that you are overreacting here and trying to open Pandoras Box just for the sake of opening it here, as it almost certainly has been discussed somewhere on Wiki over the last 20 years, but I only looked at the Colour RFC, rather than the 50 archives of WPTC/WPWX. If it hasn't its probably because its obvious that it would cause problems with what maps to use in other basins, where we are not able to use maps from the RSMC/TCWC/JTWC becasue they are not generated or allowed on Wikipedia because of copyright.Jason Rees (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Definitely. I'm frustrated with the way WikiProject has become, and I think a community solution to handle this WikiProject (or making weather a contentious topic) is urgently needed to put a stop the drama that had consumed the WikiProject for some years, maybe ever since 2016-17. MarioJump83 (talk) 07:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• I note the topic is already mentioned on EEng's very useful list. That should be enough to give the participants cause to think about what people in general think about their obsession. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  LOL. MarioJump83 (talk) 07:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment – I will say that it is highly embarrassing to have yet another noticeboard incident out of this Wikiproject, and it is sad that this project is quickly becoming known to many editors as one of the biggest problem areas across the whole encyclopedia. United States Man (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  It's making weather-interested users to look bad by this point. MarioJump83 (talk) 07:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• There is nothing procedurally improper about an uninvolved editor closing an RfC early as "inappropriate and disruptive". It is not inherently non-neutral to describe a discussion as such. If there is no dispute that the discussion itself should remain closed, I would also endorse the idea of moving on. Mz7 (talk) 07:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

But should Weather have general sanctions? That question wasn’t yet answered. 74.108.105.35 (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I dont think we need general sanctions as we have to remember that we are a multi-national wikiproject and some drama will always happen through misunderstandings. As an example, most weather project members are from the US, I am from the UK while Mario is Indonesian and we all talk a slightly different version of english and have different ideas of how to present stuff.Jason Rees (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Considering the rampant sockpuppetry, multiple ArbComs, canvassing issues, and AN(I)‘s about the project, it seems to be a contentious enough topic to require a discussion about general sections. There isn’t normally this much drama in other projects. 74.108.105.35 (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Of course. I don't see these issues happening this much if weather is designated a contentious topic. It will still happen, but it is going to be on a more controlled manner. MarioJump83 (talk) 08:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Declare WP:Weather a contentious topic?

Based on the evidence above, should WP:WEATHER be declared a contentious topic? 72.68.134.254 (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• We're not quite in the right venue for that. Designation of a WP:CTOP needs to be done by ArbCom either as a motion or a full case. Be sure you have all of your ducks in a row before you initiate such a case, in other words proof of failed prior attempts to resolve disputes. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  Without expressing an opinion on the idea, the community has authorized CTOP-like arrangements before without ArbCom, such as has been done on Cryptocurrency and professional wrestling. Courcelles (talk) 14:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• Do we really need to do this? I fear that the answer may be "yes" but does this really belong with the other topics on this list such as the Arab–Israeli conflict? I mean, the weather is not a particularly contentious topic among the general population - it only seems to be a few fanatics who insist on making it so. Wouldn't it be better to get rid of those few fanatics? Phil Bridger (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  That probably would be for ArbCom to decide. And didn't we already have some wheather-related cases, which apparently didn't go for the nuclear option? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Cyclones was primarily about off-wiki coordination in the project, we did not necessarily look at the topic itself as a contentious issue. Primefac (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  Wasn’t Russia-Ukraine declared contentious by general consensus at AN? 47.23.10.234 (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  That happened prior to DS becoming CTOP. I should also note that, from what I understand, CTOP is not intended to short-circuit community-authorised sanctions regimes. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 00:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• I'm in favor of this, but I'm not sure AN is the right venue, and if it is, gain enough attention in the wider Wikipedia community. Strong support I'm done with the drama that consumed this project for years. And I think this should be made a RfC. MarioJump83 (talk) 12:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
• It's not a contentious topic, it just has a large concentration of contentious editors. There's a distinct difference - stuff about the Balkans or PIA or contemporary U.S. politics is inherently contentious, the same doesn't really apply to spinny clouds. It's just that weather for some reason attracts, quite frankly, a lot of immature editors who struggle to get along with one another. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  Maybe discretionary sanctions then? 98.113.8.17 (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  You made my day, IP editor -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 00:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

  "it just has a large concentration of contentious editors" Isn't that exactly what the phrase means in wiki speak? We designate topic areas as contentious based on editor behavior not some judgement of their contentiousness outside of wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed. For example, Longevity is a contentious topic. Longevity is just about... well, the oldest people on planet Earth. You might argue that the debate on science vs pseudoscience is sufficient enough to make it contentious, but it's not something that at first glance you would inherently consider a topic charged with vitriol such as the Balkans. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

  Well, this is why people much smarter than myself handle declaring things contentious topics. If doing so will make it easier to block spinny cloud editors who misbehave, count me in support. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• Frankly I'm so sick of seeing content disputes brought to AN/I as if they were actual behavioral issues because the editors at that project can't play nice together, if someone can come up with a proposal to declare weather contentious, I'm there. Valereee (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
• I mostly "TLDR" the other stuff above, but if this is a contentious topic, then everything needs to be. Not everyone agrees on everything anyway. That being said, I made a whole list of things that I wanted the severe weather project to be this year. Since then, I've broken up some arguments, got banned for 31 hours for breaking the rules, contemplated leaving Wikipedia entirely, and been attacked by multiple IPs all under the Andrew5 label. I know that it was my fault for putting us in the spotlight, but this needs to get under control. Enough is enough. This is yet another total "Bruh" moment. C'mon people. ChessEric 03:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support - Multiple contentious editors make it a contentious topic, and a procedure for dealing with them is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  By the way, every IP comment on this discussion should be ignored. They are Andrew5 socks. ChessEric 14:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• Every project has some degree of drama, but the weather project seems to be extreme. This can be seen in the ArbCom link above, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States tornadoes in May 2008, the FleurDeOdile drama, and the repeated canvassing concerns that have struck the project since 2021 (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Membership guidelines and other numerous ANIs. And, honestly, if the WikiProject cannot trust any IP for a fear of sockpuppetry, that sounds like a further reason to put discretionary sanctions on, because it simply seems like it will make it easier for editors to deal with this. Andrew5 is not the only dock master lurking around, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tropical Storm Colin (2022) shows a completely different sock master running around. For some reason, weather seems to attract a lot of polarizing editors, and a control method is needed to keep the project in check. 108.58.9.194 (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  Agree. To be noted there's a drama involving Iphonehurricane, A1Cafel (victim of this drama) and Lightning Sabre prior to all of these dramas. They're quite productive actually prior to massive socking, but in retrospect TBAN should have been slapped on them instead rather than blocking them, which caused them to lash out. MarioJump83 (talk) 03:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• My only qualm is I’m not sure what can help. There is no sanction that can directly fight against canvassing. A WP:1RR restriction would help to fight against edit warring but there’s nothing that can directly be done against the insane meatpuppetry this ANI proves it was an ongoing problem in the WikiProject for almost two years now), and is the main reason the WikiProject is in trouble. I’m not sure what general sanction could be applied. And, we can’t restrict it to 500/30 protection because most of the policy violators are extended confirmed. We could have an auto confirmed restriction to protect against andrew5 socks, but that’s seemingly all we can do. --172.85.249.214 (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Mariamla/monobook.js

User:Mariamla/monobook.js needs deletion per U5/G11 but I am not able to tag it for technical reasons. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

deleted by RiB-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Sure thing! RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:RfPP backlog

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 moppers! There are currently 26 pages, dating back to 7am yesterday morning, awaiting action at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if anyone has got a moment. Thanks! — Trey Maturin™ 23:52, 26 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.

Page history cleanup request

• Kresling fold (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

In 2021 the author of Kresling fold, User:Huanggab, requested that it be deleted, outlining a number of problems with the article. A copy was preserved on EverybodyWiki, a Wikipedia mirror. (The site is blacklisted, so here's a modified link: https://en.everybody!DELETETHIS!wiki.com/Kresling_Fold) In 2023 User:Onlinetexts recreated the article by importing the mirrored copy. Could an administrator please a) undelete the history of Kresling fold to preserve attribution, and b) move the page to draftspace until the original author's concerns have been addressed? Cheers, gnu57 21:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 22:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Explicit - Conduct related to file deletions

I happened to upload a file for fair use on the Hunter Biden laptop controversy page many weeks ago. A poll on the talk page affirmed editors' consensus to include that file as an illustration for a section of that article. The file is an image of the cover page of a tabloid newspaper. I provided what I believe is a valid rationale for fair use of that image on that article page in that context. The file can be seen on the Post website, here and has been reproduced in other media that discuss the Post's story, for example Business Insider and other RS publications. See, e.g. this recent use.

@Explicit: deleted the file and has not responded to my numerous requests on their talk page and via Wiki-email to reconsider/engage with respect to the deletion and the basis for fair use. Upon a quick look at their talk page, I see many other editors who, like me, have asked for Explicit's attention to their deletions, with no constructive response from Explicit. I think I understand fair use, but I am certainly no expert on the subject. However I believe it's unacceptable for Explicit to make large numbers of deletions and then fail to respond to the editors who uploaded the files in good faith.

I'd like to get the file reviewed and understand what if any further documentation is needed to establish it for use on the article page. I cannot find my original explanation, which I presume was deleted along with the file itself. I also would like Admins to consider whether Explicit should be permitted to continue deleting files while failing to respond to editors on their talk page. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Email is not adequate notification. Doug Weller talk 17:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello Doug. I first pinged many times in posts on their user talk page. SPECIFICO talk 17:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I notified Explicit about this discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I already did that about an hour ago. SkyWarrior 17:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Pings aren’t either as I understand it. Doug Weller talk 21:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• If it is just one file, wouldn't the proper venue be WP:DRV and not this noticeboard? Courcelles (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  To confirm, the file at issue is File:NY Post Cover 10 14 2020.PNG? If so, there was no explicit source given for the image (a direct link to where you got it from) which is sufficient cause to delete an image. I see why this file was deleted, but NOT why you haven't gotten this explained clearly, assuming I'm looking at the right file. Courcelles (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  And I see now I am talking about the right image. The content on the file page was "2020 Newspaper headline page, not currently for sale. Widely reproduced in media that have discussed it, per Fair Use.

  This page shows story that launched public controversy that is the subject of Hunter Biden laptop controversy. Not material that is for sale. Provides context for an important section of that Wikipedia page. The image does not reproduce the text of the news article itself."

  Sorry to say, that, yeah, I agree with deleting this as tagged for no explicit sourcing. But I also think it's easily fixed, just link to where you got it from. What I don't like is that Explicit could have explained this in the last couple weeks. That's an ADMINACCT issue. (Sorry for my multi-edit rambling... the more I looked into this the stranger it got.) If you'll agree to link the source and write a NFCC rationale that's a bit more explicit about how it's useful, I'll be happy to undelete it and if necessary it can be referred to FFD. Courcelles (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with Courcelles. SPECIFICO, you might want to just re-upload the file using Wikipedia:File upload wizard, which will collect all of the necessary information and neatly arrange it in a template for you. I'm a bit concerned about the lack of responsiveness in terms of WP:ADMINACCT, but that could be easily resolved if Explicit just left a message here promising to reply to queries involving his use of the tools in a timely manner from now on—hopefully that's what will happen. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for folks' comments. As I said, I am not surprised to have made an error in the documentation, but direct communication either before or after the deletion would have prompted me to attempt correcting it and saved much needless attention to this. SPECIFICO talk 19:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm not an admin so I can't see the image, but based on what's posted above I just want to add that fair use and non-free content use aren't one and the same. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy has been intentionally set up to be more restrictive than non-free use as explained in WP:NFC#Background and WP:ITSFAIRUSE. There are many things acceptable as fair use being used out in the real world that most likely wouldn't be considered WP:NFCC compliant, and non-free content isn't allowed simply because lots of other people are using it as "fair use". So, it would be better not to mix up the terms because it just adds to confusion. So, adding a source might resolve the WP:F4 issue, but it wouldn't automatically make the file's non-free use policy compliant. Further assessment might be necessary at WP:FFD. Just for reference, a newspaper front page image is similar to a book cover, album cover, magazine cover, etc. in that specific sourced critical related to the image itself is generally needed per WP:NFC#cite_note-3 and WP:NFC#CS for non-free use to be considered justifiable. Simply having lots of stuff about what the NYP wrote in Hunter Biden laptop controversy about the controversy isn't necessarily something that needs a non-free image to be seen to be understood by the reader. Just glancing through the article, I don't see anything specifically about this image (even though I can't see the image) which means I'm not really seeing how omitting it is affecting anyone's understanding of the article. Those are likely the kind of things that will be pointed out if this is discussed at FFD; so, any sourced commentary about the image itself you can find to add to the article would help strengthen a claim for non-free use. Finally, I've looked at the article's talk page and I've found Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy/Archive 8#NYP image, but I wouldn't say that's a consensus to use an non-free image of the front page. Once again, it would probably be better to discuss things at FFD since a local talk page consensus can't supersede policy per WP:CONLEVEL and FFD is the venue (like the other XFDs) for community discussion over the image. Moreover, instead of re-uploading the image, it would probably be better just to find the source and then request the file be restored via WP:REFUND or WP:DRV. F4 deletions, I believe, are eligible for REFUND; so, simply providing a proper source for the image might be enough to get it restored. If not, then there's WP:DRV where the file's deletion can be discussed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I am no longer active on the English Wikipedia to the extent I was prior to 2023. I don't look at my talk page much and a simple WP:REFUND request would have resolved the issue. ✗plicit 23:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

You are still performing a large number of deletions. "I don't look at my talk page much" is not really compatible with WP:ADMINACCT, which requires you to respond promptly to queries about your administrative actions. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Explicit, this is a disappointing answer. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Explicit, it appears that you have carried our roughly 500 adminstrative actions in the past week or so, and yet you say I am no longer active on the English Wikipedia to the extent I was prior to 2023. That's jarring. You can freely choose to not use your tools if you wish and therefore pay little attention to your talk page, but if you choose to use your tools at a rapid-fire pace, then you are obligated to be responsive to good faith inquiries on your talk page. Please state definitively whether or not you acknowledge your obligations under WP:ADMINACCOUNT. Thanks. Cullen328 (talk) 03:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

1 Valereee (talk) 11:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

1, as admins we're required to respond to queries about our admin actions. Even a simple "I'm sorry I don't have time to look right now but you can ask at [relevant noticeboard]" is better than radio silence. You can't be an admin and be incognito (much as we might wish we could sometimes). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Explicit deletes many files at exactly 00:00 every day. Explicit says he is not as active anymore. I believe him. After all, this is clearly automated deletion of files, because no man could delete so many files at exactly the same time each day. Automated deletion of files is bad because it violates Wikipedia's policies and guidelines when the community does not approve it first. Explicit must be held accountable for botting without community approval. Maine 🦞 12:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Looking through the logs, I see that Twinkle is being used. The admin version of Twinkle has a button to batch-delete pages, such as every page in a maintenance category. So, it would be possible to say, review the files in the category from 2330 to midnight and then push the button at midnight, but the sheer fact that I went back 1,500 logged actions and didn't see a minute missed (I.e. the deletions happened starting every day at exactly midnight UTC) makes me wonder if you are on to something here about a script being used to make these deletions without review of each deletion? Courcelles (talk) 13:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Today, I'll submit an arbitration case. If automatic deletions have been occurring, this is a flagrant abuse of the administrator toolkit, especially given that Explicit has been unresponsive. After doing this for so long, Explicit's deletion rights must be revoked, necessitating their removal as an admin. Maine 🦞 13:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Maine Lobster, I strongly encourage you to leave that for a more experienced editor to do, if they deem it appropriate and necessary. At a minimum, Explicit should be given time to explain their actions to this board. BilledMammal (talk) 13:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The case is clear. I will do what needs to be done unless you want to do it today instead. Maine 🦞 13:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I strongly warn you against doing so. You do not have the administrative/backroom experience to show that you can construct an arbitration case. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of Maine Lobster's inability to understand Twinkle, there's nothing to build an arbitration case about, anyway, as no-one has yet pointed out (a) even one example of Explicit's deletions being wrong, let alone a continuing pattern, or (b) any evidence that the deletions are being done without human overview. Black Kite (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Most, if not all, of these deletions really are that clear-cut. A file's description page doesn't have the requisite information, somebody tags it and (hopefully) notifies the uploader, they get a few days to fix the problem; if they don't, it's eligible for immediate deletion. An admin just needs to check that the tag was correct and has been there long enough. It's a very simple process that requires very minimal human review, so it's not surprising to see an admin using Twinkle to delete en masse.

The only issue here is Explicit's lack of response to queries about their deletions. Hopefully they'll commit to being more responsive in future and that will be the end of the matter. No need for drama. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

You're really telling me that Explicit, who claims they're not active, went through 500 files for manual review in the last five days? Something isn't right here. Maine 🦞 13:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't know whether they did or not, only they know that; but you could probably manually check 500 articles in two or three hours. It's really just checking that the tag is correct, a matter of a couple of seconds. Black Kite (talk) 14:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Maine Lobster really needs a WP:CIR block as a timesink, it's obvious they don't have a clue and they're not willing to listen to instruction or advice. They've already been told twice [12] [13] to stop messing around at administrative boards and both times have agreed with the message and said they will stop. Their comments on these boards are at best clueless, spamming threads with "Support, Editors who ... need to go" is not useful behaviour [14] [15] [16]. They've already been told about signature accessibility issues [17] but don't seem to have listened to that. They have repeatedly introduced BLP vios into the project, having about 20 edits oversighted/deleted as a result, and even more ridiculously they've been using anti-vandal tools on the people removing their BLP violating comments [18] and filed edit warring threads against people removing their poorly/unsourced additions [19] because they were misrepresenting sources [20]. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm discussing with them at their talk. Valereee (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

They're now p-blocked from projectspace in an effort to hopefully avoid an indef. Star Mississippi 19:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Two things: Explicit really needs to show up, and MaineLobster needs to back off for orchestrating drama and maybe write some articles—and change their signature to comply with accessibility standards. Drmies (talk) 13:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. This is concerning, but not a "go directly to Arbcom, do not pass go, do not collect $200" situation. Those are exceedingly rare, and the odds a 200 edit account would spot one when you have highly experienced editors, multiple admins, and even a few former arbitrators in this thread that aren't seeing it that way is so vanishingly small. Courcelles (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

If there is another batch of deletions at 00:00 25 March 2023 UTC, we're going to be in that exceedingly rare situation. Levivich (talk) 14:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

What is the issue with my signature that needs to be addressed? I am willing to make any changes that are necessary, however I would like to know the reason behind it. Maine 🦞 13:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll answer at your user. Valereee (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed on both accounts. This may well be an issue that the Committee will need to get involved in eventually, but certainly not yet. The community hasn't yet demonstrated that the normal methods of dispute resolution (i.e. this thread) have failed. These mass deletions and lack of accountability are a cause for concern, but let's examine it and see how the discussion plays out before considering escalation. Though sometimes I miss having the structure of WP:RFC/U as an option, even with all the drama they caused. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The deletions at exactly 00:00 have been going on for years. Midnight UTC is exactly when every file in a dated file category becomes eligible for deletion. It's plausible that Explicit checks the dated category and then batch deletes exactly when every file becomes eligible for deletion; for some CSDs like WP:F5 there isn't much to check (and I feel like an adminbot could automatically handle F5?). But I find it weird that it's that consistent. Whether the deletions are fully or semi-automated it's clear Explicit needs to be very forthcoming about what's going on and comply with WP:ADMINACCT. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

If they truly have been happening on the dot every day for years, it must be fully automated. No human would be available, online, and never fudge the timing for that long. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Having looked through the logs more, I do see the occasional being late by a few minutes, and the occasional being a minute early, which makes sense with a human doing it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 01:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• @Explicit: Is that the problem? Using "mass delete?" Could the solution be as simple as not using mass delete anymore? Hell-lloo-o! (In my unsolicited opinion, mass delete is a dangerous tool to use.) And the response so far to these queries has not been confidence inspiring. Please?-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Response

Umm wow, talk about spiraling out of control. I will try to address to the concerns made above instead of replying to each individual, so please let me know if I've missed anything.

As I stated above, I do not consider myself active "to the extent I was prior to 2023". I performed 500–1,500 administrative actions per day last year. I do not consider my current situation active; this is relative, as it seems 500 actions in a week is considered a lot here. Over the past three or so months, my administrative actions have mostly dealt with the daily categories at {{CSD backlogs}}. I use Twinkle's batch deletion function, which I do manually. I am (generally) simply online at that time, as it is 9 AM for me at 00:00 UTC. I check every single file to make sure it is eligible for deletion and remove deletion tags when they are not, as evidenced in my contributions.

The issue seems to be, then, rooted in my lack of responses to queries on my talk page. I suppose this is a result in the decline of my activity. I live in South Korea, so my timezone is generally at odds with the general user. I receive a majority of my message while I'm asleep. So, pair that up with my decline of activity, the concerns were often addressed by the time I did check my talk page. While not an excuse, it appears that it did create a situation that led me to believe that a response from me specifically was necessarily required.

I am well aware of my obligations as an administrator. Moving forward, I will be more diligent in responding to talk page messages. The responses may not be the quickest, but I'll get one in within 24 hours.

Thank you to everyone for the baseless accusations alleging that I must be covertly running a script on my account and threatening me with ArbCom. This experience has truly been shit. ✗plicit 23:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, but two questions:

1. Why haven't you answered the more-than-a-dozen deletion-related questions on your talk page and archives?
2. You've really hit that button at 9AM, on the dot, every day, for years?

What I don't understand is that you have to be logged in to Wikipedia to press the Twinkle button (right?). And if you're logged in, then you see the big banner that says you have a new talk page message. So yesterday, when you logged in and pressed the Twinkle button at 9AM, you must have seen the notices about messages on your talk page about this, right? You didn't respond to those, but you did delet ~80 files. I think you can understand why folks are concerned about anyone deleting pages without responding to messages about deleting pages. Levivich (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

1. As I mentioned above, I fell into a false sense of security in my response specifically not being needed. I'll get to those now.
2. ...Yes. I'm not sure how much clearer I can get.

My first response to this thread was on March 24 at 8:49 AM, I performed batch deletions at 9:00 AM, the page history shows the next response to this thread at 9:19 AM, and my action was responding here was March 25 at 8:07 AM. I'm not sure what the issue is? Unless I'm expected to respond to the AN notice on my talk page acknowledging the message. I figured my response here did that. ✗plicit 23:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

OK, thanks for taking care of #1. #2 I find really extraordinary, not that it's impossible and I accept your explanation, but I do want to ask: for how many years have you been pressing a particular button on a computer at exactly the same time every day? More than five years? I don't know if there is a Guinness World Record for punctuality, but you might hold it! Levivich (talk) 23:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately the streak only goes back to the 18th, on March 17th the deletions started at 00:01 instead (quarry). (And if someone really wants a database report similar to Longest active user editing streaks, just ask :-)) Legoktm (talk) 01:34, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll tell Guinness nevermind. :-) Levivich (talk) 01:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Hey, @Explicit, I'm sorry this has been unpleasant. I don't think anyone here is implying that the work you're doing isn't valuable, and the only person who was talking ArbCom was a very new editor who was basically shouted down and is now blocked from Wikipedia space for disruptive editing here. From my read, everyone else is just looking for the communication issue to be addressed. It sounds like you're saying you'll address the TP banners, plus the rare alert from noticeboards, when you log in each day. For me, that's all I wanted. Valereee (talk) 11:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Likewise. All I wanted to see was an assurance from Explict that he'll do better at responding to queries about his admin action in future. He's given that, so as far as I'm concerned this thread is resolved. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, I think there is a larger issue, for all admins, and that is to be cautious with batch delete or mass deletion tools. I've noticed that some types or criteria of articles, pages and files can be mass deleted without being properly checked. I know that I do batch deletions with some CSD G13s because I am familiar with the two editors who frequently tag expiring drafts and over time I've come to trust them to have checked out the drafts prior to tagging to make sure they are eligible. But not all article/page/file tagging by editors or even bots is accurate and I think most new editors who, for example, find their User pages deleted via CSD U5 will not complain, they just will leave and not come back. It hasn't happened lately but in the past, I've seen mass deletions of hundreds (thousands?) of User pages under the CSD U5 criteria that seemed questionable to me. But I should probably raise that question in a different discussion thread.

But I agree that it is almost always thoroughly unpleasant to be brought to AN/ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

(Liz, I share your impression about U5 deletions, with WP:UPYES in mind.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, it's a problem with the page taggers as well as the admins who delete the User pages. I've seen User pages tagged as CSD U5s that just contained the editor's name! Nothing else, just their name! That's acceptable content for a User page. Sheesh. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:51, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

From my experience, that same level of overzealous aggression has applied to MfDs as well, with a lot of innocuous user subpages being taken to task because their contents "might confuse Wikipedia readers". I think we all need to take a long look at userspace deletion as a whole, and not just in the CSD sphere. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• @Liz: I agree with you on the general point about lax application of CSD and undue haste. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth was one of the most prolific examples I've seen but not necessarily the worst. Nonetheless, Explicit has (very credibly) assured us that he checks files before deletion. Perhaps a discussion about CSD or U5 in particular is in order at VPP or WT:CSD? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
  • It's not in the least credible that he checked this image, which was at no time a valid speedy. The copyright holder was identified in the image name and the image itself, and the year of copyright in the image name and image description page, from the very first revision. While not quite in itself enough to satisfy WP:NFC#10a, it's more than enough to prevent a WP:F4, which is (ahem) explicit that there only needs to be enough "information to verify copyright status" and that "administrators should check the upload summary, file information page, and the image itself". We generally require administrators to look at and think about what they're deleting; that's why we don't just have a bot do it. —Cryptic 11:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

List of international goals scored by Harry Kane

I am not sure, but I've had a couple of pings over this article, but it seems to be a bit of a battleground at the moment from looking at the editing history, people seem to be directly copying over the Draft:List of international goals scored by Harry Kane, (instead of the appropriate move) to the page already on wikipedia which was previously a redirect I had set. I did submitted the draft earlier to be moved to the page as Harry Kane is now the top scorer for England national team. I was wondering if we could maybe lockdown the battle or a way to somehow sort out the issues at play? Regards. Govvy (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

If I understand the OP's concern, there are at least two issues. The first is whether the article should be an article or should be redirected. That isn't the OP's concern, but it should be a concern, because there is slow-motion edit-warring. The second is copy-pasting from the draft to the article, which is happening because copy-pasting is an easier way to edit-war. I have started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international goals scored by Harry Kane (2nd nomination) as the process to establish consensus on whether to keep or redirect the article. It appears at this time that the AFD will result in a Keep. I am aware that some editors think that the AFD is unnecessary, because it is obvious to them what the policy-based outcome is. What is usually unnecessary is edit-warring. After the AFD is closed as Keep, a history merge may be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Amarnath Vidyalankar

I semiprotected Amarnath_Vidyalankar Could someone check my work? Feel free to modify as needed. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Nothing jumps out at me, DFO. Was there something in particular you thought needed more eyes? Valereee (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Valereee. I was not sure that it did not need ECP. Started with minimum after being pinged back. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah! To me it looks like there may be some non-EC editors who are making valid edits, so I'd agree start with AC. I've put it on my watch, too. Valereee (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, @Deepfriedokra, missed seeing the ping. Valereee (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Editing from the Brooklyn Public Library

I'm writing for anyone to look into the block of the IP range 208.87.232.0/21. The editor blocked this on suspicion it was an open proxy. As a result, many people whose only access to the internet from the library computers are unable to contribute even when they're able to get an account. Given there's no way for anyone to access the library's network outside their buildings can someone with IP address experience review this. We have many meetups at the central library and I don't want anyone complain or getting discouraged because of someone mistaking this for an open proxy. Indy208 (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@Indy208: The range is registered to what looks like a VPN-type service, the sort of thing that remote workers use to connect to company networks. Is the entire /21 used by the library and only the library do you know? Courtesy ping for @ST47:, the blocking admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

We might also want to ping Blablubbs for an opinion. I've had reason to look at this range a number of times, so I can add my opinion. It's a Forcepoint range, which is a filtering service used by various legitimate institutions. Just like Zscaler I believe we shouldn't be blocking these as open proxies. I have seen evidence that at least parts of this /21 range are used by the Brooklyn library system. I believe they're mainly on 208.87.236.201 and 208.87.236.202 (IIRC). You can see a different institution mentioned at User_talk:208.87.234.202, and that appears to be a likely typical example. Brooklyn Library has a number of ranges available to them, and I don't really understand how they do their filtering, but there's some obvious local collateral from this library. I should note that at least one LTA likes to also use it (presumably by visiting in person), and this might part-explain why there's been no hurry to lift the block. Frankly some of the other account activity from the library is just weird. My own view on balance is that the range can probably be soft-blocked, though you'll undoubtedly get another socker on it. I think an unblock might be asking for trouble, though I wouldn't particularly object at this time. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: My thoughts pretty much align with yours. I'm not super thrilled by some of the activity on the range, but I think dropping down to anon only is unlikely to blow up in our faces, so it's probably worth a shot. --Blablubbs (talk) 12:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@Blablubbs, Zzuuzz, Indy208, and ST47: I've dropped it down to anon only with account creation allowed. The three CUs among you might want to monitor account creations on the range and act as necessary. No need to defer to me if the block needs to be changed again. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Don't hesitate to turn off account creation if you see any vandalism from new accounts. Indy208 (talk) 21:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

View a deleted item

Was Jarvisburg, North Carolina an article or just a redirect; and if an article, what was in it? Be sure to check the talk page for information.

Background — I deleted this eleven years ago, and someone just left a message on my talk about it. Since I was inactive for a couple of years, I lost my admin rights and haven't gotten around to requesting them back. Nyttend (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Self-confessed prank, per creator comment on deleted talk page. Courcelles (talk) 22:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  And it was an “article”. A copyvio, at that. Courcelles (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

A user adding external promotional links...

A user frequently adding promotional links in various sports related articles inspite of warning him. It seems the he is adding links of his website to generate traffic. Evid - [21] Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 10:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Indeffed. Courcelles (talk) 12:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Would like to replace old stub article with mine

Hey,

Ive made from scratch what I think is a well researched article that I would like to replace the original article with (which is a stub).

How do I go about doing that? Naeim9146 (talk) 15:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Nautilus Minerals is not a stub. Even if it were, you wouldn't be allowed to "replace" it. You can edit the article and replace its text with yours and hope that nobody objects to you changing the whole article in a single edit. Assuming you've done good work, they might not. Note in the edit summary that your edit merges your personal draft to the article. See WP:MERGE. And please use the Teahouse for these sort of questions going forward. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

THANK YOU! Naeim9146 (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Close review of Requests for comment/Rollback of 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.

---

This close, while a significant effort and made in good faith, was flawed; it poorly reflected the results of the discussion and contained procedural errors.

First, the closers failed to exclude the approximately 30 editors who were canvassed by a WMF employee and who opposed reverting to Vector 2010. This contravenes convention and sets a problematic precedent that canvassing can contribute to a consensus or to preventing one. (Including the canvassed !votes changes the support-oppose ratio from ~2:1 to ~3:2).

Second, they discounted arguments focusing on problems with Vector 2022, arguing that those issues either had been or would be addressed. While this argument was raised by a couple of editors regarding a couple of problems for most problems it was not and could not be, as the WMF has either no plans to resolve them or plans that many editors consider inadequate; already, the WMF has refused to implement unlimited width as default despite consensus. For the closers to conclude that solutions are forthcoming merely because Phabricator tickets exist for some of the problems is both novel and unsound, as Phabricator tickets often remain 'in progress' indefinitely, without any fixes being deployed.

Third, they scrutinized the arguments of supporters more heavily than opposers. For example, they considered the results of the user preference survey disputed, despite no editor arguing for any other position than that it showed opposition to deploying Vector2022. They also overestimated the number of editors who found the evidence the WMF presented for Vector 2022 compelling when they said that "many users found (the presented evidence) compelling"; only a small minority referenced the evidence at all, and a greater number argued that they didn't find the evidence compelling, typically on grounds that the evidence was not representative and that the WMF had already been proven to misrepresent the evidence it did choose to present.

Fourth, they discounted !votes based on user opinions, arguing that they were not based on policy and that the experiences of people who aren't UI designers are not concrete facts. There are three issues with this: first, we don't have policies on UI design, and where policy is silent we defer to editors' judgments; second, Wikipedia is built upon the belief that anyone can contribute valuably to discussions, not just experts; and third, this suggests that ordinary Wikipedia users cannot have valuable opinions about the interfaces they use.

Finally, they erred when they used their own opinion (Since we see the changes made by the WMF as compliance with the previous RfC, emphasis ours) to decide that the requirements of the previous close had been met. This was a decision that should have been deferred to the closers of the previous discussion, who believed that they had not been met, or to a consensus of the participants in this discussion, who also generally agreed that the requirements were not met.

This appeal was drafted with input from multiple editors. BilledMammal (talk) 08:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn close - I find all the reasons cited in the appeal above to be compelling. Together, the reasons adequately provide a basis to overturn the close. Disclosure: I participated in the RFC. starship.paint (exalt) 09:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
  • North8000's point, made below and in the Discussion section, is a sixth compelling reason. starship.paint (exalt) 12:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Keep closed. The horse has died, been buried, and has a tombstone engraved. This is like the US House Republicans who are investigating the investigators of the January 6 United States Capitol attack. When this is closed, is that going to be reviewed too? 331dot (talk) 09:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  So... keep closed because it's already closed? starship.paint (exalt) 12:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  If the close is blatantly defective and an utter misrepresentation of the discussion, contravening the will of a clear and decisive majority, then yes, it will likely be reviewed. Toa Nidhiki05 12:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  It's always the side that was not successful that feels it was "misrepresented" and that the process was "defective". See WP:NOTAVOTE. There was a discussion, a review of the discussion, and now we are reviewing the review of the discussion. Is the next step to review the review of the review of the discussion? We need to move forward, lets focus on fixing bugs(which I'm sure exist) and improvements. . 331dot (talk) 13:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  This is a review of the discussion. Please don't misrepresent this. Beyond that error, you're just making points that could apply to literally any close review. starship.paint (exalt) 13:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'm including the initial discussion before the launch of the skin. 331dot (talk) 13:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  And it’s always the side who was “successful” who will insist on keeping proceedings closed, no matter how inaccurate the close was. Want to go around in circles? Tvx1 15:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  That isn't correct. Often people who didn't participate in the RfC will endorse/not endorse the close. I'm one. Valereee (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Which does make 331dot's whole comment regarding the "side which was not successful" nonsensical as well, doesn't it? And that is exactly what my comment intended to highlight. Also, what you claim is certainly not true. There are already people here would !voted to keep it closed and admitted having comment in opposition to the rollback during the RFC!Tvx1 16:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  As noted, no, that isn't correct. And I'm skeptical that this will provide the result that you want. We have no more right to demand that this website appear a certain way than guests I invite into my home have to demand that I paint my wall a certain color or arrange the furniture a certain way. This is just a timesink at this point and the focus should be on fixing bugs and making improvements. Anyone who doesn't like the skin can use the old one just as some people still use Monobook. 331dot (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  See, these are exactly the circles I was talking about. You are person opposing rollback and you insist on keeping the close because you "won". You are the prime example of what I was talking. And no, anyone who wants cannot change. Only registered people can do that and our largest user base are pure readers.Tvx1 16:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  And you have surveyed all readers to know that they don't like it? You don't think that the Foundation considered that? 331dot (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  The only survey WMF did was objectively biased. Cessaune [talk] 17:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn close One thing I'd note is how massive the 30 canvassed editors are. That’s roughly 5% of all votes and 13% of all oppose votes - the fact the closers didn’t even address this is further proof the close was defective. This is such a blatant oversight, but it's indicative of the way the closers viewed the discussion: ignore or minimize any aspects that rejected the outcome they wanted. That's not the way closes should be done; I appreciate the effort they put, but the actual close simply doesn't make sense. Toa Nidhiki05 11:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn close per my opinions expressed here, here and in the draft of this appeal.--Æo (talk) 11:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Reasonable close. Closes of discussions like this one are extremely difficult, and there are always going to be a lot of people who disagree with the closers' approach. I can see how the close could have gone differently, but that's a given in a discussion this complicated. I don't see any reason to believe this wasn't a reasonable close. Valereee (talk) 11:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  I mean, five reasons are given above on why this wasn't a reasonable close. The outcome may have been possible, but the method can be objected to. starship.paint (exalt) 12:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Five reasons were given for why someone else might feel that way; as I said, there are always going to be a lot of people who disagree with the closers' approach in a discussion as complicated as this one. I feel it was reasonable. Note that I did not participate in the RfC, have tried the new skin, and am currently using the old one. At one point I considered closing, but the sheer length and vitriole and bludgeoning and uninformed comments just made the task look like it was going to be onerous, tedious, and ultimately quite likely thankless. Which is exactly what it's turned out to be, as we're seeing here. Valereee (talk) 13:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn close For the reasons given. Also there were implicitly two choices on what would be the default (2010 and 2022), the close treated it as if there was only one. Such would mean that the minority (2022) choice "wins" unless the 2010 choice gets a "supermajority" of views. (quote marks because yes, I know it's not a vote) North8000 (talk) 12:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Rewrite the close. While I think the outcome was reasonable, the reasons listed above are very valid on how the close messsage was pretty flawed. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Keep closed. I don't doubt the good faith of the RfC closers (Isabelle Belato and Ingenuity) nor that of those who opened this appeal (BilledMammal et al.) — I do truly believe each "side" of this is attempting to act in the best interests of the community. However, this has become an incredibly controversial topic, and there's no reason to believe that should this close be overturned, a more universally accepted close could realistically be achieved. (comment from involved editor) — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 12:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  The vote "overturn" means replacing the existing closure with a finding that something else is consensus, while a vote to "vacate" essentially deletes the existing closure and allows someone else to close as normal. In this case, there is a reason nobody has voted to vacate. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Keep closed and let's move forward. dwadieff ✉ 12:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  So, you linked to a discussion where the WMF ignored our editors' rough consensus to make unlimited width the default, that's what you want editors to move forward with? starship.paint (exalt) 13:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think the proposal ignored the rough consensus, and I think it's good to contribute constructively in that discussion rather than flogging a dead horse here. dwadieff ✉ 13:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  I believe that we made the right choice in the introduction of the limited width and that, for readers, we are continuing to make the right choice in the decision to keep it as the default BilledMammal (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Well, that's exactly it. dwadieff ✉ 13:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Starship.paint, this is beginning to look like bludgeoning. Please stop. Valereee (talk) 13:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  No, you please stop accusing everyone who does not post something in line of keeping the close of bad faith. Tvx1 15:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don't know a polite way to say this, so I won't mince words: your accusation that Valereee is assuming bad faith is way out of line. Valereee noted a behavioral pattern that was looking problematic and politely asked the editor to stop doing it. Bludgeoning can be (and normally is) done unintentionally, so this was not an accusation of bad faith and should not have been read as one. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  FWIW I've taken this to the user's talk. Valereee (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn Close The reasoning given by BilledMammal above went through multiple revisions with a number of editors to properly summarize the myriad of ways in which the close was improperly done. It is quite blatant and obvious that multiple aspects of the close, including the consideration of arguments given, number of supporters and opposers, direct canvassing of oppose votes and involvement of SPAs by the WMF, and the closers inserting their own opinions as reasoning when those stances were not meaningfully presented by the oppose voters in question (making the close a form of a supervote). All of these combined make the close very clearly improper and not in line with what is appropriate, particularly for a discussion of this scope and impact. I note that the keep closed editors above do not appear to make any argument as to why the close was proper and instead are trying to push the idea that we should all move on and ignore an improper close just because it's a complicated topic (and likely because they were on the oppose side). Silverseren^C 12:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn The closer's inability or unwillingness to actually read the discussion, preferring instead to cast a supervote, was painfully obvious. ValarianB (talk) 13:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Please try to assume good faith, @ValarianB. Both of the closers are experienced, well-intentioned editors. To assert without evidence that they didn't read the discussion and intentionally supervoted is a personal attack. Valereee (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  WP:SPADE. ValarianB (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Taken to the user's talk, further discussion here seemed counterproductive for this discussion. Valereee (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Per SPADE: Users too often cite policies, like our policy against personal attacks and our policy against incivility, not to protect themselves from personal attacks, but to protect their edits from review. This IMO doesn't apply here. So I don't understand your point. This is an opinion presented in an extremely and, IMO, unnecessarily negative light, and it undermines your otherwise valid point. Cessaune [talk] 17:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, while I normally have the greatest respect for both of the closers, I agree it was clearly a WP:SUPERVOTE, of types 1 (against consensus) and 3 (false compromise). That close used motivated reasoning to ignore a clear consensus. The fact that a revert had consensus was obvious before the close and only started being obscured after people tried to defend such a strange close for reasons that are also motivated by goals other than wanting the correct result (such as, for instance, wanting to not have to talk about this any more). Loki (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Deep sigh. Keep closed on productivity/time sink grounds. And no, I'm not open to discussing my !vote. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• No consensus or consensus to disapprove of Vector 2022 are the most likely outcomes for question 1. For question 2, no consensus seems to be in line with the comments.
  As some participants noted, it's likely that very few of those commenting in this RfC have any experience with UI design and, as such, the opinions presented here are only that, opinions. - That seems most plausible for both questions.
  Another point of contention was the fact that, while it is trivial for registered users to change back to the old skin if they dislike the changes, unregistered users do not enjoy that option. Many of those supporting the rollback were sympathetic editors who saw this as problematic. The only refutation offered to this was that the new skin was shown to be, according to the aforementioned studies and surveys, an improvement for readers, especially due to the reduced text width. - The proper solution to this problem is to have logged out preferences. Persistent width is already in the works, if not already live.
  With regards to the second question presented in this RfC, arguments presented by both sides were very similar to the first question, in that some like the new limited width and others do not. Some of those supporting an unlimited width noted that many articles contain galleries, tables, etc., and were negatively affected by the new width. There was a lot of discussion on whether scientific papers reached any form of consensus on the best width, with both sides presenting studies with opposing views on the issue. The large amount of whitespace was one of the main concerns of those who supported the rollback of Vector 2022. Since the arguments are equal in strength, there is rough consensus to make unlimited width the default. - If the arguments are equal in strength, shouldn't that equate to "no consensus"? Anyway, since this is such a minor technicality I don't know if it is most productive to actually pursue this overturn.
  Note I was heavily WP:INVOLVED in the discussion, however, I am just applying the guidelines at WP:CLOSE to determine what the result should have been closed to. The closing statement appears to address all the arguments listed, it is not perfect, but it was applied with as neutral judgement as possible. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 14:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Keep closed Let's avoid the timesink. MarioJump83 (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  It is not a good reason for keeping it closed and avoiding a review. It is not a timesink insofar as Wikipedia is governed by community discussion and consensus. Æo (talk) 15:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Keep Closed (Involved) I do notice that this is starting to become a re-litigation of the RFC itself than just a discussion of the close itself and whether it was reasonable. I also note that there are a number of !votes (this one included) that come from WP:involved editors, and should be heavily discounted when doing any analysis/close of this challenge.

