Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive352

Messed-up page move

A user moved the 2023 Sudan conflict to Third Sudanese Civil Wars. I saw that this was not accompanied by a discussion and was incorrect, so I reverted their move; however, they had already corrected the spelling mistake and moved the page to Third Sudanese Civil War by the time I had reverted their edit, and I have no idea what happened, but the pages are messed up right now. The history of the main article is in still in 2023 Sudan conflict but disappeared from the main article. Here are the pages involved:

• 2023 Sudan conflict
• Third Sudanese Civil Wars
• Third Sudanese Civil War

Can someone take a look at this before someone moves another article and the pages become even more messed up? — Nythar (💬-🍀) 03:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• I am not sure if my explanation above is correct; according to the history of Third Sudanese Civil War, the content of the actual article doesn't seem to have even moved and was copy-pasted. — Nythar (💬-🍀) 03:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  • @Vanilla Wizard: Please don't move any of these related pages before you read this section. Thanks. — Nythar (💬-🍀) 03:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
    • @Nythar: My apologies, I thought I only undid the user's blanking of Talk:2023 Sudan conflict to restore the talk page. Did my edit also move the page? If it did I apologize, I was just trying to put it back to how it was. I'll avoid editing any of the relevant pages until this is resolved just to make sure I don't break anything.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 03:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
      • @Vanilla Wizard: Your edit didn't move any pages; I'm just informing you in case you decide to undo the wrong move, which would make the histories more confusing. — Nythar (💬-🍀) 03:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

pagemover here. undoing the work done now. – robertsky (talk) 03:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Robertsky: Thank you so much! — Nythar (💬-🍀) 04:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

no problem. – robertsky (talk) 04:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Nythar, @Vanilla Wizard: Looks like a c&p move. Nythar, you had already done the first half of reversions needed on the article. @L'Mainerque was apparently on it as well and carried out the second half of the reversions. Vanilla Wizard did good for the talk page.

I have undone the c&p move on the targeted page and talk page that the user had made. I don't see any issues with the talk archives pages. – robertsky (talk) 04:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Also a c&p warning has been dropped on the user's talk page. – robertsky (talk) 04:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Persistent violations of WP:PASSIVE and WP:NPA by Nomoskedasticity

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.

---

Introduction

Nomoskedasticity has engaged in repeated and persistent verbal abuse toward other Wikipedia editors throughout the past decade. He has violated WP:PASSIVE and WP:NPA. As we will see below, he attacks anyone on his talk page who encourages him to act more courteously, including telling me to "fuck off", so I am respectfully asking for administrator intervention.

===WP:PASSIVE Violations:===

Charlie Kirk: Revision history: Nomoskedasticity talk contribs‎ 65,159 bytes −14‎ Reverted 1 edit by GabeTucker (talk): The academic source is much better...

User talk:Nomoskedasticity/Archives: Nomoskedasticity.. I would appreciate no personal attacks. PigeonPiece (talk) 05:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC) But darling, I couldn't possibly have been more polite - courteous - inviting - welcoming! I am ready to be floored by your wisdom and bravery! Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Nomoskedasticity/Archives: The burden of proof is satisfied by the responses to the BLPN thread that you started. You started the thread, you've had feedback -- now live with it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 4 February 2012 (UTC)

===WP:NPA Violations:===

Violations

The following point is edited, moved from WP:PASSIVE section GabeTucker (talk) 08:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the above mentioned talk pages, I think it reasonable to assume PV monitors its Wikipedia pages. Comments posted to the talk pages could later appear in a PV release. I think it is a good idea to resist any temptation to be flip, and answer all talk page comments straightforwardly. -- M.boli (talk) 16:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay cupcake. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

User talk:Nomoskedasticity: Not sure why you reverted my two edits. Your reverts seem to violate NPOV. And telling me to knock it off does not help . Nerguy (talk) (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Of course you know why. Among other things, "false" is supported by the source and is in no way "opinion" (as per your edit summary). If you want to explore this further, we will do at ANI, where any idea of editing these articles in truther mode will get the outcome it deserves. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Israel: Difference between revisions:

Thanks for your efforts to improve this article.  sheesh...  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Nomoskedasticity: Your recent edit history shows you are in violation of WP:PASSIVE [...] Please review Wikipedia's policies before making further changes on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a platform intended to be civil and open to everyone. Here are some pointers from WP:PASSIVE that might be helpful [...] Thank you. GabeTucker (talk) 05:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Huh. I suppose I could just tell you to fuck off -- not a violation of "passive"... Or maybe "okay cupcake"? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Conclusion

I propose a 6-month suspension of Nomoskedasticity's account in effort to break this pattern of verbal abuse. Thank you.

GabeTucker (talk) 07:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Fascinating -- a report of "misbehavior" that has to dig back to 2008 to find examples. Can't wait to see the outcome. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

GabeTucker, are you really bringing forth comments from 2008 and 2012? Do you realize how old this stuff is? Do you realize how trivial these comments are taken as a whole, over a 15 year period? In my opinion, it looks to me like you have completely failed to make a convincing case with these weak diffs of yours. If this is the best evidence that you have, you should not be at this noticeboard. Cullen328 (talk) 07:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I included comments from 2008 and 2012 to establish a pattern of behavior over a long period of time, but seeing as it's instead being perceived as grasping at straws, I will delete them. The rest of my examples stand and do not necessarily represent the entirety of his misconduct like you suggest. Moreover, even if comments from 2008 and 2012 are trivial, this does not overshadow his recent violations, much less considering his sardonic responses to these allegations. GabeTucker (talk) 07:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

How is The academic source is much better... being passive-aggressive? – robertsky (talk) 07:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

How about this:

• @GabeTucker: WP:PASSIVE is an essay, not a policy. People aren't routinely blocked for perceived violations of essays. Re WP:NPA, I note you've removed some of the very elderly diffs but you're still proposing a block based on material which in some cases is 15 years old. And regardless of the dates, a lot of it seems pretty mild. Unless you have more (and more recent) diffs there's really not enough here to justify any sanction.
• @Nomoskedasticity: the "fuck off" was uncivil. Please don't do this, even if you feel provoked.

And with that said, perhaps let's call this resolved and go back to regular editing. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Euryalus I could not find better instances of verbal abuse than the evidence listed above. That said, I don't agree that his unequivocally condescending behavior, no matter how mild, should go unscolded. I appreciate you warning him about the "fuck off", but I wish that you would at least provide him a warning that being condescending in the general sense is not welcome in Wikipedia. GabeTucker (talk) 08:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@robertsky Shutting someone down with a statement ending the sentence with ellipses is often a condescending way of approaching a disagreement...

Like right there—me including those ellipses communicates that your perspective is obviously wrong. It's like leaving a trail of awkward space at the end of what I said to emphasize how stupid you are, or something along those lines, and me disincluding those ellipses would have conveyed the exact same information without the negative tone.

"The academic source is much better because X" is much better than "The academic source is much better..."

GabeTucker (talk) 08:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

GabeTucker, your report is exceptionally weak. I suggest that you withdraw this report rather than pursuing it. Unless you have a "hidden smoking gun" that you have not yet produced. That would be a poor strategy from the get go. Cullen328 (talk) 08:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity telling me to "fuck off" is not evidence of misconduct? GabeTucker (talk) 08:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd call it evidence of exasperation. Which I can fully understand. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump @Nomoskedasticity

Great! Awesome! Superb!!! So glad you could fully understand that, thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I hate it here so much. Wikipedia is the most toxic community I have ever attempted to engage with. I occasionally creep by excited to contribute to making knowledge accessible to the public, but every single time I do, someone shuts me down with some snide comment, referencing some extremely strange bureaucratic justification, pretending they don't relish the sense of domination this affords them.

So many of you absolutely cherish your condescending holier-than-thou self-affirming circle jerk of pretention. You will never admit how much you relish inflicting suffering on others, how sadistic you are (not all of you, but certainly the majority of you). I often wonder how people were so sociopathic during historic genocides, but there comes a special moment every blue moon when everything begins to make sense and the tribalistic, self-serving, smug bullshit becomes clear as day.

Whenever I look at one of your profiles, it looks like the person is in a retirement home. Do you miss exerting dominance over your employees from when you used to have a job? Did your wife stop affirming your intelligence? Or did you never get the opportunity to have your intelligence validated at all, and this is your outlet to convince others of your intellectual supremacy? You're the type of person who self-describes as "sardonic" in lieu of the more accurate “deep-seated pathological narcissist” descriptor.

Oh wait… I’m going to switch my tone. I might accidentally cross the line and provide a “smoking gun” that justifies banning me under section WP:340928:18920-8124901, which I’m sure you all could cite at the drop of a hat. Maybe you’ll ban me for this. Haha maybe! Maybe instead of actually expressing my outrage, I should have hid behind some veil of plausible fucking deniability so I could pretend I’m “too sophisticated” to indulge in childish discourse. Oooooh, that could never be me. I am far too reputable to act in a matter unbecoming, in the manner of the *dirt people* who do not have WP:POWERADE hung up across 13 different locations in their house and WP:YOURMOM as my mantra. I am He; I am that dirt person. Now pretend like you’re better than me by cowardishly concealing your emotions under some socially acceptable mask of monkish self-control and wisdom. Yeah, this is an outburst, but at least I admit what I’m actually feeling. At least I don’t lie. At least I’m not gaslighting myself into believing I’m above juvenile comments while simultaneously being the worst kind of asshole: the kind that won’t even fully commit to their being of a passive dick, who won’t even acknowledge their genuine identity to themselves.