I voted Oppose on the overturn, and found the close fair and an understandable conclusion. I also find the actions of a handful (but not a plurality) of those wishing to overturn, somewhere between badgering and borderline personal attacks. This is concerning. Soni (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Given the questions under contention, which include to what extent existing policy should actually govern the consensus resulting from this RfC, I think it is inevitable that editors will vote here along lines similar to those they had in the RfC. I am not convinced that this is ipso facto a flaw, although it is somewhat annoying. Close reviews normally do deteriorate into relitigating the underlying issue rather than litigating the closure, and this is something an experienced closer of these types of discussion will be comfortable navigating. I am sympathetic to all your concerns, though, and took a while to be convinced that this was worth bringing. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  I would also expect the result to align fairly closely with the actual RfC, which had a fairly decisive numerical majority in favor of rollback. I don't find this especially surprising, especially given how lopsided the result was. Toa Nidhiki05 15:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  I will note that this comment above (courtesy ping @Toa Nidhiki05:) is indicative of the same badgering I called distasteful in my !vote. You have made your opinions clear on the number/ratio of voters in the RFC. There's no need to re-iterate it over and over. (FWIW, my personal opinion on the numbers differs from you. I believe that there was not an "overwhelming majority" in favour of rollback, based off pure numbers/ratio alone). Soni (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  You're entitled to your own opinion, sure. Toa Nidhiki05 15:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn close. For once, I actually agree with you BilledMammal. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Fix the problems that concerned the editors. No matter how this turns out the problems remain, and if WMF has stated that they will not be working on these problems, then that may be a bigger problem than keeping or reverting the skin. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  WMF has already said unlimited width as a default is not on the table, so strictly speaking it’s not possible to fix the problems editors have. Toa Nidhiki05 15:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn close to Consensus for rollback to Vector 2010. The closers simply misrepresented the discussion. They put support comments through a rigorous scrutiny to reduce their weight as much as possible, while never doing the same for equal oppose comments. If you actually properly address similarly poor arguments on both sides, you still end up with an absolute decisive majority in favor of rollback both in numbers and in arguments.Tvx1 15:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• (involved) Endorse close. There's no basis for this; it was a reasonable reading of the consensus, and enough ink was spilt over it. But let's take a look at other case studies: Facebook and YouTube had several major redesigns, which generated huge online backlash, and every time, the backlash died within days, and the UI change didn't get reverted. If average users really were upset, these companies' sacrosaint "engagement" would have gone down, and the changes would have been reversed immediately to protect profit margins. But these changes never get reverted, because it's never average users that are upset; always just a very vocal minority. Also, it would be highly embarrassing (and pretty dysfunctional) for Wikipedia to revert V22 months after deployment, without very strong consensus that such a revert is warranted. And I share Mike Christie's concerns; this discussion is inherently non-representative, since "pro-revert" editors have a very strong incentive to show up, while others have long moved on. DFlhb (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Off-topic. Discuss the close, not the skin and its controversy. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
And here the backlash is still very much alive months later. So that clearly shows these situations are not comparable.Tvx1 15:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC) It's alive because the vocal minority is keeping it alive. I see no evidence that new people are flooding Wikipedia to express newfound opposition. 331dot (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC) The only vocal minority here are the people are the 36% who voted oppose. Toa Nidhiki05 16:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC) I'm sure you are aware of WP:NOTAVOTE. The discussion is only representative of those who participate, and people are naturally quicker to air grievances than offer praise. You haven't surveyed every Wikipedia user. 331dot (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC) I second this(DFlhb), strongly. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Opposition to UI changes often does die down, but that's immaterial. Opposition to almost anything will die down eventually. Facebook or Youtube or whatever big company get to ignore opposition to changes because they have no democratic governance of their sites, and are effectively little internet dictatorships. Wikipedia, on the other hand, does everything by consensus, and that means we don't just get to ignore opposition here. Loki (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC) No one is ignoring opposition. Wikipedia is not a democracy. As I understand it, feedback continues to be solicited. Users are free to use the old skin. 331dot (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC) On the other hand, see the 2018 Discord light mode redesign, whose extensive backlash drove a vital change: the optional restoration of the dark sidebar. The dark sidebar was removed in the redesign, replaced with more white on white. The immediate backlash revealed that for many users, it provided vital structure to the UI, segmenting parts of the screen to let people focus on key sections (a WCAG-recognized issue) while keeping everything from being a bright white eyesore. After weeks of rage and argument, a dark sidebar toggle was added. - 24.246.2.244 (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Uninvolved endorse close as a reasonable read of the discussion. I probably would have found consensus to rollback, but our job here is to determine if the close is reasonable. Addressing the points in order:
  1. The canvassed votes were in fact given less weight because they were all WP:ILIKEIT arguments. I would have given them even less weight (or excluded them entirely), but they were given less weight than a "standard" !vote. But giving them the same weight as ILIKEIT arguments is reasonable.
  2. It is perfectly reasonable to give !votes based on theoretically resolvable technical issues less weight, even if it is unlikely they will be implemented. For example, the CLOSECHALLENGE of the 2021 admin election RfC resulted in consensus to discount arguments based on the fact the WMF has no plans to make it possible to host SecurePoll locally. If there are pressing issues you think should be addressed right now, you can submit code to the developers—some of whom are volunteers. You know, WP:JUSTFIXIT style. If "WMF won't rollback no matter what, so oppose rollback" is not a sound reason to oppose, then so is "WMF won't fix [problem with V22], so support rollback."
  3. First, there are obviously more support !votes, so there were more opinions that needed to be scrutinized. Two, the oppose votes were scrutinized. From the close, "That is not to say that those opposing the rollback presented solely strong arguments. Besides the 'I like it' style !votes, there were also fait accompli (or sunk cost fallacy) arguments, meaning that, since the change has already happened, there is no point in going back. Some also argued that choices like this are outside the community’s hands, per WP:CONEXCEPT." Just because the closers were more concise does not mean something factored less into their decision.
  4. Is false. The close itself states that "they were not entirely discarded but were not given as much weight as other points." More than reasonable. This is a case when ILIKEIT should have some weight, but it should still be weighed less than a "standard" vote; this is exactly what the closers did.
  5. The quote is taken out of context: they were not discounting !votes based on their own opinion. The full quote is "we see the changes made by the WMF as compliance with the previous RfC, this means the previous close stands." The closers were stating their own opinion as to what their own close actually means, which is perfectly okay.
  Finally, the elephant in the room: the supermajority in support of a rollback. WP:NOTAVOTE is obviously relevant, but I want to point out that 2/3 is not as substantial as you might think. It is barely in the discretionary range at RfA, and would almost certainly not be enough at RfB. Yes, they are different processes, but closing something with 2/3 support as unsuccessful is not at all unusual on Wikipedia. HouseBlaster^talk 16:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Most of these are reasonable arguments, but I want to say that I think RfA and RfB are not good comparisons to this. In both cases, the consequences of an "incorrect" promotion (meaning, the person turned out to be a problem) are considered to far outweigh the consequences of an "incorrect" refusal to promote (meaning, the person would have been fine as an admin/bureaucrat we lose out on their service), so the required level of support has been deliberately skewed. In this case, choosing between two different interfaces, it would be difficult to argue compellingly that the stakes are significantly higher in one outcome than the other, so this is not a good candidate for RfA/B-level scrutiny. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  For #1, they weren't all WP:ILIKEIT arguments; most were, but not all.

  For #2, the close stated the point that technical implementation can be discussed and worked out as a part of the process, and is not a reason in itself to close something as unsuccessful when there is community support - this proposal lacks community support. Further, that discussion differs in that it would be impossible to implement the solution, even if there was a consensus for it, unless the technical problem was resolved. It would only be equivilent if the consensus was that Vector2022 could be deployed if all the listed issues were resolved.

  For #3, you make some good points, but you don't address them incorrectly scrutinizing the example "support" argument, nor do you address them overestimating the support for a specific "oppose" argument.

  For #4, to clarify the wording I used was "discounted", not "discarded". It also isn't clear that they only discounted "ILIKEIT" arguments on this basis; their wording suggests that this had broader scope.

  For #5, the issue is that they went beyond the scope of what they can decide; closers aren't empowered to make decisions beyond the scope of their close, and deciding whether previously issued requirements were met on the sole basis of their opinion is going beyond that scope.

  BilledMammal (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Hmm.

  1. Fair.
  2. A fairly small minority of !votes said WMF won't fix [problem with V22], so support rollback. Most said 'WMF should fix [problem I have with V22], so support rollback until it is fixed', which I think is reasonable.
  3. The closers didn't scrutinize the oppose argments efffectively. They hint at strong arguments without actually explaining which opposing arguments are strong. They also say this: While those in support of rolling back had a numerical majority, their arguments were relatively weak. Why? There's nothing to compare to. We know nothing about the relative strength of any argument, as the closers didn't explain it.
  4. A lot of arguments were deeper than ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT. A lot were IDONTLIKEIT because [issue person has]. As the close states, where policy is silent we defer to editors' judgments. It's really hard to compellingly argue using policy, a main tenet of good !votes, about something so undefined policy-wise.
  5. The closers have no jurisdiction over anything except their close. Since we see the changes made by the WMF as compliance with the previous RfC, this means the previous close stands seems to me to be saying that since WMF has, in their opinion, addressed the issues that the closers of the previous RfC said must've been resolved before their outcome stood, then the result of that RfC is now final.

  Anyway. Cessaune [talk] 17:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Weak overturn (Somewhat involved—I !voted neutral.) My preferred outcome to this debacle would've been if we stopped beating the dead horse like, 3 months ago, but now that we're already here, that point is moot because this conversation is going to continue to its end anyway. I think that the close of the RfC was a perfectly reasonable reading that didn't need to be challenged, but if I were the one who closed this RfC, I probably would've said consensus to rollback, and the review makes good points. Any WMF staff reading this—can you topic ban the entirety of enwiki from Vector 2022 after this please? Snowmanonahoe (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse close - this is a massive waste of time, per my comments last time the closure was challenged, and along the same lines as HouseBlaster and Valereee above. I did not participate in the original RfC. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  How is overturning an incorrect close a waste of time. We can only move forward if we start from the correct footing. Tvx1 17:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  It's a massive waste of time because the odds of finding a consensus to overturn are very slim, as should have been clear from the last time you attempted to challenge the close. In a polarized issue with well-over a hundred respondents on each side, you're going to need an overwhelming majority (i.e. 80% , not 60%) or decisive policy arguments (not really applicable on either side, as the entire issue is tangential to most written policy) to win a consensus. Your decision to bludgeon virtually every endorse !vote here is further evidence that you, specifically, are wasting people's time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  To be fair, that close was procedural due to how badly the thing was written. It shouldn't factor into this discussion. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn close (uninvolved) - While consensus is not a vote, it takes some very strong extenuating circumstances to disregard the way the votes are pointing. But the closers of that RFC didn't observe anything like that. They just discounted a bunch of votes for arbitrary reasons. Therefore I believe this close was bad and the discussion should be reclosed by a panel of other admins. Loki (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse close The closing statement was thoughtful, reasonable, and well explained. The closers made a reasonable interpretation of the consensus given the complex nature of the discussion, and I can find no procedural issues with how it was closed. Full disclosure: I voted in the discussion to rollback Vector 2022, however I can also see that the discussion was reasonably closed given the wealth of reasonable opinions both ways; "no consensus to rollback the default skin" is a reasonable way to interpret the consensus. --Jayron32 17:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  The whole appeal of the closure extensively dissects how the close was absolute not thoughtful, reasonable and well explained. It was biased and disproportionally critical of the support comments. It's sad to see that there are still people who flatly refuse to admit that. Tvx1 17:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  I see you asserting that it was so critical, but I find that the evidence I read when I review the closing statement directly myself does not support that assertion. I stand by my assessment; while I wanted the rollback personally, the discussion was not clear-cut in either direction, and the closer made a reasonable closing statement. --Jayron32 17:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse close I think the close was the right decision and I don't see any merit to reopening it. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  The merit is to finally have the correct outcome for this discussion and to finally give the community a Wikipedia they want!! Tvx1 17:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Have a read of WP:BADGER Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse close what a waste of time this is. --JBL (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Do you any actually argument supporting the close?? Tvx1 17:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'll be yet another editor to ask you to please stop WP:BADGERING those you disagree with. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn. (Diclosure: I watched the original discussion closely, supported rolling back to V10, and heavily influenced the final text of this appeal.) When I first saw this closure, I thought it was reasonable and planned to endorse it, but after following some of the discussions between then and now, I changed my mind. #4 is the decisive issue for me. Policy reflects the accumulated, collective experience of the entire Wikipedia community. On topics we deal with daily, like notability and verifying sources, it is extremely strong. On topics with which we have little experience, policy is less solid and should not be applied so strictly (if it even pertains at all); instead, we fall back on the community's opinions, of which policy is, in the final analysis, merely a wordsmithed summary. This is what the closers should have done. Instead, they relied on so-called "concrete facts": the WMF's research, the solutions under development, the opinions of experts (this one is especially pernicious). Nowhere does policy prescribe or even allow for closers to give more weight to the facts than participants' arguments. That is called supervoting. It is not permitted because facts are difficult to interpret and closers often do so poorly (as was the case here: the significance of all of those things was much more heavily disputed than the closure implied). This should have been closed the same way as all discussions that lack major policy considerations: by considering the validity of the arguments presented and which arguments were considered most compelling by the community (a closure is, after all, a summary of the community's conclusions on a topic, not the closer's). Had this been done, I think most of us would agree that the only truly plausible reading was that the community supported rolling back. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• I endorse the close made and extensively-explained by the (both uninvolved) administrator Isabelle Belato and editor Ingenuity. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse close, do not reopen, but vacate. It's abundantly clear that Team Cancel Vector 2022 are just going to keep at it until they get their way, wasting more and more of everyone's limited encyclopedia-building time in the process, over an outcome the WMF is neither obligated nor at all likely to implement. I say we give them what they want: vacate the close noting no fault of the closers, re-close the discussion as "majority votes to roll back", and then whoever is interested can go waste the WMF's time instead of wasting more of the community's. Alternatively, what I said the last time. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Ivanvector, what is your opinion of the points laid out above? Cessaune [talk] 18:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  The points above are a list of opinions of the close, written not by neutral reviewers but by a group of editors with the stated goal of changing the result in their favour. Viewing them through that lens, they fail to make a convincing argument that the close is procedurally faulty, they are just stating why they would have closed differently, and that only further enforces the case for a no consensus close. A consensus close either way would be much more obviously consensus, and I think everyone is missing that. I also feel this is argumentum ad infinitum, or throwing mud at the wall hoping some of it will stick. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector Ok so this is actually getting kind of a muddy discussion (no pun intended), but I think the comments and debates are really approaching Wikipedia:CARCASS levels. I don't see any major procedural problems with the close, and the very few minor ones that I do see would not have had a significant effect on the close.

  I am only looking to see if all the proper procedures were followed for the close, and for the most part, they were. It is very difficult to assess consensus impartially when being WP:INVOLVED but it is not impossible. I don't think "consensus to rollback" would at all carry any weight though because it is not within the scope of the community to determine features implemented by the WMF. We can give suggestions and we have but WMF does not have to listen to them. The most consensus for rollback there can be is "consensus to disapprove of the rollout of Vector 2022". Not like it would have made a big difference though.

  Same thing with Q2 which was closed as "rough consensus to make unlimited width default". This is just a recommendation to the WMF and WMF does not have to listen, so it would have been better phrased as "rough consensus to recommend unlimited width default". But once again this, alongside what probably better equated to "no consensus" for Q2 is such a minor technicality that it would have not have any effect on the result. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 19:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  The fact that it carries no weight is irrelevant. We aren't forcing WMF to do anything, we are simply stating what we believe would be the best way to move forward. Cessaune [talk] 20:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• I guess I come down on the side of a weak endorse. I truly don't care about this issue at all, and this isn't the close I would have made. But, for very good reasons, that's not the standard to relitigate closure on Wikipedia, because then there would be no effective closes. I can see how two closers reasonably arrived at the close they made, it's not a poor close, especially not one so egregious it needs to be overturned, even though I would have closed it the other way. Courcelles (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Involved endorse close. I opposed rollback, but would irrespective of that view have come to the same conclusion had I been the closer, even though maybe not for the same reasons. One does not have to agree with how the closers weighed the arguments to see that rough consensus, in a discussion this large and unwieldy, and split roughly 3:2 numerically, is essentially impossible to achieve, no matter how one looks at it. Sandstein 18:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Obvious Overturn. It is very clear that a large amount of WMF-related accounts with in many cases few enwiki edits were canvassed to vote here - all of those should be discarded, at which pointy it would not even be possible to close the RfC in the way it was. I would suggest running a new RfC and immediately removing such accounts. Black Kite (talk) 18:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  I can't wait to see WP:V22RFC3. Shells-shells (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn The reasons cited are all convincing. It was not properly explained which and how "policies and guidelines" justify overriding the support votes which were nearly twice as numerous. No account was made of the statistically significant number of canvassed votes, much less of the unquantified SPAs for which there is no evidence of being representative of genuine frequent users of the website. The RfC showed that the new design is very unpopular, and the closers should reflect this prevailing opinion in their close rather than bury their heads in the sand. Avilich (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn close - flat-out dismissing the critiques by unregistered users - who don't have a choice to change skin and were largely all readers - as WP:IDONTLIKEIT instead of actually taking their arguments onboard is a major concern here for me. It isn't IDONTLIKEIT if the skin completely discards everything they used in favour of an interface which has, to my knowledge, pretty consistently been criticised by readers (not editors) as missing features or otherwise less functional. This isn't an inside-baseball issue; this is something fundamental about the skin and how it works for those users. And, as a reminder, not everyone can afford to risk jail time by registering an account just to read an unhobbled version of Wikipedia. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 18:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Uninvolved Endorse - We had over 600 people voice their opinion and the strongest argument to overturn is ~30 of them might have been canvassed? With most of those being likely discounted as an ILIKEIT vote. No, I don't think we should throw the baby out with the bath water over something like that, even if it was an actual issue. HouseBlaster makes strong points and I agree with them. PackMecEng (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  No the strongest argument to overturn is that the closers disproportionately disregarded support cooments while not doing the same with equal oppose comments. The close just doesn’t reflect the actual consensus. Tvx1 01:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Keep closed The horse is dead, long live the horse. Can we leave this to a peaceful death? The issue is that in order to overturn this, we would need overwhelming consensus. Why? Because this would be a direct rebuke, and major "screw you" to the foundation. But instead we have 61%. That's the support percentage. If this were at RfA, it wouldn't even pass the discretionary threshold. The community simply did not express enough support for that extreme outcome. Wikipedia cannot be thrown into a constitutional crisis without the overwhelming support of the community, 61% is not overwhelming. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  ~61% only if you are including canvassed editors; ~65% if you exclude them, as you should. Further, consensus becomes stronger when the number of editors increase, even if the percentage remains the same - a discussion with three editors, two for A and one for B, is likely "no consensus", but a discussion with 600 editors, 400 for A and 200 for B, is, absent exceptional circumstances that do not apply here, an overwhelming consensus for A. BilledMammal (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  CaptainEEK, can you do that same analysis for the "Keep 2022" support?North8000 (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think I see what you mean North, but I don't think it works the other way. Keeping it has no short term practical cost. But to overturn V22 would be a massive expenditure of the community's political capital, so to speak, in telling the Foundation we don't like their work and they wasted millions of dollars. So the onus is on those who want it rollbacked, and that support is just insufficient. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse close Time to move on and build an encyclopedia. - Donald Albury 20:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Involved endorse close UI changes are almost always unpopular and the people who don't like it are almost always the loudest and most passionate. This would need to be near 80% for me to consider that there was a clear consensus. I agree with CaptainEEK, it's time to move on. Nemov (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  UI changes are in fact almost always unpopular. However, since Wikipedia unlike almost all other websites is governed by consensus, the implication of that fact here is not "therefore we should ignore the community" and far closer to "therefore we should avoid changing the UI". Loki (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Why 80%? That seems like an arbitrary threshold, and a high one at that - so high that I've never seen in an RfC. In an RfC of this size, that's roughly 440 supports to 110 opposes - why is that enough and not, say, 400 supports to 151 opposes (or even what we had - 355 to 196, excluding canvassed votes)? Toa Nidhiki05 23:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Ugh. - As someone who backed a rollback and still wants one, and someone frustrated with having basically an open beta dumped on the general reader base, the closers' conclusion of no consensus was not out of line with the discussion. The conclusion of no consensus reflects the lack of consensus. The reasoning, however, has issues - but the largest stumbling blocks are the most sensitive ones, the ones about the WMF's defense of Vector 2022. The handling of the WMF-provided survey in particular is a problem. The closers' representation simply does not reflect the discussion (EDIT for clarity: regarding the survey). It nearly flips the discussion around. A statement reflecting the discussion would be in and of itself a rebuke to the WMF, and a rebuke to the WMF flows awkwardly into a (legitimately discussion-reflective) no consensus finding. In all honesty, they would probably have been better off not bringing it up at all.

This entire discussion has been a slog. These visual overhaul discussions always are - people screaming into the void because that's the only way to restore useful features and/or to get their accessibility needs met, people screaming at the people screaming into the void because they don't want their similar gains lost, people glibly summing every argument up as some general sentiment about change that ought to be trampled over, and people ignoring everything everyone else says, all while we're at the mercy of the whims of distant decision-makers. It's a pain, but it's pretty much the main way to get any needed design changes - and, as with past cases like the restoration of the Discord light mode dark sidebar, it works. Already, some of the navigational tools for advanced readers have been pulled out of hiding, and there's work being done on providing this site some level of much-needed visual structure and organization again. I wish it didn't take so much yelling, though. - 24.246.2.244 (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I thouroughly enjoyed reading this. Cessaune [talk] 03:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• OVerturn close It is clear this close needs overturning as outline in the opening statement by BilledMammal. We do not have tiered !votes based on those who are 'experts' or not, we only value what arguments are made based on policy and guidelines. 'It is a waste of time to overturn' is not a fair argument otherwise we would be stuck with flawed disccusions/RfCs in perpetuity. Disclosure: I was involved in this discussion.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 23:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn close. Although I had not previously been aware of how many participants were canvassed by the WMF, my big concern is that emphasized below by Jéské_Couriano. It may not be realistic for this to be reclosed reflecting the majority view. But at a minimum, per Aaron_Liu, the close needs to be redone recognizing the importance of the experience of unregistered readers, rather than dismissing them as if this were a discussion on article content, where a citable source trumps personal experience. Ideally it would be reversed on the basis that this is not a social media company where the owner gets to impose their choice of UI to attract and manage the kinds of users they want, but a project to provide something for readers, all readers, any readers. That may not be possible given our procedures and guidelines for RfCs. But I'd like to see it, and consider both the tenor and the weighting in the close and the calls for ending "drama", especially from people employed by the WMF, to be shameful. (And I note from discussion here that the closers' statement that they considered the WMF had fulfilled or would be fulfilling the conditions of the previous RfC were at best misleading, since there's apparently a WMF statement that they will not budge on width? So add that to my previously expressed scorn for the way the closers went about justifying their "no consensus" close.) Yngvadottir (talk) 00:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Vacate finding and sanction closers. I was going to vote in that, forgot, but calling a discussion against the wishes of over 60% of the respondents is a Jim Joyce-sized whiff. To the point where one wonders if we're all reading the same discussion. Zaathras (talk) 00:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Sanction closers? Care to further explain? Thanks. Cessaune [talk] 01:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  This was obviously egregiously-poor judgement on their part. Something needs to happen when something is so badly whiffed, even if it is just a simple WP:TROUT. Zaathras (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Having it overturned would be enough of a trout, at least to me. Toa Nidhiki05 03:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don't support sanctioning the closers at all. Toa Nidhiki05 01:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Are you saying that we should have some sort of "election" process for closers? If so, I disagree as closing is part of admin responsibilities. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  It's a good time to remind some editors that consensus is not determined by counting heads or counting votes. Nemov (talk) 02:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  ...nor is it determined by the closer's own views about what action or outcome is most appropriate. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community Loki (talk) 02:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• I would like to overturn the close as a very heavily involved editor. I agree with all the points made above. While I disagree with the way that the points were laid out, I do, however, think that the close's outcome was reasonable, and I applaud both Isabelle and Ingenuity for their work. However, since I was so heavily involved, I don't think my !vote matters.

There are four endorse arguments that I fully disagree with:

The outcome (probably) won't change. So? This is a close review, plain and simple. We are reviewing the close, not speculating about the potential outcome of a new close. This is irrelevant to the point at hand.

Reclosing will take up too much time. So? We are reviewing the close, not speculating about the ramifications and potential drawbacks of a new close. It might take up time, yes. We aren't concerned with that. We should be concerned with reviewing the close, and that's it.

The editors pushing this close review are part of a vocal minority. Yes, many are part of the vocal minority (including me). Again, so? This does not invalidate the points that are represented in the close review.

You're beating a dead horse/let's move forward. This is IMO the weakest argument, as it isn't really arguing for anything. 'We should move on' is not an analyzation of the close, and, as such, is irrelevant.

See the pattern?

The best endorse comment IMO comes from User:HouseBlaster—they actually reviewed the opinions laid out above, and offered their own opinion on each of the points. Despite the fact that I disagree with most of them, I am very happy to see someone actually, you know, review the close, because, this is (at this point I don't know anymore) a close review.

Now, this is not to say that all the overturn arguments are good, or even mediocre. I especially disagree with comments that suggest that the closers acted in bad faith, or were somehow incompetent. However, there is really not much to say as an overturner except 'I agree with the points above'. This isn't an RfC, and the policy on close review is intentionally vague. In addition, the RfC wasn't really a policy-based issue. It was mainly a visual one. This makes it extremely hard to argue effectively to overturn, as there is no specific policy to cite that helps to prove your case.

To sum it up, I am extremely disappointed in the lack of actual close review going on in this, you know, close review. It's basically turned into a forum for involved editors to repeat their RfC !votes (some more tactfully than others). However, at the end of the day, we're all a bunch of volunteer editors doing what we think is best for the wiki. As nicely described by IP 24.246.2.244:

This entire discussion has been a slog. These visual overhaul discussions always are - people screaming into the void because that's the only way to restore useful features and/or to get their accessibility needs met, people screaming at the people screaming into the void because they don't want their similar gains lost, people glibly summing every argument up as some general sentiment about change that ought to be trampled over, and people ignoring everything everyone else says, all while we're at the mercy of the whims of distant decision-makers.

Thanks for listening to my rant, Cessaune [talk] 03:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

As someone who !voted "overturn", if you think the close was reasonable you should vote to endorse, even if you disagree. That's the standard, and it's a big part of why many of the overturn votes are saying that the close was unreasonable or bad faith.

(If you only think the close's outcome was reasonable but not the reasoning you should say that more clearly. That distinction does matter here, although IMO it's somewhat splitting hairs.) Loki (talk) 03:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I only think that the outcome was reasonable, but the reasoning was flawed. That's why I would like to overturn. Cessaune [talk] 03:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Keep closed not so much because this was a sterling example of RFC closure (how could it be with such an RFC to close), and definitely not because I participated on the side the closer chose (although I did) but because re-opening it now is unlikely to lead to any less of a mess of an RFC or any more of a constructive outcome. We need to sit back, wait maybe six months, and (may I suggest) actually try this skin, as editors, rather then kneejerk reacting based only on the fact that it's not the same as the skin we've grown comfortable with over so many years (monobook, in my case). Only then can we have an informed opinion about which ways the skin is better or worse and whether reverting the default or improving or working around the remaining bugs is the better path. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Am I missing something? This only looks like having someone else close the thing instead, not reopening the RfC. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  If the only question is whether the RFC should have been closed as it was as a "no consensus" or as some other outcome, then endorse close. It was very obviously not a consensus. See Consensus decision-making. Consensus means general agreement, not hundreds of people on one side outvoting hundreds more people on another side. There can be outliers, or people whose contributions were discounted for making weak arguments, but those conditions largely did not apply in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse close, per several of the comments above. It was a reasonable close, with the reasoning clearly presented and justified. I agree with the comments by several others above, particularly HouseBlaster. I am unimpressed by the arguments based on simple numerical counts; we don't want closers to be pushed towards simple vote counting to close discussions. Interpreting the worth of an argument is what they are supposed to do. I also agree that for this to pass a strong consensus would have been needed -- we can't whiplash on major issues like this; there has to be clear consensus that wouldn't change if ten or twenty users changed their minds. So something more than a simple majority of votes was required in any case. The same applies to an overturn of the close. I also understand the frustration of those who !voted to rollback with arguments that overturning the close would be a timesink and disruptive, but it is true it would absorb a great deal of time and energy and probably not change anything. It was a difficult close, but I think it did what was needed, and we should not reopen the discussion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Well more than a simple majority supported. If you exclude canvassed votes, support was 64%-36%, with 159 more users supporting rollback than opposing; certainly more than 10 or 20. Toa Nidhiki05 12:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, that was carelessly phrased on my part. I'll say it a different way: things like AfD can be closed one or another when the consensus is not very strongly in one direction, because it's not very disruptive to reverse it. RfAs require a supermajority for more than one reason, but one of those reasons is that giving the admin bit is not a decision you want to flip-flop on; we need to be absolutely clear the community supports it. A supermajority helps guarantee that. This RfC would have been enormously disruptive if it had passed. I understand the proponents of the rollback feel that the disruption would have been worth it, but to make that call with anything other than a very clear consensus would have been a dereliction of duty on the part of the closer. Along with the other points the closer made I think we were not close to the strong consensus this would have required. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• I'm disappointed but not surprised to see this. Before I !vote above, I have a question about venue: why is this at AN? This was not an admin-only RfC; any discussion like this, if we have to have it, should have the same constituency as the original discussion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  All RfC close reviews take place at AN. I have no objection to it being advertised more widely, or to the participants in the RfC being notified (perhaps through a MassMessage, given that IP's can't receive pings, and because pinging that many editors would be difficult). A list of editors who contributed to the discussion can be found here; I believe, but cannot guarantee, that it is complete. BilledMammal (talk) 10:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I'm unsure where I lie on the core question. But a number of the issues are valid considerations (and, at a minimum, should be answered in how they didn't affect the end-outcome, should any close-closer be reading this in the future). For clarity, I specifically rebut any editor who argues that the WMF's more recent CONEXCEPT use renders this discussion moot. Point 4, in particular, I think has some validity with substantive impact. A comparable example of a much smaller (if still well attended) discussion could be the update to the padlocks we use to show protection levels. That did factor them in. For a reclose to not occur, each point either has to have consensus that it just doesn't exist, or that it does exist, but together with the others didn't have significant net impact. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• @North8000: I'm not sure what you mean by the close treated it as if there was only one and your subsequent reasoning. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'll use imaginary numbers to (over)simplify/illustrate and yes I know it's not a vote. Let's say that 65% is a consensus, and that 40% wanted 2022 and 60% wanted 2010. If you treated it as two choices, the finding would be that there was a preference for 2010. If you treat it as one choice (2010) and say that that a consensus is needed to pick 2010, then you are saying that the 40% wins by default because the 60% failed to achieve 65%.North8000 (talk) 12:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  If you exclude the canvassed votes - and you should - then the RfC either was a 62%-34% majority (including neutrals) or 64%-36% majority (excluding neutrals) in favor of rollback. Both of these results are decisive supermajorities. Toa Nidhiki05 12:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  So no one opposed to the new skin was canvassed to the discussion? 331dot (talk) 13:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  No evidence of such canvassing was found; there was no abnormal spikes in support !voters, and no disclosure of off-wiki outreach was provided. It's not impossible, but without any evidence we should not assume that it took place, and nor should we use the possibility that it took place as "both sides" argument to ignore the proven canvassing of oppose !voters. BilledMammal (talk) 13:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Wikipedia policy says we need to assume good faith. Like BilledMammal said: do you have any evidence that Support votes were canvassed? If not, there is no reason to assume they were. On the other hand, we know for a fact that votes for Oppose were canvassed, along with roughly how many that was. The number is large enough to have a statistically significant impact. Toa Nidhiki05 13:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Well, but the reason we know is that it was disclosed/discovered. Most canvassing isn't. Valereee (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Arguing we should ignore canvassing because maybe someone might have canvassed on the other side (even though there’s no evidence) is a novel argument. It’s also a terrible one that would set a terrible precedent. Toa Nidhiki05 14:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  It was identified prior to being disclosed; being disclosed, by one of the canvassed individuals to ArbCom, merely added additional evidence, and showed that a WMF employee was behind it.

  I don't understand your overall point here; we shouldn't care about this canvassing because it is possible other canvassing took place, even though we have no evidence of it? BilledMammal (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  No, sorry for not being clear. We shouldn't assume there wasn't canvassing simply because no one confessed or discovered it. That's all, face value, not an argument there was. Valereee (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  We absolutely should not assume there was canvassing, unless there is evidence. I am honestly baffled you are trying to argue this. "Let's ignore actual, mass off-wiki canvassing because of hypothetical canvassing I've imagined" is not a good argument. It comes off to me as a clear attempt to sweep an actual case of mass canvassing under the rug. There is evidence that around 30 users were canvassed off-wiki to oppose overturning; there is no evidence that any support votes were canvassed. Stop trying to equivocate the two. Toa Nidhiki05 14:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  I literally said that it was not an argument that there was. Valereee (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Well, you can say what you want, but you simply cannot say "well we don't have any proof there wasn't canvassing". Can you at least agree that proving a negative in this case is impossible? Toa Nidhiki05 15:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Of course. Valereee (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  So the views of those that seem to have been canvassed must be totally discounted? 331dot (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yes. Toa Nidhiki05 15:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Why? Why should their opinion not count at all? I can understand it counting less, but not totally discounted. That's utterly wrong. 331dot (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Because canvassing subverts consensus; it brings in a non-neutral group of editors whose presence will distort the result. The only way to correct this is to exclude their !votes. Further, failing to exclude them will encourage canvassing, as we will be permitting it to influence the result even when caught. BilledMammal (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Well, you are entitled to your views. 331dot (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Meatpuppetry: In votes or vote-like discussions, new users may be disregarded or given significantly less weight, especially if there are many of them expressing the same opinion. Both approaches are endorsed by policy. In practice, they are usually disregarded entirely when they would be a deciding factor. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  For the record, I remember checking "what links here" during the RfC and finding notices placed at Talk:Donald Trump among other odd places. Not exactly canvassing, but clearly an attempt to reach readers rather than editors. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• I'm curious: what is the outcome you're hoping will be achieved here, BilledMammal, such that it's worth advertising this more widely (following the thread with Mike Christie above), and potentially taking up another massive amount of time and energy? Is the idea that if only it were closed properly, the WMF would reverse course and apologize? Is it just to be on the record (yet another record) with "a lot of us don't like this"? The self-evident wikivirtue of an accurate summary, regardless of any other real outcome? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don't necessarily support advertising this more widely, but I also don't oppose it if editors believe it is worth doing - I see Soni has already notified WP:VPP.

  My desired result is for the close to reflect what I believe the consensus of the discussion is, to rollback to Vector2010, and for the WMF to respect the result of that discussion. I don't know if they will but the fact that they respected the consensus at the banners RfC, despite the significant expense of doing so, gives me hope. BilledMammal (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• This discussion was created without actually informing the closers about it. I have rectified the same. Pinging @BilledMammal: so you remember policy in future. Soni (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  ? BilledMammal (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Seems like Soni owes an apology here. Toa Nidhiki05 15:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  There were two closers, and you are required to inform both. Soni (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  You're right, I forgot about Ingenuity, who has my apologies - thank you for notifying them. However, your comment suggests that I forgot to issue the notification in general, rather than forgetting that there were multiple closers. BilledMammal (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  We're now at semantics than policy, so I'm going to stop replying here. WP:AN has a policy (or is it a guideline? I'm actually uncertain) to inform everyone a discussion is about; that wasn't properly met. I wanted to rectify it and note accordingly, so I did that. I did not intend on implying anything more or less, apologies if my wording seems to do so. Soni (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• A lot of !voters were in involved in the RfC. The participants in this discussion !voted as follows:
  • BilledMammal supported rollback (!voted overturn)
  • starship.paint supported rollback (!voted overturn)
  • 331dot opposed rollback (!voted endorse)
  • Toa Nidhiki05 supported rollback (!voted overturn)
  • Æo supported rollback (!voted overturn)
  • Valereee uninvolved (!voted endorse)
  • North8000 supported rollback (!voted overturn)
  • Aaron Liu opposed rollback (!voted endorse & rewrite closure)
  • TheresNoTime involved (!voted endorse)
  • dwadieff opposed rollback (!voted endorse)
  • Silverseren uninvolved (!voted overturn)
  • ValarianB supported rollback (!voted overturn)
  • WaltClipper opposed rollback (!voted endorse)
  • Awesome Aasim opposed rollback (!voted endorse)?
  • MarioJump83 uninvolved (!voted endorse)
  • Soni opposed rollback (!voted endorse)
  • BeanieFan11 supported rollback (!voted overturn)
  • Randy Kryn supported rollback (!voted fix problems)
  • Tvx1 supported rollback (!voted overturn)
  • DFlhb opposed rollback (!voted endorse)
  I myself opposed rollback. — Qwerfjkltalk 15:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  And what are folks supposed to make of this list? dwadieff ✉ 16:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  @dwadieff, almost everyone who opposed rollback endorses the closure, and likewise almost everyone who supported rollback wants the closure overturned. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  ....and Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia. dwadieff ✉ 16:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  This discussion is really just a rehash of the RfC. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  No it isn't. Comments here deal with the close. Tvx1 17:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Doesn't matter, not a vote either way. The arguments made here will be distinct from the ones in the RFC and judged on their own merits. small jars tc 20:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  WaltClipper was involved; they voted "Inhumanly strong oppose", and other conflicts beyond participating directly !voting exist with some of the other editors; TNT has appropriately declared theirs in this discussion. I largely agree with dwadieff's implication that lists like this are not, however, helpful. BilledMammal (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC) The preceding comment was updated after this comment was made; when this comment was made both WaltClipper and TNT were listed as "Uninvolved" BilledMammal (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Meh, I wouldn't call it not helpful. Valereee (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  I feel like using this list to putting a "(this user voted Oppose/Support on the original RFC)" in small text just after any involved undeclared !votes would be helpful for following along the review. I do not know how contentious that would be, so will let someone else decide if they want to do that. Soni (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  And what's that supposed to achieve? dwadieff ✉ 16:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Easier parsing and following along the review, like I said. Involved !votes are supposed to be given lesser weightage in any discussion. Noting the involved comments would make that easier. Your mileage may vary though, but I found this list helpful enough to suggest that Soni (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  No they shouldn't. Comments that are merely another response to the original discussion should be given weight. Any comment that properly deals with the review close should be given it's due weight. Tvx1 17:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Wasn't the rollback RFC the largest RFC in Wikipedia history? So many were involved. Now, with this discussion, even more are involved. Furthermore, those who wanted to rollback -> overturn, and those who wanted to retain -> endorse.... duh? Surely this was expected? starship.paint (exalt) 16:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  The involvement in the original RfC doesn't matter that much because regardless of whether they participated in the RfC, everyone has an opinion on the skins. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don't, actually. I tried the new skin, it was fine, but a script I use all the time doesn't work there yet so I changed back to the old skin. I really have no opinion. Valereee (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  I found it nominally irritating so changed it back. Really not an issue for me. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Right, and why is that standard would not be applicable for votes/involvement in the rollback RfC? dwadieff ✉ 16:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  If the RfC was more typical, you're less likely to have an opinion. This RfC is concerned with a very integral part of the whole website. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I don't really care what happens, it just feels like this has been discussed endlessly at this point to the point where I don't even know where I fall in this discussion. Initially I was opposed and then I Tried it out for a bit and got used to it, but then went back after seeing so many people upset. And now here we are again with people debating over whether it should be default or not. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I find it very disappointing that editors endorsing the close or otherwise arguing to keep it closed have, with a small number of exceptions, essentially made an WP:ILIKEIT vote, rather than attempting to express any argument for why the close was proper in the face of the detailed issues that have been presented related to it. It is even more disappointing that many of these editors haven't even tried to assert that the close was proper. BilledMammal (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  This is how I expected things would go, to be honest. I agree it's disappointing, though. I recognize that not everyone can immediately articulate why they find the closure reasonable (i.e., why the appeal's arguments are unpersuasive), but it would be nice if they tried. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  I mean, by the very argument of those above endorsing the close saying it's not about numbers, the closer of this discussion should outright ignore any Endorse Close votes that don't put forth any reasoning (which is basically 100% of them at the moment), right? Silverseren^C 21:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Absolutely. If we're using the same logic as the original close, "It's time to move on", "I like the close", and perhaps most hilariously, "I'd need 80% to consider this a consensus" are simply not adequate, reasoned responses here. 80% is a standard I don't think I've ever seen applied to an RfC; it's pure goalpost shifting now that it's clear that the margin is closer to 2:1 than 3:2. Toa Nidhiki05 23:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Compassionate727: I believe what you're doing is similar to asking endorsers to prove a negative. If I had to put my specific thoughts into words, I'd say I land roughly close to what @Ivanvector: (sorry for ping) said here. I understand that you would have closed things differently because of the reasons specified above, but am not convinced that the close itself was faulty to the extent that Close Review requires, per policy. There is a significant gap between "I can see someone else closing more in line with the 5 points raised above" and "The fact that this RFC's closers did not do so is a big blunder".

Which is a lot of words to just repeat my initial !vote calling the close "fair and understandable". A reasonable closer "could" come to this conclusion, and that's the yardstick I used. Hope that helps. Soni (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Soni: I don't mind, but if you want to refer to someone but don't want to ping them, you can use {{noping}}. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I often like to ping people if I'm talking something specifically about them/something they said instead of generically. I just wanted to be polite just in case you didn't want pings for people citing you. (Thanks for the template note though, I will remember that) Soni (talk) 14:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not expecting endorsers to prove a negative, any more than it is expecting oppose !voters at an RM to prove a negative; it's expecting endorsers to rebut an argument, rather than making a bare assertion that the close was reasonable - and in many cases in this discussion, not even that assertion has been made. BilledMammal (talk) 02:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

What BilledMammal said. So far, I feel like the only endorsers to seriously engage with the overturners' arguments are HouseBlaster and Mike Christie. Most others have either complained this is a waste of time (which, if that's truly all you think, just don't comment; this doesn't need to be a waste of your time) or said they wouldn't have closed it this way but don't think it's bad enough to overturn, which IMO speaks volumes. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 12:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• I am not sure what reopening and reclosing would achieve. The WMF has clearly stated they do not intend to follow the current close, much as the closure of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deployment of Vector (2022) was not followed. Community input has been thorough, the response to it is clear. A new close would take up more community time, and I see no indication it would affect the response. CMD (talk) 02:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  The WMF might chose to ignore us, but they also might not. The banners result gives me hope that they won't. If nothing else, this discussion needs to be reclosed in a way that excludes the canvassed !voters, to avoid suggesting to the WMF that the way to handle any disputes they have with us is to canvass editors to it. BilledMammal (talk) 02:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  While I agree that the canvassing should have been addressed, I do not believe it to be a fair suggestion that the WMF will come away with the idea that they should canvass editors to en.wiki RfCs. They acted promptly to inform both ARBCOM and the community of the matter. CMD (talk) 06:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  My understanding of what happened is that the ArbCom was informed of the canvassing by a third party; they then issued an ultimatum to the WMF, informing them that if they did not inform the community of this by a certain date ArbCom would do so. Given that the WMF only informed the community after this ultimatum was issued I am less than impressed with the WMF's actions in relation to this. BilledMammal (talk) 08:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Do you have diffs proving any of this? There's some serious deducing here that the diffs I found have not supported. There were some strange votes, those votes were noticed and pointed out on the talk page, WMF noticed the mails and informed the community of it and thanked Arbcom for pointing the issue to them (WMF), and promised to keep Arbcom informed about it all. Best I can tell, there's nothing else implying anything about the communication between WMF and Arbcom, except for an editor commenting about how Arbcom did not bring this up to the community.

If there's any Arbcom communique on this I missed, please do link it. Otherwise this is making up arguments that do not exist. I can see multiple understandable reasons for an internal Arbcom to WMF communication on this, starting from the simplest "Hey can someone look into this, thanks". (If any sitting arbs want to comment on this, that's the easiest clarification, obviously) Soni (talk) 10:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have diffs either, but I do remember a member of ArbCom saying this, though not at the RfC itself; it was somewhere else. I think maybe it was CaptainEek? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 12:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom's involvement was a bit more than "there's been some strange vote patterns, you should look into this WMF". ArbCom received detailed information about the canvassing. ArbCom, after some fast but extensive discussion, decided to inform the foundation about the canvassing, encouraged them to share this with the community themselves rather than have us do it, and asked for more information with-in 24-48 hours. With-in an hour we'd received a "we're looking into this" email. 15 hours later we got a reply acknowledging and agreeing that there was an issue here, acknowledged that this had been done without foundation sanction or previous knowledge (in other words our email was the first the foundation as an entity found out about it) and were asked by the foundation if they could have 2 days to prepare their message to the community. ArbCom agreed and less than 2 days later the message was posted. As the foundation was fully transparent with the community there was nothing for ArbCom to add so we never released a statement. I hope that answers the question here. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• This is still going on? Can you imagine if a tenth of the effort expended here had been expended at, say, WP:GAN? We'd have cleared the backlog in a week! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• For God's sake, now people are suggesting sanctioning the closers? Don't we think that would make any reasonable editor decide never to attempt a difficult close again? That would leave us with the most difficult closes being made by the least reasonable editors. Good thinking, that's definitely what we should be going for here. Valereee (talk) 12:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  The suggestion has been widely shut down by both endorse and overturn !votes. No one really agrees with the idea. Cessaune [talk] 12:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think I see one person (you) questioning it -- and the OP doubling down in their answer -- and one (besides me) disagreeing. But at least no one else has taken up that particular pitchfork. Valereee (talk) 14:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  THey should. It's not something that is necessary here. Cessaune [talk] 14:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  There is no chance the closers will be sanctioned, the idea is obviously ridiculous. I saw no reason to comment saying so. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:58, 29 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.

My user rights, or lack thereof

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 there's a passing, friendly admin who could restore them, I'd appreciate it. I gave them up cloudlessly last year, and many thanks to Barkeep49 for fulfilling my request. SN54129 13:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Welcome back. --Jayron32 13:13, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the trust, Jayron32  :) SN54129 13:19, 31 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.

updating web page of a scientist

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 attempted to update the webpage of the physicist Toichiro Kinoshita, who passed away last week. This scientist played a crucial role in the development and testing of quantum electrodynamics. The current Wikipedia page is very short and focuses on irrelevant aspects of his scientific contributions, to the point of being misleading. As this is also my area of expertise, I have tried to update/correct this webpage but all of my edits have been undone by Jkaharper, who seems not to understand Kinoshita's scientific contributions and leaves little constructive comments for me to work with. I posted to Jkaharper's Talk page and received no response - thus my appeal here. Schwartzoh (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

According to what they wrote [here, they removed your edits for these reasons "1) you removed a section and its references without explanation, 2) you added a date of death to a biography of a living person without providing a source. That is a serious breach of WP:BLP. An obituary, death notice or news article must be cited for this. I strongly suggest you stop editing this article and go and read up on how to contribute first before going crazy with the editing." You then reverted them without addressing these concerns. --Jayron32 14:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@Schwartzoh, it looks like the information has been updated now. Valereee (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, it appears you have never posted to that user's talk page. You should definitely have asked them directly before coming here. You also never posted to the article talk page which could also be used to resolve disputes. This is not an administrator matter. Instead, please discuss the matter with them on the article talk page if their already-given explanation is not sufficient. --Jayron32 14:53, 31 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.

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.

---

• Well, to be fair, this user has 13 edits. They just ended up in the wrong place because they didn't know what to do or where to go for help. They posted to the other editors user page, not their talk. They did try. Valereee (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  It's still not an admin issue. Unless you think someone needs to be blocked or banned, make a proposal to do so. Otherwise, the thread above will remain closed. --Jayron32 15:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not objecting to closing it. I'm pointing out that the person was likely acting in good faith when they mistakenly showed up here for their 13th edit, and we might want to take that into account. Possibly by pinging them so they can find their way back, and inviting them to the teahouse, which I've done at their user. Valereee (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don't believe I ever stated they were not acting in good faith. You're inventing things that were never done, and then objecting to your own inventions. --Jayron32 15:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't say you'd said...oh, never mind. :D Valereee (talk) 15:16, 31 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.

Apparent supervote

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 non-admin closure of this move request that changed Saffron terror to Hindu terror with the claim that there is "rough consensus" is nothing but a blatant misleading WP:SUPERVOTE.

I initiated discussion on the closing editor's talk page[22] and so far I have only found them to be giving more weight to their own definitions and standards instead of those that are generally accepted. When shown how the closure was factually incorrect, their argument was these points were "never raised or discussed in the RM discussion" and their "my usage of "rough consensus" is meant to indicate my stance that, while I did ultimately find a consensus (by examining and appraising the range of arguments made in the RM discussion itself, as discussed in my closing statement), I also wanted to make clear that it was a close call."[23]

I am also highlighting that ons were mostly discussed. Retaining "Saffron terror" had the largest support, while some supported "Hindutva terror" but "Hindu terror" had least support. It's beyond necessary that this supervote should to be overturned. Capitals00 (talk) 23:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Capitals00, you'll want to make this request at Wikipedia:Move review rather than here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I haven't made this request over there because it concerns obvious supervote rather unclear case of otherwise genuine closure. Capitals00 (talk) 00:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

(Closer of the RM here.) Extraordinary Writ is right – Wikipedia:Move review (MRV) is the proper venue to formally contest an RM closure. That said, if there's interest in keeping the discussion here, I'm happy to go into more detail about this matter. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 02:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

[Uninvolved]. I don't think there was a clear consensus coming out of that discussion. IMO it should be "no consensus to move" with a recommendation to start a new move proposal for "Hindutva terror". But I'm content to say that in the move review. While I don't agree with the closing statement, I don't see evidence of a behavioral issue that needs addressing here. Recommend just handling it at move review. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Wrong forum for a move review with a routine complaint and no evidence of behavioural issues. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:42, 1 April 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.

Eyferth study - Inappropriate RFC Closure

I notified both user:LokiTheLiar and user:Generalrelative about the issue below:

This is my first visit to AN, so bear with me. I believe I am in the right place, but if I am wrong, please tell me the appropriate venue for filing something like this. With that said..

Recently there was an RFC at the Eyferth study article. For multiple reasons, I believe the close of the RFC was improper and against procedure. I'll list the reasons first and then go into greater detail:

1.) The editor who closed the RFC, User: LokiTheLiar was WP:INVOLVED, and therefore should not have performed the close

2.) In his closing, user User:LokiTheLiar stated that he discounted !votes of users who were either WP:MEATPUPPETS or WP:SPA's or users with "very few edits". This normally would not be a problem, however there were a large number of users who were labeled as SPA's (by another editor), who were neither meatpuppets, nor SPA's as I shall show below.

In regards to Loki being WP:INVOLVED, in his close, Loki uses a past RFC regarding Race and Intelligence as part of his reasoning. However, Loki himself was involved in the RFC in question. According to WP:INVOLVED, editors should never close a discussion where they created or non-trivially contributed to the object under discussion. I realize this may be a judgement call, however there certainly is an appearance of impropriety.

In regards to Loki discounting !votes from SPA's and MEATPUPPETS, the problem is much more serious. Roughly 15 minutes before the close of the RFC, another editor, user:Generalrelative, incorrectly labeled several accounts as SPA's. Loki took this labeling into account when making his vote count. Every !vote that was removed/discounted by user:LokiTheLiar was an !include vote. None of the !exclude votes were discounted. Now, I am not accusing user:Generalrelative of bad faith, this is more a WP:CIR problem. I attempted - several times - to explain to Generalrelative that by adding a "/64" to the URL for IP user contributions, he could then see all the contributions for that particular user. Unfortunately, he didn't seem to understand what I was getting at, and continued to revert me. Eventually I gave up and allowed him to leave the SPA tag, even though the accounts were NOT SPAs. They all either had well over `100 edits in multiple topic areas, or had been around for several years with few or one edit to the topic area in question. This would not be a problem, except for the fact that Loki used Generalrelative's SPA labels in determining his vote count.

Bottom line, this is a potentially important RFC. I feel it could be better served by a closer who is not even tangentially involved in the topic area. I also feel that numerous votes were discounted when they absolutely should have been considered. Hence, the close was not in keeping with policy, and I ask that the RFC is reopened and a different user/admin perform the close. I also ask that someone take the time to explain to user:Generalrelative what an SPA is, and how to properly view the contributions for an IP editor.

Thank you 2600:1700:1250:6D80:947A:51E4:EB45:1FB4 (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I’ll respond to the points regarding SPA tags and leave others to comment on the issue of whether Loki should be considered INVOLVED:

1) AndewNguyen reverted his SPA tag before the RfC was closed [24], and no one restored it. That's the first diff of my SPA tagging provided by the OP. It seems odd that they would then claim Loki took this labeling into account when making his vote count. I see no evidence of that.

2) I reverted four attempts by the 2600:1012:B068:8277:0:0:0:0 and 2600:1012:B043:216D:0:0:0:0 ranges to remove another SPA tag only after the RfC was closed: [25][26][27][28]. My understanding is that these reversions are within process since closed discussions should not be altered. If I'm incorrect on that point I will be happy to be corrected. I requested page protection so that I wouldn’t have to keep reverting [29] and then removed the request when the IP agreed to self-revert [30]. In any case Loki stated in their close: I count only two (maybe three counting an IP) include !votes from users with more than 100 edits. So it's clear that they made their own assessment regardless of the tag.

3) I added these SPA tags almost four hours before Loki’s close ([31][32][33] versus [34]), not Roughly 15 minutes before as the IP states. This hardly matters; it’s just an odd assertion.

4) For a bit of context, this discussion and RfC were targeted by significant off-Wiki canvassing on Twitter and 4chan, and involved concerted disruption from two LTA sockmasters (Mikemikev and Tristan albatross). There was very good reason to be wary of meatpuppetry here.

Generalrelative (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Generalrelative, I didn't realize that AndewNguyen had removed the tag prior to the RFC close - my bad. However, you still have not answered the question as to why you were labeling IP editors as SPAs when I demonstrated to you several times how to view their complete contributions. I even went to your TALK page, but you promptly ashcanned my message. 2600:1700:1250:6D80:947A:51E4:EB45:1FB4 (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

My understanding was that a /64 is not necessarily a unique user. After doing some googling just now it seems that I may have been mistaken, but I invite input from anyone who knows definitively. In any case, we're talking about two SPA tags where I labeled an IP, and one of them is still very obviously an SPA when running the /64: 2601:581:C180:1980:0:0:0:0. So it's really only your IP that I may have mistakenly tagged (at least the one you're editing on now, though you're evidently also the user who edits in the /64 ranges 2600:1012:B068:8277:0:0:0:0 and 2600:1012:B043:216D:0:0:0:0). The "include" side was still massively outweighed, even without considering the policy aspects of the close relating to WP:FRIND and WP:ONEWAY. Generalrelative (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I also wouldn't call a single Tweet with 4 responses "significant off-Wiki canvassing". Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Hard to think of a more clear long-term SPA than AndewNguyen. (And I see that they've been blocked as such at long last by Moneytrees two days ago -- well deserved and overdue, thanks.) --JBL (talk) 23:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

user:AndewNguyen is about the farthest thing from an SPA. His last edits were in September 2022, and he has contributed to everything from Pentecostalism in Norway to Forensic anthropology. So I have no idea how you would think he is a single-purpose account. In fact, AndewNguyen rarely contributes to article mainspace, he almost always first discusses his edits on TALK so as not to run afoul of policy and procedure. Calling him an SPA makes literally zero sense, and there is no evidence for such an accusation. 2600:1700:1250:6D80:947A:51E4:EB45:1FB4 (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Well over 300 of his < 500 edits concern the single subject. --JBL (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Right. And most of those edits were made to TALK. So as I said, not a single-purpose account. By any measure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B014:8929:9C2E:1D53:CEA1:B912 (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

An account that makes edits primarily on Talk pages related to one single topic (in this case, a CT domain) strikes me as a paradigmatic single purpose account. And the idea that an account can only be SPA if it engages primarily in article-space edits seems to me to be both implausible and perplexing. Newimpartial (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah AndrewNguyen seems to clearly be an SPA in the race and intelligence area. I'd add that even many of their contributions in other areas seem to relate to linked stuff like demographics statics or immigration or (non intelligence) aspects of race or ancestry e.g. [35] or their sole contribution to the article Norway [36]. And some of them may be in their SPA area even if it isn't obvious from the article e.g. [37] [38]. (The edit summary of the second one makes it clear. The edit summary of the first one less so except based on knowledge of the editor's interest.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I should note here explicitly that AndrewNguyen was one of the two (maybe three counting an IP) include !votes from users with more than 100 edits I mentioned. The other two were Tickle_me and possibly 12.31.71.58. (Honestly, I was a little unsure how to count the IPs, but none of them other than possibly that one seemed like they were long-standing users to me.) Loki (talk) 01:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

It has 144 likes which seems a more important metric than responses. Also 25 retweets and 19 bookmarks. I'm guessing some of those retweets also got unique likes. While by no means is that a lot, it's not insignificant considering also that this is RfC with not that many participants, it's a highly problematic area, and any canvassing which is likely to have inspired people to take part in the RfC is a problem in terms of assessing numbers. While RfCs aren't votes, ultimately unless those discarded editors actually had some strong arguments that no one else thought of, they don't contribute much. Nil Einne (talk) 12:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

So, in order:

1) I was not WP:INVOLVED. I never edited Eyferth study or its talk page even once before I closed that discussion. Voting in an RFC in the same topic area does not make me WP:INVOLVED, especially one that just affirmed an existing consensus, and which was WP:SNOW closed in under half the time such an RFC normally takes. This is true even if the result of the RFC happens to be relevant to the entire topic area.

To put it another way, someone who has previously expressed an opinion that perpetual motion is WP:FRINGE doesn't suddenly give up the ability to close discussions about thermodynamics.

2) In addition to the general rule that the result of an RfC is based on the strength of the argument and not the raw numbers of votes, WP:MEATPUPPET explicitly says In votes or vote-like discussions, new users may be disregarded or given significantly less weight, especially if there are many of them expressing the same opinion. I didn't have to have concrete evidence that meatpuppetry was going on to do this, but I did have such evidence anyway: editors linked specific discussions on Twitter where other Twitter users had been explicitly canvassed to that RfC.

The fact that all the !votes I deemed to be suspicious (using the criteria of fewer than 100 edits) were "include" voters is, by WP:MEATPUPPET, evidence in favor of excluding them. Again, it applies especially if there are many [new users] expressing the same opinion. The whole point of the policy is to prevent canvassed users using sheer weight of numbers to sway a discussion to their preferred side, which was by the evidence provided "include".

(Oh, also, to be clear, I did not take the labeling 15 minutes before the RfC closed into account. Like I said in the close, my actual criteria for deweighting !votes was less than 100 edits. I felt that matched better both with which votes felt intuitively suspicious to me and the text of WP:MEATPUPPET than trying to parse account histories. I started the close more than 15 minutes before I submitted it and so didn't even see those labels until after I closed.) Loki (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

There was only one way this RFC could have been closed. Lets not continue to waste community time with this, particularly in an area so infested with sockpuppets of LTAs. One last pass to check for sockpuppets (including the account who started the RFC as their first-ever edit) wouldn't be amiss, though. - MrOllie (talk) 00:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

1. --JBL (talk) 00:15, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The argument that Loki is WP:INVOLVED in the dispute seems tenuous at best, their de-weighting of potentially canvassed votes seems perfectly appropriate, and I can't see that any reasonable closer could find consensus to include the disputed content in that discussion. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse close. Not only do I think the closure was a valid reading of the discussion (the normal standard to review closures), I do not think a reasonable closer could have come to the opposite conclusion. Courcelles (talk) 12:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse close. Having participated in a previous related discussion does not make someone involved, but even an involved editor can close a discussion that has no other reasonable outcome. Given that almost all !votes to include were from new/inexperienced editors, it's pretty clear there was canvassing somewhere, looks like in this case it wasn't just twitter but also 4chan. I don't see how else someone experienced and well-intentioned could have reasonably closed this discussion. Valereee (talk) 12:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• A reasonable closer would not close. The discussion has not run its course, and there is no consensus.

All the ink spilled about SPAs is beside the point. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit, and a user who edits appropriately and makes good points that align with Wikipedia's communal norms, policies and guidelines should have their comments be given full weight regardless of any tag placed on them.[39]

According to WP:DETCON, Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. It's striking that the close by Loki mentions none of the arguments presented during the RfC — only vote counts, the putative SPA status of contributors, and the results of a previous RfC on a different question. Additionally, Loki states that they disregarded the input of editors that expressed disagreement with that prior RfC, which puts the cart before the horse. WP:CCC and the point of an RfC is determining that.

The close and much of the subsequent discussion of the close is based in "Avoiding substative discussion because of who is involved", one of the characteristics of Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling.

As for those arguments in discussion, raised by AndrewNguyen, myself, BonaparteIII, Mr Butterbur, and tickle_me, they center on the broader campaign of mass removal of high-quality academic sources by Generalrelative and others. The difference between fringe and minority scientific viewpoints is murky. However, the evaluation is supposed to be guided by quality peer-reviewed articles. If any RfC or interpretation of an RfC leads to removals of sources like [40] [41] [42] it is time to pause and reflect on whether something has gone wrong. These are the kinds of sources that should be used in the first place to determine what is or isn't fringe. The fact that WP:FRINGE guidelines are being used to remove them points to deep dysfunction in the policy.

Sennalen (talk) 13:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Hatting WP:BLOCKEVASION Generalrelative (talk) 01:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
1 I couldn't have said it better myself. Thank you Sennalen for being a voice of reason. And you are correct, WP:FRINGE is being abused to remove reliable sources contrary to proper policy and procedure. 2600:1012:B0B2:A6DF:955:684D:6304:C509 (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC) o hai tho IP. Weren’t you just given a month’s annual leave by Izno for this type of post? — Trey Maturin™ 21:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC) @Trey Maturin, please leave a note at the relevant section on ANI with the IPs if they keep popping up. Izno (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC) 1 2600:1012:B0B2:A6DF:955:684D:6304:C509 (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

That discussion looks to me (on a brief glance) like it had gone on for a week, then petered out with zero participation for two weeks, and then suddenly two weeks ago a new batch of likely canvassed-in !voters started coming in. IMO at that point it's reasonable to close. Valereee (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't conform procedurally with the guidance of WP:WHENCLOSE or WP:RFCEND, but especially does not justify a finding of "strong consensus" when there is in fact no consensus. Sennalen (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Sennalen, you personally may agree with the now-indeffed editor and the unknown number of IPs participating in the discussion, but the clear, policy-based consensus of the discussion does not (fortunately) depend on whether or not you accede to it. You disagree with community consensus about the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory; you disagree with community consensus about the COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis, and yet in both cases the consensus stands perfectly well without your support. So also does the contentious topic of "Race and intelligence". Whatever your issues might be with the WP:FRINGE guideline, you have not yet been able to articulate (to my knowledge) any issue with or necessary clarification of the guideline that might generate community support for your concerns. Newimpartial (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Not coincedentally, these are all areas where there is a Americentric politically-motivated local consensus to disregard or undermine WP:BESTSOURCES. I go where I'm needed. Sennalen (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Don't forget GENSEX and Gamergate. Those are spicy ones, too. Sennalen (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse close Close is a reasonable interpretation of the discussion and well-explained. Closer was not WP:INVOLVED in any way that I can see. --Jayron32 17:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse close This wasn't even particularly in a gray area. XOR'easter (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse close I can't see that any reasonable moderator of that discussion could have come to a different decision. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse close per above.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse close Once again we're seeing that the same editors who reject the scientific consensus against racial pseudoscience also refuse to accept the consensus of Wikipedia editors that racial hereditarianism be treated as a WP:FRINGE POV, and so they have repeatedly disputed consensus closings of RFCs in the race and intelligence area. Their persistent refusal to accept consensus is antithetical to how Wikipedia operates. NightHeron (talk) 09:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  It should be recongized that labeling a position as fringe, and then using that designation to scrub articles of peer-reviewed sources in high-quality journals is antithetical to how Wikipedia should operate. That is contrary to WP:5P2, WP:NPOV, WP:NOTCENSORED, not to mention WP:FRINGE itself. The wrongful consensus in this area is not based on the scientific consensus, but rather on what remains of the science after an a priori decision to exclude the scientific viewpoints that don't conform to the preordained outcome. This conversation is happening because of the campaign to exclude exactly those sources that should be the basis of a sound consensus. Sennalen (talk) 16:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Books and journal articles, sometimes by credentialed authors and published by reputable publishers, have appeared promoting climate change denial, anti-vaxx, homeopathy, racial pseudoscience, and other fringe POVs. That doesn't change the fact that scientific consensus rejects those POVs. NightHeron (talk) 09:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. Even Homer nods, and even science journals and university presses fuck up sometimes. XOR'easter (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

help cleaning up mangled citations

Hi folks,

For at least the past few months, user:Philoserf has been running the script User:BrandonXLF/ReferenceExpander on many hundreds or perhaps thousands of pages, and then committing the suggested changes under the edit summary message "Expanding bare references using ReferenceExpander". Some of these changes are more or less fine, but after skimming a few dozen of them, it turns out that a significant proportion (my guess is at least a quarter) end up removing useful information from one or more of the references modified, as well as sometimes adding irrelevant information. Probably the worst type of change is when one footnote previously included several citations but the script got confused and removed all but one of them. But there are several other types of problematic edits, such as URLs exchanged for wrong replacements (in some cases apparently due to link-rotted originals); explicit quotations from the reference removed; titles and authors modified without justification; translations of titles into English removed; and explanatory commentary/context removed.

I reverted a handful of such changes, but I would guess there are at least hundreds that need to be fully or partially reverted or else carefully manually fixed. I don't personally have the bandwidth to read through all of these changes carefully and revert every one which was mangled in one way or another. Here's a list of the most recent 500 main namespace contributions if anyone wants to take a look.

What I'm wondering here is if there's any way to gather together a group of volunteers to go check through these. I imagine if each person takes just a few dozen we could probably get through them relatively painlessly; for just one person it would take days of work.

Anway, I am not trying to put Philoserf on the spot, shame them, get them in trouble, or the like. It seems clear that they were trying to help the project, and I think they can still be a valuable contributor. In response to my (perhaps too pushy) comments on their talk page, they blanked it with a "retirement" message. I hope my comments there (and here) don't come come across as reflecting any personal animosity. I just don't want to accidentally lose a lot of valuable notes and citations that many contributors have added over the years, based on overeager use of a flaky semi-automated tool.

Cheers. –jacobolus (t) 03:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, if you look at the user talk page history of Philoserf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), you will find many warnings about mangled citations and inaccurate information that he sometimes engaged with and other times ignored. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, I went through a few, but there are a lot left. Is there a way to get a list of just those edits whose summaries mention "ReferenceExpander"? XOR'easter (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@XOR'easter perhaps try WP:Request a query? 192.76.8.84 (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Good idea. See Wikipedia:Request_a_query#ReferenceExpander for the first results. XOR'easter (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

If the script is that broken, I think it might need to be disabled or fixed (@BrandonXLF:). Of course there's a responsibility for those using the script to check the diff to make sure it didn't break things, but some of the issues mentioned seem like major fixable bugs. Maybe the edits can be blanket reverted then, and a fixed script re-ran if needed. Galobtter (pingó mió) 22:19, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Blanket reverting them is going to be difficult because most of the relevant pages have been edited afterwards. I think getting a couple dozen volunteers to each look through a few days of edits is going to be easier, even if still annoying. Does anyone know how to organize something like that? –jacobolus (t) 23:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't know how to get a couple dozen Wikipedians to do anything outside of a trainwreck ANI thread. But what might help is a list of diffs that goes back further in time, say 90 days, and that we can paste into a page somewhere so that editors can check items off. XOR'easter (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

If someone can pull together a solid list of links to all of the diffs on a (user-namespace?) wiki page someplace, I would be happy to try to chip away at them a few at a time. The more folks who help out the faster such cleanup could go though. –jacobolus (t) 01:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Closure review for Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German