A few months ago, a guy in a frat house started screaming then tackled my friend and started pounding him in this head (which, by the way, was against a hardwood floor) upon the mildest provokation. I will never forget his eyes in that moment; they reminded me of a rabid chimpanzee. Everything suddenly made sense, how unexceptional we are in evolution, how much we fail in our attempts at hiding how we have the very same apeshit social hierarchies as primates. And you are absolutely no different, no matter what you tell yourself. This community is the equivalent of high-fashion connoisseurs in intellect. You are fundamentally more sophisticated than, and superior to, all other forms of fashion. The dirt fashion people do not even deserve a spot in your consideration lest they tarnish your precious ingenious intellect with a speck of spotty poop brown. As a philosophy major I’ve met like dozens of philosophy professors and these philosophers—the ones you would actually *expect* to be self-aggrandizing pretentious pricks, aren’t even remotely like this. They’re chill… It’s just this strange little conglomeration of… I don’t even know. People who need intellectual validation? In this clusterfuck of a community. Maybe when you’re actually smart you realize you don’t need to demean and belittle in order to edge yourself to some strange and corrupted euphoric masturbatory satisfaction.

Huh, well that was *MY* exasperation. Hopefully you can understand that! Or oh, oh wait… is exasperation only justified when it's pro-establishment ego-affirming psuedointellectual callous horseshit? Shit… should have thought of that.

Oh! That was all *speculation*. Ah, yes, ‘tis speculation. You see, that technicality negates any negative consequences, interpretations, or repercussions resulting from what I said. It was nothing. Nothing!!!!!!

Hahhahaa ok… well hope fully you can understand THAT! You little freak… Or else I’m gonna…. gonna start tweaking. I’m going to actually have an aneurysm if I keep talking so for now, I will spare my brain.. the thing…. I don’t know. I’m at a loss for words. I’m finished. I have nothing else to say except I guess… bye you cooky little butthole GabeTucker (talk) 09:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Let's be precise and accurate, shall we? I didn't "tell you" to fuck off. I speculated about it as a means of avoiding being "passive-aggressive". I do wonder how much more time you're going to waste on this... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:56, 26 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.

Post-closing 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.

---

Uh, can we please give GabeTucker a lengthy block for that post instead of simply closing this? I have rarely seen such an over-the-top attack rant, and just accepting it seems completely wrong. He is basically comparing most editors (and by implication especially those who interacted and didn't agree with him) with nazi's, calling them "sociopath", "deep-seated pathological narcissist", and so on. Quite a few levels above and beyond "fuck off", just because people didn't see the issue the same way the OP did. Fram (talk) 10:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I was debating that, but this seems like suicide-by-cop to me, and I am not sure if I want to give them what they want in that regard. Primefac (talk) 10:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Fram, that was so over the top that it's a good indication that GabeTucker is not really cut out to be here. I know we give editors some leeway to vent, but usually on their talk page, not in one of the most watched pages in the project. It might be "suicide by cop" and that might be what they want, but if it improves the community not to have them around, I see no need to hesitate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs) 10:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

If someone else feels differently, then by all means go ahead. I was explaining my rationale for not doing it (even though it wasn't explicitly asked for). Primefac (talk) 10:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I was typing while this discussion was ongoing. I've indef'd but if GabeTucker has a change of heart and wants to edit in a more collaborative manner, I'm happy for any admin to unblock. My detailed rationale is on their talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The only box they didn't tick in that whole screed was "I'll never donate to the WMF again". I know it's purely a formality at this point, HJ Mitchell, but it might be a good idea to leave the "blocked" template on there just so that they can be made aware of what is required to review their block. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@WaltCip I didn't template them but I did manually type out the instructions for appealing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:31, 26 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.

Cleanup of articles after

This is part of the cleanup after Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1125#Disruption, where the user Hanshingling (talk · contribs) was blocked. Two articles are currently at AfD (Gypsy (Rajput clan) and Rathore clan), one is at PROD (Bhadanakas Kingdom), and one more has been redirected (Takka Dynasty).

• Battar
• Chandel (Gujjar clan)
• Chavda clan
• Chechi clan
• Gorsi clan
• Hun clan
• Maitrak
• Meelu clan
• Nagar (Gurjar clan)
• Nekadi
• Poruswal clan

I seek to determine if these articles should be preemptively deleted due to alleged use of a large language model. Some of the articles also contain improperly sourced lists of allegedly affiliated people oftentimes based only on surname, which violates established guidelines about caste, and all of these lists will be removed by me. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Content was also added to the following articles, and requires scrutiny:

• Maitraka dynasty [1]
• Bhadana clan [2] (contains a list of people which predated Hanshingling, but was previously unsourced and based on name only)
• Gurjar Veer [3] (not related to caste)
• Baisla [4]
• Nain Singh Nagar [5]

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• Noting for completeness that Hanshingling had created a sock BonzonEllite (talk · contribs), which was blocked. All the sock's contributions have, I believe, been reverted or speedied, and some of the targeted articles protected. Also pinging @Packer&Tracker: as a fyi since they too have been dealing with these accounts. Abecedare (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
• Four articles that were on the list got PRODded (Chechi clan, Gorsi clan, Meelu clan, Poruswal clan), and all got deprodded by Bensebgli (talk · contribs). Their changes Gorsi clan did not make any actual improvements, so I have opened an AfD at WP:Articles for deletion/Gorsi clan. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  Should I start a bulk AfD containing all of the articles created by Hanshingling? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  Bensebgli (talk) 12:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• Technically, if they really are an AI model, you would have to nuke all the contribs. As far as I know, an AI model can't contribute under CC BY-SA 3.0. Even if it has a human overlord. Interesting question, regardless. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  Agree. I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that only humans and corporations (as legal persons) can hold a copyright, and copyright first is held by the person who creates the content. So-called AIs (I'll call them chatbots) are not (yet) legal persons, and so cannot hold copyright to material they create. IMHO, a person submitting content created by a chatbot would have to submit it as being in the public domain, stating that the content is the product of a chatbot. Donald Albury 17:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• Update:Bensebgli CU blocked as another sock by Doug Weller (see also SPI). All their edits can and should be reverted. Abecedare (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Can anyone help clear pending items at WikiProject on open proxies?

Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Requests has unanswered items from March and early April. Thanks. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Are there instructions anywhere? Because I took a look and was totally lost as to what to do there. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@ONUnicorn Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Guide to checking open proxies hope this helps. Lightoil (talk) 01:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Close of RFC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC on draftifying a subset of mass-created Olympian microstubs

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.

---

Bradv has closed the above-linked discussion with a close that can be seen in this diff. This issue was discussed by the opener of the discussion on the closer's talk-page here, in which Bradv indicated that further discussion should take place on this notice board.

This close should be over-turned from no consensus to passed, or alternatively the discussion re-opened for closure by another admin. This is based not just on the large majority in favour of the draftification and the high level of community involvement in the discussion, but also:

• 1) The 2020 RFC that their close was based on was not raised as an issue in this RFC, Bradv using it in their close was therefore a super-vote, which is inappropriate.
• 2) Bradv misapplied the close of the 2020 RFC, which stated that "moving articles to draft space is generally appropriate ... if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify..." a case that clearly applies to this RFC which was in every wise a deletion discussion other than not taking place on the AFD page and going on for longer than 7 days, including there being multiple votes for deletion.
• 3) Bradv indicated in their talk-page comments that the articles would have been draftified if an AFD discussion had resulted in a consensus for draftification. However, this RFC was in no wise different to an AFD discussion other than having taken place in a heavily-advertised discussion at VPP which last for much more than 7 days. Bradv is essentially asking that the discussion be re-held at AFD with no reasonable expectation that the outcome (which was heavily in favour of draftification, and which any AFD-closer would have closed in favour of draftification had it occurred there) will be any different.
• 4) The CONLEVEL of the 2020 RFC was the same as (or at least not higher than) that of the RFC being closed.

FOARP (talk) 09:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn. FOARP raises many good points that are sufficient to overturn the result but there is one reason that makes the rest irrelevant; Bradv was WP:INVOLVED.

Previously, they opened a discussion at AN where they argued against the mass draftification of problematic articles. This discussion prompted an RFC that they participated in and advocated for a position stricter than that held by policy.