Several editors at User talk:Sennalen#Closure at Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German have expressed dissatsifcation with my closure at Talk:Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German/Archive 1#Name of suspect. It has been suggested that it constitutes a WP:SUPERVOTE, but I do not agree with that assessment. I do not wish to withdraw a closure in which I have confidence at the request of involved editors, but a closure without the confidence of the community could lead to further discord, so I'm requesting additional input. Sennalen (talk) 22:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for this Sennalen. I have no doubt that the closure was done in good faith, but it does seem to me outside the range of reasonable closes--that said, I have dipped in and out of this topic for some time, so I question my own objectivity. Happy to go wherever consensus leads. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 22:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I commented at one of the two times this was at BLP/N, and when it was at ANI just recently. I didn't even realise this was still under discussion at the article talk page, it shouldn't have been. Given the opposition it has faced at locations of broader scope the close should probably be undone. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion in question was related to a user behavior, and this is related to a consensus. You were involved in the other discussion related to user behavior and I believe are not able to be impartial regarding this, respectfully.

~~~ Awshort (talk) 00:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

A dozen editors at multiple locations have come out against this, and local consensus at a talk page cannot override a more general one. The ANI discussion was about behaviour, but many editors there dismissed you concerns because they believed the other editor was acting correctly by excluding the name. The BLP/N discussions were also against naming the individual. The fact you continue with this is well into WP:IDHT territory. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The fact I continue with what? When a consensus isn't clear, a third party usually needs to rule. I requested that before I posted about what I perceived as stonewalling on ANI. You made my complaint more focused on the BLP issue, and essentially dismissed the rest as 'It's a BLP issue.', or similar. I hadn't posted on the talk page since before the ANI discussion, but a consensus was never determined and every attempt to edit the page with a name by any user said a consensus had to be reached first. I'm not allowed to voice an opinion once it is ruled on?

A fair consensus should be able to be achieved and not stopped by page reverts due to "no consensus", while not actively trying to find any sort of compromise. As I stated before, I respectfully don't think you can offer an unbiased opinion due to our previous encounter which wasn't great.

Awshort (talk) 01:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The background here is that I responded to a closure request at Wikipedia:Closure requests indicating an issue had been open for 145 days. After reviewing discussions at the article talk page and BLP/N, I determined there had been a consensus to name the suspect. There was not unanimity of course, but I did not find a strong policy-based argument against naming. "BLPCRIME is a policy," is not a policy-based argument without considering what the text of that policy says and means. Fuller reasoning is behind the links at the start of the section.

I was not aware of a related discussion at ANI, but having reviewed it now, it doesn't contain anything that would change my assessment of the content dispute. In light of that additional context though, it seems to have been unwise for Awshort to request closure after having been warned of forum shopping, although to be fair, much of that was due to admins telling him to take things to other venues. Sennalen (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I reverted your close per WP:SUPERVOTE before stumbling upon this discussion. Anyhow, I stand by my revert. As I read it, you did not summarise the discussion and the various points raised, and weigh them against each other and against the policy. Instead, you penned down your thoughts about the subject matter.

Firstly and foremostly, you did not show that there was a WP:CONSENSUS amongst editors for this option. Let's keep in mind that where there's no clear-cut consensus, discussions are normally closed as "No consensus".

Your willingness to help is very much appreciated, but given the age of your account, don't you think it'd be safer to start with less contentious topics? — kashmīrī ^TALK 02:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@Kashmiri I believe that Sennalen is a fresh start account, so in fact this editor is much more experienced than their edit history on this account indicates. Lard Almighty (talk) 07:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@Kashmiri I would highly suggest adding the decision back and letting someone who was not involved in both the talk page discussion, as well as previously removing the contested content [43] decide on what to do, considering this seems extremely biased on your part.

Per [44]

Inappropriate closures

A non-admin closure is not appropriate in any of the following situations:

1. The non-admin has demonstrated a potential conflict of interest, or lack of impartiality, by having expressed an opinion in the discussion or being otherwise involved with the exception of closing their own withdrawn nomination as a speedy keep when all other viewpoints expressed were for keeping as well.

Also,

What to do with supervotesEdit

1. If you believe that a closure reflects the closer's own opinion instead of consensus, civilly ask the closer to revert their closure and !vote by their preferences. As closing deletion discussions is an administrative action, closers, administrator or non-administrator, are subject to the administrators' accountability policy, and must explain all closes when questioned. Be careful not to skip this step, or treat it as a mere formality.

You went straight to reverting it, which also doesn't follow the policy.

Awshort (talk) 04:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, this section exists because of a civil discussion on Sennalen's talk page, which caused them to (graciously) open discussion here. For me, that satisfies the process, but to each his or her own. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Dumuzid asked for my opinion on this close on my talk page, but this close review was opened before I had responded, so I'm giving my two cents here instead.

First, Kashmiri reverting the close was improper. I have undone that reversion. The edit summary said "This was not an RfC, so there can be no "closing".", and of course that is not our way: non-RFC discussions get "closed" literally every day on this website. That a closed discussion wasn't an RfC is absolutely no grounds to revert a close. Also, even if Kashmiri thinks it was a super vote, reverting during a close review is not how we handle things. The close stays until/unless there is consensus to overturn it. See WP:CLOSECHALLENGE for proper methods of close challenge. "Revert the close" isn't one of them and I see no grounds to IAR it in the middle of a close review.

Second, I just looked at the October and January BLPNs, and the February ANI (sorry I'm on mobile so no links), and I don't see any consensus, and very little participation in those threads--I think there was more discussion on the article talk page than all three noticeboard threads combined. So I don't see those noticeboard threads as establishing any kind of global consensus on the issue. (If I've missed a noticeboard thread, then obviously that would change things, so apologies if that's the case.)

Third, I fundamentally agree with the closer's point that simply citing BLPCRIME, as if BLPCRIME prohibits naming a suspect, is not a policy-based argument. I see several editors who appear to take that position--that BLPCRIME is an actual prohibition. It's not, by the plain reading of the page. BLPCRIME allows Wikipedia to name crime suspects, and thousands of articles do just that. BLPCRIME says to "seriously consider" omitting it, to "prefer" omitting it in certain cases, but it is not an absolute prohibition. So it's OK for editors to argue that the name should, or shouldn't, be included. We need reasons beyond "BLPCRIME!"

Fourth, regarding a comment above, I don't think we can accuse an editor of IDHT when, at least for the moment, consensus is on the editor's side, because of this close.

Fifth, I was generally disappointed by how few sources were discussed in all these discussions. Some editors did list sources, but really, that whole discussion needed to be about collecting and analyzing top RS and seeing exactly how widespread the publishing of the name was. In my view, not enough of this was done. (Not that I did anything to help of course :-) )

Sixth, it's probably a serious BLP violation to suggest, as I've seen done in the course of these discussions, that this murder had anything to do with sexual crimes or pedophilia unless that's what the sources say. (I'm not sure if they do, I haven't done much research of this topic, but our article doesn't seem to mention that with regard to these murders.)

Finally and most importantly, it looks like that discussion didn't have an RFC tag at any point. It wasn't an RfC. Also, it didn't have an WP:RFCNEUTRAL statement and I'm guessing no WP:RFCBEFORE. I'm not sure that the OP even intended their comment to become an RfC or a talk page proposal that would get voted on. (Again, if I'm wrong about that, it would change my analysis.)

And that leads me to an unusual conclusion: overturn to procedural close for lack of following WP:RFC, and launch a new RFC. I don't think the closer really got it wrong or supervoted, but I think the discussion was procedurally deficient, it was local consensus and what we need is more like global consensus. So I'd say run an RfC with a neutral statement and an RFC tag, and hopefully there will be more source analysis in the RfC. (The closer could consider revising their close to this, if they think it's a good idea.) Keep the name out until/unless a proper RfC determines otherwise because "seriously consider", in this case with differing views on the talk page, means having a proper RfC. I don't think this talk page discussion counts as "seriously consider" because of the lack of RfC tag and source examination.

Sorry this was so long, it was complicated. I don't think the closer did anything wrong here (and thanks for opening the review), but I think a do-over is in order given the sensitive BLP nature of this content dispute. Levivich (talk) 05:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I find this somewhat compelling. Discussions other than RfCs can be closed by request, but an unstructured discussion lends itself to a unstructured gestalt summary of consensus. While standing by my reading of the discussions so far, an RfC would deprecate the outcome of the close. I would recommend against the RfC being posed by Awshort or kasmiri. Sennalen (talk) 12:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

IMO the closure does not actually take into account the arguments against inclusion that were indeed made, both on the talk page and on the other boards, which were accepted by most commentators, for example: It involves the murder of children (likely with a sexual motive) which is also highly emotive. These are precisely the types of case where we need to take the suggestion in BLPCRIME about being cautious seriously. Not including the name does not detract from the article, while including it could prove problematic. When non-inclusion does not detract from the article, it is best to err on the side of caution in cases involving child victims. and BLPCRIME exists to protect innocent people, not just those who are suspected or even charged with crimes. We need to consider the impact the naming of a suspect my have just not on that individual's life but also on the lives of others. So to say that the argument for non-inclusion is simply that BLPCRIME exists is simply not true. Lard Almighty (talk) 05:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Lard Almighty, (1) Sennalen never confirmed theirs is a CLEANSTART account, even when explicitly asked on their Talk[45]. It appears they didn't even understand the question. So, also seeing the number of warnings on their Talk, I'm assuming that they are a relatively new editor. (2) Their close does not even attempt to summarise the various points raised in the discussion, it also fails to demonstrate that there was any sort of consensus; instead, it consists of Sennalen's own reading of two policies. It's SUPERVOTE plain and simple. (3) To state clearly, I hadn't seen this present discussion before reverting, as nobody bothered to link to it from article Talk. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

You seem to have misinterpreted the word "yes". Sennalen (talk) 12:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• The closing statement does appear to be a supervote. Valereee (talk) 12:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• I concur that the discussion should be reopened. The closing statement does appear to introduce new opinions rather than being a clear summary of the discussion; as such I suggest we move the closing statement to the bottom of the thread and re-open the thread for someone else to close. I think that Sennalen acted in good faith with their (albeit flawed) understanding of the ways discussions are supposed to be assessed and closed. I think moving their statement to the bottom of the thread and reopening the discussion is the lowest drama way forward here. --Jayron32 13:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• My suggestion is to reclose as a procedural close (using Template:Discussion top) and start a neutrally worded RfC, per Levivich. —Alalch E. 14:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Based on the discussion here, I have withdrawn the close. I have left a comment summarizing the rationale of the close, which were based on the prior arguments, and not my own arguments or preferences. I considered some sort of reclose that endorsed an RfC, but that would have actually been a supervote. Sennalen (talk) 14:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• That close would have been a great !vote. We likely need guidance that says "a discussion close needs to be a summary of what the community said, and not the closer's thoughts in a hatbox."—S Marshall T/C 08:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  (Add) I should have said, and failed to say, that I think Sennalen was right on the facts and policies here.—S Marshall T/C 08:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Amazing

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Rollback_of_Vector_2022#RfC:_Should_Wikipedia_return_to_Vector_2010_as_the_default_skin?

So basically, the closers decided that the commenters here were expressing their subjective opinions, and overturned this on-wiki consensus, by more heavily weighting a survey which is a bunch of subjective opinions. r-i-i-i-i-ght.

Oh and also giving weight to (paraphrasing) "since it was done, and they're working on fixing some of what they broke, we shouldn't revert" - Or in other words - WP:FAITACCOMPLI. I wonder what WP:Arbcom thinks of that.

This has got to be one of the worst closure assessments I've ever seen. And, believe me, that's saying something.

(Unless of course, the closure was pre-ordained due to internal politics/shenannigans - but I'll desperately continue to grab hold and cling to what WP:AGF that I can here.)

I don't believe I know either of the 2 closers, but they can have a WP:TROUT on me.

Wow, that was a bad close. - jc37 23:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Note - Just placing this here for posterity, to add my voice to the cacaphony of voices. Any admin is of course welcome to close this thread.

Request concerning Northheavensky

For the past several months, Indonesian editors particularly Northheavensky have caused disruptive editing in various cultural pages such as Songket and Sapeh by removing references from Malaysia and claiming it as part of Indonesia. I hope Wikipedia take notice about his behaviour and vandalism. Tellisavas (talk) 07:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Tellisavas: You have failed to notify Northheavensky of this report, which is required, and you have failed to provide any evidence/diffs of their alleged misconduct and "vandalism". You have also vaguely alluded to "Indonesian editors" without any support for the accusation.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd note that Talk:Sapeh has no discussion ever on anything. Talk:Songket at least does including on the origin dispute but it too hasn't been touched since October and the discussion itself looks fairly inconclusive. Nil Einne (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

If the dispute is primarily content, please discuss it on the article's talk page; if the dispute involves multiple pages, discuss it on one and leave announcements (each with a link to the discussion) on the others. If it's about conduct, start with the other user's talk page; if it's clear discussion goes nowhere, escalation to here requires showing individual problematic edits (4-5 which help illustrate the issue, not every problematic edit the other user has ever done) and notifying the user. Also, only evidence of recent behaviors count, although if it's been going on a long time this detail (only about recently extant behavior) does count. Animal lover |666| 16:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• I've blocked the OP for one week for WP:LOUTSOCK and nationalist attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Changing username back

Sorry if this is the wrong place but I can't find anywhere else for such a situation. In 2009 I requested a name change to Andrew1. This was done and I also created the account on wikisource. It seems all was well but in 2015 someone here decided that these were two separate accounts and renamed my username.

I tried to request a name change but this was rejected flagging the name as already existing (when it doesn't, I checked) and telling me I should request an usurpation. I already explained this was the situation so all I got was stating the same thing I stated. All I want is a simple local name change back to the name as it was before the account was split. But, and I say this in capital letters to be clear, I DON'T WANT TO DO AN USURPATION OF "Andrew1" BECAUSE IT IS THE SAME ACCOUNT AS THIS ONE.

If nobody here can help I would appreciate being shown to the correct direction. Andrew (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Andrew1~enwiki. User:Andrew1 now exists globally but has never edited English Wikipedia. That account made 84 edits to en.wikisource.org but has not edited since 2009. That is not the same account as this one, because your username was changed to Andrew1~enwiki in 2015 as part of the global renaming process. This was all explained on your talk page at that time. As a result, you need to carefully follow the instructions on your talk page to merge the accounts. Cullen328 (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Andrew1~enwiki If you are the owner of User:Andrew1, do you have access to that account? Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes I'm currently logged into both in private window. Andrew (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Andrew1~enwiki Unfortunately, there's no way to merge the accounts back together. You either have to usurp User:Andrew1 with this account, at m:USURP, or just start using User:Andrew1 as your account. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok thank you :( Andrew (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

My protection of Vladlen Tatarsky

I created Vladlen Tatarsky an hour ago, and, unsurprisingly, the article attracted a large amount of vandals. I first requested protection at RFPP, but the situation quickly went out of hand, and I applied the extended-confirmed protection (which we are allowed to do since the article is under community authorized general sanctions. On one hand, this is a clear COI, since I am (at this point) the main author of the article, on the other hand, I believe any uninvolved administrator would do the same. In any case, I request the community to review my actions and to amend the protection if needed. Ymblanter (talk) 18:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I went to ECP the article only to find that you'd already done so - if you'd like, Ymblanter, I can 'assume responsibility' for it, but I don't think that's particularly necessary. firefly ( t · c ) 18:18, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• Perhaps unnecessarily, I unprotected and reprotected off the RFPP request and amended the log so that I would be the “admin of record” on this entirety justified protection. Courcelles (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot everyone. Ymblanter (talk) 05:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Unblock request of Cognition

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 is the unblock request of Cognition, who was blocked in 2006 by SlimVirgin(now deceased) for "disruption, harassment, personal attacks, multiple violation of arbcom rulings, no or very few useful contributions". I am transferring their statement as a courtesy, and make no endorsement in doing so. I am also including a point by point post the appellant made in February 2019. 331dot (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Statement

I just found out that the admin who unilaterally blocked me is no longer active on Wikipedia. No one notified me the entire time. May God spare her soul.

With that said, it's now past due to reconsider the ban against me.

My ban was previously rendered irrelevant by the passing of Lyndon LaRouche, who tragically left us back in 2019. While I was an editor, the arbitration committee sanctioned the use of sources from any scientific, journalistic, and scholarly organizations to which Mr. LaRouche contributed. Though my edits to LaRouche-related articles were minimal, I was targeted by the admin in question because I posted one or two comments on my userpage favorable to Mr. LaRouche [46], amid a plethora of other content.

Yes, I made some mistakes (for which I have already apologized publicly), but I am ready to resume my outstanding contributions, such as my work on the Martin Luther King article.

While long overdue, now that Mr. LaRouche and the blocking admin in question are gone, I ask the community to move on and lift the ban against me.

Please lift my ban.

Respectfully,

Cognition (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Point by point

• I am aware of my past disruptive behavior. I felt that there were a number of anti-LaRouche editors and administrators who used their positions of power and influence to push their political agendas. I wanted to protest their influence. Even though I strongly feel I was right in principle, what I did to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point impeded improvement of the encyclopedia, and did nothing to help. I apologize.

• Yes, I stalked and harassed a number of those anti-LaRouche users as well, and was wrong. Following and reverting their contributions to get them riled up did nothing to improve the encyclopedia in the short or long run. I apologize.
• Yes, I attacked users like SlimVirgin, Chip Berlet, Adam Carr, 172, etc. because I felt they used their influence in Wikipedia to promote their POV. Wikipedia is not the venue for such battles. I did feel they were attacking me with impunity. Rather than attacking back, I should have sought proper dispute resolution channels. I was wrong and apologize.
• Yes, I knowingly disregarded various arbcom rulings. Again, I felt those rulings were politically motivated and hurt Wikipedia's mission to report on the sum of all human knowledge. Rather than ignoring the rulings, I should have followed proper channels for appealing them. I apologize.
• Regarding the 'no or very few useful contributions' point, I disagree. I feel I made quite a few excellent edits. But I can see why the community felt that way, since I did frankly make a lot of disruptive edits I knew very well would just get quickly reverted. I apologize.

In sum I ask the community to accept my apologies and give me another chance to improve the encyclopedia. 13 years is a long time; and I feel I have already served my time of punishment! Cognition (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Community response

• Oppose lifting ban - The appellant obviously still feels that their ban was the result of being "targeted" by Slim Virgin, and although in their Feburary 2019 statement they admit to bad behavior, they are still attempting to excuse it. Someone who admits to "stalking and harassing" other editors for POV reasons has no place on Wikipedia, then or now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose This editor hasn't learned one damn thing. May God spare her soul? Excuse me? GTFO with that. Katie^talk 23:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Quite possibly one of the worst block appeals I have ever read, the appellant appears to have no understanding at all of why they were blocked. How on earth is "the blocking admin and Lyndon LaRouche are no longer here" relevant - how does that address their behavioural problems. They seem to be trying to make out that they are a victim, and that the block is unfair, undeserved and due to only one admin, while admitting they harassed, stalked and attacked people? 192.76.8.84 (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  P.S. It might be worth undeleting their talk page history? It was G6'd for some reason and it seems like there's a lot of relevant information in the deleted diffs. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  >200 deleted edits. "2009-04-01T23:47:42 @Matthewedwards: deleted page User talk:Cognition (CSD G6: User talk page of Indefinitely blocked user)". I did not know we did that back then, I never did. I'm loathe to dig through those and equally loathe to undelete on my own. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  I believe that was primarily done in cases where a talk page was (or was expected to be) grossly abused (cf. JarlaxleArtemis) or where there would be no possibility of a successful unblock request due to a ban such as in this circumstance. This, as well as SALTing/fullprotecting blocked users' talk pages, stopped being A Thing once talk page revocation became a block option. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 01:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Good grief. Per above. And who is to say appellant won't resume the problem behavior about another subject?:-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  and per Jéské Couriano -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Whether or not LaRouche is still alive is irrelevant; I'm pretty certain the relevant Arbitrations make it clear that anything related to the LaRouche movement is verboten. LaRouche may have passed, but his movement hasn't. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 00:03, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose This person's record on Wikipedia is as a conspiracy theorist, a stalker and a harasser. I will quote Slim Virgin from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cognition way back in 2005: I could swing either way on this one. Let's see ... joined Wikipedia to promote Lyndon LaRouche, has no understanding of WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, or WP:V, has been blocked seven times in two months, has caused multiple pages to be protected, is abusive to other editors, engages in WP:POINT, believes the Beatles worked for British intelligence, and that the Queen is a dope-pusher. Yikes, I can't decide. Oppose for now. The notion that the deaths of LaRouche and Slim Virgin is a good argument in favor of unblocking is powerful evidence that this editor should not be unblocked. Cullen328 (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I love a good redemption arc, but the letter presented above is unconvincing. This[47] seems like a WP:CIR issue as much as anything. Sennalen (talk) 01:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Hell no and reconsider after the heat death of the universe. Courcelles (talk) 02:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per all above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Because the request for unblocking amounts to a a statement that 'I won't do it again because LaRouche is dead, so I won't need to. And it was the other contributors fault anyway'. Ridiculous. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• This appeal says they “attacked users like … 172” but user:172 is tagged as a sock of Cognition…? So that part makes no sense to me. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 07:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  The notice on 172's talk page states that they are blocked pending a plausible explanation as to why Mr. Quit-the-Project-Rather-Than-Lose-Admin-Tools-to-Arbitration would have the same CU data as Cognition. That block was levied in 2009. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 07:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose – not really needed since this looks like it's turning into a blizzard anyway, but the unblock request doesn't only minimise Cognition's own policy violations and zero in on irrelevant factors (e.g. that LaRouche is no longer alive), but it is also a masterpiece of misleading through saying things that are technically true. The block wasn't community imposed but that doesn't make it "unilateral", and it's a bit rich to say "nobody told me the blocking admin is no longer here". --bonadea contributions talk 10:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose and to be blunt, never darken our doorstep again. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:28, 3 April 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.

UAE smear campaigns

As documented in this investigative report published today in the New Yorker, the government of the United Arab Emirates spent millions of dollars over multiple years on several smear campaigns that involved Wikipedia. These campaigns seem to have typically utilized single-purpose accounts, but also apparently enlisted "the assistance of friendly moderators". Someone should go through and identify which accounts were involved and either block them or warn them. For example, the account Mouhatou93 was clearly involved, but has neither been blocked nor warned. Nosferattus (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm looking at the sole edit of the account you linked, and a few things stand out to me. It looks like the edit was reverted by an IP editor, restored by an anti-vandalism patrol, and then stood for another year before being partially removed by another IP editor. The edit is clearly problematic. Even if it were true and verifiable, it borders on WP:COATRACKing and it cites unreliable sources. It gets worse when looking at the sources in detail, because even the reliable ones don't support the claims that are being made.

Ultimately, this just reinforces the fact that we are absolutely godawful at evaluating and confirming text-source integrity, where even the removal of false, unsupported material is restored. This isn't a one time thing either; there's no mechanism for checking sources once they're in an article. It really only gets noticed if someone happens to work with an article in depth and detects a pattern, or when big stories like this break. Go to some obscure article, add a sentence that says whatever you like, add a random source as a citation, and it will likely stand for years. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien The response from the anti-vandal patroller when this mistake was pointed out to them is not exactly great [48]. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it's unfortunate the reverting editor is not taking this seriously, but I don't blame any individual editor for this. It's a systemic issue. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Sigh, this is absolutely 100% unsurprising. I don't know any area on Wikipedia where there are so many (well-)paid Western editors working for the rulers, as in the GCC-countries (not only UAE!). In addition to smear-campaigns, there are "puffery"-campaigns; working to "prettyfy" the BLPs of the ruleres and their supporters. Eg; some extremely professional US PR-people worked on Yousef Al Otaiba-article (see talk). We also saw some obvious after the Khashoggi-murder. Alas, we aren't even seeing the tip of the iceberg, Huldra (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Pronunciation guide

Is there a place to seek assistance with instructive pronunciation insertion. Looking for help at Elle Leonard.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

There's Help:IPA and related pages. For the case of Leonard, I think the IPA you're looking for would be /ɛ́lɪ/? Sceptre (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Sceptre, would you be comfortable modifying the article for this suggestion?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Pronunciation isn't my strong suit so I'm not that confident, but if it's supposed to sound like "Ellie", then that's probably the correct pronunciation. Sceptre (talk) 12:15, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

If it's supposed to sound like "Ellie", Help:IPA/English suggests that /ˈɛliː/ is the way to go. Deor (talk) 13:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@Deor and Sceptre:. I tried to incorporate your suggestions.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I guess I am the only person disturbed by the obvious and straightforward OR happening in this discussion? JBL (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

User:JayBeeEll, I don't understand your point? Did you see the citation? I came here for help and advice. If you have any please give it.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I see a citation that supports the claim that her name is pronounced "[EL] - [EE]". To me, the discussion above looks OR taking place in real time; the fact that two different IPA transcriptions were proposed suggests that this is not the sort of thing covered by the WP:CALC exceptions. My advice would be not to make up an IPA transcription. (This is a longstanding personal view; I recognize that there are a significant number of people who do not share the view; and it is not nearly high enough on my list of peeves for me to pursue the issue beyond when it comes up on a page I happen to look at for some reason, as here. So perhaps my second piece of advice would be to just ignore me if you are happy with the new status quo.) --JBL (talk) 23:51, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Editor keeps reverting edits / Possibly has COI

Please check recent edits for Jason Maza and discussion on it's Talk page. There was a prior discussion on the COI Noticeboard and @whatamIdoing stepped in and resolved and suggested verbiage to use. I personally agreed to this verbiage, so we have 2 people that have agreed and we got one user @Chichickov going against the majority and she keeps reverting it back. She also has a SPA account and possibly is a UPE. I have now revised the article back. Maybe the page can be protected? 24.234.239.100 (talk) 01:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Chichickov hasn't edited since March 21. Why bring this now?--Bbb23 (talk) 12:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Chichikov has denied any COI, as has the IP. Chichikov is a new editor (~3 months, 16 edits) and has edited several unrelated articles, so I don't think that SPA is a fair accusation.

IMO this is a plain old content dispute. One editor wants to have a little more information about a scandal, and the other wants to have a little less. It is unfortunate that half the arguments are about the person involved (e.g., SPA, possible UPE, etc. – one also wonders why the IP keeps referring to the other editor as "she") instead of finding and comparing more sources, but I guess that's pretty typical for anti-social media, and perhaps those standards have been assumed here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@Bbb23 @Chichickov has just reverted it again and I reverted it back. Can this person at least be notified not to make anymore reverts as the consensus on the talk page is with the current version. She has made the reverts 6 times and after there was consensus in talk page she has reverted it 3 times. Isn't there a 3-revert rule policy, which they are violating? 66.215.132.78 (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

There is no clear consensus on the talk page, where only Chichikov, you, and me have talked about this.

There is a three-revert rule, but it refers to three reverts within 24 hours. If you don't want the page to be reverted, then stop reverting it yourself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Windy.com Wiki - conflict of interest

Hey guys,

I've made some changes on this wiki article. I have solved all the problems with the article by adding reliable sources, linking to other Wiki articles, adding more information, or adding a logo with a Wiki commons license, etc. I would like to delete the infobox with multiple issues, but I have a conflict of interest here, so I don't want to do it by myself.

Can you check the article, or pass it on to someone who can decide?

Thank you for all you do.

Kind regards, David Polášek DavidPolasek (talk) 07:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I've backed out your changes. They were extensive and there were too many problems with them. Because of your WP:COI, you should not be editing the article directly but proposing changes on the article Talk page. I've left a COI notice on your Talk page with instructions.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

locking talk pages?

I have a simple question: is locking your own talk page recommended?

I am not accusing anyone of doing something wrong. I just feel this question isn't addressed anywhere. I can't find a policy or guideline or random discussion anywhere along the lines of "If an admin likes, they can lock their talk page" or "Talk pages are not to be locked".

Obviously I need to provide an example, but I am not doing so to put anyone in trouble. Just curious: is this accepted practice or an outlier?

Here is a diff: [49]

Do note that I have read and am fully aware "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page". However, I have tried and I cannot, because their talk page is locked. I did post a (handcrafted) message over at my own talk, even though I am aware this is "not sufficient".

I have also read and understood "This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally". I am not having an "issue" and do not wish to focus the discussion on any particular user, hence me posting here, and not at ANI. Furthermore, I didn't want to ask at Teahouse since this is obviously only a concern for admins. Still, feel free to move or redirect the discussion if this is the wrong venue. Thanks.

CapnZapp (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

• It's possible per WP:UTPROT, but generally user talk pages are only protected for a short time and in cases of serious and overwhelming abuse or vandalism – and users whose talk pages are protected are encouraged to have an unprotected user talk subpage. In this case, the protection is somewhat strange, but it's for a short time, so I'm inclined to think it's not such a big deal... —  Salvio ^giuliano 17:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
• Generally it's obviously not recommended, and can be undone if there's a need. But I'd say it's an outlier. With the example you've given, I'd observe a few things: it's documented on their talk page (sorta), it's only 3 days, they're away during that time, and they haven't done it before. Given all of the above, I'd also be inclined to ignore it at this time. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:44, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
• The primary purpose of an admin's talk page being unlocked is that any message there triggers a notification which can't be shut off. Too much abuse of the page would justifiably cause them to ignore this notification. Animal lover |666| 18:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
• I am the worrisome admin who applied full protection to my own talk page when I went on temporary break. As someone here has mentioned, I made it abundantly clear why I took a brief break, and I chose not to make my talk page available for a debate on my position (we shouldn't allow wikipedians to openly vandalize Wikipedia on April 1) on my personal talk page. If anyone needs to pursue this with me (and I plan to pursue this vigorously over the next year), my talk page will be open for anyone who wants to argue that vandalism is perfectly harmless on April 1 to make their case. BusterD (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
  • I have made a connected proposal at Village Pump (proposals). BusterD (talk) 18:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

    Further, I'm collecting names of admins willing to enforce the civility policy next April 1, hopefully spoiling the fun of those who wish to disrupt the pedia. BusterD (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

    Haven't you got anything better to do? DuncanHill (talk) 14:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• As someone who has been extremely annoyed about many many inane and disruptive attempts at April Fool humour over the years (hint: leave it to people who actually have comedic talent), I entirely sympathise with BusterD for shutting down any personal impact from it. If there's a rule aginst it, April 1 strikes me as a slam dunk IAR candidate. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Just to add: I never made any connection to particular dates. I'm simply a regular user who was surprised to find something I've never come across before (for an active user): not being able to leave a talk message. I asked a question and Salvio pretty much provided the answer. I sincerely hope I did not land anyone in hot water. PS. If there was an open talk subpage I didn't find it. (I think most people won't even think of the idea to search for one) Thanks CapnZapp (talk) 08:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

While I don't see any harm in ignoring it in this particular instance and frankly if I'd come across it I probably would have just ignored it or waited the day or two for the protection to expire then asked about it, since this at AN I think we need to be clear that this isn't the sort of thing which should be considered acceptable. I hate the April Fools silliness as much as anyone. But let's be realistic if any regular editor ask for their talk page to be protected for that reason with no evidence that their talk page was likely to be targeted this request would almost definitely be told to bugger off hopefully politely but maybe not. Whatever the trials of admins, it's a task they've chosen to accept and so they should not get special advantages that regular plebs don't get just to make up for being admins. Allowing that is incredibly harmful to the community since it increases the feeling among us plebs that we don't matter and admins can do whatever the heck they want which would never be acceptable for us. This means admins should only protect their own talk page in circumstances where any admin is likely to protect another editor's talk page in the same circumstances perhaps with a request. This may include some cases where there is something going on in an editor's personal life which makes it for the best, one of the reasons I probably would have just let this be. But it doesn't sound like this is the case here so it shouldn't have happened even if it is fine for us to ignore it in this one instances. Nil Einne (talk) 14:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree this this was not a proper use of page protection. You don't get to lock your own talk page just because you don't want anybody to debate with you. If you don't want to debate, and someone ignores that request, it takes a few seconds to remove their comment from one's talk page. Now this event happening isn't the end of the world, but it should not be repeated, either. I'm not discussing the merits of BusterD's position on April Fools (though I do have my opinions on it), because it's irrelevant. You do not get to lock your own talk page just because you feel like it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Protecting a user talk page for a short period is entirely in keeping with the level of uncomedic silliness shown on April 1. Just call it a prank and move on. People need to get over their sense of self-importance: nothing bad is going to happen if you can't post a message for a couple of days. Johnuniq (talk) 02:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Admins locking out talk page interaction? That should be a serious concern and the tendency should be nipped in the bud. If you aren't prepared to handle the citizens whose behavior you have been appointed to monitor, you should consider leaving the position of authority. I believe your talk page should never be locked (except for the rare cases where it is warranted; as mentioned by UTPROT). PS. Again, I'm talking future here. I am not discussing past issues and I am holding admins to a higher standard than random Wikipedia editors like me. Meaning that "they went wild on April's Fools" is not a valid excuse for a person of authority and trust to do the same. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 07:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I will not be roped into discussing the merits of the April Fools stuff, it is not relevant (and I didn't participate this year anyways) and you are engaging in whataboutism. Locking your talk page for no good reason is not acceptable behavior from an administrator. The ability to protect pages is meant to stop disruption, and "I don't want people to post on my talk page for any reason" in the absence of any disruption is not a valid reason and a clear misuse of administrative powers, especially when used on one's own talk page, and comes awful close to violating WP:ADMINACCT. It's also a bright line violation of WP:UTPROT. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2023

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

Administrator changes

Aoidh

KillerChihuahua

CheckUser changes

Ferret

Guideline and policy news

• A community RfC is open to discuss whether reports primarily involving gender-related disputes or controversies should be referred to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

Technical news

• Some older web browsers will not be able to use JavaScript on Wikimedia wikis starting this week. This mainly affects users of Internet Explorer 11. (T178356)
• The rollback of Vector 2022 RfC has found no consensus to rollback to Vector legacy, but has found rough consensus to disable "limited width" mode by default.
• A link to the user's Special:CentralAuth page will now appear in the subtitle links shown on Special:Contributions. This was voted #17 in the Community Wishlist Survey 2023.

Arbitration

• The Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case has been closed.
• A case about World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been opened, with the first evidence phase closing 6 9 April 2023.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2023

Please remove the protection from the above page, the topic is notable now. Ricciardo Best (talk) 08:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ricciardo Best: - this should have been brought up with the admin who salted the title - @Liz:. Mjroots (talk) 09:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Davinia Priscilla possible paid for creation of Gizelle Bryant as well as being blocked user Priscilla 223

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.

---

So I came across Davinia Priscilla after this post this post at the Help Desk. At the time, they hasn't said what article they were talking about, so I was searching their history. That is when I found Priscilla 223 and see they had been blocked indefinitely for unsourced or poorly sourced content on 2 March 2022. That same day, a user Davinia Priscilla was created and starts editting on the article The Real Housewives of Potomac and later Gizelle Bryant, the same articles as Priscilla 223. It all screams block avoidance and they seem to have an issue with WP:OWN regarding the article. They are now trying to walk back their possible admission that article was paid for and edit warring. As for the article, even though its paid for, I think they are notable and has now been tagged for it anyway. — NZFC^(talk)(cont) 18:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@Valereee:'s block was generous. I'd have pblocked indefinitely. Star Mississippi 00:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I kind of feel for people who come into help desk or teahouse with what they believe are righteous claims and end up with a gotcha. I have no objection if someone thinks she's truly NOTHERE, which it's really starting to look like. Valereee (talk) 11:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Also note this edit by an IP [50] re-removing the maintenance templates, three minutes after Davinia was warned for removing the maintenance templates. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 01:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and blocked indefinitely. --Yamla (talk) 11:37, 5 April 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.

Arbitration motion regarding Dbachmann

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

For egregious misuse of an admin tool, for losing the trust or confidence of the community, and for failing to address the concerns of the community within a reasonable time period, while being aware of those concerns, contrary to the expectations of admin conduct and accountability, Dbachmann (talk · contribs) is desysopped. Dbachmann may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Dbachmann

Request for Repeal of Topic Ban for 3Kingdoms

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 request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning 3Kingdoms

Appealing user

3Kingdoms (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – 3Kingdoms (talk)

Sanction being appealed

Topic ban on Arab-Israeli conflict [51]

Editor who imposed or found consensus to impose the sanction

Newslinger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Newslinger (talk)

Notification of that editor

[52]

• Administrative note - I've removed the formal diff/word cap/reviewing admin rules, as they don't actually apply when AN is used as the appeal venue for an AE sanction. I have prior administrative involvement with the editor, but no INVOLVE-breaching aspects, afaik. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Statement by 3Kingdoms

When I was topic-banned from this area, I was in the wrong. Regardless of how I felt about my edits I let myself engage in edit warring and impolite discussion. I believe that over that last 10 months I have shown my ability to not do that sort of behavior. Instead, I have worked with other editors in discussing disagreements and solving issues. I believe that I can engage in this topic without issue. If people are not sure, I will happily accept a 0rr for 3 months on this topic to show my commitment. Thank you and have a good day. 3Kingdoms (talk) 13:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• Weak support - I was one of the admins who unblocked this editor in the past, after edit-warring issues (post this TBAN, at that). At the time, it was a distinctly ROPE unblock, that I only went for because the editor had some good activity elsewhere. Nevertheless, they complied with the 0RR and 1RR general timed restrictions in a highly positive fashion. So, why weak? Well, 3kingdoms continues to have more noise as an editor than we'd really like - a significant number of warnings on their talk page for various issues. However, their communication in them has been well improved over the complete failure that saw this TBAN and pre-block warnings . As an editor with a generally positive direction, I think a removing of the TBAN (whether entirely or to 0RR) is in line with our ethos. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Administrative unarchive. This appeal deserves an answer one way or the other, not an archiving by bot. Courcelles (talk) 23:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think it should be considered a privilege to edit in the Arab-Israeli area, due to how high tempers flare when it comes to that subject matter, and if an editor has their ability to edit there removed, they really need to display exemplary editing behavior for a sustained period of time. It's still too soon. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:52, 3 April 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 AIV

Basically what it says on the tin. Haven't seen such a backlog since the last holiday. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Didn't look like a backlog to me, but I've cleared it anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:27, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I've buggered up a talk page archive

So, yeah, Talk:CBeebies. Due to my blundering about here on the tech side, which after a whole decade would seem to be permanent, alas, alas, when I tried to set up talk page archiving for a page that gets a lot of, uh, unfocussed additions, I've ended up with Talk:CBeebies/Archive 1 and Talk:CBeebies/Archive1 existing. It's a minor thing, but still annoying if you're the type of person I am.

Could someone with more experience ^{cough competent cough} make these Archive 1 and Archive 2 (or Archive1 and Archive2, or whatever) and ensure that the bot that's doing the archiving is pointed in the correct direction in future? I suspect admin tools will be needed, but, really, what the fuck do I know?

In the meantime I shall be inserting a trout up me as per our traditional punishment (I think that's right, right?). Thanks! — Trey Maturin™ 18:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

• I'm on this ... working ...

• all done now, I think. Black Kite (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

• Aw, my hero! Thank you! — Trey Maturin™ 18:53, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Moving forward: Deferring GENSEX cases to AE

Should the community encourage or require GENSEX cases to be brought at AE, or make no change? 18:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Potential encouragement ("soft") and requirement ("hard") wordings are given below; these are not the only wordings that could be used.

• Soft: Something like Reports primarily involving gender-related disputes or controversies are usually best-suited to Arbitration enforcement (AE), except when the matter is very straightforward or when AE is unavailable for procedural reasons (for instance, a requested sanction exceeds AE's authority, or a party against whom sanctions are sought is not aware). Beyond these two exceptions, any uninvolved administrator may, at their discretion and at any time, close an AN or AN/I discussion in this topic area in favor of review at AE; if the filer would not be able to start the thread, the admin should do so for them.
• Hard: Something like Reports primarily involving gender-related disputes or controversies, other than truly unambiguous disruption, should be filed at Arbitration enforcement (AE) unless there is a procedural reason that AE would not be suitable (for instance, a requested sanction exceeds AE's authority, or a party against whom sanctions are sought is not aware). Any uninvolved editor may speedily close a thread brought in contravention of this rule, directing the filer to AE; if the filer would not be able to start the thread, the closer should do so for them

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC) [Wording changed 19:01, 4 March 2023 as part of converting to RfC. RfC preface added 19:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)]

• Nom statement [partly moved from old preface 19:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)]: So, whatever the outcome of the above, it's clear that the thread was a shitshow. And the Newimpartial thread was a shitshow. In fact every GENSEX thread I can recall at AN(I) since I resumed editing 2 years ago has been a shitshow, apart from slam-dunk "new user using slurs"–type reports.
  We have a venue for this. It is called Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement. It avoids basically all of the BS we see in these kinds of contentious threads. The vast majority of AN(I) GENSEX discussions fall within concurrent AE jurisdiction, especially now that WP:AC/CT has loosened the definition of sanction awareness. There is no reason that we need to continue hearing these cases at AN(I) if we don't want to... and does anyone actually want to?
  I've had this idea bouncing around my head the past week and it's just seemed more and more reasonable as things have progressed, especially as we've seen difficulties in finding admins willing to close these threads. Thoughts? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
• I would oppose, as I dislike the precedent this would set - AE and ArbCom are there to supplement, not replace, the self-management of the broader community. BilledMammal (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  I would also suggest that you convert this to an WP:RFC, as editors have begun to !vote on it. BilledMammal (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  I mean this completely sincerely: if someone in the community thinks the community can self-manage a topic area that is under CT, I would encourage them to go to WP:ARCA and to ask us to revoke the Contentious Topic designation for that topic area. We should not have the extraordinary grant of power, which is ArbCom delegating its broad authority directly to admins, is the community can handle it. I have repeatedly supported ways to eliminate areas from the CT/DS designation or to narrow their scope (see AP2) precisely because I think the community should handle what it can. So if something is a designated CT it means to me that the community isn't, at this time, able to self-manage that topic area and if the community actually is able to self-manage we need to restore the area to normal rules for admins and editors. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Edit: I should note I was making a general point here about any given CT. I think there are reasons to do and not to do this proposal of Tamzin's so am not expressing an opinion on that. Merely responding to Billed Mammal's thinking of how CT exists with-in dispute resolution. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  I might do that for some of the more obscure CT's, but to clarify my point here wasn't that I think that the community can fully self-manage this topic area, but that the community can partially self-manage every topic area that is under CT, and I don't want to set the precedent that they can't. BilledMammal (talk) 19:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  This goes back to our discussion last September. I appreciate your viewpoint that the community has failed to manage disputes in areas formally identified as contentious topics. Nonetheless, I think the arbitration enforcement system will be overloaded if every dispute is just passed up the chain automatically. I think editors need to exercise judgement and continue to try to handle issues at the lowest level possible. isaacl (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support hard - The Newimpartial and Tranarchist threads were among the worst things I've seen on this site when it comes to wiki drama. No need to have such a thing when AE can do it cleaner and more efficiently. I also believe this would lead to better results for everyone involved since we won't have involved users contributing, which undermines the integrity of consensus imo. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 18:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

My reservations that an admin panel at AE cannot handle certain types of disruption that require topic familiarity that skirts the edge of what we consider WP:INVOLVED aside, I'm somewhat in favour of the hard proposal, but either could work for me.

The biggest technical hurdle I see for making AE the primary/sole noticeboard for this would be the requirement that AE requires autoconfirmed before you can post a thread without it being removed. That obviously rules out editors with less than 10 edits over 4 days, but also rules out IP editors. If this does go ahead, a common sense exception for WP:MEAT might need to be made so that any uninvolved editor/admin, at their discretion can move/re-post the thread at AE on behalf of the non-autoconfirmed editor, with the checks and balances that the editor moving the discussion takes some responsibility for the move. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: In my mind, the AE autoconfirmed requirement would fall under "unavailable for procedural reasons". So would clear lack of awareness or requests for sanctions that exceed AE's powers (most notably sitebans). If that should be clearer in either proposed wording, I'm happy to clarify. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:39, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Aah yeah. If you do follow through with BilledMammal's suggestion above of converting this to an RfC, I would suggest clarifying that in the wording before making it a RfC. Otherwise, unless this side discussion becomes a monster thread of its own, it's probably fine just being clarified in these replies for now. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose. There are cases when reports can involve multiple issues. If only one of those issues is editing in GENSEX, it should not be the case that we are more or less requiring this sort of stuff to be sent to WP:AE. Reports involving gender-related disputes or controversies are usually best-suited to Arbitration enforcement is overly broad, even in the soft version.
  WP:AE can also be really difficult when trying to demonstrate issues that draw evidence from a large number of diffs (there's a hard cap on 20 diffs). I agree that WP:ANI has problems when it comes to these sorts of disputes inasmuch as it draws a lot of tangentially involved people to these discussions, but I do think that the filer should be able to elect to go to WP:ANI if they think that the open-ended format of the noticeboard will allow them to communicate their concerns more clearly to the community. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  In light of Tamzin's amending of the RfC prompt above, I'm amending my !vote for relevance. I still don't like the phrasing close an AN or AN/I discussion in this topic area (I'd prefer something like close an AN or AN/I discussion about disputes primarily involving conduct in WP:GENSEX so as to be extremely explicit regarding when admins can and cannot close ANI discussions), so I remain weakly opposed at this time. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• For what its worth, as I read through the thread, I did think "much of this would have been avoided had this been transferred to, or originally filed at, AE." CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support, undecided on variant. It's a CT for a reason; using CT procedures for a CT is a nobrainer. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 18:54, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  Question: if this is becoming an RfC, where is the text actually proposed to be added? ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 18:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  I imagine this could work as a standard community-authorized general sanction. It doesn't need to go into policy anywhere. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  Why would it be a general sanction? Why is it not just a noticeboard procedural rule along the liens of "you must notify someone you're reporting"? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  Specifically, support the soft variant. "Truly unambiguous" bothers me on the harder variant, thinking of cases like the recent Scapulus, who was handled swiftly at ANI, but where some editors did see it fit to show up later to complain about freeze peach. Clearly this was addressed well at ANI, but "truly unambiguous" is at least not unambiguous in this case. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  I wrestled a lot with that wording (and the closer can always take note of general support for one option or the other, but not for some specific wording, and implement accordingly). But to explain my reasoning, the core challenge is that there have been a lot of cases—both with editors seen as anti-trans and those seen as pro-trans—where someone has felt "Surely this is blatant disruption, easy indef", and it's turned into days or weeks of nonsense. So I acknowledge that "truly unambiguous" is really strong wording, but it's the best shorthand I could think of for "Disruption that you, ideally as an experienced user familiar with what is and isn't considered disruptive in GENSEX, know will lead to a summary indef." Common sense would, of course, continue to govern either of these options, and AE would always have its inherent authority to reject a case, thereby making itself procedurally unavailable and allowing AN(I) to proceed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  SnowRise brings up another point I didn't notice, that according to the hard option, any uninvolved editor could close a thread they deem should be at AE. I think this is an exceptionally bad idea. This means that even in a case where admins are unanimous that some behaviour is unacceptable, any sufficiently out-of-touch editor could declare a case not unambiguous enough and complicate the process excessively. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  Update after further reflection: I think both variants risk curtailing the community's ability to self-govern and adapt by consensus in this area. I do think the idea has merit but allowing a move to be forced by either an individual admin or any editor is harmful, and I fear leaving everything up to AE admins could threaten our ability to respond flexibly to various kinds of disruption. I definitely agree that threads about more long-standing editors turn into huge messes on ANI and probably would do better at AE, but I don't think either of these proposals is the right way. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 21:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support hard As I mentioned above, (... it appears that is now simple for editors with a certain POV ... to remove other editors who oppose them from contentious areas without using the correct venue, which would be AE) when these discussions end up with the community they turn into the inevitable shitshows that this one and the NewImpartial one have been. We simply need to remove them from this arena, because otherwise the next one will be exactly the same. Black Kite (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
• Converted to RfC per comments above, with some tweaks to wording per @Sideswipe9th and Red-tailed hawk. More generally, I stress that the wording above is just two ideas of how to do this. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support with a preference for the hard variant, as I think the future will be like the past. I can appreciate the potential problem that a report can cross over multiple issues, but experience leads me to think that the most disaster-prone issue within such a report will dominate. A report that includes both a GENSEX issue and, say, edit-warring over WP:CITEVAR will become a trainwreck over the former. XOR'easter (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I don't know what the solution is. This topic is one of several prime candidates for WP:ADVOCACY, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:SPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:PUSH, WP:SOCK, WP:MEAT and WP:NOTHERE. I don't like advocacy editing, but equally well we may need a balance of editors who have strong POVs to bring in-depth knowledge to controversial articles. It can't be allowed to be beneficial to WP:WIKILAWYER and gang up on opponents or we will get more SPAs and non-autoconfirmed users pig piling on culture war enemies. From what I have seen the normal ANI process works pretty well, and the admins manage to separate behavioral issues from content. The whole !vote thing is problematic because as we see a big deal is made of distilling it down to numbers rather than the much-touted abstract "consensus". Whatever the solution, I think this topic and a few others like it stand to test Wikipedia's processes for dealing with problem editors. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
• Immensely strong oppose. First off, this is a procedurally invalid proposal, even with the addition of the RfC tag: enforceable rules regarding disruption (particularly those with such broad implications for arresting disruption across a vast swath of articles) cannot be made by the admin regulars of AN alone, supplemented merely by the editors already involved in this singular dispute and a handful of others brought in by a FRS notice. If you want create binding guidelines on this project, you need to use the WP:PROPOSAL process: identify the WP:PAG you want to alter (or suggest a new standalone policy namespace), and then host a discussion on that policy's talk page with a notice at VPP, or just host the discussion at the Village Pump to begin. AN is absolutely not the right (indeed, is arguably the worst) forum to be suggesting new policy. If this should go further rather than being swiftly shot down, the discussion needs to be moved.

Second, putting aside the procedural considerations, I think the proposal (good faith though it obviously is) is a non-starter on its merits as well. Mind you, I think the present case giving rise to this proposal probably is an instance of a case that arguably should have gone to AE. But creating a mandate that all behavioural concerns arising out of GENSEX topics go to AE, aside from being inconsistent with how we handle every other WP:CTOP (our new handle for discretionary sanctions for those unfamiliar) issue, is clearly an unworkable proposition under our current community schema for arresting disruptive behaviour--and the particular wording proposed here (in both variants) only further invites confusion and difficulty. Without meaning offense to Tamzin, it's the worst kind of rule cruft where the community clearly needs some degree of flexibility and redundancy. While I do believe that CTOP should be invoked more liberally in edge cases to bring matters to AE (as a more streamlined process less amenable to pile-on by biased/involved parties) ANI has an absolutely vital role in allowing the community to review and correct long-term behavioural concerns in a way that this overbroad proposal would clearly and significantly abrogate, for limited gain.

Under this suggestion, any behavioural issue imputing the GENSEX topic area would be effectively stripped out of the hands of the broader community to impose CBANs or otherwise address disruption, and those decisions held in reserve for editors with a high level of permissions at AE. While I reiterate that this would actually be a good thing in a non-trivial number of cases, as we should use AE more extensively than we do for CTOP issues, a firm requirement directing all disruption involving GENSEX to AE is clearly overkill that would significantly reduce the broader community's ability to adjudicate longterm issues and otherwise jam-up our ability to effectively arrest disruption. Further, encouraging rank and file editors to start closing down ANI discussions that touch upon certain topic areas (in a way that would currently be treated as clear disruption itself) would be ripe for abuse: anybody who's spent any degree of time at ANI can predict just how flexible a vast number of editors will be with judging themselves as "uninvolved" in the dispute: the technical excuse that they didn't participate in the immediate dispute would still permits editors who are heavily involved in the issues in general (or who have beef with the filer, or are regular defenders of someone who comes to ANI again and again) to thwart oversight by invoking this rule.

Honestly, I could go on for quite a while: there are so many potential knock-on effects to this proposal which would needlessly complicate addressing user conduct in this topic area, and so many ways that it's one-size-fits-all approach does not connect with our current otherwise context-sensitive (and somewhat overlapping, as a good thing) remit of different forums for addressing disruption. But the overarching concern is that it drastically reduces the community's options for little practical gain, pulls oversight for determinations that ultimately should fall into the broader community's hands on occasion, and would introduce all kinds of opportunities for gamesmanship (ostensibly the very thing it comes to address). I just think it's a very poorly considered proposal. But again, if nothing else, it needs to be considered by the community at large in an appropriate forum, which AN decidedly is not. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't really understand your procedural objection, Snow Rise. This proposes rules that would apply only to WP:AN and WP:AN/I. There's not even any change in how AE would operate, other than possibly getting more GENSEX cases than before. This is a vastly less impactful change than, say, placing WP:GS/RUSUKR under an extendedconfirmed restriction, which was handled by a simple thread at AN/I. I don't even think an RfC was strictly required here, but I'm following the path of least resistance.

As to the various negative effects you're worried about, I guess I'll focus on one thing you've said: ANI has an absolutely vital role in allowing the community to review and correct long-term behavioural concerns. Can you point to evidence of this actually being the case in the GENSEX area? In GENSEX AN/I threads I've been involved in, even when there's been some ultimate consensus, I really can't think of any that I would say show healthy self-governance. This strongly negative view of AN/I's handling of GENSEX issues is shared by, as of this comment, every commenter in this thread who substantially edits in the topic area, including ones who often sharply differ on content matters. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Tamzin: I'm going to divide my responses between two posts, since these are semi-discrete issues, in order to faciliate any response and further discussion that may result:

• Regarding the procedural/placement issue, the mere fact that this change would pertain to how ANI operates hardly means that it will impact only the regular (mostly admin) editors at AN--let alone that it would only be of interest to this highly select segment of the community. This change would impact a vast number of editors working accross countless articles who may have recourse to bring behavioural concerns to the community at ANI. For that matter, considering almost every single hypothetical future thread that this proposal would seek to invalidate would typically have landed at ANI, rather than AN, placing it here rarifies the air even further, in terms of the regular editors who are likely to see it based on it's placement.

This is clearly not an "AN/I only" issue: it very obviously touches upon fundamental authority, consensus process of, and decision making generally reserved to the community at large (as opposed to the administrative corps in particular) and the proposal would heavily impact the community's ability to address long-term disruption in a particular topic area, relative to how literally all others operate. Such a discussion should take place in a cnetralized and highly visible community space, not just within site of a handful of admins, those already connected to a singular dispute, and handful of others pulled in via a typical FRS. At an absolute minimum you should make a posting a notice about this discussion at the village Pump and making sure the discussion is on the WP:CD ticker. And frankly, I just strongly recommend you move the entire discussion to VP itself. Otherwise, even if you get a consensus for the proposal here, you are just begging for an uproar afterwards, with accusations of an admin power grab, however good faith the intention here. I mean, if nothing else, what is the good-faith, community-respectful argument against moving this to a place where the community at large is more likely to be able to be aware of and weigh in on it? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

On the proposal impacting on the "community's ability to address long-term disruption in a particular topic area", how would you respond to the point raised above by Barkeep49 that I'd like to build upon in the next paragraph. Not sure if this should be a reply to your first or second point however, if you feel that it's better answered in response to the second, feel free to move this comment as a reply to your second point.

Because prior disruption in this content area has required significant ArbCom intervention, and the committee's remit is to operate on serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve, has the community already not demonstrated a significant inability to address long-term disruption in this content area? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

No, with all due respect to Barkeep, that is a conclusion I believe is unsupported by compelling evidence, and certainly not one I am aware of ever having been endorsed by the community or by ArbCom in particular. WP:Contentious topics are not labelled as such because the community has a laisez-faire attitude towards them or has fundamentally failed to try to address them, or is per se incapable of doing so. Rather these are topics that are inherently divisive in the broader social systems of our societies at large, and thus such biases and conflicts are simply more easily imported into this project when topics are discussed/edit upon here, relative to some others, for completely obvious reasons. None of that militates for the conclusion that the broader community and our long-established rules and processes do not have a central role to play in addressing a heightened level of disruption in such areas--either as a general matter or, certainly, in terms of an express point of community consensus that has ever been adopted on this project. When we say "contentious topic" we mean "contentious topic", not "a topic the general community does not have a role in regulating". That's a massive non-sequitor and leap in logic, in my opinion.

CTOP (and DS before it) exists merely to grant relaxed use of certain tools in areas where rapid response to disruption is more likely to be needed, not to declare the rest of the community as irrelevant to such a fundamental function: if anything, the existence of a CTOP determination for a particular topic increases the likelihood the broader community may have to occasionally intervene directly concerning disruption connected with that topic, not that it should be forbidden access to it's normal role in that process: that's an incredibly counter-intuitive read on the purpose of CTOP in my opinion, and certainly not captured anywhere in the policy pages that describe those processes.

And again, I say this while being broadly supportive of an hierarchy and an important division of labor running adjacent to the community->admin corps->ArbCom->WMF ladder. But this particular proposal would take a particular topic area and isolate it more or less entirely from established non-admin community tools and norms for expressing consensus on problematic behaviour, and taking consensus action accordingly. I just don't see how that can be justified on the mere basis that this is a highly divisive subject matter: so are countless other topics, including (by definition) every other WP:CTOP subject. Are we going to follow suit for each of those topic areas and essentially hand the entirety of our decision-making apparatus on behavioural issues surrounding contentious topics to the administrative corps alone? I very much hope not: I think it would be an immensely detrimental development in the history of this project. Regardless, such a massive change to the status-quo with such significant impacts upon how we conduct this project and hold eachother accountable to community standards absolutely must be discussed with the fullest possible involvement of the community at large, not just here in the hallowed halls of AN. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

On the conclusion from Barkeep I've built upon, the Arbitration policy that I linked to before, and was ratified by the community, does pretty clearly state that the Committee's remit is to handle content areas that the community has been unable to resolve.

WP:Contentious topics are not labelled as such because the community has a laisez-faire attitude towards them or has fundamentally failed to try to address them,...Rather these are topics that are inherently divisive in the broader social systems of our societies at large, and thus such biases and conflicts are simply more easily imported into this project when topics are discussed/edit upon here Those two things aren't necessarily separate. Yes some of the CTOP topics are inherently divisive in broader social systems off-wiki, but because of that many of them are also topics that the community has historically had an inability to address. Some exceptions to this apply, for example while the Shakespeare authorship question is a CTOP area, outside of Shakespearean scholars and literary historians it's not really a topic that's divisive in a broader social context. As would the very Wikipedia specific Manual of Style and Article titles and BLP areas.

Let me put it to you another way. If was the community who had authorised the sanctions, even if ultimately the end result of the AE and wider discretionary powers for admins is the same, that would have been a clear demonstration that the community was able to handle disruption. However because this required an ArbCom case to be put in place, that alone is a pretty strong indicator to me that this is a content area that the community, for whatever reason, is unable to handle. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I think I've left myself open to being misconstrued by not being as clear as I could and should have been and so that has happened in this discussion. What I have said is that the community cannot self-manage Contentious Topics. If the community were self-sufficient and able to self-manage it would be inappropriate for it to be an ArbCom designated Contentious Topic. On the whole I am of the firm belief that this community is incredibly capable of handling large and thorny problems of both content (which is obviously out of bounds for ArbCom) and conduct. Because of this I think some members of the community will sometimes think that Contentious Topic is just a shortcut to make life easier - in this case I saw it in Billed Mammal's stating that ArbCom is supplementing the community in Contentious Topics. It goes beyond that. In a designated Contentious Topic there are going to be significant shortcomings in the community's abilities to self-manage. But being unable to self-manage does not mean the community finds itself helpless in managing a Contentious Topic. Hence my edited comment that there are reasons to do and not to do this proposal, which I continue to have no real opinion on. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, Barkeep: your observations described in those terms, my own perspective substantially overlaps with yours. Sideswipe9th my response also touches upon your last post, but I'm doubling up here in responding to Barkeep to avoid redundancy. Let us assume for the moment that a CTOp being invoked in a topic area is a tacit statement that the community has been unable to handle issues in a topic area with the usual tools. I think the reality is quite a bit more complicated than that, but let's take that for granted in the present discussion so we can move on to more central points. Because the more critical/dispositive consideration here is that the increased tools that CTOP authorizes are meant to supplement existing administrative and community actions, not replace them. Even if we assume that any time ArbCom authorizes CTOP in a given area, it comes inherent with the message that the community is not getting the job done with typical methods, that is still a non-sequitor with the conclusion that ArbCom has declared that the rst of the community is not to take its own actions to arrest disruption in that area, where and when it can (be it at ANI or wherever). Not only does that conclusion not follow from the given premise, but we have a massive body of processes where the community clearly does regularly restrain problematic editors in CTOP/historical DS through processes taking place outside of AE. And this parallel activity has been undertaken as long as DS/CTOP have existed.

So the end result remains the same: a finding of CTOP in no way forestalls the broader community from exercising it's own prerogative to implement TBANs or other CBANs (to take just one example of what the community is permitted to do in CTOP areas). Surely if the contrary was the case, we would have adjusted the relevant policies on CBANs to reflect this fact years ago. CTOP merely authorizes the use of advanced tools to block or otherwise restrain problematic actors a little faster, and makes WP:AE an option for reporting and getting a faster administrative response. What CTOP clearly does not do is forbid the community at large from also using its own discretion in conjunction with these liberalized tools, as it can (and does) use such community decisions/CBANs parallel to regular administrative blocks, in any other topic area where disruption arises. Again, that would be an absurd conclusion: why would we want the community to be less proactive in responding to areas of heightened disruption? Clearly we want (or at least entertain the occasional need for) increased use of CBANs alongside the use of CTOP/1RR blocks and AE filings. Insofar as CTOP/DS language has ever said "DS/CTOP is meant for areas where the community is having trouble keeping the disruption in check", it is for the purpose of explaining the need for looser standards for when warnings, blocks, and other preventative administrative actions can take place--not for the purposes of saying "these issues can now only be addressed at AE". If it were the latter, then countless of our policies and much of the history community bans would read completely differently. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

What I think this very fair analysis of Contentious Topics misses out on is that certain editors/discussions are, themselves, signals that the community is unable to handle something. This is why not only can admin act sooner and sanction with more severity than they can outside a CT topic area (what SR focuses on) but also can act with first mover advantage and knowing that their actions are less likely to be overturned on formal appeal because of the higher than normal requirements. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• As to the substantive arguments, you may very well be correct that regulars in the GENSEX space consider ANI an intractable travesty: while my background and editorial interests in both biopsychology and human rights semi-frequently bring me into contact with existing disputes in this topic area, I don't engage with the area with the regularity of such editors. However, a few thoughts as to that: first off, that is not exactly a rare perspective about ANI's complications, issues, and the general caliber of discussion there from editors in...oh, I don't know, let's say every single topic area under the sun. That low opinion of what can happen at ANI (unavodiable to a certain extent by virtue of the fact that it specializes in intractable disputes) does not automatically invalidate the role that space serves or the necessity for preserving the ability for concerned community members to bring issues there for the community's consideration.

So I would say the onus is upon you as the party proposing such a massive carve-out to explain why this one topic area should deviate so drastically from how our policies and procedures operate for every other topic. I mean, have you even considered the fact that your proposal would essentially make it impossible for any disruptive party in the GENSEX area to hereafter ever receive a CBAN from that area (or the project in general) as a result of their conduct? That's a pretty humongous abrogation of the community's inherent purview as it has historically existed on this project--and yet also just one of several such outsized implications of the proposal. Is GENSEX so much more inherently disruptive an area so as to seize the entirety of all such determinations from the community at large, even when compared against other DS/CTOP topics? I just don't think so. The community needs to be able to weight in on longterm abuse regardless of the topic area, and your proposal would instead shift that role entirely to just those admins participating at AE. That's incredibly problematic to me, for more reasons than I can begin to list here.

For that matter, putting aside for the moment how extensively this proposal would usurp the broader community's role in preventing disruption in this area, and hamstring our ability to respond to longterm abuse, I am equally, if not more, concerned about the impacts upon the interests of the reported parties. For all the issues inherent to ANI, it does permit for more shades of grey to enter the discourse than does AE. Taking TT's case as an example, some of us were compelled to modulate our recommendations based on the nitty-gritty details and context of the dispute. Let's remember that the responding admin at AE has a fundamentally different role from the closer of an ANI thread. At ANI the closer must, to some degree, take stock of any ameliorating factors which gained significant support among respondents, because they are finding a community consensus in the discussion. At AE, the admin's role is much more that of the party actually making the determination in the first instance, based on the information provided by involved parties. That's a fundamental difference that effectively narrows the decision making from a group (which can, in the aggregate, often reach a more nuanced and reasonable conclusion that balances competing interests) to a single person, who is more likely to act in a very black and white (or at least far more idiosyncratic) fashion.

Again, sometimes that is precisely what we want, for the sake of efficiency and fairness. But often we want the broader community weighing in, in complicated or nuanced cases with competing community interests, and creating a blanket rule that would just completely pull that decision making into the authority of a increasingly smaller subset of the community is a bad direction to take, and even more questionable when you consider that the proposal is that we do it for a given topic area on the justification that "it gets ugly at ANI sometimes when we discuss this subject matter", because 1) what topic would that not apply to? and 2) sometimes the areas with the most contention behind them are the ones we want the community at large to be able to dig into, to avoid oversimplifcation in the handling of those disputes. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• Moral support - I'm generally in favor of making ANI operate more like AE (read: get rid of threaded discussions between the OP and accused party), and thus for as long as AN/I continues to not look like that, I'd generally support delegating more to AE over ANI. But, I do agree with Snow that there's procedural issues with raising this proposal here (at least as anything other than testing the waters), and beyond that would be more in favor of a proposal that cuts down on threaded discussion at ANI rather than just delegating work away from there in a piecemeal fashion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  Reading through the proposal again, I guess my above reasoning puts me in the soft camp? But I don't think we need more guidance for this topic area so much as modest changes to how ANI operates, and for as long as ANI continues to be a free-for-all, AE will be a preferable forum for addressing pretty much any conduct dispute that it has authority to address. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  There's a fine line between accused having an opportunity/obligation to respond to their accusers and the potential for accusations of WP:BLUDGEONing and the current format makes it hard to tell which is happening. Very much agreed with you @Rosguill. Lizthegrey (talk) 22:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't believe this is something we need to formalize. However, a few times in this saga I've said that it would be a good idea for the closing admins to suggest that future incidents of this type might be better suited for AE. I still stand by that. I suppose this is similar to the Soft version above, but less formal. We can make a recommendation, but we don't need to make the process so rigid by reducing out flexibility to handle new situations at the most appropriate place. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support, preferring hard This case has pretty conclusively proven that in a controversial topic area it's possible to remove an opponent who has not actually done anything wrong just by showing up to ANI. Needless to say, this is bad. So I support any reform that would fix this situation, including this one. Loki (talk) 01:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

who has not actually done anything wrong - hmm, seems like a questionable summary to say the least. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:47, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, this is a completely inappropriate carveout of one topic area, basically making WP:CBANs impossible for that topic. That is unprecedented and disempowers the community. It is not the place of a few people on AN and a few people unhappy with the recent closes to give/take that away. And the idea that AE is inherently superior to ANI is questionable. The limits there make it hard to document a pattern of misconduct; and without a pattern, it's easy and common for bad behavior to be handwaved away as though it is an isolated incident, or just sour grapes from transphobes or whatever. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Crossroads: CBANs are beyond AE's authority and would thus obviously not be covered by this. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  That is not at all obvious, and besides, then why propose this? It was two CBAN discussions that sparked this idea in the first place, and is motivating some of the votes. A technicality of "the discussion has to be explicitly for a CBAN from the get-go" would make it much harder for problems to be addressed because it's not common for one editor to have all that evidence personally and know that it is that severe. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:14, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  CBANS are pretty much exclusively a product of ANI discussions, so if you create a rule which prevents the community from bringing disruption attached to a given topic area to ANI, you effectively are creating a situation where a CBAN can never be applied to a user who has proven disruptive in that area. So, yes, your proposal very much removes CBANS (or similar actions taken as an expression of community will) as an option in any case of disruption that took place in the GENSEX topic area. Indeed, under your proposal, even an LTA or a suspected sock of a previously CBANned editor couldn't be brought to ANI to be dealt with if the disruption touched upon GENSEX editing. I honestly don't wish to be rude, Tamzin, so I hope you will forgive how stridently I am about to word this, but the fact that you didn't recognize this extremely obvious result of the proposal suggests you made it without due consideration for its very broad and numerous impacts. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  Well, there are two possibilities here. One is that I didn't consider the possible negative outcomes. The other is that you're wrong about those negative outcomes being remotely likely. Unsurprisingly, just as you tend to think your analysis is correct, I tend to think mine is. Perhaps after ~15kB of reiterating your parade of horribles that will come to pass if we so much as discourage these discussions, now would be a good time to step back and let others decide how valid your concerns are. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  Tamzin I'm fairly sure I've seen you a lot around AN/ANI so I'm fairly surprised that you're so unfamiliar with how CBANS work. While some CBANs start from the get go as someone reporting some behaviour problem an proposing a CBAN, I'd say most CBANs do not work like that. Instead they start of with someone reporting some misbehaviour. Others than may report more misbehaviour. Sometimes the OP responds extremely poorly as well. Eventually someone decides their behaviour is bad enough and proposes a CBAN. The community discussions/!vote this and we hopefully come to a consensus. Even better if it is an uncontentious consensus although sadly that isn't always the case. The organic nature of CBAN discussions means that saying this proposal excludes CBANs simply makes no sense. How can a proposal exclude CBANs when we have no idea if a CBAN may result until we've discussed? Nil Einne (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Nil Einne: I'm well aware of how CBANs work. I'm also well aware that there has not been consensus to CBAN someone for edits primarily relating to GENSEX since... Since when? I can't think of a time in recent memory, and I can think of one particular case where a CBAN proposal failed despite strong evidence of systemic discrimination against trans editors. If someone gets TBANned at AE from GENSEX, and continues to disrupt in other realms, then AN/I can still handle it, probably much less dramatically. "User:Example was indef TBANned from GENSEX last month at AE. They have since made comments X, Y, and Z regarding abortion. This user is clearly NOTHERE and further sanctions re in order" has a much better chance at AN/I than "User:Example has been saying A, B, C in this dispute about trans pronouns and D, E, F in this thread on gender dysphoria and also unrelatedly X, Y, Z about abortion". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamzin (talk • contribs) 03:10, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  Look, I don't want to get in a cycle of counter-criticisms with you, especially because I can recognize that your proposal is a goodfaith response to seeing one too many trainwrecks in this area that could have driven away a valuable contributor (thankfully, from the above, it seems we have avoided that outcome with TheTranarchist). However, I will say that the vast majority of the "15kb" you reference is a necessary response to your hand-waving away observations about some pretty major consequences of your proposed course of action--which I would not describe as a "parade of horribles" but rather a series of results that would be direct consequences of that policy were it implemented, and which (far from being hypothetical or hyperbole), would be automatic and inevitable outcomes.

As Nil Einne, Crossroads and myself have already explained, almost all CBANs result from discussions where they were not suggested at the outset, and your personal recollections and feelings about their necessity not withstanding, there's no good reason to believe the community might not need to CBAN someone in this area from time to time, and no argument for stripping that option from the community's potential responses to disruption. Considering we just had two such CBANS of the sort that you describe as uncommon in one day, and considering there have been numerous other GENSEX TBANS implemented at ANI over the years, clearly the need for such tools is not as super rare as you suggest. And frankly, anti-trans sentiment is a reason why we should be concerned to preserve this option, not toss it away, because it's equally (if not more) likely that the next person we need to indefinitely remove from GENSEX editing will be a problem user aligned against trans rights.

And even as regards that rare exception where a CBAN proposal is a part of the initial complaint, that actually highlights another can-of-worms knock-on effect that would result from the framework you are advancing here. Because as soon as people adjust to this new dynamic, here's exactly what is going to happen: every single time that an editor with an ounce of WP:BATTLEGROUND in them at the moment wants to bring what they perceive to be disruption in the GENSEX area to ANI, they are simply going to include a request for a CBAN in their filing, because that will become the most obvious way for them to get past the arbitrary "must be an issue that AE cannot address" threshold that is a part of your model. And I fail to see how forcing every complaint filed at ANI over GENSEX disruption to start out with the posture of a proposed CBAN is going to make the resulting discussions less inflamed. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Just spitballing. What about a system in which CT issues are still reported at ANI, but they can be forwarded to AE if it's determined that there was disruptive behavior? This would theoretically retain the benefits of the discussion format, but it would end the discussion before the thousands of words dedicated to arguing about whether sanctions are warranted and what sanctions are applicable. Of course, this system would not address the legitimate concerns raised by Crossroads above. I also think that any solution should involve reform that allows for topics to be delisted from CT more easily per Barkeep49. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  Puts the cart before the horse. If "it's determined that there was disruptive behavior" then a conclusion has already been reached and an appropriate sanction or warning can issue.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Having watched AE proceedings over the years, I am quite confused on why anyone would see that as an improvement in venue. In fact the ability for a single admin to supervote by design, has been a detriment to the encyclopedia in my opinion. Arkon (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
• oppose. this is instruction creep. lettherebedarklight晚安 03:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose in a number of ANI cases involving an DS area, I have suggested that it might be simpler to take things to ARE. Indeed in a number of cases where someone was not formally aware, I've given alerts as a result of an ANI cases and if the problems were minor enough I've suggested perhaps it would be easier to just leave things be for now and take it to ARE if it repeats. I haven't done so since it changed to CT mostly because it's just something I do where I happen to see a case where this might help. In other words, I fully support the idea that often it is better for areas well covered by CT to be simply handled by CT rather than going through normal community discussion.

  However I'd oppose trying to force cases must be treated as CT without very strong evidence that this is the best for the community. And to be clear this includes the soft variant as it also include a degree of force.

  As noted above, there are numerous possible consequences for this e.g. how we handle cban or other sanctions that aren't something CT can impose. Note also that CBANs technically include topic bans even from CT areas. While I am personally not fussed whether an editor is subject to a community topic ban or a CT one, there is always going to be editors who feel a community ones is better since it will require a community consensus to remove. (After all, we even had community site ban of an editor because the community was concerned about an earlier arbcom decision to unban the editor.) There's also how this affect cases that might be better for the community to handle since they are more complicated than the simpler disruption in a certain topic area CT handles best.

  I'd even more oppose it for any specific CT area (instead of all CT areas) without strong evidence there's a reason to treat these as special areas. I'm far from convinced that the two reason cases resulted in this are the worst we've seen at ANI. And concerns over people trying to get rid of opponents covers pretty much all CT areas and frankly anything contentious which isn't CT. E.g. the notability/ARS wars.

  Most importantly though, IMO this is simply a bad idea at this time. To some extent there is an aspect of hard cases make bad law here. But more importantly, emotions are clearly still running high over those two recent cases. I don't think it likely holding this discussion at this time is going to improve that or ensure we make a good decision. Instead we get comments like "who has not actually done anything wrong". Clearly quite a few members of the community do not agree with that for one or both of those editors. This includes many who are not opponents. While a discussion like this is always likely to be contentious and may get controversial comments, the best outcome and least disruption and harm to the community will come if we hold it when editors aren't already affected by two recent controversial cases, cases which resulted in this proposal. Fanning the flames when emotions are still so high is not going to benefit the community.

  To be clear, I'm not suggesting any editor involved in this proposal ill motivations, I have no doubt they're genuinely trying to improve Wikipedia and fix a problem that they feel was highlighted by recent cases. However having good motivations doesn't stop an editor making bad decisions and I feel that's clearly the case here. (Actually part of the reason why they have made such a bad decision is precisely why we should not be doing this. Perhaps they weren't able to see what they may have seen when if it wasn't so soon after those two cases namely that it was a terrible idea to discuss this right at this moment.)

  Nil Einne (talk) 03:28, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per most of the above, especially SnowRise. Not going to repeat it all. I do think that an "ARBGENSEX2" case is ultimately inevitable, but it will be after the community has failed to be able to resolve the problem without having to defer to ArbCom. And that time is not upon us yet. I agree also especially with Crossroads in observing that AE is not a good venue for establishing long-term patterns of disruption, only short-term "outbursts", because of its strict limits.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - While I recognize that Tamzin's suggestion is entirely a good faith effort to deal with a pressing problem, I believe that SnowRise's analysis of the results that would occur if this were put into effect to be more accurate and representative of the general history of AN and AN/I. Community discussion can result in a CBAN, which requires that the community overturn it. It is therefore a more powerful sanction then an admin-imposed AE indef, which -- like every other admn-imposed sanction -- can be overturned at any time by any individual admin (for whatever reason). We should not lose the potential use of CBANS as an option. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Beyond My Ken: I'm fairly sure you're wrong about CT sanctions as alluded to by User:Barkeep49 and maybe others above. As documented at Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction, these can't simply be overturned at any time by an individual admin for any reason. That can only happen when it's an indef and was imposed by a single admin and it's been more than a year or the imposing admin is no longer an admin. Otherwise if the imposing admin agrees (including when imposing the sanction) but note this sort of means it's not overturned solely by any admin. Oh and if it's imposed by a single admin, they (but only they) can change or remove it themselves without needing to ask anyone. Maybe more importantly a case which makes it to AE will often result in discussion before sanction is imposed by rough consensus of admins in which case none of this applies and it needs to be appealed either at AE or AN or by arbcom. To be clear, this is only for sanctions imposed under CT. I believe in some cases an admin will just quickly impose a sanction as an ordinary admin action rather than under CT and AE will decide to just leave it at that. (And as noted to some extent even if it is imposed under CT, if by a single admin which I think is another possible outcome of an AE report, this admin could allow it to be treated like a regular sanction and overturned by any admin by saying so when imposing it.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  I may be confused about that, I'm not certain, but it *is* certain that if all GENSEX issues are required to be settled at AE, then a CBAN is out of the question, and I still consider a CBAN to be a more powerful sanction, because it comes from the community at large. It may be more cumbersome to *reach* a consensus to CBAN, but the direct consensus of the community is, to my mind, a stronger action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• OpposeAs a general principle leave it to us on the ground to thrash things out. The existing structure can take care of those fairly rare times we can't.Lukewarmbeer (talk) 10:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - I appreciate Tamzin making an effort to find a way to improve our resolution of disputes and to avoid having difficult mega-threads like these two ANIs we just had. However, I am among those who does not believe that AE is better at resolving disputes than ANI (although I do believe in some cases we should make some ANI threads more formal, like AE, to e.g. reduce bludgeoning). I also don't think AN is the right place to decide structural changes to ANI; that should be at the pump; the Administrator's Noticeboard is not an appropriate place for any RFC in my view. Discussions here will attract attention from administrators, and RFCs might bring in FRS, but that's still not a pool representative of the overall community. Ironically, my procedural objection is rooted in the same principle as my substantive objection: fundamentally, if you reduce the pool of decision-makers from "everyone" to "administrators", you don't end up with a better decision. Levivich (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  Apparently we're testing the theory. Levivich (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  So much for that. Closed promptly with "It is debatable whether ... that would be a matter for AE".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• Neutral on the soft proposal, though I think it should be worded to encompass all CT areas, oppose the hard version. I do think AE is a better venue for most CT-related conduct disputes, and I hope our admins feel empowered to strongly suggest that newly filed ANI reports be moved to AE when possible. I would be fine with admins closing such discussions and directing the OPs to AE, though I think all it should take to reopen them is the OP saying "no, I definitely want this to stay at ANI". I oppose the hard proposal as GENSEX doesn't need this treatment over other CT areas, and because I agree with those that are concerned about missing out on some ANI-specific potential remedies. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
• Note: I've placed a notice of this discussion at WP:VPP and listed it on the WP:CD ticker: these issues and the proposed solution have implications far too broad to be considered by just those of us here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - My lead reasoning will remain that our community members are intended to be able to pick their forum, depending on what they think can work best (I suspect GENSEX regulars are likely aware of the options). I oppose revoking that choice. There are more personal reasons someone might have this reason (e.g. So long as I continue to find complex discussions harder to understand in separated discussion than ANI rambling but more continuous format (while many are fiercely the opposite); or someone preferring to have an area settled by the general editing base than a small subset of admins), that encourage them to prefer one format over another. In terms of proposer's request to find alternate solutions, then I believe they may be best off indicating what the most problematic factors are, then mitigations to those can be advised, which may well more be in execution than mechanics. Time? Length of reading? Both no doubt come with negatives, but the flipside is both indicate significant numbers of editors trying to find a solution and struggling. A shift to AE may well resolve on those two aspects, but at the issue of cutting the people participating, or the views & evidence given. In which case, it's not a solution, but a tradeoff. We deal with tradeoffs all the time, but for any tradeoff, the proposal should be noting the negatives that arise and why we should accept their cost. I do not believe those costs are sufficiently covered here, with either option. Nosebagbear (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• I've been a bit conflicted on this but I think I'm coming down on the side of weakly supporting the soft version of this proposal.—S Marshall T/C 08:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. It is my firm belief that this proposal would not have been made if it had been any other topic area. Gensex editors should not be treated any differently from other editors that wind up at ANI. Gensex editors are not special and exceptional. Wikipedia is not here to coddle any editors, regardless of their editing experience and editor level. Gensex editors must follow the same Wikipedia community policies that affect non-gensex editors, and if one of them pushes an envelope too far, he/she/they must face the same action and consequences faced by editors who have engaged in similar behavior in non-gensex articles. ANI is where issues regarding a user's conduct need to be discussed and determined. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 12:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. For the same reason I opposed making ANI more like AE, there is a need for a place to report issue that has no bar of entry. No matter how low that bar can be made. Maybe taking discussions to AE is a good idea, and could be suggested once a report has been made, but there shouldn't be any formal direction on the matter. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose hard, neutral on soft - AE is too bureaucratic. Allowing an admin to move a discussion to AE puts the bureaucratic responsibility to the admin, not the (possibly new) user who wants to file a complaint. Animal lover |666| 16:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• Neutral to support on hard, support on soft - I know this sounds vague, but in this case, any solution is better than no solution. The way I see it, most GENSEX editors have it significantly harder on virtually every level and WP might not be well equipped to handle all of it with its existing administrative structures. @Tamzin I hope this will not come off as if I am rushing through the nuances of this proposal; rather, I am trying to say that this is one of those cases where, in principle, I'll support attempts to lessen the burden on GENSEX editors, even if those are not "perfect" by WP standards. I'll add that to VP discussion. And I really think some editors in ANI should take WP:WALLOFTEXT to heart. Ppt91^talk 19:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Cases from all other topic areas can be brought here (can't they?). I don't see how it is helpful to make an exception for GENSEX. Editors should not be curtailed from raising important issues so that the most people can see them. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 02:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Does not seem appropriate; cases should be filed where appropriate as appropriate. Stifle (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see even from the previous ANI threads that GENSEX topics are unique in a manner that would make AE the only appropriate venue, especially since AE tends to languish in my experience from lack of input. If there's thoughts that ANI itself could be restructured to address issues, that's worth talking about (BilledMammal's suggestions etc.) But I don't actually see how this solves any problem. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Actively trying to reduce community involvement in banning people for their problematic behaviour is counter to the core consensus-based approach to community management. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:09, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Snow Rise's very valid concerns around procedure and CBANs have still not been addressed. Obviously contentious topics like GENSEX invite contentious editing which is why said topics are over-represented at ANI, doesn't mean we need to palm them off elsewhere and out of the hands of the community. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 01:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per SnowRise and Arkon. Buffs (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

A plea: Propose a better solution

I don't think I have ever felt truly desperate on Wikipedia before. I have not come here trying to offer a magic bullet to this problem. I have presented two drafts of solutions to a problem that is making a highly sensitive topic area unsafe to edit in. Most people who edit GENSEX have been neutral to supportive of this proposal. It has largely been the "AN(I) regulars" here saying no, we have to continue to stew in this mess—a kind of mess that, no doubt, AN(I) regulars are used to, else they wouldn't be AN(I) regulars. The people in this topic area do not edit so they can have month-long dramaboard threads. We edit because we see issues in Wikipedia's woefully inadequate coverage of gender issues. Inhumane treatment of BLP subjects. Coverage of sociological subjects that is sourced to Tumblr blogs rather than academic papers. Coverage of highly sensitive biomedical subjects that is sourced to Tumblr blogs rather than academic papers. All to push both pro- and anti-trans narratives, sometimes in the same sentence.

So I'm begging y'all, please. As a fellow editor. As someone who has poured her heart into writing two GAs in this topic area. This is a request for comment. I am requesting y'all's comments: Propose a better solution. Propose something that does not drive away editors from a topic area desperately in need of them. I still think my ideas work fine or would only nned slight tweaks—in particular "soft", which may oppose !votes haven't really addressed—but if you disagree, I get it. That's how consensus works. But there is a massive problem here. I don't think anyone familiar with the facts disputes that. If you won't support either these solutions, then something else. Please. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

The same sort of plea could be made about every WP:CTOP subject area. There's nothing magically special about this one. What you have boils down to a complaint about how WP:ANI operates, and we all have complaints about how ANI operates, but there isn't a clear consensus on how to improve it. "Carve my preferred topic out of ANI" isn't a solution, and an RfC predicated on that idea isn't going to be the vehicle by which we arrive at ANI reform.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:44, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I edit in quite a few CTOP areas. I am not aware of another one that routinely triggers weekslong battles of this sort at AN/I. But if your response to a request for a better proposal is "I acknowledge a systemic problem, oppose a solution, and have no better solution to offer," all right, noted. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Instead of engaging in a petty straw-man argument, try reading what I wrote more carefully. To spell it out: This proposal is basically a poisoned well. If you want to propose ANI reform, do it in a clean proposal in an appropriate venue and there may be enough other editors fed up with ANI for the same reasons to support some changes. (Comment length/frequency limitations are a pretty commonly suggested idea, so that's a likely starting point.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

It's entirely possible to conclude that there's no better solution without radically changing how Wikipedia works, Tamzin. Yes, there are all manner of areas -- from deletion discussions to noticeboards to RfAs -- where things would just go so much more smoothly if we just figured out how to keep the "wrong" sort of people from participating. My blood pressure would be a fair bit lower myself if I could just exclude or evict people who disagree with me from discussions (which, in my observation, tends to be the fundamental element of "safe spaces").

But the bottom line is that contentious areas attract controversy. There is no feasible way to immunize Wikipedia against it. You speak about poor treatment of BLP subjects, people sourcing to blogs, the interference of politics, as if such behaviors are somehow unique to GENSEX-related topics. Heck, the bulk of my articlespace edits are to ice hockey topics, where the temperature -- if you'll forgive the mild pun -- is a couple orders of magnitude lower than in GENSEX. We still get screaming over such things.

And in many cases, that's simply the price of doing business. By choosing, over the years, to be a regular in areas like AfD and ANI, I've accepted that there's going to be a lot of screaming, a lot of disagreement, and a lot of assholes. If that's too much for me, I walk away. Ravenswing 07:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

( Peanut gallery comment) I may be overusing this template, but I really want to make clear that I'm a newbie here. I don't mean to be a bother. In my lowly opinion, the first substantive community response to a new editor's behavioral issue should not be a vicious, humiliating, overlong, utterly unsympathetic ANI case. And if you're just going to hand out a TBAN anyway, you might as well make it policy to slap an editing restriction on anyone with more than one warning in the GENSEX topic area. It would eliminate a lot of the pointless bureaucracy.

In my lowly opinion, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. (Metric friends may substitute '28 grams' and '0.45 kilogram'. /j) If the WP:Adopt-a-user program were reasonably effective I wager you wouldn't find even half as many chronic, intractable behavioral problems in this area. You can try to whip GENSEX into shape all you like, but do you really think that increasing sanctions will entice new users to come edit the area? (I certainly am not enticed. Thank god I stay on the refdesks.) If the broader community were more proactive and less reactive in responding to flawed editing, things would surely not escalate so rapidly.

In any case I don't really have a concrete suggestion. I would greatly like to see increased collegiality between old and new editors with a more developed mentorship program. But anything that gets the community to act before things have escalated to a TBAN is a better solution than what exists presently. Stop punishing people when you veterans haven't even figured out how to solve the underlying problem. In the meantime (I know my comment is unrealistic), I think AE is probably a better place than ANI for things like this. But maybe it would be best to introduce an "AE mode" for use at ANI, so discussions could be more structured yet not as limited in scope and jurisdiction. Just a thought.

I don't mean to be impolite with this comment, just impassioned. If I've been incivil, let me know and I'll strike it. Shells-shells (talk) 00:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd be all for a radical restructuring of AN/I—perhaps limiting it into actual incidents and creating a separate Administrators' noticeboard/Recurring issues without threaded discussion—but that seems even less likely to happen than fixing the handling of GENSEX discussions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Shells-shells, topic bans are not "punishment", they are protection of the project from recurrent disruption. I don't know what you think AE does, but go observe it for a while, and you'll see that it largely hands out topic bans (and blocks). It is unlikely that either of the GENSEX editors recently sanctioned at ANI would not have been sanctioned at AE.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I have read WP:PUNITIVE, yes, which is why I specifically used the word punishing. With the exception of its first sentence—I would rather say bans should not be "punishment"—I completely agree with your comment. Shells-shells (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Shells-shells, topic bans are not "punishment", they are protection of the project from recurrent disruption.

They are both. It's meant to be protective, but it's absolutely a "you did something wrong and now we're taking away your ability to edit here" punishment. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:17, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, I do think there are some issues with that framing: it's really the low hanging fruit/Wikipedia equivalent of a politician's baby kiss to say ANI is ugly and that we wish the process of dispute resolution could be more collegial--and less dispiriting for newcomers in particular. But nobody is excited when a dispute or issue grows to the point that it lands at ANI, let alone when a CBAN has to be issued, and when I check in at ANI, I fairly regularly see people doing their best to make the process (borrowing upon your wording here) as un-vicious, un-humiliating, and sympathetic as they can, in the circumstances. But let's have a dose of realism and pay at least lip service to some important constraints here: sometimes there are values and priorities of our community and methodology (for providing reliable, neutral, factually-accurate material to serve the needs of our readers) that have to take precedence over encouraging the editing of every contributor, in every area, all the time.

That important caveat said, my overall thoughts are that you've identified a fruitful area here--indeed, maybe one of the few areas that actual stands a chance of improving the situation in question, as it stands. I think you are very much correct that more effort at the front-end, when onboarding volunteers, could pay immense dividends in the long run, in terms of decreased disruption, acrimony, and need to re-set editorial conduct when problematic patterns have already been formed. As you say, mentorship in one form or another is surely an under-exploited potential tool. I think there's a cognitive bias at work here that is not at all uncommon to institutions of governance: we are fixated with and dissuaded by the upfront costs, failing to rationally apply a longterm analysis.