Clearly, they have both engaged in prior disputes on this topic and have strong feelings about it, and this involvement is likely to have influenced their close; for example, they claimed that policy only permits new articles to be draftified, even though policy permits older articles to be draftified when there is a consensus to do so. It was inappropriate for them to close this discussion, and it should be reclosed by an uninvolved editor if not directly overturned to passed. BilledMammal (talk) 10:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse (uninvolved). As Brad notes in the close, there was a numerical majority in favour of the motion, but he's also correct to say that the proposal seeks to establish a carve-out to established WP process in draftification which has explicitly been rejected by the community. There are all sorts of sensible reasons for this, including that there will be many editors who are active at AFD who don't follow VPP, and will therefore not have had an opportunity to "vet" the 1000 deletions in question. I'm not persuaded by the "involved" argument above... If editors are to be deemed involved because they had a hand in shaping the policy which passed by consensus and which they then later enforce, we'd end up with no administrators able to close discussions at all. The draftification policy passed by consensus and is therefore binding, regardless of whether Brad supported it or not. Anyway, the way forward here is clear, and outlined in the close - either PROD the pages or take them to AFD. If they're really as obvious deletion candidates as the RFC implies, then it should be straightforward.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  I’ll add that the WP:NOTBURO is a strong reason to overturn this close, for two reasons. First, Bradv suggests that if this was a deletion discussion, even if it was held outside of AFD, it could have found a consensus for draftification. The notion that we can propose deletion and get draftification, but we can’t propose draftification and get draftification, is kafkaesque. Second, the close means that we could make an identical proposal, including the five year auto deletion, with the only difference being we move it to wikiproject space instead of draft space. The notion that making a proposal worse, by making it harder for editors to find these articles, can make the proposal policy compliant is clearly bureaucracy gone mad. BilledMammal (talk) 11:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Amakuru - "he's also correct to say that the proposal seeks to establish a carve-out to established WP process in draftification which has explicitly been rejected by the community" - Where has it done so in a form that would prevent this VPP discussion reaching the opposite conclusion? We have only two VPP discussions, one of which was later, and much more heavily advertised and commented on, than the other. FOARP (talk) 12:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

If the discussion were about revoking the policy in question, then this would be a valid point. But it wasn't. It was a proposal to specifically about draftifying articles in one limited scenario, in a manner not permitted by policy. That's textbook WP:CONLEVEL and the closer was absolutely right to close the discussion according to established policy, which is how discussions are always closed. I also don't really understand why you're here arguing this anyway, Brad has given you the way forward. Why not pursue the deletions in the normal manner, as suggested?  — Amakuru (talk) 13:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how this - an earlier less-well-commented VPP discussion governing the outcome of a later heavily-commented one - is just a classic application of CONLEVEL. One could just as easily turn it around: how can an entirely theoretical discussion govern the outcome of one presented with a concrete scenario and set of facts on which to decide? FOARP (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• He did not merely "have a hand in shaping policy", he advocated against proposals that resembled this one by expressing strong opinions on draftification. Obviously an editor that was involved in one RFC as a commenter cannot close another RFC that covers the same ground; that is textbook WP:INVOLVED - "the previous RFC where they expressed strong opinions on this topic passed tho" is not some sort of exception to INVOLVED and I'm baffled that you would suggest it is. He can certainly enforce policies he had a hand in (administrators are not required to be uninvolved in the policies they enforce, that clearly wouldn't work for the reasons you outline), but when it comes to closing RFCs about shaping them, he would always be involved and could never legitimately close one. Also, from WP:INVOLVED: Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. @Amakuru:, please strike the part of your comment saying "which passed by consensus" - it directly contradicts the relevant policy, which clearly indicates that he is INVOLVED regardless. An RFC is a dispute, and policy is clear that the fact that it passed does not change his involvement. The other arguments you present are essentially re-litigating the RFC; if you are correct, then a re-close by someone uninvolved will reach the same conclusion (and, as is often the case, the resistance to this here in the face of clear involvement by the closer suggests a tact acknowledgement that a re-close by anyone uninvolved would have a low chance of actually reaching the same result.) --Aquillion (talk) 13:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse (uninvolved). I can understand people thinking it would be nice (or expedient) if a conclusion had been reached but I cannot see there was a consensus in that discussion, not even a "rough consensus". Thincat (talk) 12:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn. consensus was sufficient, and closer was involved. ValarianB (talk) 12:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
• Note: I didn't "base" my close, or any other part of the decision, upon the 2020 RfC. I merely mentioned it because it is linked to from the WP:ATD-I policy page on this topic. That I happened to participate in said policy debate is immaterial. – bradv 13:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

If no part of the 2020 RFC was relevant to the discussion, why cite it at all? Why quote it as supporting your position? Stating that it was not even a partial basis for the close just casts more doubt on the reasoning in the close. FOARP (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I thought that the closing statement linked in the explanatory footnote at WP:ATD-I would be useful as it spelled out the preferred alternative. I included it to be helpful to provide a way forward to the participants in this RfC. However, my close reads the same if you skip that paragraph, and I'm happy for it to be removed if it is causing confusion. – bradv 13:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

With the mention of the 2020 RFC and the alternative suggested, it appears that the proposal could have passed at AFD. Without it, it appears that there is no way that the proposal could have passed, regardless of venue. I don't know which of these was intended but both appear problematic. FOARP (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• That I happened to participate in said policy debate is immaterial - it obviously is not, since it renders you WP:INVOLVED. You yourself clearly recognize this, since you cited it as a relevant decision; if that policy was, as you claim, central to what should be done with the other, then arguing in one RFC means that you are plainly involved for the other. If someone started an RFC to entirely overturn the 2020 RFC per CCC, would you attempt to close it, arguing you are uninvolved? If not, then how is this any different? Please just reverse your close, allow an uninvolved administrator to close it in your stead, and spare the community this divisive conflict over a clear policy violation on your part. @Bradv: --Aquillion (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse (involved - I opposed draftification and supported redirection) - Responding to the points at the top: Bradv using it in their close was therefore a super-vote, which is inappropriate. - While calling a closure a "supervote" is a popular way to attack any closure that goes against raw numbers, the precedent of the referenced RfC is documented in ATD, which many people raised. this RFC which was in every wise a deletion discussion - This betrays that the purpose of the RfC was to use draftification as back-door deletion and thus strengthens the closing statement. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  It was a deletion discussion because it contained almost all of the same elements found at AfD, not because its ultimate aim was to delete. If not 5 years, what length of protected draftspace incubation time would satisfy editors claiming this is a backdoor to deletion? 10 years? Forever? The point of the proposal was not to put these articles on a deletion trajectory; it was to help relieve the exhausting backlog of athlete stubs at AfD with a mechanism that addressed both the top complaints by keep !voters at these AfDs (that 7 days is too short to find the historical offline sources they allege must exist, and that there are too many of these subjects at AfD simultaneously) and the fact that these stubs objectively violate NSPORT's mainspace requirements and were unlikely to have ever even met pre-RfC NSPORT (given the new data we have from the past year showing that >75% of all Olympians, not just the historical subjects with 1 database source and no substantive editors besides Lugnuts, that are brought to AfD are removed from mainspace due to lack of GNG sourcing). How is it better for these stubs to be quietly deleted at low-attendance AfDs instead of curated in a well-advertised, project-linked, G13-protected space for 5 years or are actually proven to warrant inclusion on Wikipedia? JoelleJay (talk) 01:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse (involved) per Rhododendrites, Amakuru, etc. Good close. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) endorse. the close is sound. so please don't drag this out longer. lettherebedarklight晚安 14:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  I don't understand how this argument applies. The close calls for ~1000 articles to be PRODed or AfDed. Is that not longer? CMD (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  i meant the rfc. lettherebedarklight晚安 14:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse (uninvolved, though I did post some general information about notability in the RFC discussion, and I have separately talked to the OP about his views on very short articles). This summary is not the only possible summary, but it is a reasonable summary, and therefore should be allowed to stand. If anyone wants to pursue the AFD route, then I suggest selecting a theme (e.g., early Olympic athletes from a single country or from a particular sport) instead of trying to handle almost 1,000 articles at once. Enormous AFDs sometimes get responses based purely on the scale of the nomination. If you can send 10–20 in a single nom, and then wait until you see the outcome, you might figure out a path forward. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn (involved) per WP:NOTBURO. The close is basically that this should be done via the deletion process, so what now? Open a mass AfD for the 960 articles and have the community answer the same question again, just to make sure it's at the right venue? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  As I have a bit more time I'll add that part of the problem with this close is that it could have been done on March 3rd, rather than wasting the communities time. As this RFC was for an exception to the current policy the close saying that the exception is invalid means that the input of editors was wasted time. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• Leaning overturn. I haven't fully read the RFC in question, but there are enough issues with the closing statement that I think that it is likely incorrect. First, pointing out that the deletion policy is against incubation as a backdoor to deletion doesn't hold much water in a discussion on the board where proposals to make and change policy are put forth. Policy is descriptive, and if a consensus of editors wishes to change policy to deal with an issue VPP is the exact place to do it. Additionally, drawing from the close of a discussion saying

  Instead of unilaterally draftifying an unsuitable-for-mainspace article that is not newly created, editors should instead nominate the article for deletion, e.g. via WP:PROD or WP:AFD.

  when the discussion had fewer than half as many participants as just those supporting the draftification is not very convincing. A discussion with much broader participation is exactly what is necessary to demonstrate a consensus not to strictly follow the earlier result.
  A very large discussion at VPP is exactly what is necessary to demonstrate that community consensus is different than what is presently recorded on the policy page. The policy should be updated, rather than disregarding the support of there is sufficient community support. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  Oh yeah, I'm uninvolved in this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn (involved) mostly as per ScottishFinnishRadish, who pretty much exactly wrote down what my thoughts were. I'm not particularly happy with the close - a discussion at WP:VPP that was advertised at WP:CENT should be enough to change almost all policies if need be, and draws so much participation that it's hard to say there's a WP:CONLEVEL issue - I don't think this is a case where the intention of CONLEVEL is met either.
  The close seems to be mostly reliant on WP:ATD-I. But what ATD-I does is allow "Recently created articles that have potential, but that do not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards" to be draftified - it doesn't bar other uses for draftification that can be developed with consensus. What it does restrict is backdoor deletion, but the result of a widely advertised RfC is not backdoor deletion.
  What the close suggests is that another RfC be held to add to WP:ATD-I that "A widely-advertised consensus can result in the mass incubation of articles" which seems bureaucratic to the extreme. Galobtter (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
• (Uninvolved). Much per SFR and Galobtter above, I'm of the heart that a CENT-advertised VP discussion spanning nearly two months should be adequate consensus to ignore any policy it likes. Our policies are not etched in stelai, and in this sense I feel any strict policy-based close that countervenes consensus of this magnitude is essentially incorrect. Moreover, the penultimate line of WP:ATD-I reads: Older articles should not be draftified without an AfD consensus.... With a single imagined removal of AfD to accommodate this specific case, certainly unpondered during the general case policy drafting, even the policy-based argument evaporates.
  Having said that, I don't agree that Bradv was WP:INVOLVED, and I'm aware that my reading of the situation is more based in idealism than anything enshrined in our hallowèd WP:PAGS, so I'm not sure I'm prepared to bold an "overturn" here. I'll instead register my disagreement and gladness to see Brad's name back. Folly Mox (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse per Rhododendrites, Amakuru, et al. You can be sure if the nominator's desired outcome is not reached, they will keep trying and not drop the stick. –Fredddie™ 00:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  Fredddie - I've seen at least one person on here already mistake who is actually challenging this close, and I think you may be doing so as well. Just FYI, I'm the one who asked for this close to be reviewed, and I don't believe I have an extensive record of challenging decisions I did not agree with. This is the first time I have asked for AN to review the outcome of an RFC. Obviously I think review is justified otherwise I wouldn't have asked for it, but the Overturn !votes above also show that I am not the only one who thinks so, so I don't believe I'm being unreasonable here. FOARP (talk) 08:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  Then I'll make it clear that I agree with Brad's closure and his subsequent statements on the matter, especially those comments about how it should be harder to delete an article from Wikipedia than it is to create one. It reeks of IDONTLIKEIT and if you hadn't started the thread, someone else would have. That being said, I don't think you are unreasonable, but I think this whole thing is. –Fredddie™ 17:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse (uninvolved) per Amakuru, mostly. The proposal seeking out to carve an exception to existing policies should have much more broad acceptance than the current one had, and reasonable concerns and counter-arguments were all policy-based. If one wants an IAR action performed (and this proposal amounted to one, seeking to bypass established policies), they should better have near-universal approval that it improves the encyclopedia; removing innocuous ~1000 articles on borderline notable early-20th century people does not cut that slack. Bradv's closure has artfully reflected the discussion and has shown a way forward. No such user (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
• I'm involved and therefore disinclined to add a word in bold... but I would have sworn that there was consensus to draftify there. These are biographies; the database sources are self-published and unreliable; their creator admitted to introducing inaccuracies into these articles; and this fact was proven with diffs during the debate.—S Marshall T/C 13:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  S Marshall - Agreed. This no-consensus close came out of nowhere. It leaves it very unclear what exactly we're supposed to do: it's hard to believe the problem was venue because, how could it have been? It's not believable that this was a policy issue because this WAS a policy decision. I can just see the AFD getting closed "no, AFD isn't for this" because that's what's happened so many times in the past when this was attempted. Hell, I had complaints just trying to get hundreds of Iranian "village" articles (that were actually about pumps/wells/etc.) deleted even with an overwhelming consensus in favour. You cannot PROD hundreds of articles, and if you did they can be de-prodded by a single editor without discussion. It's just setting up a Catch-22 where nothing can be done. The assertion that policy-changes need to be near-unanimous just doesn't make sense since these policies were not typically made near-unanimously, and any way consensus can change. FOARP (talk) 13:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  Olympedia isn't unreliable: they're related to Sports Reference and editing can only be done by "about two dozen trusted academics and researchers who specialize in Olympic history." BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

BeanieFan11 - This is not the place to re-hash the RFC, rather, the focus should be on the close itself. However, I've seen Olympedia's editors basing their content on Wikipedia (the Frank English case we discussed in the RFC). The prose content is particularly suspect and I've seen it be flat-out wrong on multiple occasions. The "two dozen trusted academics and researchers who specialize in Olympic history" are unknown and we have not tended to treat other such user-created databases where the users were self-proclaimed experts as automatic reliable sources. FOARP (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

In re their creator admitted to introducing inaccuracies into these articles – or claimed to have done so for some (not necessarily these) articles. It was not a happy moment in the community, and humans do sometimes say things to hurt others. It might be true, but I have not seen evidence myself to support this claim. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

We can show with diffs that there were inaccuracies. Diffs show you what someone did, not what they were thinking when they did it, so we don't know whether Lugnuts' inaccuracies were intentionally disruptive (as he claimed while ragequitting), or whether they were careless. To my eye, the diffs in the debate we're reviewing here do suggest the latter rather than the former. In other words, Lugnuts' errors were those that you'd expect from the kind of person who starts ten articles in 29 minutes -- key biographical details in one article that are wrong but would have been right in the previous or subsequent ones -- rather than those you'd expect from a vandal.

So, okay, let's call these inaccuracies "reckless lies" rather than "deliberate lies". We still can't allow it. Particularly in biographical articles.

To leave falsehoods in place would be completely irresponsible, and to insist that the community go through and correct them in 90,000 articles which have to be individually AfDed is completely unreasonable. If we were allowed to discuss Lugnuts' articles 1,000 at a time via RfC, it will still take the best part of a decade to review it all, and the amount of process we're having to go through suggests we can't even discuss them 1,000 at a time. So we're looking at a multi-decade cleanup project.