On the other hand, I am not surprised that "adopt-a-user" has failed to catch on: what a patronizing choice of title for such a program. I imagine it has an especially discouraging impact on precisely the type of editors we are talking about here and would most like to reach with such a scheme: those who come here specifically to edit in CTOP areas: some of those editors would be just simply battleground and avoidant of the idea of the need for guidance by nature and others, as a consequence of what their communities have historically had to deal with, are justifiably sensitive to implied condescension. Anyway, that last point is a nitpick observation. I agree the mentorship angle is something this community needs to invest in. Not just to ameliorate the issues being contemplated here today, but for purposes of editor retention and community unity/harmonized outlook.SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I may simply be naïve, but I don't think ANI is really as bad as people say. It seems to work pretty well as an ad hoc tribunal, or as a grand jury. But once in a while it gets acrimonious, and the last people who should be subjected to an acrimonious ANI thread are new users. In fact I think there's far too much bureaucracy facing new users anyway (even excepting ANI), but that criticism is also low hanging fruit. There ought to be better options, with lower stakes, in the first place.

I agree completely with your second and third paragraphs. It would be wonderful for a mentorship culture to develop here, and 'Adopt-a-user' may well need a rebranding. Shells-shells (talk) 03:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Throwing this out there: ArbCom. We pay them to deal with problems that are, well, really bad. We haven't actually tried this yet; WP:GENSEX is not a "real" case. HouseBlaster^talk 00:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I've said before that I think a GENSEX2 case is ultimately inevitable, but why do you think an ArbCom proceeding would be preferable? It would ultimately take several months, dig even deeper into various individuals' editing habits, and probably result in more sanctions, on more editors, that are harder to appeal. Few things drive editors away from a topic area better and faster than WP:RFARB attention.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't know that I would agree that such a case would be per se a bad thing: if it gets to the point that ArbCom forms a case, presumably it will be a situation where there are at least potentially bad actors needing scrutiny--which would not be a happy occasion but would surely be better than their hiding their heads in the sand. That said, it would all come down to the particulars whether it would be a positive development in the aggregate.

Those caveats made, I agree with your central point: I don't see how such a case would really remedy the systemic issues being contemplated here. For all its overriding authority, ArbComs remedies in a situation like this are rather limited. They can make a subject CTOP (and this one already is), they can sanction individual editors, sometimes they publically hold harmless someone who got pulled into a dispute through no disruptive fault of their own, and they can take steps to protect individuals from harassment. All vital work, such as it goes, but making substantial changes to our community structures and processes, at least in this context, is largely outside of their remit. To the extent we want to reform ANI or any of our other community processes, it's just not something we can pass to their shoulders. The buck stops here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

It depends what the issue is? If the issue is certain editors who cannot behave in the topic area, but the issue becomes too obfuscated in ANI discussions for the community at large to get involved, then ArbCom would be a good venue to deal with it. DS I don't think dealt with these problems too well either, and ArbCom directly does I think. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry T. I do feel bad about opposing one of your remedies without proposing an alternative. The thing I keep hoping for in GENSEX is a group of three to five admins that hang around. It's the main difference I see between GENSEX and American Politics or Pseudoscience. The early intervention of an admin warning is little seen in GENSEX. I'm looking for things like "If you continue to bludgeon discussions/to misgender the article subject/to rely on evidently unreliable sources/to skirt the bounds of civility, I will block you." They'll have been witness to the patterns of editing that might eventually prove to have been problematic. The only other suggestion I have is stricter enforcement and clerking at AE. If we're counting on that as the good option, let's tune it up.

Though I do think there are deep problems in GENSEX, I don't share the view that it's at the top of the CT/general sanctions problem pile. Within the past year, we've had knock-down-drag-outs tied to Armenia-Azerbaijan, Russia-Ukraine, AmPol, and Palestine-Israel. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

"The thing I keep hoping for in GENSEX is a group of three to five admins that hang around." And there's an answer right there. Ravenswing 07:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

If there were no sanctions imposed, would you be making your proposal or this plea? Arkon (talk) 01:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Two out of three sanctions proposals went "my way", including one that I literally proposed, and the third one I only weakly opposed, so... -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't feel like an answer. There was literally nothing different in these reports than the thousands of reports before it, other than the accused throwing out so many bytes of text without reprimand. If your concern is separate from the results, you may want to wait and propose in isolation. I think divorcing your concern from the results may be helpful to your cause. Arkon (talk) 01:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I have not framed this thread as an objection to the outcome of the TT thread. I've framed it as what it is: about that thread, and several others, being "shitshow"s. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Tamzin here is clearly frustrated with the manner in which WP:ANI operates generally in these sorts of cases, and I don't think that this is purely some reaction to being dissatisfied with a single closing statement. She is being extremely candid in this thread, and, while I disagree with her proposal above, I do share her sentiment that there are certain topics and situations where ANI is not capable of handling disputes without consuming an inordinate amount of community time in exchange for at most marginal benefit to the community. She's being sincere here regarding her motives, and I don't think it drives the conversation forward to insinuate otherwise. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

For three months, trial structured discussion at ANI:

1. ANI reports are to be titled using the format "Editor name(s), topic area(s), type(s) of disruption". For example "BilledMammal, Platypus, Disruptive cite-tagging"
2. Editors wishing to make a statement on the report should create a fourth level section (====) titled using the format "Statement by editor name". There is no word or diff limit, but editors are advised that the longer it is the less likely it is to be read.
3. Editors may edit their statement as required; normal requirements to ensure that replies are not deprived of context are waived, and editors making replies are advised to quote any relevant sections.
4. Editors may reply to no more than five statements; there are no limits to the number of replies they may make to those statements. Editors may additionally reply to any statement that discusses their behavior. Replies should not introduce new information, and should instead seek to clarify or discuss the information raised in the editors statement.
5. Statements should remain closely related to the initial topic raised. If additional behavioral issues need to be raised, including behavioral issues related to the editor who opened the discussion, editors should create a third level section (===) using the same format of "Editor name(s), topic area(s), type(s) of disruption".
6. To propose community sanctions, editors should create a fourth level section (====) titled "Proposed sanctions on Editor name(s)".
7. Editors !voting on community sanctions proposals should keep their !vote concise and reference their statement for more detailed arguments and evidence. Editors may not reply to other editors community sanction !votes.

The intent of this suggestion is to keep discussions on topic, to prevent bludgeoning and impenetrable walls of text, and to try to introduce a level of neutrality into the opening of the discussions. It also attempts to keep things less structured and limited than AE, as I don't believe that level of structure is appropriate here.

Issues I see are that the structure will be excessive for some discussions (for example, WP:ANI#IP range from Poland, trouble with one article - although I do believe the proposed title format of "Polish IP range, Weedkiller (album), edit warring" would be more informative than the existing title), that it will make boomerangs more difficult, and that the structure will be difficult for editors to enforce. However, if editors are interested in attempting to apply structure to ANI, I hope that making a proposal - even an awful one - will at least spark a discussion on what that structure could look like. BilledMammal (talk) 02:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Bill, I know it's a big ask, but I think a rudimentary mock-up in a sandbox might be helpful here: perhaps it's just me, but I am having a bit of difficulty visualizing the overarching format of how these pieces fit together. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:09, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: See here; I hope it manages to make it more clear. BilledMammal (talk) 03:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Definitely helps. Was close to what I had in mind when I originally !voted "Let ArbCom (or delegate) sort it out in a more structured way" because of the mess of accusations and counter-accusations threaded together. Lizthegrey (talk) 08:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Reading sectioned discussion is always a massive pain to try and understand any lengthy discussion - I've never seen a good explanation of how to easily read replies and replies to replies in a smooth fashion in such a discussion, as well as seeing how the discussion tone in general changes as it runs. So on that basis alone, I'd be against any such trial - but especially as a general ANI structure. I believe points 1, 4, 6 do have serious potential value to them, and point 5 could be used in certain circumstances/categories of discussion, although I'd like to see a clarification on how it worked with threads that raised multiple behavioural issues initially. Would each need its own section? Nosebagbear (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

First Law of Wikipedia Reform: Calls to reform a page, made on the page to be reformed, will result in no reforms. Levivich (talk) 06:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea_lab)#Allow administrators to enforce structured discussions in CT/GS to workshop a possible proposal. I feel that keeping it separate from this discussion may help keep it focused. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

For some reason, the page 'শাহ্ মাওলানা আবদুল মজিদ চাঁটগামী (রহ.)' cannot be created. Please fix it.

Late 'শাহ্ মাওলানা আবদুল মজিদ চাঁটগামী (রহ.)' is a well-known person of our country. I request to open a wikipedia page about this person. Robayethc (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

See our policy on article titles: WP:TITLE. "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject." You can't therefore use an Indic script for the article title. DeCausa (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I do like to create the article in Bengali. Many national newspapers in Bengal covered his biography. Robayethc (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Bengali Wikipedia is at [53], where using Bengali is, obviously, welcome - Arjayay (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Robayethc (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

admin action review

I've opened a review on an action I took at Wikipedia:Administrative_action_review#review_of_pblock. Valereee (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

That's too bad.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Feedback's a gift. :) Valereee (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Personally I prefer pastries.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Tryna lose weight. Valereee (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Then you should really be looking for nonfeedback. BTW, losing weight is much more pleasant if you cheat.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Wait...feedback has CALORIES? Yegods. That explains a lot. Valereee (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, that's why I never listen to anything anyone says about anything I do, here or IRL. If I'm gonna have calories, it's going to be REAL NUTRITIOUS food, you know like charlotte russe or something.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Notice of relevant GS-related discussion at RfPP

Hey, I've started a discussion regarding what appears to be a discrepancy between ARBCOM recommendations regarding pre-emptive GS page-protection and our general prior policy and practice. The input of those watching this page is requested. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Difficulties in maintaining the page for Akhil Maheshwari and the Global Newborn Society pages

Hi. I am a resident of Washington DC. There is a large organization, the Global Newborn Society (https:www.globalnewbornsociety.org/), which is a recognized 501c3 organization active in 122 countries. It is completely pro bono, has several million visits on google/other search engines, has an independent journal, has been reconized by the US government with ISSN numbers and other documents, has trademarks, has a forthcoming meeting in Dhaka, Bangladesh. It has relationships with child health organizations from all over the world. However, there have been difficulties with a few editors about making its wikipedia page. Therefore, the society made a page for its Founding Chairman, Dr. Akhil Maheshwari. Now these editors are repeatedly cutting down the wikipedia page and are now targeting Dr. Maheshwari's page with negative input and repeated accusations of financial improprieties! It is very difficult for us to continue our participation. We need help and guidance.Clinton1000 (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

You removed the COI tags on the article. Now you state "the society made a page for its Founding Chairman", " difficult for us to continue our participation. We need help and guidance.". Can we take it that you now admit the conflict of interest? Cabayi (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Cabayi When trying to add connected users Clinton1000, Iimlu9030 and Seabiscuit341 to Talk:Akhil Maheshwari the users are automatically tagged as banned users can you advise why this might be? Theroadislong (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Theroadislong, I just tried and it previewed without any problem. Cabayi (talk) 08:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

This is Clinton1000. I honestly do not know the other two. Clinton1000 (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

In some meetings, when we are talking about various methods of communication with the society, the login is sometimes open. That's why the confusion might have occurred. Clinton1000 (talk) 21:57, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

No - we (the Global Newborn Society and DC Rotary) wanted to reach out to the society. This is a total non-for-profit effort. Newborn infants have the same mortality rate as 60-year-olds. But they have not seen anything in this world. Babies do not vote, and so everyone praises them for innocence, but when it comes to the time to vote, the 60-year-olds win. As a society, we need to do something. Otherwise, nothing will change. Clinton1000 (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe, it could be a technical "conflict", but honestly, we could have also chosen to do nothing. This has happened for generations. One baby dies, she/he can be replaced. Our conflict is to find a way to reach the society. Clinton1000 (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Not what Wikipedia is for: see WP:SOAPBOX. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe we don't need any page then. Clinton1000 (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

•  OP indeffed. Multiple issues here. WP:COI -NOPROMO -RGW -IDHT. See also their talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Call for new ElectCom members

A new call for ElectCom members has just been made.

They handle the Board of Trustees elections, amongst other things. Please poke anyone you think would be well suited, or apply yourself - the committee would definitely benefit from some new members. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Repeated hostility by User:Beyond My Ken

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 has come up before, including on this very page today, but Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) makes deliberately provocative posts with no constructive value and also hounds certain users (including myself and including this edit.) As you can see from his talk page and also from previous AN reports, this is repeat behavior and he seems to have no interest in stopping. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

See above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni, Dennis Brown, Bishonen, NinjaRobotPirate, and MSGJ: as recent admins who have had administrative interactions with this user, per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1124#Persistent_edit_warring_by_Beyond_My_Ken and user's block log. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

So, you're just doing general opposition research, huh, throwing in anything negative, regardless of its relevance to your complaint? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Koavf, this is a bad look. You've provided one diff which, while I would not say it was 'friendly,' seems miles away from anything I would see as sanctionable. Maybe there's some substance here, but with all due respect, you have not shown it. I would suggest that you either come back with more specifics, or withdraw this complaint. While I understand how frustrating this place can be, in my opinion this is one you should probably let go. As ever though, I am just one old guy with thoughts. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

He has many complaints on his talk page about being hostile to other users and the above is far from helpful. If administrators think this is the kind of behavior that should be encouraged, that's up to them. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

No. My complaint is that you are a hostile, uncivil person who does not assume good faith and makes conversations needlessly contentious, cf. above. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I will admit that I react strongly to people whose actions do not improve Wikipedia, or who actively hurt it, or who refuse to take the effort to try to understand when their damaging behavior is pointed out to them, or who are incapable of doing so. I have little patience with such people, who frequently end up being blocked from editing, or otherwise sanctioned - such as some of those who you refer to on my talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:38, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Koavf. Here is some frank advice to you: knock it off. I am not saying that Beyond My Ken is perfect but we are all flawed humans, aren't we? But that editor has been a far more productive and insightful contributor to this and related noticeboards than you have ever been. When Beyond My Ken analyzes an issue, there is almost always something of great value there. So, drop your unproductive hostility, please. Cullen328 (talk) 07:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Plus, it is quite rich for you to point out their block log, given that you have one of the longest block logs of any active editor. Didn't you promise to stay out of trouble when you came off your most recent almost two year long block? Cullen328 (talk) 07:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Cullen328. Also, Koavf, re your grounds for this complaint: you have been here 18 years and made 2,124,416 edits, so please don't inflict on us the typical newbie pseudoargument that 'My opponent must be a bad person because he has many complaints on his talk page'. Bishonen | tålk 08:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC).

I have the same question that I had of you above: what is the utility of whataboutism and tu quoque fallacies? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• Koavf, no sanction against BMK is going to happen here. You very obviously posted this thread in the heat of the moment because he disagreed with you in a thread above. That's not what AN is for. Therefore, this thread is simply a bad-faith attempt at retaliation, and all it will accomplish, if anything, is a WP:BOOMERANG on you, possibly in the form of reinstating a block on you. Therefore, I recommend withdrawing this complaint before someone proposes that. Softlavender (talk) 08:26, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  And why would I be blocked? What rule would I have broken here? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• Koavf, BMK can sometimes use a sledgehammer where a feather is needed, and in the example you've provided, he is casting aspersions, but I'm guessing he could provide examples to back up his claims there, as he has done in previous situations. Same for the previous ANI where the article was full protected (to the wrong version, according to BMK), which was already handled by that admin. The examples you give aren't sufficient to sanction. A degree of heat is expected when debating and discussing. It can be frustration, I understand, but that is how collaborative projects are sometimes. That isn't a free license to BMK to do as he pleases (and he knows this), and I would suggest he be a bit less harsh, but I can't justify sanctioning him at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• I tend to think that the diff that was presented is a rather mild one, particularly in comparison to a lot of the incivility that was being thrown around back in the late 2000s/early 2010s on Wikipedia. However, I had a very visceral reaction to Koavf posting above: you are a hostile, uncivil person who does not assume good faith and makes conversations needlessly contentious. This is clearly a personal attack against another editor and ought not be permitted to stand. For Koavf's sake, it would be much to their advantage to withdraw the complaint before Softlavender's words come to pass. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• @Koavf:, just reiterating some of the above: allegations need evidence, and your single diff and a reference to a (mostly) elderly block log isn't enough. If you have more diffs to post please do so, otherwise this thread isn't leading anywhere. Also agree with Waltcip that your post above is unnecessarily hostile. There's some licence for the "heat of the moment" but please now consider if this is what you really meant to say. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  I don't have further diffs. Thanks for everyone's feedback. From my perspective, I think this is closed and fruitless, per a clear consensus that this was poorly conceived. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:14, 11 April 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 edits by User:WikiCleanerMan

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.

---

WikiCleanerMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made it his mission to do cleanup on articles here on Wikipedia. This results in many, many cosmetic edits that do not change anything about the display or function of a page and even many edits that explicitly contradict the MoS for his personal preference. E.g. on Panama–Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic relations, he insists on adding blank spaces and using an en dash for a sortkey in spite of WP:SORTKEY. Multiple users have told him to stop and he keeps on doing it, so I'm escalating here to see if any admins think this is the kind of behavior that warrants intervention. He also contravened WP:3RR against two users on that page. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

No MOS has been violated. Cosmetic can be said of your edits. No multiple users have told me to stop. What blank spaces have I added? How about you address that you insist on adding ref name to the current 13th and 14th references when they are being used only once in one part of the article? And defaultsort key for bilateral relations articles match the name of the article which for these articles which use the em dashes for the title. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Please stop writing that there are em dashes when they are en dashes. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I apolgize for the confusion for the dash name. But you haven't provided any edits that show my edits were disruptive. You say blank spaces were added by me. When you reverted me, you added back the blank space under the history section for example that were removed by me. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

This page is for admins to investigate, not for the two of us to litigate. They can take a look at the edit history of the mentioned page and your other edits and use their judgement about how constructive your edits are. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I guess providing evidence is too hard. Here is the edit where over a tiny detail you had to revert my removal of blank spaces. You could have done it manually. But you didn't, thus ignoring and adding blank spaces and unnecessary ref names for a single use for two references and false cosmic edit accusation per your edit summary. So if you're claiming I'm disruptive, the onus is on you to prove it just like how I'm doing with this false accusation of disruption. And you should consider my experience editing bilateral relations articles before making such claims. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

This page is for admins to investigate, not for the two of us to litigate. They can take a look at the edit history of the mentioned page and your other edits and use their judgement about how constructive your edits are. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Ancillary issue; should have taken place on editor's talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

@Koavf: You are hardly in a position to complain about other editors making cosmetic edits when making mass cosmetic edits without consensus has been your m.o. for many years. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC) @Beyond My Ken: I don't understand why you think whataboutism and tu quoque fallacies are helpful. Can you please explain the utility of those? Please explain who is allowed to post to AN. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC) Sorry, I don't respond to strawman arguments, especially after an editor files a frivolous report about me on AN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC) Just as a reminder, please see this (search for "Koavf", second item): "Koavf is banned by the community from ... (2) placing, removing, or modifying any template on any article recommending the use of any national variety of English, any date format, or any other optional style format, without seeking prior consensus for the change on a case-by-case basis; (3) any change to multiple articles (a "mass edit"), or the mass creation of pages in any namespace, with or without the use of semi-automated tools, without seeking prior consensus for the mass changes," restriction placed by the community on 2019-08-23 as a result of this AN/I thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC) This page is not a forum for this kind of bad faith action. Please refrain from it and stay on topic. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC) On the contrary, you filed a report concerning what you claimed were WikiCleanerMan's "many, many cosmetic edits", which I thought was pretty ironic since you yourself are under a continuing editing restriction due to your own mass cosmetic edits, as shown above - so the relevance is clear. It's not like, for instance, complaining about a user's " history of hostility" and then citing a history of edit warring to support that claim (see below). Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC) As I wrote above, please. Thanks. By your own reasoning, you have no right complaining about another user being hostile or for that matter, having any place posting on a thread about breaking 3RR, which the person I reported did. I don't think those kinds of fallacious arguments are appropriate, but you do when you apply them to me above. What is your purpose in posting here at all other than to hound me personally because you don't like me? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC) I beg to differ. Your report on WCM was not about their breaking 3RR, your complaint was about their editing while doing clean-up. Only at the very end, as an apparent afterthought, do you add "He also contravened WP:3RR against two users on that page." That was most certainly not the thrust of your complaint, which was about what you described were their "cosmetic" edits, the same kind of edits you are under a ban from making because of your past history of making them in mass quantities without consensus. Don't you see how the pot calling the kettle black is ironic, or do you believe that because you have been sanctioned against making such edits, that makes you the best judge of what is and isn't an unnecessary cosmetic edit? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC) In point of fact, your complaint as originally posted did not include the comment about breaching 3RR. [54]. You did not add that to the comment until this edit 5 and a half hours later, so, please, do not make the claim that your complaint against WikiCleanerMan revolved around edit warring -- it did not. You added that simply to create a false equivalence between your history and mine. (Never mind that it is not done to add substantively to a comment once it has been responded to.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC) So you didn't even look at the page's history at all, and just came here to smear me? Is that what I'm gathering from your comments? I'm not responding to your lies, by the way. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC) My presentation has been opinionated, but factual. There are no "lies". Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC) That doesn't answer my questions. At least not directly. Thanks for that. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I've looked at the edit history on Panama–Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic relations:

Diff history with comments

Special:Diff/1148996234: WikiCleanerMan restores a revision by LibStar, reverting a sockpuppet. The reason is unclear at the time. Special:Diff/1149004993: Koavf reverts Special:Diff/1149045433: WikiCleanerMan reverts, explaining that it was a sock edit and that a better source is needed. Special:Diff/1149074182: Koavf reverts, taking responsibility for the edit, and also adding a source beyond the original source. Special:Diff/1149074652: Koavf adds another source (third source) Special:Diff/1149074712: Koavf modifies the citation for the third source Special:Diff/1149074778: Koavf modifies the citation for the third source Special:Diff/1149080548: WikiCleanerMan removes the first (sock-added) source Special:Diff/1149080698: WikiCleanerMan removes the named reference for the second and third sources. Special:Diff/1149080858: WikiCleanerMan makes a mostly cosmetic edit; cleaning up some inadvertent whitespace within the text, changing some word choice in the lede, and changing the default sort key. Special:Diff/1149081688: M.Bitton almost fully reverts WikiCleanerMan on source credibility grounds. This edit restores the first source, removes the second, restores the original sort key, and restores the extra whitespace. The textual change in the lede stays. Special:Diff/1149148105: WikiCleanerMan reverts on the grounds that the first source is a news aggregator. This reversion does not restore the second source, although the other changes are reverted. Special:Diff/1149148857: M.Bitton reverts and suggests the talk page. As of writing no one has done so. This doesn't count. Special:Diff/1149150935: WikiCleanerMan conducts a partial revert, restoring the cosmetic changes (including the sort key), and the removal of the named reference keys. He does not remove the first source again. Special:Diff/1149167773: Koavf reverts, citing WP:SORTKEY. Special:Diff/1149169493: WikiCleanerMan conducts a partial revert, restoring the cosmetic changes (not including the sort key), and the removal of the named references. I lost track of when, but the double spacing after Panama in the second sentence in the lede isn't part of the cycle anymore. Special:Diff/1149171496: Koavf reverts. Special:Diff/1149173463: WikiCleanerMan reverts, including restoring the sort key change.

My first observation is that there is a beautiful, empty talk page at Talk:Panama–Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic relations where this could have been hashed out. No evidence has been presented of the sort of systemic issue that would justify a report here. Wikipedia:Citing sources doesn't say anything about removing single-used named references. I think this probably falls under WP:CITEVAR. Not a change I would have made. I'll defer to categorization experts on this one, but WP:SORTKEY does say this Hyphens, apostrophes and periods/full stops are the only punctuation marks that should be kept in sort values. The only exception is the apostrophe in names beginning with O', which should be removed. That seems unequivocal. I spot-checked two peer articles, Mexico–Panama relations and Panama–Russia relations, and they use hyphens in their sort key. Mackensen (talk) 11:55, 11 April 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.

Inability to create a Wikipedia page called Vladimir Vladimirov

Hello,

I'm unable to create a page about a Bulgarian business man called Vladimir Vladimirov. It says my access is resricted and that I should contact an administrator. It's important for this article to be uploaded especially for the bulgarian society.

What should I do?

Mihail Dminformation (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

We already have an article, Vladimir Vladimirov. That's why you can't create it. Additionally, see WP:COI. --Yamla (talk) 12:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Dminformation (ec) New accounts cannot directly create articles, and must use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review by other editors. Be advised that creating a new article is very difficult, and instead of diving right in you might wish to learn more about Wikipedia first, by reading Help:Introduction and using the new user tutorial. Editing some existing articles to learn how Wikipedia operates is also helpful.

Please read WP:COI and WP:PAID if you have an association with this businessman. If he is a different person than the football player, that will be sorted out if your draft is accepted. 331dot (talk) 12:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Freshworks

Please unlock this article. I am a Sysop of Wikipedia in Vietnamese. I can rewrite it and prove its notability. TuanUt (talk) 10:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

That title doesn't appear to be protected - what is the problem you're having creating it? Girth Summit _(blether) 10:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

"[Create=Require administrator access] (indefinite) " TuanUt (talk) 10:09, 12 April 20Freshworks23 (UTC)

Sorry, it's Freshworks @User:Girth Summit TuanUt (talk) 10:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah, OK, that makes more sense. Why not create a draft at Draft:Freshworks and put it through WP:AfC? When the draft is ready to publish the protection of the title can be lifted. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Thank You TuanUt (talk) 11:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Ibratwiki, massive stub creation

OK--I ran into User talk:Umarxon III, who was submitting drafts for Uzbek towns (mostly for other users), a couple of em--all consisting of a sentence and a half, and a link to a document that listed Uzbek towns. I found out quickly that there were other accounts doing the same thing, more accounts than I can list here, hundreds of em. Many of those accounts are submitting the same kind of stuff, same syntax, same verbiage: compare Draft:Xotinariq to Draft:Qoʻrgʻontepa (Fergana District). There are hundreds more, and I'm not the only one, I discovered, who's been declining these; User:Onel5969 has seen them too, for instance. To cut a long story short, after I saw some overlap I figured that CU was valid given the socking concerns, and found the hundreds of accounts over a few IPs. None of them did the usual things that editors do, which is talk, write up user pages, improve articles--it's all just this churning out of stubs. Now, some of them have a thingy on their user page that points to this, the IbratWiki camp, and I just saw a list of participants here--I wish more of the participants had made more things more clear on their user and talk pages. Umarxon, for instance, hasn't responded to notes.

I'm happy to accept the good faith of the organizers, but these poor submissions (and again, they're almost all the same) which are all going to get turned down, the lack of clarity, what good does that do? Yeah, Uzbekistan (and especially Karakalpakstan) need to be put on the map, but this isn't the way to do it. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Also see the previous discussion of this at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers#Uzbekistan_articles. One of the organizers responded here. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 17:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Another point, is the sole source even valid? I can't seem to open it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

If we're talking about the linked RTF on Draft:Xotinariq (for example) I was able to download and open it, although I had to proceed past a warning because it was offered over HTTP and not HTTPS. Mackensen (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Nataev--I see you're aware of this. How are you doing, old friend? Drmies (talk) 20:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, Drmies! Indeed, I'm painfully aware of this. The WikiStipendiya edit-a-thon has been a great project overall, but the IbratWiki subproject turned out to be a bit of a disaster. From what I understand, the camp was primarily organized by the Ibrat Language Team, who are a bunch of language enthusiasts without much knowledge of wiki projects. The camp participants were not properly trained and the organizers prioritized quantity over quality. That said, do let me know if I can be of any help when you review those cookie-cutter submissions. Maybe some can be salvaged.

The Youth Affairs Agency of Uzbekistan, which has been funding the WikiStipendiya edit-a-thon, is planning yet another weeklong WikiOromgoh camp as we speak. Luckily, they won't be editing enwiki but will focus on uzwiki as in the previous two rounds (1 and 2).

By the way, I remember discussing Women in Red with you. Inspired by this initiative, we organizing the WikiAyollar (WikiWomen) subproject to try to close the gender gap on uzwiki. Results so far haven't been outstanding, but I think many users have learned about the project and will continue writing about women. Nataev ^talk 22:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Excellent--good. I would love to see improved coverage of Uzbek topics. There are things we can do on en-wiki to help; you know I'm always happy to help out; it's a matter of coordination, and knowledge beforehand. I looked at the two SPIs that were filed (and now merged), and all that could have been prevented. It's like with the education projects: if editors put something on their user page, with a few useful links (to a page on the wiki they're working on), and if they all have, in their history, a diff where they're signing up on some project page, then those SPIs would have never happened, I think. It's still a bit puzzling how they got hundreds of editors to submit the exact same material, but that's another thing I guess. And I think User:Umarxon III is playing a role there, but nothing in their edits or on their user page makes that clear. We see that with educational projects too, BTW, if they're run by professors who don't coordinate with the Education branch.

Anyway, thanks for the note: good to see you still here. Let me know if I can help, and what we can do here to help them. Take care, Drmies (talk) 00:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I might travel to Tashkent in the summer. If I do and if they decided to contribute to enwiki again, I'll make sure it's done differently. Cheers. Nataev ^talk 13:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Block appeal of Speedcuber1

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 is the appeal of Speedcuber1 for their block to be removed. I am doing this as a courtesy, and make no endorsement in doing so. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• I am hoping to be unblocked, I know that when you’re blocked you are not allowed to edit Wikipedia on other accounts, and I haven’t edited Wikipedia since I was blocked, I haven’t been on Wikipedia since last year but it came to mind today so I am going to attempt to be unblocked, if this request is unsuccessful, then I will have to try again another time in the future and I am ok with it. I’m not going to beg to be unblocked, I will just have to wait and see if I am unblocked or not in the future and accept it.

I was blocked some time last year or the year before and I think it was because I made to many edits on the administrators noticeboard, I can’t remember the edits that got me blocked or how many edits it was but I think that some of them were disruptive and that this is why I was blocked. If I am unblocked in the future, I will make sure that I don’t post a lot on the administrators noticeboard and I will also make sure that none of my edits are disruptive. I have had some experience in the past with the Wikipedia user gadget twinkle, and have reverted vandalism in the past.

The kind of edits that I might make if or when I am unblocked might include things like adding sources to articles, adding wikilinks to articles if they need them, and going to random articles that have messages at the top of them saying what needs to be done on the article, and doing that, for example if the message says that the article needs additional sources or that the article relies too much on primary or secondary sources, I will probably fix them if I have time.

I also want to change my username and also change some userboxes if possible.

I didn’t think that Wikipedia would have come to mind again but it did so I thought I would post an unblock request. Thank you for reading.
Speedcuber (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

If I was requesting unblock, and couldn't remember the circumstances surrounding my block (or even exactly when it happened), I would take time to read through the block notice, and to look through my contributions in the period leading up to the block, to remind myself. I would then address all that directly in my unblock request. This request fails to address (or even demonstrate an understanding of) the reason for the block, and so I have no way of judging whether the block can safely be lifted without risk of disruption continuing. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:56, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. Utterly unconvincing appeal, "I can’t remember the edits that got me blocked" is the complete opposite of what we want to see. I tried (unsucsessfullly) to guide them last time they were unblocked, but they didn't listen and they were reblocked due to their continuing disruption. In ~700 edits this account accumulated a 13 item block log, which is frankly ridiculous. They were blocked twice for disruption, then had their talk page access revoked. This was upgraded to a checkuser block when they started socking, and they were WP:3X banned. They were granted talk page access for an appeal, then instantly lost it for abuse. They were granted a second chance unblock by the community, but were blocked again within three months, and lost their talk page privileges again.
  The edits they did make here were entireley unproductive and mostly consisted of them trying to get involved with stuff they didn't understand, messing about and creating drama. Here's a typical example: Floquenbeam accidentally uses rollback on their usepage [55] [56] and explains on their talk page it was a mistake [57]. Speedcuber1 proceeds to go to the teahouse and start a ridiculous thread where they claim they are being harassed [58] [59] [60] I respond pointing out exactly why their claims of harassment are meritless [61] to which they respond claiming that they didn't actually accuse Floquenbeam of harrassment and they were actually thankful for their help and guidance [62]. I point out the ridiculousness of this comment [63]. Another editor then pings El_C to the discussion (who was trying to help this editor at the time) [64] which causes speedcuber1 to run off to the administrative noticeboards to claim they were being harassed by the other editor and needed them to be blocked [65]. This is typical of their contributions here - messing around in administrative areas, overreacting to everything, trying to get other people blocked, ridiculous administrative reports and complaints, refusing to learn from their mistakes, wild mood swings and gaslighting "I didn't do that!" behaviour etc etc etc. It was exhausting. The whole discussion at the teahouse is worth reading to give you an idea of how this editor operates [66]. The fact that their proposed edits include another rename and a desire to mess around with userboxes does not inspire confidence that much has improved.
  This is now a third chance appeal, and the goodwill "give them another chance and see" WP:ROPE type options have been thoroughly exhausted. To accept an unblock I would expect a) some evidence that speedcuber1 understands what they have done wrong b) some appropriate topic bans/restrictions to prevent more disruption c) some semi-detailed plans for what constructive edits they plan to make when unblocked. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 11:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose The first thing in an unblock request I look for is if the person understands what the reason for the block was. There is none of that here at all. "I would take time to read through the block notice, and to look through my contributions in the period leading up to the block, to remind myself." This needed to be done BEFORE requesting an unblock. I would not feel comfortable in lifting the block, as we will be right back here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose there's no indication they will be any less of a time sink than before. Mostly per IP 192, but also because they want to change their username and userboxes? No. Star Mississippi 12:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Someone blocked once a decade ago may have the "I don't even remember what I did but I have grown up a lot and would like to edit Wikipedia" may have some sympathy and some WP:SO/WP:ROPE argument for being unblocked. This is not that. They've been unblocked and reblocked before; and have made several unblock requests also that have been unsuccessful, from my reading, largely because they have never really explained that they understand what the problems they created were. Given all of that, this is nothing new. If they genuinely don't understand, they should remain blocked per WP:CIR. If they are not accepting responsibility, that's also a good enough reason to keep blocked. Either way, no... --Jayron32 12:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose In addition to what's said above, in the previous unblock appeal discussion in May-June 2022, a couple of people requested a substantial period of constructive and problem-free editing on a different Wikimedia project before a new unblock request here. Speedcuber1 has made no edits to other projects since then. In addition, the unblock request doesn't show much actual interest in editing the encyclopedia — wikignoming is fine, but I will probably fix them if I have time isn't particularly convincing, and (again) is well below the requirements for an unblock reauest. It tells us nothing of what they would actually be doing. --bonadea contributions talk 12:47, 12 April 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.

Guidelines on ChatGPT generated content

Would it be possible for an admin to consider doing something with Wikipedia:Large language models, Wikipedia:Using neural network language models on Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Large language models and copyright and (possibly) Wikipedia:Artificial intelligence and m:Wikilegal/Copyright Analysis of ChatGPT.

These essays/guidelines are somewhat duplicates, and there's not much clarity regarding rules about ChatGPT, especially for new editors.

This is addition to numerous userspace AI demonstrations such as User:JPxG/LLM demonstration, User:Fuzheado/ChatGPT and User:DraconicDark/ChatGPT.

We already have Template:AI-generated as well as Template:Uw-ai1, so I think some sort of clear guideline about the issue would make sense, but that doesn't yet exist.  – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 18:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

My sense is that there's a collaborative effort to address this that is largely taking place at WP:Large language models, with the idea that it will eventually be a guideline once it's been workshopped.

In the meantime, the main advice that new editors need regarding LLMs is: don't use them. There's edge cases where they may be acceptable, but by and large the territory is open to major pitfalls regarding licensing and citogenesis such that the amount of proofreading and oversight that responsible LLM usage requires negates any speed advantage that they may have over conventional writing. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@Rosguill Would it be appropriate to merge Wikipedia:Using neural network language models on Wikipedia into WP:Large language models? The former seems to only be only made of up a few sections which would nicely fit into WP:LLM.  – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 18:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

In principle yes, although given the amount of active editing and discussion that appears to be going on at WP:Large language models it would probably be best to start a discussion rather than attempting to boldly merge. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@Rosguill Okay, I've proposed merging at Wikipedia talk:Large language models/Archive 4#Proposed merge. Thanks for your advice!  – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 18:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Replacement_of_the_entire_lead_of_eight_biographies_by_IPv6 for a recent discussion touching this Johnbod (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
• Administrators don't write or decide policy (at least, no more than any other user), so there's nothing for an administrator specifically to do there unless there's been some sort of conduct issue (eg. someone misrepresenting the support something has, or spamming it everywhere, or revert-wars on policy pages or the like.) The decision of what to do about ChatGPT and related generative networks is going to have to be made by the community as a whole and is likely to take some time. --Aquillion (talk) 16:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Niš

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.

---

Good evening. A month ago, there was a discussion about adding the terms "Nish" and "Nissa" to the article Niš, where only one editor (admin) spoke out and was even against it. The names were added despite this. I think they should be removed urgently. — Ruach Chayim (talk) 19:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I am curious about what is "urgent" about this? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: The fact that something like this slipped through a month ago without anyone reacting. — Ruach Chayim (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ruach Chayim: this is a routine content-dispute that can be resolved through resuming the discussion on the article talk-page. No admin intervention is needed at this point. Abecedare (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@Abecedare: The intervention of the admin is required because the text must be removed considering that its addition was not reached by consensus, but by self-initiative. — Ruach Chayim (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ruach Chayim No, this does not require any admin intervention. user:AlexBachmann proposed the change and gave a rationale for the change in response to another user's comment. They then waited two weeks to allow anyone else to comment before implementing the change. That is not unreasonable behaviour. If you disagree then, as already suggested, reopen the discussion on the article talk page. Nthep (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with AlexBachmann's edit. On the talk page they asked whether those names should be added, and another editor stated that a source would be needed. AlexBachmann provided a source, and the other editor did not provide any further objections despite being given days to respond and being pinged to the discussion.

If anyone is behaving poorly here it is Ruach Chayim, who seems to be on a mission to remove as many mentions of Kosovo as possible from the project or present it entirely in one light. A selection of examples: They have made large and inflammatory edits to articles with misleading edit summaries like "fix" [67] [68], Falsely accused other editors of "vandalism" [69] Deleted Albanian related content from articles for nonsensical reasons [70], accused other editors of speading "pro-Albaninan propaganda" without evidence [71], edit warred to reinsert changes against consensus [72] [73] [74] and have now filed this ridiculous AN thread to try to get someone they disagree with blocked. They seem to be another disruptive POV pusher in the EE topic area. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I've notified AlexBachmann of this discussion, as the OP failed to do so. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Good Evening, I would ask to dismiss the case. My edits were obviously in accordance to the rules of Wikipedia. Thank you -. AlexBachmann (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Ruach Chayim: "Self-initiative" is how most editing on wikipedia happens. AlexBachmann, when asked, gave their reasons for the proposed addition and hearing no further objections (including from the only other discussant, Vanjagenije), implemented the proposal. All that is kosher. Now, if you (or, anyone else) have objections to the added text, you need to raise them on the article talkpage. If you wish, you can also approach WP:TEAHOUSE to get further explanation of wikipedia practices. An admin-board though is not the appropriate venue for such content discussions and is likely to just invite further scrutiny of your conduct (as above) if continued. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:20, 12 April 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.

WMF Product & Technology OKRs

WMF Product & Technology group recently posted a draft of their OKRs. I'm noting it here because they include ... improve the experience of editors with extended rights (admins, patrollers, functionaries, and moderators of all kinds. If there's improvements you'd like to see which would make your admin-ish work easier, this would be a good time to leave comments. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Those abovementioned OKRs being at meta:Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan/2023-2024/Draft/Product & Technology/OKRs. I do wish organisations would use normal words for these things — "goals" for example 😌 — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 15:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

RoySmith's personal OKR for Q2-2023: "When referencing a document you intend your audience to read, effectualize their ability to locate said document by including a wikilink". -- RoySmith (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@TheresNoTime I think Objective and Goal are synonymous, but given that OKR is corporate ritual...I understand why they use the archaic terms. Key/Results have very precise meanings though and I'll defend that usage ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I added a comment about abusefilters. Abusefilters are one of our most important moderation tools and are severely lacking. Galobtter (talk) 04:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Reporting on edits related to Trumpism

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.

---

Thank you for all your hard work on Wikipedia. I am writing because I have noticed inappropriate edits related to Trumpism. The problem edit is as follows: [75]. I made edits based on reasonable sources related to Trumpism, but another user has been continuously reverting my edits without reaching any consensus. I believe this behavior violates not only Wikipedia's WP:3RR policy but also the WP:CON policy. Please take appropriate action. Jeff6045 (talk) 13:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I also realized that I may have violated the 3RR policy while editing. I apologize for my inappropriate actions. Jeff6045 (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

• 4 reverts while warning someone else about 3RR is textbook violation of the bright line rule, for which I’ve blocked Mureungdowon. Courcelles (talk) 14:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

• This really should've been a double block. Jeff6045 adds the same information about a BLP to a controversial article four times and the one reverting to the status quo is the only one blocked? (I know what the letter of 3RR says; more interested in WP:EDITWAR). As an aside, that line in the lead was really lousy. A list of people where some source somewhere compared them to Trump, with most of them not appearing anywhere in the body of the article. Went ahead and removed a bunch pending coverage in the article itself and/or better sourcing. In case it's unclear, Jeff6045: if someone reverts you the next step is discussing to find consensus for your addition. The onus is on you to convince others, not the other way around. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
• @Courcelles: Could you revisit this? It appears Jeff, after trying to add one politician to the lead (someone not mentioned in the body) four times, is now repeatedly removing two politicians from the rival party, despite them being covered in the body. I don't know what the best way to handle the content is, but this reeks of both POV and edit warring, and an excellent example of when abiding only by the letter of 3RR isn't the right course. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

  Jeff had stopped and asked for help… I thought. More reverting was occurring, so I agree, this needs to be and now is a double block. Courcelles (talk) 17:39, 14 April 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.

Upload image to Wikidata

Hello, please help me and upload the logo of this organization in Wikidata. (Islamic Republic of Iran Police Intelligence Organization) Like the logo of this network that is available in Wikidata. [76] Thankful 12:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaesarIran (talk • contribs)

The logo on Wikidata is actually on the Commons, which means it can be used here. It's at File:IRINN IRIB.png. Animal lover |666| 12:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

That's the wrong logo. The logo in the article is only on wikipedia. I expect it is too complex for commons. Secretlondon (talk) 13:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll ask the same question I asked on the OP's talk page. What did you mean by "This request was made by a loved one"? RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't fully understand English, but I posted my request on Wikipedia:Teahouse titled "Upload image to Wikidata" and dear GoingBatty (talk · contribs) did it. CaesarIran (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I was just making sure that this wasn't someone else using your account. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Ruble

I feel like TCG has used the consensus from the RfC at Talk:Ruble to legitimise their rouble predilection, especially through CorwenAv (Examples: Special:Diff/1131561427 and Special:Diff/1131577807). The RfC makes it harder to eliminate the impact from TCG's disruptive edits since "rouble" would arguably be entrenched into BrE pages. I propose we overturn or re-run the RfC to plug this loophole, especially when we consider the fact that "ruble" is also used in some British sources including Britannica and the Cambridge dictionary as the principal spelling - where "rouble" is only offered as a British alternative - showing that "ruble" is also (somewhat) acceptable in BrE. Moreover, page 138 of the 2020 version of the World Bank Style Guide - deemed "a very high quality RS" (examples: source 1 of Russian ruble and Belarusian ruble) - also favour "ruble" for the Russian currency, indicating the universality of the "ruble" spelling. Thank you. Not·Really·Soroka 03:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

The Style Guide can be found at [77]. Not·Really·Soroka 04:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Content dispute. Admins don't rule on content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

But this refers to an RfC, and I heard that RfCs could be appealed to here. Not·Really·Soroka 04:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

The RfC was closed over three months ago. Nobody is going to 'overturn' that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is handled by MOS:ENGVAR and doesn't need to be relitigated in any case. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

It does seem like the argument by NotReallySoroka here is that, within the parameters of ENGVAR, "ruble" is still acceptable and preferable to "rouble" for British contexts. If others share this perspective, a separate RfC to determine whether rouble is an appropriate spelling in British English articles may be appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah :) NotReallySoroka (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Pinging ScottishFinnishRadish, the closer (sorry for not notifying you in advance). Not·Really·Soroka 04:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Is there any issue with the close itself, or concern that it was not an accurate reading of the consensus? We don't ignore consensus because a disruptive user agrees with it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish Although I thank you for your good close, I believe that my points (as raised here) means that we could at least re-discuss the discussion. NotReallySoroka (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