This close wasn't a summary of what the community thinks. It was Bradv's opinion in a hatbox. But I'm coming to the view that that doesn't matter, because the 1,000 at a time solution is not going to get past our hyperinclusionist colleagues anyway. Therefore we'll need to enact WP:CSD#X4: Articles created by Lugnuts that only have database sources.—S Marshall T/C 08:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• Leaning overturn (involved and hence not bolded) due to supremely odd usage of CONLEVEL. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn per FOARP, but also involved and won't bold. Therapyisgood (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
• I was involved in the initial debate, but want to only come by to add that (by my count) the debate was 61-36 support-oppose, which is a 62.8% in favor of the proposal. Borrowing from other places on Wikipedia where %support is quantified, generally only 75% and above is considered to be the limit above which something is considered a clear consensus (see for example, WP:RFA) whereas values below that fall into the "closer's discretion" area. People can use that data how they will in assessing the appropriateness of the close.--Jayron32 16:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  We shouldn't compare discussions that are decided on strict numerical majority, like RfA, to discussions that are not vote-based, like RfCs and AfDs. Since the closer suggested the proposal would have passed if it was held as an AfD and even recommended that the articles in question be taken there, it would be more appropriate to compare the RfC to AfD outcomes. JoelleJay (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  So, if it isn't vote based, the closer is encouraged to read the arguments, and make an assessment based on the strength of the arguments, and sometimes, that will result in the raw majority not "winning". How is that not what happened here? --Jayron32 13:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  I'm saying that a) narrower margins are routine in discussions that are not strict !vote-counting, and therefore 63% is not as slender a majority as it would be at RfA; and b) results at RfA that fall into the discretionary zone are not decided by the strength of arguments made in !votes but by the bureaucrats' own interpretation of raw data -- which would be considered a supervote in any !vote venue -- and so the threshold used at e.g. RfA is not directly translatable to this situation. JoelleJay (talk) 00:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  Since the closer suggested the proposal would have passed if it was held as an AfD What??? I never said that. – bradv 18:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  TBH that’s also what I took from your close statement - that this would have passed had it been an AFD. Why else direct people wanting to do something about these articles to take them to AFD and/or PROD them? Why use a rule that explicitly permits draftification if an AFD discussion shows a consensus to draftify? If you are of the view that this WOULDN’T have passed as an AFD it would have been better to say so explicitly, but stating so would seemingly clash with other parts of the close. FOARP (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• (EC) Overturn (involved). There were 60+ supports to ~37 opposes to the draftification proposal. That's including several !votes as "oppose" that were actually "oppose because the articles should be mass deleted" or "oppose but also oppose keeping or doing nothing with these articles", as well as oppose !votes that were never updated despite the bases of their complaints being resolved (e.g. the list containing entries for which others had found "potentially SIGCOV sources" -- these were later removed). It's also not including several "supports" that seemed more "qualified" or "neutral". If this had been at AfD, the closer would have closed as draftify, which means the arguments and numbers of the opposition were not sufficiently convincing to achieve "no consensus". It is therefore not acceptable that this was then closed as NC simply because a 1.5-month-long, 100+-participant VPP discussion concerning draftification/redirection/deletion/merging/userfication of 900 articles that objectively fail our requirements to be in mainspace was not a deletion discussion and was not explicitly aimed at modifying a <40-person RfC on draftification from 3 years ago (that was never even brought up in this RfC). JoelleJay (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  That's including several ... oppose !votes that were never updated despite the bases of their complaints being resolved (e.g. the list containing entries for which others had found "potentially SIGCOV sources" -- these were later removed) – That's not correct; looking at the discussion right now, I still see Roland Spitzer and Edward Greene on the list to be draftified/redirected (main two articles in that debate). BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  BilledMammal said go ahead and remove those two, and Cbl62 said Restoring support based on representation that Spitzer and Greene will not be draftified. This is functionally equivalent to removal. JoelleJay (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  @BeanieFan11, BilledMammal said at 23:24 on 8 March If you want, go ahead and remove those two. However, please add future removals to a list instead. If they're still in there (and unless I've missed something) it's because you didn't remove them. I would note for the audience here at AN that your response to the original suggestion – that you prepare a list of names you wish to remove and present it at the end of the discussion, rather than remove names individually during the course of the RfC – was And if I do wait until the end and show you a list, how do I know you won't just be like "screw you, I don't feel like removing them"? I'm not sure I trust you, considering you have absurd interpretations of notability and do not like me. I would also note, as others did in the original discussion, that the worst case scenario for those names staying on the list was that somebody would have had to go and move them back to mainspace. XAM2175 ^(T) 17:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure that our requirements to be in mainspace is actually a thing, unfortunately. Deciding whether something belongs in the mainspace is complicated. For example, User:WhatamIdoing/Christmas candy doesn't contain a single source, but I'm sure it would survive a trip through AFD anyway. The subject is notable, even if the article is unsourced. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  NSPORT requires biographies contain at least one citation to SIGCOV in secondary independent RS. JoelleJay (talk) 00:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  If it were mainspaced and brought to AfD, then the result would likely be someone finding and adding sources to it during the period of the AfD, not an unsourced article being kept. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse not the outcome that I wanted, but I think it is a reasonable close to the discussion --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 15:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
• Weak endorse (uninvolved), Bradv probably should not have been the one to close it but I think the close itself was reasonable. I do think that this is a far wider issue, and this whole situation seems to be an end-run around not having come up with a consistent policy on handling articles like this (such as the RfC that Arbcom tried to conduct last year). That can be a valid route to create precedent by starting with one test case, but the consensus for it would need to be exceptionally clear and I don't see it here. I'd strongly advise that we hold that big RfC on mass creations ASAP. Sooner or later, if the problem isn't dealt with then some rouge admin is going to just take the 2010 approach and that would cause a lot more drama than necessary. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  @The Wordsmith: I'd strongly advise that we hold that big RfC on mass creations ASAP. - we just did that, it was WP:ACAS, this RfC came out of that RfC, as described in the "background" section of this RfC. Frankly it's really easy for editors to say "let's have another RfC!" but a lot harder to actually do it. The mods for ACAS quit. After spending a year on helping with that RfC and this RfC, I'm definitely not spending any more of my time on RFCs (or anything else), idk if BilledMammal or the others feel differently. Your endorse vote means throwing out this RFC and finding someone else to start a new one all over again... good luck... Levivich (talk) 14:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• (Involved) Endorse As Jayron32 pointed out, generally less than 75% support is up the discretion of the closer. This is a totally reasonable outcome, and while the closing statement itself noted that many would be unhappy, the minority objection that this was a backdoor deletion in violation of policy is the kind of concern that is the very reason we don't do simple majority votes in determining consensus. Steven Walling • talk 23:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn (involved) because an RFC at the village pump, listed on CENT, for two months, in which 100 editors participated, is not a "back door" to anything under any meaning of the term, and if 60%+ of the participants agree with the proposal, we should implement it. There is no "75% rule" and closer's discretion doesn't mean super voting between 50-60%. Even if the will of the majority conflicted with a policy, that's OK because Wikipedia has no firm rules, but in this case, 60 editors saw no conflict with policy, I don't see why Bradv gets to decide otherwise (or any other closer for that matter, but I agree with others that Bradv was involved). Levivich (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn (involved, but I suggested redirection rather than draftification or deletion) largely per Levivich. I also have no idea where the 75% figure has come from. However, the biggest issue is not whether it was a supervote, but the fact that Bradv was involved per the comment by BilledMammal. This should at least be re-opened and closed by someone who isn't at all involved. Black Kite (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn. I'm baffled that anyone could endorse this (and strenuously argue the people who have to reconsider their position.) Bradv is unambiguously WP:INVOLVED, having expressed extremely strong opinions on this very topic in the past; neither is the RFC remotely clear-cut enough that an involved user could legitimately consider closing it. Many people above have effectively re-litigated the RFC to try and argue that this close is inevitable, but if that's true then letting an uninvolved editor re-close costs them nothing. As WP:INVOLVED says, Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. The sole argument anyone has presented for how he could avoid being uninvolved is directly contradicted by policy. There is simply no good-faith way to interpret this that would allow him to be uninvolved after his previous comments. I would also strongly urge people to review Bradv's previous closes for similar problems and, if this turns into a pattern, take him to WP:RFAR to remove his admin bit - WP:INVOLVED is actually important; his willingness to blatantly ignore it and impose what cannot in good faith be called anything but a WP:SUPERVOTE falls far far short of the expected behavior of WP:ADMINACCT. One error, of course, does not require that sort of response, especially if it's acknowledged and avoided going forwards; but it needs to be 100% clear that this sort of mistake won't happen again, and I'm not seeing any guarantees of that nature here. Someone who doesn't understand such a basic aspect of INVOLVED should not hold the tools. EDIT: Diffs showing Bradv's extensive involvement on the subject of mass-draftification and his personal opinion of draftification as "backdoor deletion" in the past include [6][7][8][9][10] - these are all expressing strong opinions on aspects central to the dispute in this RFC and to Bradv's close. If another RFC attempting to overturn the 2020 RFC was run today, would the people above arguing that they believe Bradv to be uninvolved say that he can close that? If not, then how is this any different? --Aquillion (talk) 13:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn There was a significant majority in favor of draftifying or otherwise not retaining such articles non-compliant with notability requirements in mainspace, and to disregard that with no useful solution (suggesting hundreds of man-hours be spent at individual AFDs is not reasonable) is a inappropriate supervote. A bureaucratic decision to leave such a mess in place while ignoring a well-reasoned majority, moreso by someone involved in opposing related proposals, simply makes addressing anything in this project untenable, when people should not be able to make dozens one-liners in seconds but then expect others to expend an undue amount of effort to actually review them. Reywas92^Talk 13:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn by ScottishFinnishRadish and Galobtter. Disclosure, am involved. starship.paint (exalt) 13:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
• We could really use some uninvolved users to discuss here, by my count, it seems this is just those who supported commenting to overturn and those who opposed commenting endorse - see analysis below:
  • Involved - Endorse: Rhododendrites (1), myself (2), Guerillero (3), Stephen Walling (4)
  • Involved - Overturn: BilledMammal (1), ValarianB (2), ActivelyDisinterested (3), Galobtter (4), S Marshall (5), AirshipJungleman (6), Therapyisgood (7), JoelleJay (8), Levivich (9), Black Kite (10), Aquillion (11), Reywas92 (12), starship.paint (13)
  • Uninvolved - Endorse: Amakuru (1), Thincat (2), lettherebedarklight (3), WhatamIdoing (4), Fredddie (5), No such user (6), The Wordsmith (7)
  • Uninvolved - Overturn: ScottishFinnishRaddish (1 - although he states, "leaning" overturn)
• BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• Sorry, but that's not a massively useful analysis, because you did not take into account how those that declared themselves involved actually !voted in the RfC in the first place. For example I was in favour of redirection, rather than draftification, yet I am still in the "Overturn" camp because I believe the closer to have been INVOLVED. Meanwhile Rohdodendrites !voted in exactly the same way as me in the RfC yet is in the "Endorse" camp here. Black Kite (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• Done. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I think we also need to take account, when assessing the above !votes, of the fact that this (ETA: the present RFC, not the 2020 RFC) was a very widely-advertised RFC involving many editors. There won't have been many editors who won't have been involved in it, so discounting !votes (ETA: i.e., the ones in this review) just because they voted in the present RFC would not give fair treatment. FOARP (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

None of this matters because WP:INVOLVED is a red line. It is unambiguously true that Bradv was involved by virtue of having taken a clear position on a previous RFC that covered essentially the same ground (in fact, Bradv himself asserted that it covered the same ground, so he was entirely aware that he was INVOLVED; the fact that he still hasn't apologized and reversed himself is honestly slightly shocking.) We are not asking anyone to assess the closure on its merits, or even to assess consensus or anything subjective; policy here, unlike the murky waters of the closure itself, is clear-cut. An editor cannot close an RFC on a topic they previously expressed a strong opinion on, regardless of how the previous RFC was closed; and Bradv himself has indicated that he sees the overlap between the two RFCs. --Aquillion (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I think this table shows the limitations of vote counting. If such a table were going to be created I would have "Participated in RfC, same position (support/overturn, oppose/endorse), Participated in RfC, opposition position, Did not participate endorse, Did not participate overturn" as the categories. More importantly this vote counting reduces people's comments to simply their bolded vote which means that anyone with more nuance or who who did not bold their vote are ignored. Those voices still matter when determining consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - Some of the !voters above have asserted that there is a "75% rule" for policy changes. Let's see if policy changes implemented in the past have followed that rule, based on three big policy-changing RFCs that come to mind:

• The 2017 WP:DAILYMAIL RFC had 55 support !votes of various shades compared to 29 oppose !votes by my count. That's ~65% support. The Daily Mail RFC was the classic example of creating a process from a single example on here, and is actually the closest equivalent to this RFC that I can think of.
• WP:NSPORTS2022 Proposal 5 - 62 support !votes (not including the "moral support" which doesn't read as a support, but including me) compared to 23 oppose !votes. 73% support (or 75% exactly if the "moral support" is included as a support).
• WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES 2017 RFC - 49 support !votes for the "status quo" of various descriptions, 46 oppose, 1 undecided. Very roughly 50/50. Since both sides here represented themselves as "no change" it is hard to identify which was really the "change" option, but at any rate this was not closed as no consensus.

At any rate it has not been the case in the past that a 75% rule is applied for policy-changing RFCs. Wikipedia has never endorsed purely numerical decision-making except for RFA, which are very different in character to RFCs. If any numerical requirement was to be implemented I don't think it would anyway be 75%, which would require unusually high levels of consensus often not seen at AFD or other similar fora. Indeed, the informal numerical rule-of-thumb I've seen bandied about in RM discussions is 2/3rds in favour (e.g., ~66%), not 75%.

IMHO I'm happy for closer's discretion to extend much higher than 75% and also lower than 50%, because Wikipedia does not take !votes but instead makes reasoned discussions, but any close should be a well-reasoned close, not producing rules not cited in the discussion and not part of the consensus. FOARP (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn (Uninvolved). I have nothing but respect for Bradv, but I'm seeing several issues here. First, I don't believe they violated the letter of INVOLVED, but they clearly have enough opinions on the issue that they shouldn't have closed this discussion. Second, as many have said above, the procedural argument is misapplied, in my view; a widely-advertised RfC at VPP is enough consensus for this, particularly as the text of the policy we are setting aside had a consensus developed from a smaller pool, and is generally written as a guide for unilateral action, not to limit what community-wide consensus can do. Further, the argument is almost circular; the RfC doesn't have consensus, because the procedure it proposes needs to have community-wide consensus? There's a catch-22 there. Finally, I'm seeing at least a few !votes that are nominally opposes, but support the principle that these articles shouldn't be in mainspace. I do not find it reasonable to read these the same way as opposition on the basis that the articles are fine. For the record, had I participated, I would likely have opposed because I don't think it serves anybody's interests to let many thousands of borderline-notable pages sit in draftspace for five years, and I foresee some drama ensuing in the form of recreation with insufficient new content. 19:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanamonde93 (talk • contribs)
• Overturn While thanking them for their efforts. The first reason is wp:involved. But the close was primarily and primarily based on the closer-created framework of what aspects they felt were applicable and their interpretaion of how they applied, and then using that framework to deprecate what was expressed by the respondents. Or basically what distills down to being a supervote. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn What others have already said above. The consensus level is the same, there is no reason to treat this as functionally different than an AfD, there is no back-door to anything, and the closer is involved. Avilich (talk) 00:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
• Note from closer: I am appalled by some of the accusations and assumptions of bad faith leveled in this thread. I closed this discussion because I felt I had something to offer – I have had very little interaction with Lugnuts over the years, no interaction with the Olympics topic area in general, and am unencumbered by any emotional attachment to this issue (having been inactive during the relevant discussions). Over the weekend I spent several hours reading every comment in that thread, keeping an open mind and considering both sides of each argument in order to determine consensus. And then I posted what I thought would be a comprehensive close, showing that I considered the arguments presented while attempting to provide helpful advice on how to move forward.
  I quoted a line from a previous RfC for one reason: because it was a helpful line linked from the ATD-I policy. It hadn't occurred to me that I might have participated in that three-year-old discussion – I had no memory of doing so, and I'm honestly shocked that so many people seem to find my participation in that thread an issue here.
  My apologies to those who feel I've let them down, both those who disagree with my action and those who endorsed my decision. I am reverting the close. I am, and intend to remain, neutral on the final outcome. – bradv 02:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Good to see the close was voluntarily vacated. This was a major, major undertaking to clean up a massive problem for the Wikipedia project, and to see the problem basically punted down the road with a "no consensus" was frankly disheartening, borderline appalling. Holding discussions of this nature to an unofficial house rule of 75% is a relic of the past. If we get 6 out of 10 people to agree on something, it is time to recognize that as a win and just do it. Zaathras (talk) 03:25, 28 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.

Create an article for monitoring system

Hi,

I tried to create an article for the monitoring system openITCOCKPIT. The error message shows to me that the word contains *COCK*.

Is it possible for you to create the article so I'm able to edit it?

Thanks and best regards, Jens. JensMich (talk) 08:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I see the Scunthorpe effect is live and well. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

JensMich, as a new contributor, you wouldn't be able to create an article directly in mainspace anyway. I'd recommend you take a look at Help:Your first article for some guidance, and then think about creating a draft, but only if you can find sufficient in-depth coverage of openITCOCKPIT in independent sources to meet Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. From a quick Google search, I suspect that might be problematic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@JensMich I recommend you follow the suggestions of AndyTheGrump above; but I would add that you have a User:JensMich/sandbox which you can create now and use to store lists of references and/or start a draft. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Stewards?

I don't know if this is an appropriate place, but there is a severe backlog on meta on the global steward requests noticeboard. There are currently 161 open requests, the oldest going back to March 17. I know some stewards watch this page, and if you see this and could ping your colleagues, it would be appreciated. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:05, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Zerbstill at UTRS

Zerbstill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

UTRS appeal #68139 has been languishing for months. To be honest, I don't know what to do with it. There are a lot of words. Could an admin look at and action it? Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Checkuser data shows no evidence of block evasion. I'm weakly of the opinion that WP:ROPE applies and we should do an unblock, unless anyone has a compelling reason to leave them blocked. --Yamla (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Endorse unblock per yamla -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Unblock per Yamla. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@Widr: ping blocking admin. El_C 21:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

• I don't know what's in UTRS, I don't use it. But this is a sockpuppet account, so I would think they should request unblocking from the original account. Widr (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

  Sent appellant message to that effect. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

• I have closed this ticket to allow the system to reset so user cant appeal via original account.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Please review my block

Could another admin please take a look at User talk:RoySmith#Investigation against me and figure out if unblocking Tousifzyan.15 makes sense. I don't see how it's a legitimate alt account, but if you think it is, feel free to unblock. This all started out in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jomontgeorge#29 April 2023. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

If I am understanding the situation correctly, Tousifzyan.15 (talk · contribs) is a (disclosed) alternate account of Tousif.15 (talk · contribs) unconnected to the sockmaster Jomontgeorge. Not seeing any abuse of the Tousif accounts either. If this is accurate, I don't see any basis for blocking the Tousif.15/Tousifzyan.15 accounts. Abecedare (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd go with an unblock. Tousifzyan.15 has a couple of deleted edits which are not ideal, but I don't think it's blockworthy, especially now it's been properly declared. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you all for the feedback. I have unblocked the account. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, RoySmith. @Tousif.15: while I understand why you would not want the black-mark of a block hanging over your alt-account, I would second Roy's advice to stick to one active account from hereon. It prevents the, even inadvertent, editing of the same page by the two accounts (like at Bade Miyan Chote Miyan 2) and creates fewer headaches for everyone. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

When I came to know that using multiple accounts was not allowed and we need to disclose it if I have, I didn't edited from that account. Tousif ❯❯❯ Talk 01:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Backup at WP:AE

There are a number of reports at WP:AE which have yet to attract any admin comments. Admin participation at AE tends to be sporadic, so I thought a notification here might be helpful. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Meh. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

This is a both an indication and a result of how poorly that board is functioning. Some of the good suggestions for reducing our reliance on such a board were not implemented at the recent review and overhaul. It might be worth some further informal discussion. SPECIFICO talk 18:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I make no such claims about the board. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Its major failing is not banning involved editor comments. nableezy - 04:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Is it OR to ask the person credited for a photo if it has Creative Commons' license?

I was told to contact a PBS affiliate as it would be up to them. I don't want to go about it if it's the wrong thing to do. Trillfendi (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

It is not original research, but frankly, unlikely to happen. The station would have to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Cullen328 (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

OR is about the encyclopedic content. Licensing for images on the site is not encyclopedic content, it's legal background check work which OR is unrelated to. Animal lover |666| 05:39, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

RfC at Colleen Ballinger

I came accross an RfC at Colleen Ballinger after seeing a post by Nemov at WP:VPPR, asking for more participation. The RfC is loctaed here: Talk:Colleen Ballinger#Infobox RFC 2023. Every oppose !vote (except for one "narrow oppose" !vote) has been cast by 5 editors, of whom 4 have been opposing an infobox at that talk page for 10 years, and the 5th for 7 years. The 5 support !votes there have been cast by uninvolved users, with the earliest comment to that talk page by any of them being posted in 2021. Look, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with any of the ideas or the !votes, but the way this RfC is going (nearly all opposes cast by editors who've been opposing an infobox for 10 years) feels unpleasantly similar to an RfC we had on Talk:Baháʼu'lláh/Archive 8#Full name and photo, where a very small number of editors also kept the article in the condition that they thought was best. I'm not blaming any of the oppose !voters for !voting; I am, however, asking for community input to that RfC so that a more meaningful consensus may arise. — Nythar (💬-🍀) 04:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Nythar A start would be to give each of them a contentious topics alert as we have one for infoboxes. Doug Weller talk 10:12, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think everyone there is aware of the contents of the alert, which is supposed to warn about behaviour. Holding an opinion on whether an article should or shouldn't have an IB shouldn't necessarily trigger such an alert, particularly if you are suggesting it should only be for those who hold one of the opinions, which feels a little chilling to be honest. - SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I stay away intentionally. Compare Mozart. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

It's a relatively new RfC and WP:VPR should help get enough comments to find a consensus. That has worked well in the past few months resolving these issues. A larger conversation could be had about the blockade that's requiring these steps, but that's probably not worth the time or energy when handling these one by one is working. Nemov (talk) 13:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

People commenting in opposition to you isn't "a blockade" by any stretch. A reminder that the MOS says to discuss on each article, as does ArbCom. All that is happening is that when someone proposes others object to the addition. Mischaracterising those opinions in this way does no-one any good at all, and neither does leaving comments such as this, particularly when much of it is not true. - SchroCat (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

5 editors, of whom 4 have been opposing an infobox at that talk page for 10 years, and the 5th for 7 years. The 5 support !votes there have been cast by uninvolved users - In other words, the people actually involved with writing the article (those who are most familiar with the subject and its sources) don't want something, and a bunch of other people with no stake in the article come along to [repeatedly] try to add it? Looks like there's at least one SPA in the bunch, and I'd strongly disagree with the idea that e.g. Nemov is remotely "uninvolved". This dispute isn't specific to Ballinger, it's yet another infobox dispute. The article subject (and those who know most about the article subject) are secondary to just having an infobox. When someone goes around to lots of articles just to argue to include infoboxes, without contributing anything to the article and going against the wishes of those who do contribute to the article, they are absolutely "involved" for an RfC like this (ditto those who show up to defend the wishes of the article writers, of course). Not that "involvement" should be relevant in this case, but it seems to matter to the OP's framing. FWIW, Nythar, this is unpleasantly similar to every infobox RfC (which only really ever occur when someone tries to add an infobox and one of the primary contributors undoes it). For my part, I tend to see it like CITEVAR: If the main contributors used one approach, just keep it that way unless there's a compelling reason not to (and those compelling reasons need to be based in policy, rather than arguments that boil down to subjective judgments about what "helps readers" or "what ought to be there"). I don't get why people feel the need to force infoboxes where others don't want them, and I don't get the strong dislike for them just like I don't get why anyone loves or hates short footnotes. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Songwaters is also not "uninvolved", as they've opened several RFCs on IBs. (That's not a criticism of Songwaters - just of the claim that the characterisation that those supporting an article as "uninvolved". - SchroCat (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't get why people feel the need to force infoboxes where others don't want them, and I don't get the strong dislike for them just like I don't get why anyone loves or hates short footnotes.