It sounds like you're asking for a fiat in order to deal with a disruptive user, and that's not a valid reason to overturn an RfC. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 16:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• So, there are two, entirely orthogonal issues 1) Is the user in question correct (in regards to them following the letter and spirit of the RFC in question) and 2) Is the user in question following behavioral norms. These are unrelated matters. Issue 1 is really not dealt with here in any meaningful way, and has very little bearing on anything we need to assess about the user in question, at this point of the process. Issue 2 can be dealt with on its own, without worrying about Issue 1. --Jayron32 18:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
• Why do you feel the need to pursue this? TCG has already been blocked, his behaviour is out of the question but the RfC has been conducted fairly. You seem to have a very particular bone to pick with them, which started almost a year ago with the thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1103#Belittling behaviour and bad faith on several currency related articles where you filed a frivolous IBAN towards TCG for making a beginner's mistake. The last few notices on their talk pages are all posted by you too. Not to mention the sockpuppet investigation. Also, as Jayron mentions, you are disputing content. The consensus, derived by the closer SFR (i.e. was it an appropriate close), should be your issue and not what TCG is doing, or has done. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 21:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Global ban proposal for Piermark/House of Yahweh/HoY

There is an on-going discussion about a proposal that Piermark/House of Yahweh/HoY be globally banned from editing all Wikimedia projects. You are invited to participate at Requests for comment/Global ban for Piermark on Meta-Wiki. Thank you! U.T. (talk) 12:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Where do we report abusive Wikipedia censors?

I try to be a good citizen and contribute honestly to Wikipedia. However, recently I've been abused by 2 Romanian Wikipedia censors who said I was "vandalizing".

1. How and where can we report such abusers?

2. How did Wikipedia select such stupid abusive censors?

See https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discuție_Utilizator:82.77.237.196 82.77.237.196 (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for the English-language Wikipedia only. You will have to sort this out on the Romanian Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

No, you're just vandalizing. Leave us alone, please. casualdejekyll 19:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Global CheckUser Activity Policy

There is a discussion on meta about establishing a global CheckUser activity policy. All are invited to participate at: m:Requests for comment/CheckUser activity RFC. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Reid Hoffman

We have an SPA edit-warring subpar BLP material. See here]. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:27, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Indeffed for legal threats. Courcelles (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Lol, "Test me and find out." Zaathras (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

The person the account is named for is a serial litigant, by the way. Expect more annoyance. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:35, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

User was unblocked but unblock requests were not removed

see User_talk:Sundropie they apparently have been unblocked but they still have unblock requests that need to be removed and i am not sure i can do that as i am not a administrator Qwv (talk) 10:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Qvw There is no requirement to remove unblock requests once the block is removed. People can, but they don't have to. 331dot (talk) 10:54, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@Qwv - I took a look at that page, they weren't unblocked, but the sitewide block expired. Due to a technical limitation this caused the partial block to be removed, which @Bishonen has now restored. SQL^{Query Me!} 16:54, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Please remove rights from locked Thibbs (talk · contribs)

Deceased wikipedian :( AlPaD (talk) 14:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Sincere condolences to their family and friends. --Jayron32 14:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Request for a limited exception to a community sanction (Newimpartial - GENSEX topic ban)

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.

---

In light of the section of WP:BMB stating that exception to a topic ban may be requested; for example, to participate in a particular discussion, and following a discussion about this with the administrator who closed the ANI filing and imposed two sanctions as a result, I am following their guidance[78] and filing my request for strictly limited exceptions to my GENSEX topic ban at this forum. My request concerns only two pages:

1. I would like to be able to participate in discussions at the MOS:BIO Talk page even when they concern matters within the area of the GENSEX contentious topic, and

2. I would like to be able to participate in editing the MOS:GIDINFO project page, to keep it more up to date (a purusal of that page's history will show my role in "gnoming" it, and I would like to be free to do so).

Background
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In the ANI discussion, I did mention my concern that my background in GENSEX policy could be lost in future discussions, e.g. here. However, this was a small contribution to a large discussion in which a lot of people said a lot of things, and I don't know that many editors gave thought to determining the precise scope of a topic ban that would prevent future disruption. So, as noted above, I asked the administrator imposing the sanction whether the precise scope could be changed by them, as it could with a typical Contentious Topics sanction, but they said that they understood that their choice of sanctions reflected the consensus of the community expressed at ANI, and I would have to seek any limited exceptions here. (Full discussion linked above).

In the last couple of months - even before the ANI concerning my editing was closed, I have avoided causing any disruption on Wikipedia. In line with my expressed intentions, I have made an effort to avoid personalizing disputes and have strictly observed the terms of the (unusual) anti-bludgeoning restrictions that reached community consensus at ANI. Whether or not my request here for a limited exception is granted, I will continue to edit in line with the principles I have articulated, to avoid personalized discussions, to respect my anti-bludgeon restrictions and to stay away from the GENSEX topic area outside of the very limited scope of this request.

Policy development discussions have been an area where I have felt my onwiki contributions to have been particularly constructive, as shown for example in my participation in these [79] nationality discussions [80] [81] As I have seen a new wave of editor energy at the same venue directed to the evolution of MOS:DEADNAME, I feel that my contribution as an experienced (and moderate) voice in this policy domain could be a decidedly positive one. Obviously if I were to lapse into bludgeon or antagonism, that would be disruptive behaviour and I would expect to lose editing privileges in that event. But that is within my control, and I won't do that.

For administrators who are unfamiliar with my P&G contributions, I would point to my prior participation in what evolved into an RFCBEFORE discussion on Subject Notability Guidelines, and this discussion on language for policy implementation post-RFC (the latter being within the GENSEX domain) as additional examples to illustrate how I have participated in the WP policy-development process in the past, inside and outside of GENSEX. Unlike, say, some of my contributions to deletion discussions or on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, I haven't often become antagonistic in my participation in P&G development onwiki and my participation in such discussions has not led to disruption.

So I hope that a consensus of uninvolved Administrators will agree that this request will be a positive to the project, and that preventing me from editing in these two strictly confined areas plays no role in preventing future disruption, especially given my embrace of the anti-bludgeon restriction which would not be in any way loosened by these proposed, limited exceptions. Newimpartial (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Support As I said briefly on Salvio giuliano's talk page, I would greatly value Newimpartial's input on the current discussion occurring at WT:MOSBIO. I think they have a wealth of knowledge of how this guideline has developed over the last few years, as well as how it's been applied in practice across a great many articles in this content area. Having their perspective in this discussion, as well as any future discussions on the scope of MOS:GENDERID while the broader GENSEX TBAN remains in place, would I think be of significant help to all editors involved in it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• While I have no position on whether to grant an exception, it seems to me that possibly your value of Newimpartial's input/perspective/help may be because you two have similar stances, with the end result being that Newimpartial will support your proposal at the discussion? Let’s see if that happens. starship.paint (exalt) 15:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

  I thought I was pretty clear that I would value their input because of their institutional knowledge of how the current guideline was developed, and how it's been applied in practice. Because of this knowledge, they can better inform other editors about the guideline's scope than I can. Whether they ultimately support or oppose my proposal, or any of the other proposals at the discussion is not on my mind. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Support - I confess, I am biased to some degree insofar as I consider Newimpartial a generally valuable editor. That said, I do appreciate their stated goal of 'turning down the temperature' so to speak. I think this would be a reasonable and worthwhile exception to make, though as ever, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment Part of the reason for the topic ban was because Newimpartial bludgeoned formal discussions, particularly those related to GENSEX, with the most egregious example being an RfC on the lede of J. K. Rowling with 95 comments. I'm not convinced it is a good idea to permit them to engage in formal discussions in this topic area until they have demonstrated that the bludgeoning issue is resolved, particularly since it appears they engaged in a lower level of bludgeoning at the previous RfC on the topic in which Sideswipe9th seeks their input with 36 comments. BilledMammal (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

BilledMammal, I would like to point out that my anti-bludgeon restriction would continue to apply everywhere, including these small proposed exceptions to the TBAN. I have observed its requirements carefully in my participation in both RfC and non-RfC discussions since it was placed (as can be seen in my recent participation on non-GENSEX topics at MOSBIO) and would continue to do so. So I am not sure what future disruption could be anticipated in that venue, given the restriction. I am not proposing any loophole that would permit me to bludgeon any discussions, about GENSEX topics or otherwise. That issue is, in effect, resolved, through the establishment of a "bright line" restriction that I will not cross, and that I would not be permitted to in any case. Newimpartial (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I am not convinced the anti-bludgeon restriction will be effective; even without considering the exceptions for replying to questions provided the answer is reasonably short and adding very brief clarifications of their own comments it would have permitted you to make 72 comments over the duration of the Rowling RfC. It might be a bright line but you can engage in bludgeoning without crossing it. BilledMammal (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Bludgeoning is not simply a measure of how much an editor has contributed to a discussion. You also have to be using those replies to force your point of view.

For example, in the current discussion on deadnames I've commented 22 times, which would be a high volume of replies, but across those replies I've made my own proposal and replied to queries about it, commented and asked questions on the four other proposals, and most recently I've been trying to organise the participants towards taking or modifying one of the proposals to bring forward to an RfC. While it's a high volume of comments, I think those have been productive and that it wouldn't count as bludgeoning. For me to be bludgeoning in that discussion, I would need to be using the volume of my replies to force others towards my proposal being the correct one. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

For another topically relevant example, I'd direct you to the April 2022 J.K Rowling FAR, and the sub-archives for the discussions. During the FAR, as the editor leading and facilitating it SandyGeorgia made 667 comments. However despite the volume, that wasn't bludgeoning, as while some comments contained her perspective on the issues at hand, many others were for bringing the process forward. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree that bludgeoning is not something that can be assessed solely by looking at the numbers; in one set of circumstances ten comments is bludgeoning, in another 667 is not.

However, this is why I am not convinced that Newimpartial's anti-bludgeoning restriction will be sufficient to prevent bludgeoning, particularly in the topic area where they most engaged in bludgeoning in the past; it is very easy to both comply with the restriction and engage in bludgeoning. BilledMammal (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

In the time since the TBAN and anti-bludgeon restriction was enacted, has Newimpartial engaged in any bludgeoning? Whether it was compliant or non-compliant with the restriction? Is there any way that they can demonstrate that they won't bludgeon? I recognise that you're concerned over potential recidivism, but I have to ask, in your opinion how can any editor who is subject to such a restriction demonstrate that they'll either comply with it or that it's otherwise unnecessary? Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

This discussion, with at least seven comments in a 24 hour period; they were split across several pages, but they are part of the same discussion. In general, I believe they can demonstrate it is unnecessary by editing productively and unproblematically in other areas, particularly other areas where they have strong feeling. BilledMammal (talk) 05:18, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

BilledMammal, while I recognize that different editors may hold varying opinions, my own assumption would be that any attempt on my part to WIKILAWYER my anti-bludgeon restriction - to observe it in letter but not in spirit - would receive the same reaction from the community as if I had violated the specific terms in which the restriction was formulated. In any event, I now edit based on my values and aspirations, not by pushing towards the boundaries of community norms, so there isn't really any other approach that would be in accord with by own conscience, other than behaving appropriately. Newimpartial (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe you have ever intentionally tried to bludgeon a discussion, so I don't believe you would try to wikilawyer your way around the restriction. I believe you will believe, incorrectly, that you are behaving in line with both the spirit and the wording of the restriction and of WP:BLUDGEON.

My belief is reinforced by your actions related to this discussion. Your tban restricts you to two comments per discussion per day; in addition to the one comment you made here, in the period 12:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC) to 12:00, 16 April 2023 (UTC) you made at least six comments on various opposing editors talk page in response to comments in this discussion. I consider this a violation of your restriction which doesn't permit additional comments simply because the discussion is spread across multiple pages.

Because of this, I oppose this request. BilledMammal (talk) 05:18, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

BilledMammal, do you regard yourself as uninvolved in this discussion? (If you do, that would seem EXTRAORDINARY to me, given the history.)

Also, I'm afraid I don't understand what you are saying about "bludgeoning", as you appear to be focused on the number of comments I make about a topic rather than - as WP:BLUDGEON does - on the purpose of the comments.

Discussion of WP:BLUDGEON
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
My understanding of the spirit of WP:BLUDGEON is based on the text of the explanatory note: Bludgeoning is when a user dominates the conversation in order to persuade others to their point of view. ...A person replies to many "!votes" or comments, arguing against that particular person's point of view. The person attempts to pick apart many comments from others with the goal of getting each person to change their "!vote". Perhaps I do not understand correctly what the community means by WP:BLUDGEON - I don't see how counting commwents I've made on a topic can be equated to bludgeon, without looking at the content of the comments. I believe BilledMammal has referred to this 2021 RfC as an example when I engaged in a lower level of bludgeoning (which would still be bludgeon, presumably). But a person who reads my comments in that discussion can see that they consist primarily of questions and clarifications to establish and provide context for the discussion and options in it - they do not represent an attempt to "pick apart" !votes or to "persuade others to my point of view". My own !vote came fairly late in the process and wasn't my main contribution to the conversation. I don't think it's any more reasonable to suggest that I bludgeoned that discussion than it would be to suggest that BilledMammal bludgeoned this' with their comments.

On my own Talk, I have outlined at some length what I intended by my comments at editors' talk pages; at least three of the comments to which BilledMammal refers are questions about how to improve my editing; if someone could explain to me on a talk page how, by such edits as those, I might "dominating a conversation in order to persuade others", that would be appreciated - at present, I am clearly befuddled. Newimpartial (talk) 10:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Possibly; it's not a question I've considered. I know I have interacted with you a few times, though the only time I can recall is in relation to J. K. Rowling - but I don't see the relevance to this discussion or why you are asking me specifically and not editors generally.

One indicator, although not a guarantee, of bludgeoning is being an outlier in terms of the number of comments you made in a discussion; in the 2021 RfC no editor made more comments that you did. For your talk page comments you are under an anti-bludgeoning restriction which is as you say a bright-line restriction; within a 24 hour period you made one comment here, two on your talk page, both of which are clear responses to comments here, a fourth such response to Iamreallygoodatcheckers, a fifth to Czello, a sixth (and possibly seventh; the reply to DeCausa's reply does not appear to fit under the exception of they may however reply to questions provided the answer is reasonably short and they may add very brief clarifications of their own comments) to DeCausa, and a seventh to Ealdgyth.

In regards to helping you understand how your contributions, here and elsewhere, are bludgeoning, I am not sure how to do that but I would suggest not relying on your own interpretation of the spirit of WP:BLUDGEON given your past issues with it. BilledMammal (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

On the question of INVOLVED, I was asking because, prior to my TBAN, you and I have disagreed frequently repetedly concerning issues covered by GENSEX (including mulitiple issues on which your views were not widely supported by the community), and you are currently participating extensively in a series of discussions on MOSBIO that are directly related to those prior disagreements. I would have thought that, in such a situation, you could not be "uninvolved" when weighing in on whether or not I would be allowed to participate through a limited exception to my TBAN.

Concerning my User Talk comments, it would not have occurred to me (and didn't, until now) that comments made on my own User Talk could be construed as an attempt to bludgeon a noticeboard discussion, or that the number of comments made at my own User Talk would be combined with AN comments in relation to my restriction (which I described to the best of my ability at my user page).

However, now that I am aware that comments at User Talk can be interpteted in this way, rest assured that I will take this fully into account from now on.

pointer to context-rich tangents
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
My further thoughts about the ways editors talk about "bludgeoning", including how I see it employed by editors in a looser sense than described in WP:BLUDGEON, may be found here - with some additional diagnostic context - while my ongoing effort to identify best practices that I can follow going forward is here. Neither of those edits to my OWNTALK is intended as a contribution to this discussion, and I would hope to be able to edit both of those Talk sections in future without them being considered part of this AN, so long as I do not make any further reference to AN or comments made at AN in those Talk sections.

Newimpartial (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC) strikeout and correction by Newimpartial (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I think you have confused me with another editor; I rarely edit in GENSEX areas and looking at our interaction report for the Talk namespace the only discussions related to GENSEX where we have interacted are the Rowling RfC and Talk:Transsexual#Requested move 2 May 2022. There might be a couple of other discussions in the Wikipedia Talk namespace or at the noticeboards but a quick review suggests not.

To clarify, the issue wasn't that you made those posts on those talk pages, it was that by doing so you were participating in this discussion from a distance; you were responding to comments made here and attempting to engage with editors who participated here in relation to this discussion. As long as you do neither of those I believe the sections on your own talk page will be fine; I see no current issue with them. BilledMammal (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, upon reviewing the interaction history, you are right that I was confused, so I have made corrections above.

one source of confusion explained
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I now recognize that one discussion I was factoring in wasnt within GENSEX all - it concerned your characterization at ANI of edits I made to a header on my Talk page, which I found uncharitable given context. While the heading concerned a GENSEX-related Talk section, that had nothing to do with your characterization.

I'm not sure exactly what parameters you used to identify interactions, but in addition to the ones you list there was also the 2021 RfC, which you have referred to several times, on one of the GENSEX topics where you are currently engaged on MOSBIO, as well as the discussion of sources for the Rowling article at the relevant FAR page, and multiple interactions at RSN - including discussions that I bludgeoned, yes, but I'm not pointing to my having been correct in the past, just that we have repeatedly disagreed on GENSEX issues. The immediate question this filing decides is whether or not I could participate - within my bludgeon restriction - in one specific Talk page, on a GENSEX topic where you are participating fairly extensively and where we have previously expressed divergent views. Newimpartial (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I consider interactions to be where we interacted rather than merely participating in the same discussions. Regarding RSN, I assume you are referring to RfC: The Times of London, RfC: The Economist, and RfC: The Telegraph. I left just one comment at each of those discussions and we didn't interact; same with the 2021 RfC.

I still don't understand the relevance, however. BilledMammal (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Support. Seems a reasonable and considered request and we should aim to provide a path back to good standing for otherwise-productive editors. My support is contingent on the anti-bludgeon restriction remaining, and I would urge you to make your contributions concise and to the point then let others have their say (concision and butting out in talk page discussions we should encourage across Wikipedia). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support — I've seen Newimpartial in a handful of discussions, post-ANI closure, and their behaviour was exemplary each time. DFlhb (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Support: I opposed the original topic ban as a whole. I do not think that Newimpartial was a significantly problematic editor in this topic area at all, and so obviously I'm for loosening the topic ban imposed on them. Loki (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Support Newimpartial is a seasoned editor who has taken to heart the issues raised at ANI, and this is a reasoned and reasonable request. Also this gives them a way of showing they can bide by the bludgeoning restriction in an area they are obviously passionate about. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

SupportI feel comfortable in lifting loosening the ban. This is a good request, and it appears they do understand just why the block ban was implemented. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

This isn’t an appeal for the ban to be lifted, and I’m not sure what block you are talking about. Are you in the right thread? Mr Ernie (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure why you are nitpicking colloquial uses of language. Loki (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Because the words ban and block can mean specific things on Wikipedia and I would like Rick to be clarify what he is referring to. Admins don’t usually refer to a topic ban as a block. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Because I mistyped. I support his request. I'm human, I screwed up. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Rick your comment is still a little confusing. Are you supporting a repeal of the topic ban entirely? Because what’s being requested here is a carve out. As I read it you are supporting something not requested so your comment may not be considered by the closer. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I support the request that ban be loosening as NewImpartial is asking for. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. From one human to another, I didn’t mean to come across as snippy. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: Newimpartial has not acknowledged their disruptive behavior which was demonstrated at their ANI thread. Search for two occurances of "18:45, 22 February 2023". [82] Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Weak support. Honestly, I do think that any CBAN topic ban ought to be taken as an indication that the editor subject to it needs to avoid the subject area for a time, and I would urge that NI, if allowed this restricted access to the area, use as light a touch in regards to even the carve out for a while. That said, policy discussions are a different animal from content discussions, and in two respects that impact this request especially: 1) there is decreased potential for immediate concern to BLPs or disruption of their associated talk spaces, and 2) changes to policies tend to get entrenched, meaning a topic banned editor could lose their moment to provide valuable insight in consideration of a change to the community/project's outlook on key issues. Considering the narrowness of the request, and the tone and nuance with which it was made, I'm inclined to support it--with the caveat that the least bit of disruptive behaviour in the relevant project spaces would hopefully lead to the exception being revoked immediately, and possible further restrictions in the area. But so long NewImpartial recognizes that they are putting their credibility and standing somewhat on the line here in that respect, I think we can afford to utilize some flexibility. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is far too slippery a slope, and likely to lead to way too many people requesting these exemptions in a torrent of wiggle-room negotiations that will eventually defeat the purpose of their TBANs. GENSEX is far too contentious topic already; we should not be letting exceptions creep in. We are not giving TheTranarchist exceptions. As with any other TBAN or sanction, let the editor edit neutrally and collaboratively in other topics for six months to a year, and then file for an appeal. There is no rush on Wikipedia, and nothing that cannot wait for one single editor's input. None of us are indispensable. Softlavender (talk) 00:23, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support generally valuable editor. Andre🚐 01:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose This completely undermines the point of the topic ban. This is the exact sort of topic that Newimpartial was topic banned for bludgeoning. Either make a appeal of the whole topic ban or just accept the terms of the topic ban. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Hemiauchenia. Let's see some productive editing in some other area of the project for a while before we relax the tban. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Newimpartial has been a valuable contributor in policy discussions and has to my knowledge not exhibited further bludgeoning problems since the post which led to the ban. As ActivelyDisinterested said, this gives them a way of proving (or disproving) that they can contribute constructively in discussions related to the topic area, and their behaviour would be valuable evidence, one way or the other, in an eventual full appeal. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 15:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

  The user talk posts gave me pause, but it seems there was a miscommunication involved, Newimpartial has stopped and is understanding the issue, so I want to reaffirm my support here. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:54, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per Hemiauchenia and Softlavender. The fact that there is a discussion currently taking place at MOS:BIO that would normally incense OP (and result in the things that led to the tban) has certainly prompted this request. Convenient exceptions to the ban defy its point. — Czello 15:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

  I don’t think there are any discussions at MOSBIO that would normally incense me (much less result in the things that led to the tban). Editors are groping towards RfC questions that could see guidelines shift in various directions, and I have background and expertise to offer but no preferred outcome in mind.

  Also, I don't think there is any evidence of my being "incensed" in any prior discussions around GENDERID policy, with the relevant evidence coming, e.g., from this discussion, this one and this one - but feel free to check the whole archive.

  I would also hope that you would not consider yourself uninvolved on this issue, given our interactions. Newimpartial (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC) edited for clarity by 20:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

  I feel that you are right now repeating disruptive behavior by arguing over semantics ("incensed") at the expense of the commenter's intention, as I previously pointed out to you. [83] Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

  Or arguing over the precise location of a discussion ("at MOSBIO"). Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Kolya Butternut: I think you're being a bit unreasonable here. In your !vote above, you cite behaviour from the TBAN thread in February and a January 2023 discussion at Talk:Gender as evidence of Newimpartial's lack of acknowledgement of the problems that lead them to being TBANed. Yet in their opening post, they acknowledged the reasons for the TBAN where they said I have made an effort to avoid personalizing disputes and have strictly observed the terms of the (unusual) anti-bludgeoning restrictions that reached community consensus at ANI. While that may not address your specific concerns raised in the TBAN discussion, it does address the generalised concerns that were noted in the closure of the discussion. It seems unreasonable to me to expect an acknowledgement of your specific concerns, when you, like myself, were but one voice in many supporting a TBAN. Why is acknowledging your specific concerns more relevant than acknowledging the broader community concerns that were noted in the closure?

  You've also now accused Newimpartial of repeating disruptive behavior by arguing over semantics, yet nowhere in Newimpartial's reply are they arguing over semantics. They are using the language that Czello used, while also saying that they do not believe it to be an accurate descriptor. That seems a fair thing to do, as saying that a discussion would get someone incensed is quite provocative and an aspersion about their emotional state.

  Finally, context does matter. In the discussions that lead to the TBAN, many editors did rightly point out problematic contributions in article space discussions and at RSN, BLPN, and AFD. However no editor, either in that discussion or this one, has pointed out problematic contributions to policy discussions like those currently taking place at WT:MOSBIO. Do you have any evidence of problematic contributions by Newimpartial in policy or guideline discussions like those at MOSBIO? Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

  While that may not address your specific concerns raised in the TBAN discussion... I am saying that they were being disruptive in their own TBAN discussion. I feel that the specific brand of disruption demonstrated there is vital to acknowledge, and I don't believe if the community recognized it that we would agree to any leniency at this time. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

  I feel you're focussing too largely on a single word I used in my post. I can re-word it if you like (though I believe my original description is accurate) - the point is that it's the sort of topic generated the behaviours that led to this tban in the first place. To be honest, the fact that you've dwelled on a single word like this might be somewhat proving my point. — Czello 21:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

• Neutral/Comment Oppose I strongly supported the anti-bludgeon restrictions in the original thread but had no comment on the GENSEX issue. I had no particular experience of their GENSEX conduct, but I had seen their frequent bludgeoning. So I don't have a strong view on this now. However, it seems strange to allow them to get back into the topic area on two specific pages just because they really want to. Why doesn't that work for any tbanned editor? Why make an exception in this case? They mention that they used to do gnoming at MOS:GIDINFO. There's more logic to allowing them to edit there provided they only engage in gnoming. DeCausa (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

  Having thought about this further, including this exchange on my talk page, I've switched to oppose. I really don't see any argument for this being an exception to the normal TBAN approach and it sets a rather illogical precedent. I had already found the argument that their "expertise" was needed on these pages was unconvincing. Thinking about it further, it's not only unconvincing but because they advanced such a bogus ground for the exception to the TBAN it pushes me over to oppose. DeCausa (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Extremely weak support with the thinnest possible ice. Those who know me off-wiki may be aware that I'm quite conflicted on this, but at the end of the day I feel like banning people from talk and project pages is risky business compared to article-space bans, and I like open discussion. The thing though is that despite this editors promises, they have in the past most certainly choked up talk pages. I'm hoping they've changed but not holding my breath, and if this goes downhill then an immediate reversal of the exception is certainly warranted. (comment from involved editor)
Oppose, as the ice has been shattered per Kolya Butternut and Czello. casualdejekyll 19:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm not understanding why an exception should be granted just because Newimpartial really wants one. A TBAN effects both good and bad editing and that exceptions should be granted on very rare occasions (per WP:BMB). It would need to be proven that there is some kind of compelling reason to allow for this exception. I don't believe that has been proven at this time. Furthermore, I don't particularly like the idea of Newimpartial trying to find little loopholes in policy to get back on the GENSEX area despite their TBAN; they need to accept the TBAN, make attempts to better themselves and other content areas, and then appeal the TBAN in full in due time, not spend time with requests like this. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 21:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: Badgering people at their talk pages does not inspire confidence. See Special:Contributions/Newimpartial. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
• Note I wish to highlight that NewImpartial is choosing to message opposers separately to this discussion.[84][85][86][87] Normally I'd say there's nothing wrong with this, but given that there is an anti-bludgeon restriction against this user (for the very reasons that spawned the initial TBAN) I'm forced to bring this up, as I'm inclined to believe this is bludgeoning by less-obvious means. (Disclosure: I have already expressed my !vote above) — Czello ^(music) 22:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

  I'm opposing their request for other reasons. To be honest, I wasn't too bothered about them posting on my talk page. - it's kinda comically incorrigible! DeCausa (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

  "Incorrigible" is certainly the word I'd use, which is the real issue here. — Czello ^(music) 22:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

  NewImpartial is now pinging editors to a wall of text where they continue to dispute comments left here. They also continue to message users on their talk page. Again, normally this wouldn't be a problem - but given the anti-bludgeon restriction in place I can't help but see how this is anything but bludgeoning; the only difference is that it's on user talk pages rather than here.

  NewImpartial, I'm sorry, but - I think this is harming your case and honestly just reinforces my above !vote. It's only been a month; I don't think it's the right time for an exception yet. — Czello ^(music) 08:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

  Note that Newimpartial has remarked that they believe they've misunderstood the definition of bludgeoning owning to blind spots associated with their neurodivergent qualities. If I am reading their meaning correctly, I'm happy for the above to be disregarded. — Czello ^(music) 10:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  Which is why I have partially struck my earlier comment. My understanding is that this may be an explanation of previous and, indeed, ongoing bludgeoning-type behaviour. Those who opposed solely because of bludgeoning behaviour may want to consider this. DeCausa (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose the tban has been in effect for a little over a month. It is far too early to be carving out caveats like this. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose given the nexus between the behavior that led to the TBAN and the behavior evident here and on user talk pages in response to participants. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

  In response to this comment, Newimpartial has apparently determined to strengthen the case by...adding my talk page to the ones they are bludgeoning. Well done. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

• On a balance, support per ActivelyDisinterested and Madeline: above, a few users (DFlhb, ActivelyDisinterested,...) have said OP's recent contributions to discussions have been exemplary, while another editor has worried that, despite good behaviour elsewhere, the user would bludgeon this topic area — well, how better (or how else?) can a user who's been editing constructively elsewhere, and has a depth of institutional knowledge of this area, prove or disprove that they can contribute constructively to this area, except by having at least a limited opportunity to do so? -sche (talk) 03:00, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Too soon. it has only been five weeks or so since the topic ban and the extraordinary anti-bludgeoning restriction were placed. I'm not confident that this user will be able to avoid falling back into the same problematic behaviour that lead to the sanctions. I find it telling that this request includes their statement Obviously if I were to lapse into bludgeon or antagonism, that would be disruptive behaviour and I would expect to lose editing privileges in that event. But that is within my control, and I won't do that. but they have engaged in what editors have called bludgeoning. Pinging editors to lengthy discussions of this thread elsewhere to avoid bludgeoning this page is still blufgeoning. Meters (talk) 07:58, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as I see bludgeoning type behaviour already in responding to this thread. Also there is no clear reason given for an exemption. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as we are already seeing problematic behavior in this thread (visiting opposers talk pages while subject to an anti-bludgeoning restriction, really?) Courcelles (talk) 11:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• Weak support a reasonable request made by a good editor who has non-trivial problems. Newimpartial, you need to learn to let things go--I've seen more than a handful of cases now where you are your own worst enemy. I'd be willing to take on a mentor/police role here if that would be useful. I was going to fully support until the latest issues (detailed above). Hobit (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, user is demonstrating the same behavior that led to the topic ban in the first place, and in any case the reasons given are insufficient to justify an exemption. The MOS:BIO discussion is complex enough as it is and is building up to an RfC in which (if past experience is anything to go by) one 'vote' will hardly tip the scales. The MOS:GIDINFO page has other people working on it in the history, so there is no 'need' for this specific user to edit it. Crossroads ^-talk- 13:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose due to the bludgeoning of this very discussion. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per LEPRICAVARK. It way too soon to be carving out exceptions to a TBAN that's only been in place for a few weeks. I also agree with Guerillero. This discussion makes me less likely to support a lift of the original TBAN since there doesn't appear to much respect for editor's time. Nemov (talk) 17:35, 17 April 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.

Reversing page move done in violation of topic ban

This page move should be undone because the user (Venkat TL) did this move in violation of his existing topic ban from Indian/Pakistani/Afghanistani politics[88] and the subject Atiq Ahmed was an Indian politician who is still being discussed in a purely political context by sources.

This request is not about seeking any sanction because I believe first topic ban violation is supposed to be forgiven. Thanks >>> Extorc.talk 09:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@Extorc I consider this page move, done along with the Atiq Ahmed (cricketer) move, was a non controversial process related edit. I have not made any content related edit in this article. If you disagree with my opinion, you could have messaged me to revert myself or posted this request on Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests for revert by another editor. Now that you have already posted here, I have no concerns if the move is reverted. and then someone else does the same page move again. This page was not appearing in my searches for the person. I fail to understand your intention in starting this thread here and not at the expected venues to address this. Venkat TL (talk) 09:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The move on Atiq Ahmed cannot be undone by a non-admin[89] that's why it needs admin intervention. Why you would expect me to message you and make the page move again to repeat your topic ban violation? There was no discussion for the cricketer move, [90] so it needs to be undone as well. You are violating WP:AGF by doubting my "intention in starting this thread" when I have made it explicitly clear that I am not seeking any sanction. >>> Extorc.talk 09:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

No. with valid reasons, any page move can be undone by users on Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. You get this message when you try to do any move. So you should know that. The page location Atiq Ahmed was previously occupied by Atiq Ahmed cricketer's bio, so Atiq Ahmed cricketer's move was essential to implement the page move request you had made for Atiq Ahmed politician. You were the one who started this page move request, and now you want your completed request to be undone and reverted. I am still waiting to hear your motives in starting this thread here. Venkat TL (talk) 09:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Requests at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests are also processed by admins or page movers. I see no problem with Extorc bringing it to admin attention at this noticeboard instead, especially since the circumstances are unusual. – Joe (talk) 09:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: There is no exception to topic bans for "non controversial process related" edits. If you've been topic banned from ARBIPA, that's an indication that the community does not trust you to decide what is and isn't controversial in that area. You shouldn't have tried to close an RM on an Indian politican and you shouldn't have moved these pages. I've reversed the move and removed page mover from your account. – Joe (talk) 09:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The Great Gama and unverifiable claims

Admins The Great Gama article was recently edited by this user Hairy Wookie who restored a heavily uncited and unbalanced version which was the cause of this article being protected last year the nationality of Great Gama is disputed as he gained Pakistani citizenship but his career was all based in British India which caused edit wars last year I attempted to restore the version prior to Hairy Wookies edit. A compromise was reached to refer it as British Raj which maintained peace but its unprotected now and we are at the same spot. It seems my edits are being flagged as I removed a portion regarding early life which was unverifiable and seemed totally made up I have restored that as to prevent admins being side tracked. 2A02:C7C:6782:7A00:A09A:916F:3CEB:768F (talk) 11:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

[91] This is the edit made by the account 4 days ago deleting sourced information and strangely adding uncited material back in. Also removed a tag without discussion. There are large amounts of uncited materials being restored bizzare editing.2A02:C7C:6782:7A00:A09A:916F:3CEB:768F (talk) 11:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Is there a reason you haven't notified the user about this discussion per WP:ANB? Nemov (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

RfC on a procedural community desysop

Please see Village pump (policy) regarding removal the admin user-right from blocked administrators. Worm^TT(talk) 14:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Noting there is an additional proposal regarding the removal of the mop from community sitebanned users. HouseBlaster^talk 15:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Freshworks

Please move the article from User talk:TuanUt/Freshworks to Freshworks, because "Freshworks" is currently locked for creation. TuanUt (talk) 08:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

As was mentioned, and you agreed to, previously. Please put it through the AfC process and if accepted it'll be moved and sorted. Canterbury Tail talk 08:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Done. Draft:Freshworks TuanUt (talk) 08:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it's borderline and will trim some advertorial content, but I think there's enough to let the community decide. Star Mississippi 16:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Revision deletion review - WT:Deceased

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 am requesting a review of Barkeep's removal of this post at WT:Deceased. I was told WP:BLPN was not the correct venue (although Barkeep did provide a response. [92] I am posting here per WP:Revision deletion#Appeal and discussion of actions Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut, the revdel was correct. You should have dropped the stick at that point. – bradv 23:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Revdel warranted. There was potential outing and offwiki shenanigans that should stay offwiki. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I closed the inappropriate discussion at BLP/N. It seems odd that revdeling something for privacy/BLP violations can be appealed on a public board like this, but since it wasn't oversighted, I guess KB is following the rules as currently written. I suppose this board is a better location for shit stirring than BLP/N. I've reviewed the deleted material, and agree that it was not appropriate for posting on WP, and the revdel was correct. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not following the reasoning behind the redvel. The post did not link to anything off-wiki or provide identifying information. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

See WP:RD3. If it had linked to off-wiki or identifying information you likely would have been oversight-blocked. If you persist in your current disruption, you will merely be blocked for that instead. – bradv 23:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand how this can be called disruptive when I am following policy: The first step is to make absolutely sure that the user in question has indeed died. Reliable sources are key to counteracting fallacious claims. WP:Deceased_Wikipedians/Guidelines The community needs to discuss what to do, and since the RS this year there has been no community discussion. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I commented at BLPN, the first noticeboard Kolya raised this issue at today, The BLP violation, which of course applies in all places onwiki not just in articles, is that one way or another you are accusing a person who is alive (the subject of the unlinked news story) of faking their own death. Kolya's repeated attempts to "prove" this - and not for nothing I'm reasonably convinced - are itself disruptive. Kolya is not building encyclopedic content. Kolya is not stopping current or future disruption by proving this given the existence of current CU blocks for socking and the possibility of adding new editors to that case if they should arise.. I see above that at least one editor has suggested I should have used RD3. That's fair. I considered using that criteria, but decided it was more inflammatory than using the RD2 criteria, given that I did feel there was a BLP violation. As I noted at BLPN, I think we've long passed the point of disruption by the continous litigation of this topic. I actually found their revised re-start at Wikipedia talk:Deceased Wikipedians after the BLPN close a failure to drop the stick but otherwise a reasonable job of addressing the feedback given and hoped that it might suggest a more promising path. The belief that we need to hold an RfC on this matter and the decision to try a second noticeboard suggests instead that Kolya's inability to focus on other matters of encyclopedic importance, rather than this meta-matter about the project, is itself disruptive to the community. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:08, 19 April 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.

The C of E Tban 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.

---

This is an appeal against my topic ban from DYK (imposed here. Having been over a year since it was imposed, I recognised that my conduct back then was unbecoming and the drama I caused was unacceptable. I know that what I did back then was wrong and I apologise again for it. I have been working with WP:ITN to show I can be productive and avoid drama. I would love to be able to return to help build preps and restore goodwill to help the project. My previous appeal was rejected on the grounds that I had not been clear about what I had been looking for to be done.

Please let me be clear, I am aware of the strength of feeling about me so I am willing that if the TBan is lifted, to comply fully with the restrictions I was under prior to the TBAN (ie. a ban on nominating LGBT, British/Irish politics or Religion, ban on editing my own hooks in prep and anyone has a veto over my hooks). The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 08:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - Just as a comment, 17 of the last 500 contributions for The C of E from October 2022 to now have been at WP:ITN, and most of them regarding Recent Deaths in particular, which makes sense since most of his work has been at mainspace. A few of the RDs he participated in have been articles that he has improved to bring up to par for posting. I wouldn't classify him necessarily as a regular participant, but I can attest to occasionally seeing him participate there with relatively low drama. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  What is "relatively low drama"? Shouldn't an editor trying to "avoid drama" and have their topic ban removed stir up next-to-no drama, as opposed to "relatively low drama". Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  As an ITN regular I can say I have not noticed any drama in regards to C of E's participation there. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

  I say relatively low because I haven't seen him engage in any overt breaching experiments, but it's only from my limited point of view and I can't speak for the totality of his activity there. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Support - but please, please, please C of E, stay well clear of any attempts at humor or being 'edgy.' I am all for second chances, but I cannot pretend I will read any borderline material charitably; no offence intended of course. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support, with the pre-existing restrictions still in place. Last chance. I also echo what Dumuzid says. Humour (particularly edgy humour) is very hard to do well, so please leave it to people who are good at it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

  Oppose. I've changed my mind after considering other opinions below, and re-reading a number of past discussions. I was sympathetic to TCOE being allowed back to DYK (partly for reasons that I don't want to go into here as they're getting close to WP:NOTTHERAPY). But I think the opposers below are right, and there have been too many red flags. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support largely thinking along the same lines as Boing! Courcelles (talk) 12:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support per WP:ROPE and per Boing! said Zebedee. I'd also like to see the proposal from the prior discussion that C of E also refrain from that C of E refrain from "creating any sexual double-entendre, racist, or other provocative DYK content" as well, insofar as if they did so, I would be the first to get in line to reinstate the full topic ban they are asking for relief from. I can confirm that C of E has contributed to ITN in the intervening year: [93] and that their participation there has flown under the radar and has not drawn attention to itself. Honestly, I hadn't remembered seeing them there at all, and I'm there every day. Which is saying a lot about how innocuous and under-the-radar it has been, which I think is kinda the idea. If we saw a similar level of blandness at DYK, I think we'd be fine. --Jayron32 16:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Enough second, third, etc., chances have been given. Everyone is capable of redemption at a point, but I see no remorse, above, for repeated attempts to use our Main Page to promote hatred against various minority groups, as documented thoroughly at the multiple previous TBAN threads. [94][95] I'm aware he isn't appealing the ban that stems from the worst of that, but why exactly do we want someone working on DYK who has repeatedly tried to get slurs and blatant political provocation on the Main Page, and seems to still not see the problem with that? Someone who has pushed every envelope he's been given? The continued full-throated defense of British imperialism on his userpage—right alongside a desire to be an admin someday—does not exactly augur confidence that he understands what is and isn't likely to offend. I'm not convinced Wikipedia needs editors like this at all; we definitely don't need them anywhere near Main Page content. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Tamzin's rationale given above aligns with the reason why I didn't !vote to support despite the evidence of his uncontroversial editing at ITN. It's still not clear to me what there is to be gained on Wikipedia or in DYK by having him return to this area. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm curious, having just looked at his user page, what's the "full-throated defense of British imperialism". Is it the box with the flags and the caption "The 4 nations of the country that helped make the world"? Generally nationalistic (and not to my taste), yes. But calling it something as specific as a full-throated defence of British imperialism is a stretch, IMO. Was there something else on his page that I missed? DeCausa (talk) 13:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion of course but personally I don't see how "the country that helped make the world" could be read as anything other than a full-throated defence of British imperialism. (These countries didn't exist before Britain "made" them? Really?) He may have got rid of all the jingoistic and bigoted userboxes he used to have but the underlying sentiment is still the same. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:13, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

He competes in WikiCups under the flag of the "British Empire", too. XAM2175 ^(T) 20:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

It's possibly worth pointing out that previous revisions of TCOE's user page screamed "British Imperialism" pretty much unambiguously, and it was toned down after criticism in one of the earlier rounds of these discussions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, just seen that. His current box may well be a dog whistle to those (although I still think the current box in itself is just jingoistic nationalism). What's odd about him, as I noted lower down, is restoration of the Empire is quite a niche/quirky theme for the far right nowadays. It's quite idiosyncratic and not normally where you'd expect someone on the far right (in Britain) to be majoring on. DeCausa (talk) 13:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I don't actually think we're seeing far right motivation here. I think it's more like someone who needs a very ordered life, with a set of rules to be followed (given by an authority figure), where there's no ambiguity between right and wrong, in a world that's black and white with no shades of grey. But if I try to dig any deeper than that, I'd be venturing into psychoanalysis without any qualifications. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Playing amateur armchair psychoanalysis, and putting this together with their style of humour, I would say it's someone stuck emotionally in their youth sometime between the late 1950s and late '70s. Better stop there.DeCausa (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you mind? I find that is rather rude speculating on someones mental health and mindset. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 18:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

That's a very fair point. My apologies. DeCausa (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

TCOE, I know it's not great to speculate on another's mindset and mental health (but, to be fair you did openly state that you're on the autism spectrum and that you're suffering from mental health issues). I won't try to dig any deeper, but I do want to make one point that I think might help you if you can understand it. I think most people here have a problem with accepting that you didn't mean to offend anyone and didn't realise what you were doing wrong, while at the same time seeing multiple DYK examples (plus those old userboxes) that are obviously offensive to people with various characteristics, cultures and opinions that are different to yours. And so people are going to ask themselves how on earth can someone honestly not see what everyone else can see as plain as the nose on their face. And we're inevitably going to speculate, even if it's only privately. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support time served. We are all volunteers; this person behaved badly several times and they have been sanctioned. I see contrition in the request and they waited almost 9 months for a second appeal. In closing the first appeal Valereee told them to try again in six months. I am sure there will be many eyes on them at DYK and no harm will come to the project. The upside is that the editor has almost 600 DYKs and will be a prolific contributor. Let's hope they follow Boing! said Zebedee's advice. Lightburst (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support lifting the specific TBAN linked (the one on DYK in general), but oppose lifting the earlier TBAN (the one on British or Irish politics, Religion, and LGBTQ topics in DYK). There was far too much civil POV-pushing over far too long a term for this generic apology and appeal to convince me that it would not return. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:41, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• I am going to Oppose along with Tamzin even though I can read the writing on the wall that this topic ban is likely going to be reversed. This editor has spent nearly 15 years engaging in provocatively inappropriate editing. I remember their shockingly inappropriate disruption of United States v. One Solid Gold Object in Form of a Rooster, a fascinating article about the legal and artistic status of gold, and mining gold in the United States, and the use of gold to market gambling casinos in the state of Nevada. This editor creepily reasoned "rooster is a synonym for cock and cock is a synonym for penis", accompanied by "a man named Richard has a nickname of Dick" to make multiple repetitive strikingly unfunny penis jokes, severely damaging an article about a notable topic to advance their puerile and utterly inappropriate agenda, and to try to shoehorn something shocking into DYK, when the stupid "hook" was entirely unsupported by what the actual reliable sources say, all of which discuss a golden rooster statue and none of which make penis jokes. This is not ancient history - it took place in 2021. This is only one of many examples of the grotesque misconduct by this editor which has not been limited to fleeting DYK hooks but also to disruptive editing of actual encyclopedia articles to advance their reactionary, attention-seeking agenda. So, if the community wants to give this editor some rope, I will certainly respect consensus. But I want to go on record as saying that I will forcefully support an indefinite block for this editor the next time they try to pull any vile or ugly stunts, as they have so many times in the past. Cullen328 (talk) 04:10, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support The ban should never have been placed. Time to remove it. --evrik ^(talk) 04:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I would disagree that the ban should have never been placed. The C of E tested the DYK community's patience multiple times despite repeated warnings and multiple discussions that their hooks were pushing the rules. Even after their topic bans were implemented (the non-DYK ones) the issues continued. If anything, it's not the ban should have never been placed, it's that it's surprising the ban wasn't placed sooner. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose for now - As much as I'd want to support him being given one last WP:ROPE, I'm not just confident that this would be any different from the past. I understand that The C of E dearly misses DYK and I can understand that sentiment, but an argument could be made that enough rope was already given in the first place: the fact that he wasn't topic banned from DYK until years after his original topic bans regarding problematic content (one of which was even ArbCom-imposed) shows that he was given plenty of chances to change. Considering the earlier issues, I'm just not confident that, if the topic ban is lifted, he will keep his promise and avoid getting into trouble.

Having said that, if the topic ban is lifted per consensus, I would highly suggest that, moving forward, any nominations he does would need a co-nominator, one who would be willing to advise him if the hook and article are good or not. The co-nominator could be some kind of rope to ensure previous issues don't repeat. But again, this is dependent on the topic ban being lifted and, as much as I would want to give The C of E one last chance, at this time I am not confident he can keep his promises. I'd love to be proven wrong, but I have my reasons to be skeptical. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose C of E doesn't have a divine right to participate at DYK no matter how much they wish to, and I still believe the integrity of the Main Page would be better preserved by leaving the ban in place. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• Moral oppose per Tamzin and Cullen. It appears it will be lifted, but shouldn't be. There's no indication we won't be back here again, and in addition to the time wasted he'll probably continue to be offensive and a time sink, just as he has in every other time he's been given a last chance. Star Mississippi 12:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• Question @The C of E: In addition to the other pre-TBAN restrictions, do you understand and agree that you will have to stay away from "creating any sexual double-entendre, racist, or other provocative DYK content" or other "edgy humour" if you return to DYK, per Jayron32 and Boing? DeCausa (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
  • @DeCausa: I do and agree that I will stay away from any of those. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support, just about. Got to be the last chance. DeCausa (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose for the record since I didn't !vote yet, although I realize that based on the heavy-hitters putting their support behind lifting the TBAN, it's likely this appeal will be granted. I have the same apprehensions as everyone else, due to the recency of the disruption that had occurred. The fruits of rehabilitation just aren't ripe enough, in my opinion. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

  I sincerely hope that whoever closes this will judge the consensus solely on the strength of the arguments, and not in any way on the weight of any of the hitters. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

  I hope so too, Boing, but I also believe your arguments and those of Jayron32 are stronger than those that I may have. Clemency is nearly always desirable if possible, not just because of the easiness of blocking but also the probability that a productive user can return to Wikipedia and contribute positively. I think in nearly all cases in which the offender is both contrite and has had a previously productive background, it's a stronger argument overall. My desire to not unblock is embedded in the disgust at the extreme audacity of the edits which got the user into trouble, which I concede is a somewhat irrational position. So in spite of my presumptuous wording in using the term "heavy-hitters" (and I do apologize for that), I do also think you are very CLUEful and that is reflected by your position. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

  On the contrary, I think your position is entirely rational. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

  Hello, you must be new to Wikipedia. – Joe (talk) 06:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  Well, yes, I know the way things can work here - but my comment is as much a reminder to the closer as anything. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. The C of E wrote an equally apologetic appeal to his initial topic ban[96]. The appeal was withdrawn when it was clear it wouldn't be granted, and that was followed by the behavior that led to the block from all DYK. He had multiple opportunities at DYK to demonstrate his suitability to edit in that area and failed to do so. There is no benefit to the project to give him yet another "last chance". DYK is continuing to function without his input. Schazjmd (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I think this is really the reason why some (myself included) are skeptical this is going to work out even if The C of E does get unbanned. His previous behavior and past does not necessarily suggest that this case where he's apologizing and saying he has truly changed would be any different from the past. As I and some others have mentioned here, he was given plenty of chances to change after his initial topic ban, so this isn't a last chance given he already had several last chances. Had it been the case that after his initial topic ban, he sincerely apologized and discussed where he went wrong, promised not to do it again, and follow on said promise by ceasing all provocative behavior and apparent attempts to push the limits of his bans and what he could get away with, I don't think he would have been topic banned from DYK at all, let alone be in this position. He has apologized and promised to change multiple times in the past, only to show behavior suggesting he did not learn from his previous experiences when his topic bans were not overturned. Again, as much as I want to assume good faith and agree to The C of E being given one final (for real this time) chance, his history gives me plenty of pause. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Opppose I'm not convinced that this is a good thing for the project or for CoE - let them edit elsewhere ... I see no pressing need for them to return to DYK. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. They've had rather a lot of chances for me to consider giving them another; and the appeal doesn't have anything specific wrong with it, but it doesn't pass the smell test of sincerity for me, likely because I've seen them brush off concerns with their work too many times. It's a large project; find something else to work on. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cullen328 & Ealdgyth; sure blocks/bans are cheap if CoE misbehaves but, on the other hand, not removing the topic ban is even cheaper and, based on previous activities, better for the project. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 19:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, since we've been here before, and expecting the outcome to be any different this time stretches credulity too far. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. It would be different if this were The C of E's only brush with being sanctioned, or a topic ban in article space, but it's neither of those things. DYK is an entirely ancillary part of the project, and as for sanctions, well, here's a brief précis:
  1. Continual attempts to introduce politically provocative hooks earn them an AE topic ban in August 2020: The C of E is indefinitely topic banned from all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed.
  2. The trio of restrictions (to which TCOE would revert should this appeal succeed) are imposed in September 2020 on the back of additional political, religious, racial, and homophobic provocation.
  3. Request to amend the AE topic-ban is declined in November 2020.
     • After this, TCOE decides that it would be appropriate to propose that Adolf Hitler is not planning world domination? as a hook in Template:Did you know nominations/Adolf Hitler Uunona, about a subject who hates the fact that that's their name, and based on article that was at AfD at the time. TCOE's !vote to keep was As per WP:GNG, Hitler has sufficient reliable 3rd party sources to justify the existance of the article. While it may be a stub now, there is more to come no doubt. Emphasis mine.
  4. Appeal of the September 2020 restrictions fails in April 2021.
     • Barely one month after this, TCOE proposes that the 1916 song "Nigger Love a Watermelon, Ha! Ha! Ha!" is considered to have the most racist song title in America? as a hook in Template:Did you know nominations/Watermelon song, with the rationale [it's] a historical piece of music yes with an abhorrant [sic] title but it is a revealing snippet of life in America back then.
  5. Second appeal of the September 2020 restrictions snowfails in November 2021.
  6. The September 2020 restrictions are upgraded to the full DYK topic ban in a well-attended AN/I thread in January 2022.
  7. Appeal of the DYK topic ban fails in July 2022.
• The preponderance of evidence presented across these prior discussions makes it abundantly clear that, if TCOE is not deliberately seeking to smear their political and religious opinions all over the front page of the encyclopaedia, then they are at the very least possessed of such breathtakingly poor judgement as to be effectively incompetent when it comes to participating in the DYK process. Even assuming the latter, I'm not persuaded by the WP:ROPE arguments as much as I might otherwise be, precisely because TCOE's history shows that they can't help but probe at the exact boundaries of their restrictions, and that was the behaviour that earned them the full DYK topic ban in the first place. I quote Vaticidalprophet from that discussion: He's someone who consistently bats at the edges of what he can get away with in one of the most sensitive parts of the project (its public face). Topic ban from British nationalism in Ireland? Time to write piles of hooks on Rhodesia. Topic ban from making jokes at people's expense because they fall into traditionally sensitive categories? Time to make jokes at people's expense because of their names. Topic ban from putting the N-word on the main page? Time to keep doing it anyway, and then barring that, put as many other dirty words on the main page as you could think of.

  Even right now I have to question their judgement in continuing to use a signature that is so overtly – and irrelevantly – politically and religiously charged (on top of the fact that their username is a direct reference to the Church of England), though I at least credit them with ditching (while at AE and AN/I back in August 2020) some of the most eyebrow-raising content they were keeping on their user page.

  Thus, I say for this user that there is no more rope; for they are using the very last of it now. Indeed, I would have backed Joe Roe making an indef NOTHERE block right back in August 2020 when he exposed the disgusting extent to which TCOE had knowingly and deliberately used unreliable sources in order to smuggle homophobic abuse onto the main page. Only on the understanding that TCOE is one wrong move away from an indef now would I accept the lifting of the current topic ban.

  XAM2175 ^(T) 20:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
  • @XAM2175: Actually, yes I would accept that. I realised what I did was wrong and I have already repeatedly apologised for it. All I asking for is a chance to prove I have changed, I did wrong, I made mistakes and I have abided by the restrictions that were laid on me. If such a requirement and undertaking is needed to prove it, I will give it. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. I have to agree with the above concerns about judgement in this area. I'm somewhat wary of the tendency here to pick and choose what ideologies editors are allowed to have. Monarchism isn't my cup of tea, so to speak, but it's hardly the most extreme view that's accepted among the community. But when it comes down to it, there are other areas of the encyclopedia to be more productive, while their participation in DYK is almost certainly going to create more work than it's worth, especially considering the high-risk nature of the main page. Catching POV pushers at DYK (or anywhere else on the project) is difficult enough as it is. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  Nobody in any of these conversations is criticizing this editor for being a monarchist. The editor's misconduct was far more pervasive, and many presumably monarchist editors do excellent work for years without repeatedly engaging in self-indulgent disruption. Cullen328 (talk) 05:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  This has never been primarily about CofE's views. His editing speaks for itself. But for the record, "monarchism" isn't the half of it: before he blanked it during one of the above ANI discussions, CofE's user page loudly proclaimed that he was an "imperialist" who supported the "the re-establishment of the British Empire" (a now-deleted userbox), "believes marriage is between one man and one woman" (also now deleted), and wants the colony of Hong Kong "returned to its rightful owners" (he had to write that userbox himself), amongst a wall of other dog whistles and openly far right slogans. I can only explain the fact the project has tolerated CofE for so long, that we're now seriously considering letting him loose on the main page again, by assuming that our US-dominated editor base can't see the mythology and iconography of the British far-right as clearly as its American equivalents. If we were talking about the same behaviour from User:Good Ole Boy who signed his posts with "The South Will Rise Again" in the colours of the confederate flag – well, I don't imagine we'd be talking about it. – Joe (talk) 06:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  I'd been looking for the right wording to analogize to the American context and express my frustration about the difference in perception, and you've found it exactly. This is part of the problem with formulating norms about hate speech based on specific ideologies. There's not something particular to neo-Nazism or neo-Confederacy that makes them evil; it's the specific ideas they espouse—most significantly, the idea that the white race is superior to others. Editors should be aware that the white supremacist basis of some ideologies will not always be as obvious as "Heil Hitler". And, as you say, everything TCoE has said about the British Empire is as much built around that kind of thinking as the Lost Cause is in the U.S.

  FWIW, I don't see as relevant his monarchism, nor his support for his eponymous church, nor his patriotism; but specifically his support for restoring a fundamentally racist enterprise, and his decision to still broadcast a version of that view even while seeking access anew to Main Page content, are in my view disqualifying. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 07:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, thank you Joe, I'd also been struggling to come up with an accurate analogy. XAM2175 ^(T) 11:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  Actually, I'm not entirely sure the Confederate Flag issue is the right analogy. As I understand it, that's a hot button in the US and that imagery is quite prevalent in certain sections of the American far right. In Britain 'Restoration of the Empire' would be pretty niche and quirky even for someone on the far right. There are other more potent/unpleasant themes that are normally used. I don't know what the US equivalent would be - annexing Canada maybe? Having looked at his previous banners on his user page there's something bizarrely idiosyncratic about his far rightness. The mental health banner he's displaying may be more relevant. DeCausa (talk) 13:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per XAM2175 and Joe Roe's comment here and here. Galobtter (talk) 06:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. It seems to me that the Wikipedia community is in general so forgiving and lenient, sometimes to a shocking degree. This is one of those occasions. This kind of "contributor" might perhaps provide some passable contents, but I really don't feel those contributions will be worth the trouble. BorgQueen (talk) 06:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support, with the pre-existing restrictions still in place, per Boing! said Zebedee. I have worked with C of E often, and often criticised hooks, and am willing to do it again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  It is worth noting however that Boing has since struck their Support vote and no longer supports the ban being lifted. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Having read the repeated examples of remarkably poor judgment and remarkably disruptive behavior, in addition to so many broken promises and insincere apologies, I don't see any reason TCOE should be allowed back at DYK, especially not at this juncture. If the editor is here to build an encyclopedia, let them do that. DYK is not about building the encyclopedia. This editor has had a mental-health issues banner on his userpage for the past two years, and the statement "I would like to be an Admin one day" on his userpage since 2009 (having only joined Wikipedia the previous year); these things are not signs that the editor has or will have good judgment now or in the immediate future. Softlavender (talk) 09:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
  • @Softlavender: I find that a little insulting, I have kept to the restrictions put upon me to the letter (even asking admins before doing anything that seemed to be a grey area). When I have made apologies, they have been sincere and earnest and truthful to how I feel. I know I did wrong, I have learned my lesson and obeyed instructions given to me. Even when they said I could come back to appeal in 6 months, I waited longer to show I have changed. All I am asking for is a chance to show it, I have even agreed to a full block if I slip back into my old ways above. Or I'd be willing to a compromise, Only building sets and not nominating anything. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 10:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

    As others have noted here: why exactly do you want to return to DYK of all projects on Wikipedia? DYK is not mandatory, you aren't required to participate in it. It's a voluntary choice. If you can't or do not want to participate in it, you don't have to. There are plenty of other projects on Wikipedia where you can put in your efforts and where they may be better appreciated. You have mentioned above that you are doing well on ITN, and ITN is still a project involving the Main Page and I'd argue it's even more visible than DYK since ITN items are usually up for at least several days instead of the 12 or 24-hour runs that DYK hooks have. Would it not be feasible for you to stick to ITN instead?

    In addition, I am very sorry to say this, but I do not think it is totally accurate to say that you have kept to the restrictions put upon me to the letter, at least not in previous experiences. You will need to prove that this time you really mean it, and that this will be different. Considering your past history, you will be under great scrutiny and would very likely get an indefinite block and/or the ban being re-implemented if it were lifted. Are you really willing to go through that effort rather than just simply focusing on other parts of Wikipedia where you are still welcome to edit? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

    • @Narutolovehinata5: Because I want to be able to prove to people I am not the monster they purport me to be. I enjoyed contributing to DYK and the objectionable hooks in question people keep mentioning were made, not of a sinister ulterior motive for pushing extreme views, but out of the desire to make hooks "hooky" and help improve them. HAving had the year out, it has given me time to consider my actions and where I did wrong. I know now that views are not the main focus for DYK, but to ensure we showcase new and improved content. I want to be able to prove that I am sincere and I do mean it. It will be different. Which is why I am willing to go under any restrictions, any oversight to allow me to return. I have asked how I can show that I have changed and how to prove it to people, what I have stated I am willing to do I think shows I have repented of my old ways and hope for forgiveness. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 11:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

      The fact that you admitted in your own comment above that you made those objectional hooks out of a desire to make them "hooky" and help improve them makes me wonder if you did and do in fact understand that your previous provocative hooks were wrong and that you should have never proposed them in the first place, as well as making me wonder if you do show any sincere regret for those hooks and your behavior in pushing the boundaries of both what was and wasn't allowed on DYK and your topic bans. Unless you can prove that you can show that you understand the gravity of your previous actions, are sincerely sorry for those provocative hooks, understand that they were wrong, and understand how and why they got you into trouble, along with a promise to never ever ever do it again, I don't think your topic ban will ever be lifted. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

      I also have to note that, as mentioned in the earlier discussions, you twice requested that hooks that were... let's just say controversial, go up on 12 July, which apparently (I am saying this as I am admittedly not an expert on The Troubles or the sectarian issues in Ireland) is a very controversial date in Ireland (and when that date was rejected you requested 11 July instead, which apparently is also a controversial date. At the very least that seemed to have been bad judgement and I have not seen anything form of remorse or at least acknowledgement that the special date requests were a bad idea since then, which makes the claim that you did not intend to have a "sinister ulterior motive for pushing extreme views" at the very least suspect. In addition, you also nominated an article for DYK and strongly insisted that the hook be about calling Muhammad a thief, and only reluctantly agreed to an alternative hook when it became clear that the alternative was outright rejection. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

      • Very well @Narutolovehinata5:, as you request. I shall make my apology here and clear:
• I apologise for all of my previous behaviour on DYK. I recognise that what I did was wrong and hurtful to members of various communities and I sincerely regret it. I realise that previous hooks I proposed were offensive and not suitable for Wikipedia's front page. I do sincerely regret proposing those or any other provocative hook for the purpose of gaining views. I realised that such drama is not condusive to a good working environment for volunteers on Wikipedia and I do not wish to partake in any more nor cause any. I sincerely promise that I will not do it again if I am permitted to return and i am willing to submit to any conditions, even one of a block should I break people's trust if they allow me back. I'm willing to even come back just to only build preps for a time to prove my sincerity and willing to contribute positively to the DYK project. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  Oppose Appealing again, no. Secretlondon (talk) 13:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  How can you assure us that this apology is different from your earlier one brought up by Schazjmd earlier? I apologize for being skeptical, but you do have a previous history of being apologetic and stating that you realized your actions were mistakes, only to continue engaging in questionable behavior later on. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

  • Because @Narutolovehinata5: I am willing to undergo any oversight, restrictions on content and even take being blocked if I slip from my promises to prove I have changed. I'll be limited to hooks on say, sports and stadiums (as I suggested below) or even just come back to build preps. What would you be looking to see? The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 15:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

    That is also what you said with the aforementioned appeal (well not the blocking part, but the oversight part, not to mention the promise to stop making provocative contributions), and yet the Rooster stuff still happened after the appeal failed. I need to see an actual genuine demonstration that you have realized the gravity of your actions as well as an　understanding of what led you to this point in the first please. For example, you need to demonstrate that you completely and fully understand your previous issues, like your edits and requests regarding Ireland-related topics. It is not enough that you simply apologize, especially considering your past. You need to make a demonstration that you genuinely understand the issues you had with topics such as nationalism and religion and you need to show that you actually regret doing stuff like calling Muhammad a thief. I apologize for my tone, but there are people here that are, to put it frankly, skeptical that you do understand the consequences of your previous actions and are skeptical that you would actually change should this appeal pass, skepticism that is not without warrant considering previous incidents. In my opinion at least, there doesn't seem to be much difference between the apology and promises here and the same that was done in previous failed appeal attempts that were then followed by incidents such as the hook about the song with the N-word, the attempted hook about a person who hated his name, or the aforementioned Rooster stuff, and a genuine and sincere demonstration should be made to prove that this time it's different. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

    • @Narutolovehinata5: I thought I had made that clear at with the long apology. Of course I recognise the issues with Ireland, islam and the N-word were a mistake of judgement and I sincerely regret doing them. But look at what I have been doing aside of that, I've been working on ITN, I've worked on a number of articles and I have stayed away from the big dramas that I became infamous for (not to mention aside of the negative DYKs mentioned above, I had hundreds of positive ones). I'm more than willing to do anything to prove that I have changed, why would I be willing to throw away 15 years of mostly positive contributions at Wikipedia just for 1 last disruptive DYK nomination? It seems logical to me. I understand now that humour and lowbrow jokes are not appropriate and I have already given my undertaking that I never try for anything like that again at DYK. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

      Fair enough. However, while I understand it's been a year since the ban was imposed, I still think it may be too soon for you to come back, especially when the wounds of your previous actions have yet to fully heal and considering the skepticism going around. I'd suggest for now doing other non-DYK related tasks. You seem to be doing just fine on ITN and like I said, it's arguably more important and more visible than DYK, so it may ultimately be a better option if you want to contribute to the main page. In addition, you can always improve or create articles without the need to go to DYK. DYK is optional and is not a requirement for articles, and if people like your work, they may nominate them themselves anyway without your involvement. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

• Question The C of E, what sort of articles would you be bringing to DYK if your Tban were lifted? What sorts of hooks would we be seeing? I am undecided at the moment (though were I to support the Tban being lifted it would be with the previous restrictions), and I think getting some idea of what we should expect should the Tban be lifted would be informative. We know you're capable of doing DYKs that do not cause problems, but I think many are unconvinced that you will limit yourself to unobjectionable ones based on previous behavior. Why should we trust you now? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
  • @Trainsandotherthings: I would mostly be working on sports players, stadiums and especially women's sports (Like I did in the Women in Red editathon and creating all the clubs in the Premier 15s). IF limiting myself to that would help, I will do it. The reason why people should trust me is because I have agreed at the top that should I slide back into my old ways, I will be blocked. I would not offer myself up to such a strong punishment, if I were not sincere that I want to prove that I have changed. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

    I see. Will need some time to think this over. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:12, 17 April 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.

Biased editing of HistoryofIran

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.

---

On Karabakh khanate english wikipedia page HistoryofIran account removed my sourced azerbaijani caucasian khanate term to only caucasian withput adding any source. Azerbaijan related topics are very common to have anti azerbaijan sentimenist editing. Please check this and restore my sourced editing or at least add source to HistoryofIran editing. Leamsezadah (talk) 09:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:OUCH

Leamsezadah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Remember to notify me next time. WP:OUCH; This user either lacks access to the edit summaries of other users (they talk as if I didn't explain myself [97]) or they have WP:CIR and WP:POV issues. I would wager the latter. Am I being too hasty or having bad faith for immediately making such a conclusion? No, I've been editing for 10 years in these type of (problematic) articles and I know a user who is clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia when I see one. Leamsezadah has been editing since 2020 (and very randomly/inconsistently, as they were a sleeper account), and I'd wager not a single edit of theirs have been helpful.

Here they added an anachronistic Azerbaijani transliteration to a figure who didnt even speak it, which makes sense as the language didnt exist back then [98]. Here they disregarded what WP:RS said in the article and removed "Azeri", replacing it with "Azerbaijani" [99]. Here they randomly removed the sourced mention of "Turkish" [100] [101]. They did the same here too [102] [103]

As for the recent issue in which Leamsezadah accuses me (WP:ASPERSIONS) of being "biased" (which is rich) and having an "anti azerbaijan sentimenist editing.", let me explain;

At Karabakh Khanate they replaced "Turkic" with "Azerbaijani" [104] [105], adding two cherrypicked sources. And thus now the article said "Azerbaijani khanate" and "Azerbaijani Caucasian khanate". Not only is "Azerbaijani" anachronstic once again here, as they weren't an ethnonym back then (though admittedly some WP:RS still uses that term for this period), the name of the article is Khanates of the Caucasus, not "Khanates of Azerbaijan" or "Azerbaijani Khanates of the Caucasus". So in other words, Leamsezadah disregarded the name of the article to push their pov.

Sorry if I might come across as a bit arrogant here, I just woke up. Anyways, based on this I propose a indef block for Leamsezadah. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

• This seems like a content dispute. Why aren't these disagreements being discussed on the articles in question. Nemov (talk) 14:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

  i was worried about power inequality so i posted it here Leamsezadah (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Generally speaking, WP:AN is for more clear conduct issues. They reverted you a single time; and while you did provide a source, nothing about your edit was so obviously necessary that simply objecting to it and reverting it would be a problem. (See WP:ONUS; verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion, so reverting a sourced edit is not axiomatically improper.) You should take it to talk and try to hash it out there. --Aquillion (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for information dear Aquillion.

I will try to do my best after this. But sometimes i do not really to do, it may be complicated sometimes Leamsezadah (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I certainly did not call you racist. but I noted that articles about azerbaijan often contain vandalism and bias. this is also true for articles on Armenia(by nationalist turkish and azerbaijanis). That's why I asked to be checked.

Don't I contribute to Wikipedia? I am the creator or translator of many articles on Catholicism in the Azerbaijani language. At the same time, the religious importance of the Apostle Bartholomew for the azerbaijan christian laity and officals was placed in the article thanks to me. Of course, I had some unnecessary parts because I didn't know some rules. However, Apostle Bartholomew's article came to be inclusive as it is now, with my contributions playing a major role. Please understand that wikipedia is not anyone's personal space, we can all contribute and no one gives you the right to prejudice people.Everyone makes mistakes because of ignorance, we become better by learning.

yes, you are right, the Karabakh khanate was a Caucasian khanate, but this does not contradict with the information that the ruling dynasty was ethnic linguistic azerbaijani and the majority of the population was azerbaijani. Many academicians also refer to this khanate as the Azerbaijani khanate, not surprising the fact that it is a Caucasian khanate. If your problem was that there were no commas between them, you could have added a comma instead of deleting them.

Many valuable scholars such as Tadeusz Swietochowski use the term azerbaijani khanate when talking about this khanate. Likewise, I cited the source for this information. When such a popular description exists, why do we delete it completely instead of giving it as additional information? Something like"azerbaijani origin caucasian khanate" or "caucasian khanate(also known as azerbaijani khanate).

• • • I will emphasize one important point. I attribute this to your ignorance on the subject. Yes, the term azerbaijani was officially accepted by the azerbaijanian people in recent centuries. Dont forget that, it is seen as racism for Azerbaijani people that people from other nations interfere with the national decision of Azerbaijani people. we use the term people of color today, but different terms have been used in the past. but when we talk about historical people in the past, we use modern terms and respect people's right to define themselves. yes, azerbaijani denonym was not popular in Penahali Khan's time, but nowadays it is and the ethno-linguistic bond is not erased just because the political term has been changed.***

Please let's stop this unnecessary misunderstanding and this new enmity between us. let's develop wikipedia hand in hand as people who just don't exclude other people because of their ethnicity and you will definitely help me with editing. But let's not forget that we all may have mistakes that we are not aware of, mine and you too. I would be very happy if you review the term azerbaijani and your ideas in the article about the Karabakh khanate. Sending love and peace

X Leamsezadah (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully, this is not a dispute/disagreement but simply me stopping a user from pov editing. As for your question, based on this random report of me apparently being “anti-Azerbaijani” and this users editing history, I highly doubt they would be able to engage in such a discussion. HistoryofIran (talk)

I think both of you would have a hard time convincing people that that whether or not a Turkic Caucasian khanate located in what is modern-day Armenia and Azerbaijan should be called "Azerbaijani" or not is so clear-cut that a single edit in one direction or the other (there wasn't even a revert war!) is an obvious POV issue to the point where it would require immediate administrator intervention. Remember that even if a particular edit happens to be POV, that doesn't necessarily mean the intent behind it is WP:TENDENTIOUS - editors can introduce biases into articles inadvertently, especially if they're only familiar with some of the sources. You mentioned above that you felt Leamsezadah's sources were cherrypicked, so one useful approach would be to demonstrate this on talk by producing more and / or higher-quality sources that describe the topic differently. Besides, part of Leamsezadah's objection was that they provided a source and you didn't; providing sources of your own would answer that objection while narrowing down the locus of the dispute, and assuming you convinced them, including the sources in the article would then make it less likely that someone else comes across the article and repeats all this. --Aquillion (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The sources are already listed in the Khanates of the Caucasus article, and in a WP:OVERKILL manner a that. I would also highly advise OP to read WP:TLDR and WP:ASPERSIONS, calling me “ignorant” on this subject is quite rich coming from them, as they dont even know when “Azerbaijani” became an ethnonym whilst playing expert. Ill post sources for that when I’m home, though its already mentioned in various Wiki articles, including Azerbaijan… HistoryofIran (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Look, you're repeating this again. When the azerbaijani ethnonym is formalized by azerbaijanis is an internal matter of a nation, modern language is used in modern history. It is pointless and pointless to enter this subject anyway. When we can only discuss the Karabakh khanate, why are we talking about the topic which has very sensitive racist boundaries? It is not even our topic. Leamsezadah (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

That made no sense. If you think this is too much of a sensitive topic, then you shouldn't have kept talking about it, let alone randomly reported me. Anyways, gimme a sec, I'll debunk what I can be bothered to debunk of your WP:TLDR comment in a sec. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I requested a review on the removal of the sourced term azerbaijani in the article, it is not about the necessity of calling Muslim Turkic people "azerbaijani" or not, who spoke the language that is now called azerbaijani in the Caucasus. Leamsezadah (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

you also claim that I attacked the definition of "Caucasian khanate", although I have no problem with this definition. Adding additional sourced information to the article does not mean rejecting any relevant information.

Even the article "Caucasian Khanates" itself contains the term "Azerbaijani khanates". Even in this regard, there is no contradiction. If both azerbaijani and caucasian terms are written in the article, on the contrary, it will add neutrality to the article and both terms are terms with available sources. At the same time, these two terms are not contradictory terms. Leamsezadah (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

"I certainly did not call you racist. but I noted that articles about azerbaijan often contain vandalism and bias. this is also true for articles on Armenia(by nationalist turkish and azerbaijanis). That's why I asked to be checked."
That's quite astute of you, you did not call me racist; I never said that. I said that you accused me of being "biased" and "anti azerbaijan sentimenist editing", which you did here [106]. Also, you're not dealing with children here, no need to beat around the bush with your comment(s), it's clear that you are indicating that I have bias/pov issues, which is again, rich coming from you.

"Even the article "Caucasian Khanates" itself contains the term "Azerbaijani khanates". Even in this regard, there is no contradiction. If both azerbaijani and caucasian terms are written in the article, on the contrary, it will add neutrality to the article and both terms are terms with available sources. At the same time, these two terms are not contradictory terms."
Are we reading the same article? [107] It also says "Iranian khanate" and "Persian khanate" with tons of sources, so why does that get to be omitted? Because it doesn't fit your pov - and so I fail to see how this is the most neutral decision, choosing one side over the other that is. In fact, I'm pretty sure Western WP:RS uses "Iranian/Persian khanate" the most (WP:COMMON NAME), but I don't really care, at least not now; If I have to keep getting pestered by constant nonsense like this, that might change.

"Everyone makes mistakes because of ignorance, we become better by learning." / "I will emphasize one important point. I attribute this to your ignorance on the subject."
The ignorant one is you, do your homework before you start patronizing;

This is directly taken from LouisAragon's comment at the recent discussion at Talk:Imadaddin Nasimi, I'm sure I have a lot more sources in my own little library if need be;

• "Russian sources cited in this study refer to the Turkish-speaking Muslims (Shi’a and Sunni) as “Tatars” or, when coupled with the Kurds (except the Yezidis), as “Muslims.” The vast majority of the Muslim population of the province was Shi’a. Unlike the Armenians and Georgians, the Tatars did not have their own alphabet and used the Arabo-Persian script. After 1918, and especially during the Soviet era, this group identified itself as Azerbaijani." -- Bournoutian, George (2018). Armenia and Imperial Decline: The Yerevan Province, 1900-1914"'. Routledge. p. 35 (note 25).
• "The third major nation in South Caucasia,19 the Azerbaijanis, hardly existed as an ethnic group, let alone a nation, before the twentieth century. The inhabitants of the territory now occupied by Azerbaijan defined themselves as Muslims, members of the Muslim umma; or as Turks, members of a language group spread over a vast area of Central Asia; or as Persians (the founder of Azerbaijani literature, Mirza Fath’ Ali Akhundzadä, described himself as ‘almost Persian’). ‘Azerbaijani identity remained fluid and hybrid’ comments R. G. Suny (1999–2000: 160). As late as 1900, the Azerbaijanis remained divided into six tribal groups – the Airumy, Karapapakh, Pavlari, Shakhsereny, Karadagtsy and Afshavy. The key period of the formation of the Azerbaijani nation lies between the 1905 revolution and the establishment of the independent People’s Republic of Azerbaijan in 1918 (Altstadt, 1992: 95)." -- Ben Fowkes (2002). Ethnicity and Conflict in the Post-Communist World. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 14
• "As hinted earlier, the history of Azerbaijan and of the growth of an Azerbaijani ethnie is more problematic than the other two cases. The lack of a clear way of differentiating between the various Turkic languages spoken and written in medieval and early modern times is one of the difficulties. Another is the absence until the twentieth century of an Azerbaijani state." -- idem, p. 35
• "In the case of the third major ethnic group of South Caucasus, the Azerbaijanis, the path towards nationhood was strewn with obstacles. First, there was uncertainty about Azerbaijani ethnic identity, which was a result of the influence of Azerbaijan’s many and varied pre-Russian conquerors, starting with the Arabs in the mid-seventh century and continuing with the Saljuq Turks, the Mongols, the Ottoman Turks and the Iranians. Hence the relatively small local intelligentsia wavered between Iranian, Ottoman, Islamic, and pan-Turkic orientations. Only a minority supported a specifically Azerbaijani identity, as advocated most prominently by Färidun bäy Köchärli." -- idem, p. 68
• "Azerbaijani national identity emerged in post-Persian Russian-ruled East Caucasia at the end of the nineteenth century, and was finally forged during the early Soviet period." -- Gasimov, Zaur (2022). "Observing Iran from Baku: Iranian Studies in Soviet and Post-Soviet Azerbaijan". Iranian Studies. 55 (1): 37

"but when we talk about historical people in the past, we use modern terms and respect people's right to define themselves."
...Except that the Azerbaijanis weren't an historical people back then, barely having an ethnic identity per the sources above. And according to whom? Which WP:RS says that?

"Dont forget that, it is seen as racism for Azerbaijani people that people from other nations interfere with the national decision of Azerbaijani people"
Not the Azerbaijani people, just you - you don't get to speak for every Azerbaijani about this. I edit in what article I see fit, you don't get to judge me for that. And if we were to use that logic, you should be careful with editing in this topic, as the Azerbaijanis didnt exist back then.

I'm only in my early 20s, and already growing gray hair from this. People need to realize that AA3 is never going to find peace as long as we're not observant on these type of topics [108] [109] [110] which brings birth to issues like these. I got called "anti Azerbaijani" and "biased" for merely reverting OP, I'm probably gonna get called "ultra-racist" or something like that for this. This is hopefully my last comment. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

"Are we reading the same article? [28] It also says "Iranian khanate" and "Persian khanate" with tons of sources, so why does that get to be omitted? Because it doesn't fit your pov - and so I fail to see how this is the most neutral decision, choosing one side over the other that is. In fact, I'm pretty sure Western WP:RS uses "Iranian/Persian khanate" the most (WP:COMMON NAME), but I don't really care, at least not now; If I have to keep getting pestered by constant nonsense like this, that might change."

What does this have to do with me? I had resources related to the term azerbaijan khanate, I added it. this is not an argument. I dont possess every source all over the world, nobody posseses Leamsezadah (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Horrible excuse, did you stop reading Khanates of the Caucasus at the part in which it said "Azerbaijani khanate"...? --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't have to add all the information. I wanted to add and add the sources of the part related to the Azerbaijani khanate, I have no obligation to add the others. I guess I'm not superman, the savior of the wikipedia articles lol. Leamsezadah (talk) 22:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I see, you apparently need to be superman to read a single line and then self-reflect if your addition is going to be neutral or not. How about not adding either and letting it stay like it already was? You know.. the most neutral decision? --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

why would this be the most neutral option when there are loads of resources for the other definition as well? your personal preference? there are many sources use "Caucasian khanate" for Karabakh khanate and also many sources use "Azerbaijani khanate" for Karabakh khanate.

add if you have enough resources for others, but you can't eliminate a term with valuable resources just because it doesn't fit your own thinking.

There are many valuable sources that call the Karabakh khanate the azerbaijani khanate and therefore should be found in the article. If you want to add other terms, provide enough sources about the Karabakh khanate and add them, this's none of my business. Leamsezadah (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Sigh... this is the last time I'm repeating myself; The name of the article is Khanates of the Caucasus, not "Azerbaijani Khanates of the Caucasus" or "Khanates of Azerbaijan", thus I see no problem keeping in line with the name of the article, that is calling the Karabakh Khanate a "Caucasian Khanate". Moreover, calling the Karabakh Khanate a "Azerbaijani Caucasian khanate" is also not neutral as various WP:RS not only attest to the usage of "Khanates of the Caucasus/Caucasian khanates", but especially to the usage of "Iranian/Persian khanate" as well. And do I even need to explain that calling the Karabakh Khanate a "Azerbaijani or Iranian/Persian Caucasian khanate" in the lede is silly? Moreover, using "Azerbaijani" becomes even worse when the ethnonym didn't even exist back then as I demonstrated. I stand by my proposal to indef or at least topic-ban Leamsezadah from every topic related to WP:Azerbaijan, as they're clearly not able to edit neutrally in this field. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you want someone to be banned just because you disagree? wikipedia is not your private property.

i again say i do not care about the name of caucasian khanates article, we are talking about Karabakh khanate and "azerbaijani" term is the addition information to article with source. If you want to distinguish it from caucasian khanate just use "," Leamsezadah (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Did you even read my comment? I said I supported to a indef block/topic-ban because of your non-neutral behaviour. As for your other comment, it's clear that you did not understood what I said either and that you are not satisfied until you have forced the word "Azerbaijani" into that article, i.e. WP:TENDENTIOUS behaviour. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

• This report is too lengthy and convoluted to parse. Maybe try WP:AE where word/diff limits are mandatory, thus forcing you both to be concise. El_C 01:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, the entire massive walls of text above concern these edits - specifically one two-part edit changing a single word in the lead and short description, and one two-part edit reverting it. After that one revert they came straight here, with no discussion on talk or anything else. There's nothing here and they need to take this to Talk:Karabakh Khanate, not WP:AE. --Aquillion (talk) 02:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The convolution is mainly due OPs walls of texts, which I tried to address as concise as possible. Though I probably should have stopped replying to them after that, meh. It should have indeed not been taken here, and I'm definitely not gonna go for round 2 with this user at Talk:Karabakh Khanate, as they clearly have POV issues - something I was hoping would get addressed here. Next time I will be the one reporting them, to WP:ANI that is. --HistoryofIran (talk) 03:07, 20 April 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.

Someone needs assistance

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.

---

Apparently, this guy needs assistance, and he's asking me to request it because he... can't?

BillClinternet (talk) 23:22, 18 April 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.

Revision blocking

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.

---

A certain user by the name of "Flask" has taken Wikipedia page "Zelda Sayre" virtually hostage by refusing to allow for meaningful edits that seek precision and accuracy. "Flask" is repeatedly hostile in comments regarding revisions made by others, yet takes offense for a disingenuous revision of theirs being referred to as such and believes users should assume their particular revisions to be made in good faith and threatens them with violations. Rather than contribute to a page that is reflective of sharing coherent, accurate, descriptive information in supporting detail, it is my conclusion that Flask seems to have taken ownership of this page by sharing both incomplete and cherrypicked ideas and quotes about Zelda Sayre in order to cast this figure in a negative light, thereby exhibiting intolerance for corrections and revisions. While Flask makes repeated claims in comments about their painstaking efforts at scholarly work, the article is extremely lengthy, wordy, and is full of incoherency, redundancy, patchwork sentences, and negative slants in tone and word choice. Because of Flask's bias, quotes from reliable sources that could be used meaningfully, are taken out of context and presented in a fashion that maligns Sayre. They are also not cohesively placed as part of a coherent paragraph. The goal in every Wikipedia should be to reflect articles of encyclopedic quality with high caliber writing and an aim toward delivering information in an unbiased way, without the intent to praise or malign any figure in an article. 24.162.33.222 (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Article in question is Zelda Fitzgerald. I see nothing wrong with Flask's edits. They invited you to discuss in one of their edit summaries, which is in keeping with WP:BRD. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The IP is urged to log in, and to hash this out on the talk page. The IP is also encouraged to be much. less. wordy. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 20 April 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.

AIV Backlogged

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.

---

Apologies if this isn't appropriate, however AIV currently seems to have a massive backlog going back to 6:15 AM this morning (central timezone which I have set as what times should be displayed as). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf - 6.15 central would be about 11.15 UTC, I believe. The current queue has been resolved, but looking over the day's logs, it never seems to go above 7-8 with a 5 hour or so backlog. That should not be viewed as a "massive backlog", even if it isn't ideal (more for the time than the length). Nosebagbear (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah alright, sorry about that. It probably just seemed larger than it actually was due to all the bot reports. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:35, 19 April 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.

Spammer from ru.wiki

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.

---

SSDlol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is spammer from ru.wikipedia who try to add different external links in articles and promote insignificant peoples. [111] blocked on ru.wiki. Кронас (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I would say this is a clear WP:NOTHERE case.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Looking at CentralAuth, they've also spammed be-, de-, fi-, fr-, and nl-wiki. I have reported them to m:SRG. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 16:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

And I've blocked them here for spamming. Courcelles (talk) 17:01, 19 April 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.

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.

Anonymous IP Vandalism by 185.244.242.83

A Bulgarian user 185.244.242.83 keeps vandalize the First Bulgarian Empire. he engaged in edit war, first I started to discuss with him two times, He has many Bulgar related unexplained-unsourced-unreasonable content removals. Volgabulgari (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I find it concerning that Volgabulgari posts an edit warring warning on my talk page with no explanation[112], while Volgabulgari appears to be edit warring over:

• First Bulgarian Empire,[113][114]
• Hunno-Bulgar languages, [115][116]

:Volgabulgari needs to either explain why they posted the warning on my talk page or remove it. Also, Volgabulgari needs to find the article talk page and discuss instead of edit warring. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC) Addressed. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I made a Wikipedia page of Hunno-Bulgar superfamily which mentioned by Gerhard Doerfer, Denis Sinor, Marcel Erdal, Otto Maenchen-Helfen, Omeljan Pritsak, Peter Golden John V. A. Fine and many other both historians and linguists. But for some reasons, my page is redirect with Oghuric languages. While there may be some linguistic and historical connections between the two, they are not the same thing. The Hunno-Bulgar theory is supported by some reputable scholars in the field of linguistics and history, and there is ongoing research and discussion on the topic.

Redirecting Hunno-Bulgar to Oghuric would not accurately represent the current state of knowledge and understanding in the field, and would be misleading to readers who are looking for information specifically about the Hunno-Bulgar theory. I tried to speak with those who redirect in talk page but at some point they stoped replying me.Discussions about proposed language families and linguistic history should be guided by scholarly research and evidence, rather than by nationalist or political motivations.

Please look at here Volgabulgari (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Tatar Confederation

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 @Erminwin reverted my edits multiple times. I tried to warn him. He is using a Britannica source where it says Tatars originated between Lake Balkai and Manchuria. Same source also says Original Tatars (Nine Tatars) are a Turkic-speakers unlike Mongols. When I added "Original Tatars associated with Turkic peoples" he keeps deleting without saying anything most of the time.

Corrupted page: Tatar Confederation Volgabulgari (talk) 13:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

This looks to me like a content dispute. Please discuss on Talk:Tatar confederation. Animal lover |666| 13:35, 23 April 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.

Reporting Disruptive user / A new user harrasment at Vriddhi Vishal

OP blocked as a sockpuppet. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi, I have created the page Vriddhi Vishal yesterday and a new user named Uncle Spock, who created his account 13 days before ie; on 9th april 2023 placed the G4 deletion tag, which was declined by an admin. He is HARASSING now by placing the AFD tag after the G4 tag was declined. I think he is more for a destructive edits in wikipedia rather than doing constructive edits. Christopheronthemove (talk) 10:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC) If the deletion request is baseless, this will be shown by the lack of any users supporting deletion other than the nominator. If he really thinks it should be deleted, AFD is the correct route for him to take. Animal lover |666| 10:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC) Based on the editing pattern of the filer Christopheronthemove, I strongly suspect them for COI/UPE editing. First of all they are trying to recreate or protect many of the previously deleted articles that had the COI/UPE or socking issues in the past. The tone they use in the new articles has also got a strong UPE flavour. Uncle Spock has done nothing wrong here. Every user on good terms has got the right to open an AFD irrespective of the age of their accounts. I recommend WP:BOOMERANG here. Pinging Oaktree b and Hadal. 111.92.78.203 (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC) Thank you for the update, I didn't think I had done something wrong. Oaktree b (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC) When you start a new discussion about an editor, you must notify them but you haven't notified Uncle Spock about this thread. So I'm pinging them. 111.92.78.203 (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC) Thanks for the ping, 111.92.78.203. I've already responded to Christopheronthemove at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vriddhi Vishal (2nd nomination). Suffice to say, there has been no harassment or other impropriety on the part of Uncle Spock. Re: any COI or socking issues, I was being charitable at AFD because I was not involved in the previous AFD; I don't have the insight to make a call on that. But I did catch a whiff of something off. --Hadal (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Philoserf is continuing to make hundreds of semi-automated edits while leaving thousands for everyone else to clean up and then saying that he's "retired" whenever someone calls him on it

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.

---

Philoserf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Philoserf&diff=next&oldid=1151425190. I think a block is warranted, since he seems to want to retire and not collaborate. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

This is pretty much a case of WP:LISTENTOUS now. 1AmNobody24 (talk) 07:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

This comment seems to support the idea they are using "retirement" to evade communication with us. 331dot (talk) 07:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I have enforced their self-declared "retirement" with an indefinite block. Cullen328 (talk) 07:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Good block, as the length of this potential error list shows. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, good block. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

This is the kind of block I wish I made. BorgQueen (talk) 08:22, 24 April 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-admin request for Edit Filter Manager access

A non-admin request to be granted edit-filter management access is currently open at EFM. Editors may express their support or reservations, and ask questions of the application there. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 18:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to establish merge review process

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've noticed that despite tons of articles that are in the process of being merged, a vast majority of merger projects have been dormant for at least a year. To be frank, I believe that the reason for this is because several people, myself included, feel that some of these merger proposals shouldn't have been accepted, and would like to contest them akin to a move review or deletion review. The problem is, I couldn't find a process to do that, which leads me to belive such a thing doesn't exist. I therefore propose that a merge review process akin to those regarding moves and deletions be established. 100.7.44.80 (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

This is probably better suited to The Idea Lab or The Proposals page at Village Pump, as this is not particularly an admin-related issue. --Jayron32 15:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

All right, I'll take this to the Idea Lab. Thanks for letting me know! 100.7.44.80 (talk) 15:19, 25 April 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.