I understand your general argument (even with the weaker WP:OWN elements), but when do you reach the point where surrendering inevitable is the logical step forward? Almost every time one of these RfCs reaches the wider community the infobox is included. Who adamantly opposes or supports infoboxes is rather irrelevant at this stage. The community appears to support infoboxes on larger articles. Nemov (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

It does seem like -- among the people who are passionate enough about infoboxes to respond to an RfC at a topic they don't have a preexisting interest in -- there are more who support including them. If you feel like that's generalizable to the community as a whole, please do start an RfC at VPP. I would welcome any additional clarity about when to use infoboxes rather than the current situation, which is basically a headcount based on personal preference about what "helps readers". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Rhododendrites: "a bunch of other people with no stake in the article" <-- no group of users is entitled to be the only editors of certain articles. And FWIW, I wasn't aware of these groups of anti- and pro-infobox editors or such RfCs. Whenever I review an article and see that something has been either excluded or included for an extended period of time (10 years in this case), I become worried about the potential of editors owning parts of that article. That's when RfCs become appropriate, but the previous ones at Talk:Colleen Ballinger have been opposed by the same editors. Whenever new editors !vote, the consensus clearly changes. Hey, we could do that to every article on Wikipedia; find a group of editors who agree on something on any politician-related article, allow only them to edit that article, and they'll get their way eventually. And if it violates their policies, they could just change their policies. I suppose !voting on these RfCs is the only meaningful thing to do for now. — Nythar (💬-🍀) 22:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

no group of users is entitled to be the only editors of certain articles - Never said they did; just describing the situation. It's important (to me anyway) that we are very much not talking about some controversial political content that has any bearing on things like BLP or NPOV. What we're debating is a stylistic decision for which we have no real policy-based guidance. To the extent there is precedent, it's that we're supposed to evaluate the fitness of an infobox for a specific subject, so from my perspective the decision is best made by the people who know the subject and the article best -- the ones who have spent hours, days, or months working on it, rather than someone who just shows up to infobox RfCs to support. And, of course, there's no more policy basis for my perspective than anything else. My problem is when people go around to lots of articles with no infobox just to push to have one contrary to the opinions of the people who know the subject and article best (and the same could be said for a few people who will show up to oppose any such infobox, although in practice it seems like that crowd is more about respecting the wishes of contributors rather than a particularly strong objection to infoboxes in genreal) . That's my read, anyway. It's nearly always people who aren't actually interested in improving the article; it's only about adding an infobox because there is no infobox (and infoboxes are just a priori good). YMMV. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, I agree that editors who've spent more time editing an article generally have more knowledge about the subject than others and probably know what is best for that article. Of course, we'd all agree that this does not mean other editors cannot attain their level of knowledge; it isn't always necessary to understand the entire subject of an article to know what is best for certain parts of it either. At an RfC, for example, I don't need to have a complete understanding of every part of an article in order to formulate a meaningful opinion; that is why arguments from people who are more informed are always welcome there. In this case, I do not need a complete understanding of Colleen Ballinger's early life, her career, her accomplishments, her awards, editors' opinions, etc., to be able to arrive at a conclusion based on the evidence presented at that RfC and my own review of the article. That's why I said "!voting on these RfCs is the only meaningful thing to do for now", because there aren't any other paths that could solve this disagreement for now. — Nythar (💬-🍀) 01:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

• I don't see how this requires administrators' attention. A call for participation in an RFC should also be neutral, which this isn't. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 02:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
  • This wasn't intended solely as a call for participation. I literally suggested that only in the last sentence of my first comment. — Nythar (💬-🍀) 02:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

    Then what are you asking administrators to do? To block people because they disagree with you? Phil Bridger (talk) 06:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

• I've reached out to the community about coming up with some guidelines on infoboxes for biographies. Hopefully some kind of MOS can be formed to reduce the number of RfCs on this topic. Thanks - Nemov (talk) 12:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Help about publishing an article

I need to write an article here about G2T Global Awards after I wrote it and added my sources I fount it in my user

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Ara479 Ara479 (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ara479: I've moved the page to your sandbox, from where you can submit to review. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 02:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

thank you A LOT Ara479 (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Reverting blatantly

The user Tayi Arajakate has blatantly reverted the changes made to the page The Kerala Story. I assume he has some political bias towards certain religious community. He has added poorly written views of other parties in the lead section to pov push his political views in the same page.See the edit history : [11] I request admins to give hims a warning on edits related to India Lgvtm (talk) 02:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

@Lgvtm: Please assume good faith and don't accuse other editors of political or religious bias without good evidence, which there is none of here. Use the talk page to discuss your changes. Also, Tayi's pronouns are she/her. When in doubt, use singular they. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 17:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Noting OP sockblocked. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, same IP address as another sock. I think the article may need to be upgraded to ECP soon. The article history is already starting to turn into a battleground. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Make it so. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I took care of it just now. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

• I misread the title of this thread as "Reverting banality", which I thought would be a pretty good thing to do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

2023 Cleveland, Texas shooting

I have made a request here to remove the name of the suspect from the page history. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I can see why Random_person_no_362478479 advised you to come here, and I agree that in the name of justice the accused's identity would not be mentioned in the article itself, but since it is mentioned in sources – sometimes in the headline – I'm not sure what we'd achieve by revdelling it from the article's history, which is pretty hard to find for most readers. If people keep adding it, perhaps the page would benefit from protection instead? — Trey Maturin™ 17:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

• Reply - @Trey Maturin:, I say that we do both revdel and page protection. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppet

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

---

There’s a user, Special:Contributions/MaryKember902, who I suspect is a sockpuppet of User:Marykember. I can’t provide any information to prove this to be true, but I recognise the name. The original user is one of the most notorious users on this site, having made multiple accounts which all contain her name, as shown here Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Marykember. Dipper Dalmatian (talk) 14:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Blocked as a duck screaming into a megaphone sock. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@Dipper Dalmatian: (Non-administrator comment) All the articles they created have been G5'd. For future reference please don't add sock tags to userpages unless you're a CU clerk or admin. We often leave socks untagged for a very good reason. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

"we"? You're not any of those things either, Blaze. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@GeneralNotability: Sorry, I wasn't meaning to imply that. Poor choice of wording. I was meaning "we" as in the general community (which, while not everyone is either of those things, some of us are). I see what I was implying though. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:21, 1 May 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 editing, POV pushing, and/or possible sockpuppetry

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.

---

@FlameRetardant has been making edits to Stop Cop City-related pages, including a number of police-related killings, and generally being disruptive since January of this year. They were previously warned for one of these edits in which they claimed a police killing was justified without context; when the topic was resurrected by User:Bricology they promised to return it to the page despite the warning and have essentially turned the discussion into a political debate (see here): That's a justified killing alright. I'd say Atlanta should get their money back but I moved to Cherokee so I don't actually care. What I do care about is that the killing of Rayshard Brooks was justified. A justified killing alright. That's what it was. Justified. They also have been adding "relevant racial details" to the Shooting of Kinsley White page which they created and also some suspicious edits to the It's okay to be white page. After the former incident, @Fram and @Drmies have pointed out (as did I earlier) that the editor seems to have a knowledge of Wikipedia policies, citing WP:BLP1E, WP:CFORK, DB-A7 in their very first edit; and that this suggests that they are the sock of a blocked user. So far the pages they have edited have been:

• Stop Cop City (environmental protest)
• Killing of Manuel Esteban Paez Terán (activist killed during the above protest)
• It's okay to be white (slogan popularized by alt-right trolling)
• Shooting of Kinsley White (six-year-old white girl killed by a black man, which are apparently "relevant racial details")
• South River Forest (forest related to SCC)

And talk pages associated with these pages. I feel that this suggests the editor is not here to build an encyclopedia. Indeed one of the edits to the Stop Cop City page had a pretty explicit confession of POV pushing in the edit summary: WSJ doesn't use "environmental activists" to describe these anti-LEO thugs and neither will we.

While I'm not entirely convinced this is enough evidence to warrant immediate administrator action, I do think it is enough evidence to warrant some deeper digging or investigation. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 03:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

A ping is not sufficient notification of this discussion. Please notify them properly. Courcelles (talk) 03:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I’ve looked enough to think we need either an AP2 topic ban under CTOP protocols or just a straight NOTHERE indef. Undecided as to which. Courcelles (talk) 03:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Understood. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 04:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

@Courcelles: If we indef now, we can stop the disruption, rather than wait for a TBAN violation. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. I was involved with them on the "Shooting" page and AfD, as indicated above. I would add that the username, coupled with the edits, strongly suggests deliberate trolling. Fram (talk) 08:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

You fine folks are right, of course. Indeffed. Courcelles (talk) 10:26, 2 May 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.

This Book is Gay by Juno Dawson

Hello! I would like to go about creating a wikipage for the book entitled This Book is Gay by Juno Dawson. The book has been reviewed by several outlets and has been the subject of controversy within the United States, landing it on the American Library Association's list of the most banned and challenged books of 2022. Due to the title, however, special permissions are required to create the page. Significa liberdade (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

[12]. Can you not turn this redirect into your article? Courcelles (talk) 21:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I came across that page while looking into this, but it seems like the correctly-capitalized title, This Book Is Gay, was indeed create-locked. I've gone ahead and turned it into a redirect as well, which I believe should be all you need in order to create the actual article (and it's a valid redirect in itself in the meantime, FWIW). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I hadn't checked the alternate capitalization since it was redlinked with a lower-case i on Dawson's page. Significa liberdade (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The issue here was the blacklist, which restricts the creation of any page ending with " is gay". Animal lover |666| 12:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Enough is really enough

• AC/DC
• Angus Young
• George Young (rock musician)
• Malcolm Young
• Stevie Young
• Bon Scott

I would like to propose that all AC/DC members pages be indef semi protected. I haven't dug into the the diff's (I've been reverting the Scottish/Australian editwarring For years now) and I think it's time to fix this. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I have listed the main articles affected by edit-warring over nationality. The five musician biographies are people born in Scotland who were naturalised as Australian citizens in their youth. The band AC/DC was formed by them in Australia, making it an Australian band. Lots of good-faith editors swing by to insert "Scottish-born" at the top of a biography,[13] or to change it entirely to "Scottish" which is tendentious.[14][15] The longstanding consensus among these articles is to show only the naturalised citizenship of the musicians. Past discussions about this issue may be seen at Talk:AC/DC#Nationality, Australian vs Scottish vs Scottish Born. Indefinite semi-protection will help tremendously in keeping down the noise. Binksternet (talk) 23:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Anyone want to put in an entry at WP:LAME while you're at it? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: I agree, all these drive-by edits made by IP's and newbies is exactly why I'd like to get these pages protected. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

As someone who used to perform in an AC/DC cover band (this is a true fact about me), I think I should simply be given total authority over these pages, whereupon I will list the correct nationality: Ruritanian. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

As someone who used to perform in an AC/DC cover band... I'm not sure that's something you should be spreading around the Internet. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

🤘--Jayron32 17:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@Ruritania: Nope, reveiw WP:COI - FlightTime (open channel) 01:54, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

^^Edit of the week! :)—S Marshall T/C 12:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2023

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

Administrator changes

Spicy

• Ale jrb
• Dbachmann
• DGG (deceased)
• Jimbo Wales

CheckUser changes

Jimbo Wales

Oversighter changes

Jimbo Wales

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.

Technical news

• Progress has started on the Page Triage improvement project. This is to address the concerns raised by the community in their 2022 WMF letter that requested improvements be made to the tool.

Arbitration

• The proposed decision in the World War II and the history of Jews in Poland case is expected 11 May 2023.

Miscellaneous

• The Wikimedia Foundation annual plan 2023-2024 draft is open for comment and input through May 19. The final plan will be published in July 2023.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Draft

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.

---

Please move the draft Draft:Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2023 to mainspace. It's very clear the article is ready for mainspace. 94.44.224.44 (talk) 06:28, 3 May 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.

Interfase. 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.

---

Hello. I was indefinitely topic banned from pages about Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts by Galobtter due to this case. Galobtter said that I can ask for the topic ban to be narrowed for me to do the edits on Azerbaijani topics not related to the ethnic conflicts. I will promise to not participate in edit wars in future and be more polite with opponents in case of any potential edit conflict. So, can my topic ban be narrowed to give me option to make edits in articles on Azerbaijani topics not related to the ethnic conflicts? Interfase (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

At this point, only 2 days out, I would feel better if you spent some time in editing in an entirely different field, so you can demonstrate how you can "not participate in edit wars in future and be more polite with opponents in case of any potential edit conflict". I tend to think in terms of the Standard Offer in these cases presents a reasonable time frame to designate good behavior; asking for modification of a topic ban after only 2 days seems a bit premature, IMHO. --Jayron32 16:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

My area of interest are articles about Azerbaijani topics. That is why I want to demonstrate my behavior on articles not related to Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict editing neutral Azerbaijani topics. --Interfase (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

First, you did not notify Galobtter of this thread; pinging them is NOT good enough. Second, I don't think Galobtter envisioned your appealing the ban this quickly, and your statement on that issue is misleading. I think you should withdraw this appeal.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I just followed the options for appeal showed to me by Galobtter on my talk page. I thought that pinging is enough. Anyway I notified Galobtter. --Interfase (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I would like to start editing and creating articles about Azerbaijani sportspeople, scientists etc. first to designate good behavior. --Interfase (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I should have told Interfase that it was unlikely the community would look at an appeal without editing in other areas for at least 6 months. I always hate how broad these country topic bans have to be, but the more I look at Interfase's edit history the more problems I see, and their last AE sanction was for an article about a dance, which doesn't suggest that their edits outside the conflict area are going to be unproblematic. Galobtter (talk) 21:32, 3 May 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.

Wikimedia Foundation annual plan meetings to discuss admin needs

Hi all - this week on Thursday 4th May at 17:00 UTC, the Wikimedia Foundation is hosting a conversation about the Product & Tech OKRs for next fiscal year, particularly WE1.2: "Complete improvements to four workflows that improve the experience of editors with extended rights". We'd like to hear what you think about the wording of this goal, suggestions on the most important priorities for us to consider, and are particularly interested in learning about how you identify and prioritise what you work on as an administrator. You can sign up at Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan/2023-2024/Collaboration/Moderators conversation. Hoping to see you there! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 09:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Noting that there are two other calls this week that might be of interest:

• Commons moderator workflow conversation: 3 May 2023, 15:30 UTC
• Future audiences: 5 May 2023, 16:00 UTC

Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 09:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

My sister works for California-based startups in the United States. She talks like this now, too. I can't understand half of the things that she says any more. I say that I have to go to the store to buy milk. She says something like, "I need to facilitate adjusting my food retention paradigm through a new data workflow in the food achievement OKR." I think maybe she's been replaced by a robot. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I had to look up OKR just a moment ago. It doesn't mean the OK Ranch. I've already forgotten what I just looked up.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

"Improv[ing] workflows that improve experiences". Such improvement! But to what? ST47 (talk) 22:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh wow, the whole page is like that. It's so repetitive it's meaningless. – bradv 23:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

A prime example of how people forget the KISS principle. The Night Watch (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Should have said "fix BLP issue and improve ref per WP:MILK"; so much clearer... Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate, Bbb23, ST47, Bradv, and The Night Watch: Apologies for not being clearer in my previous message - let me try again. The Wikimedia Foundation makes plans which run July - June each year, and we're currently developing the plans for next year (starting July 2023). When making these plans we figure out what the broad objectives we have are, in this case for example, one of the Product & Tech departments' top level objectives is "Support the growth of high quality and relevant content ...". Because these objectives span entire departments they end up being written in a way that's high level and vague. To be more specific we define some Key Results - the numbers we think we need to change to feel confident that we're making a positive change towards our objectives. This year, for the objective I quoted the start of, one of those specific lines of work is to improve four workflows used by editors with advanced user rights. To be even clearer - we want to do more to help patrollers, admins, stewards (and in general folks who aren't new editors) this year. Product leadership heard a lot of feedback in the past year that you feel like the WMF hasn't prioritised the tools and processes you engage with enough, so that's changing! This KR is particularly vague ("four workflows" rather than naming anything specific) because we want the process of choosing this work to be a collaborative effort.

These calls are a chance for you to share your thoughts on these priorities and to let us know what you think we should be working on. Being candid, we haven't yet come to a conclusion about what my team (Moderator Tools) will prioritise next year, so I'm all ears on what you think the focus should be. We could focus on AbuseFilter, the Spam Blacklist, new page patrolling, anti-vandalism bots, or something I haven't thought of or heard about yet. If you're interested in letting me know, the call on Thursday is one place you could do that, or feel free to reply to me here or message me directly.

Is that clearer? Any other questions I can answer? Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 08:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply Sam, this simplification does help clarify things a bit. I sadly cannot attend the moderator conversation, but I encourage the attendees to discuss experimenting with new tools. New Pages Patrol and the AbuseFilter/Spam Blacklist appear to be running generally smoothly at the moment, and this may be the time to start to shift focus to discussing and experimenting with new gadgets and tools that may better help with moderation. The Night Watch (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

A quick reminder that this call will be happening 1.5 hours from now :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 15:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Various complaints about WikiEditor1234567123

I would like to report suspicious activity coming from this account @WikiEditor1234567123:. This account has been engaged in very long edit wars edits on several pages such as the Nazran raid page, which is my first encounter with him. He misrepresents his sources and does original research. I have elaborated on this in the talk page. Before I continue I will note that his account on the Russian wikipedia was notorious for edit warring on the very same article I am talking about (Nazran raid) and he was warned multiple times. He eventually got banned entirely on the Russian wikipedia due to him misrepresenting sources, as shown here.

One of the largest issues following my own investigation is suspicious behaviour that can only remind me of tag-teaming/meat-puppeting which I suspect is outright sockpuppeting with notorious accounts that have been banned already such as @Targimhoï:, @Niyskho: @MrMalaga: and @Malhuyataza: all of which are either suspected socks (mrMalaga, Malhuytaza) or confirmed socks (Targimhoi, Niyskho) of Durdzuketi a banned account that has over 10 confirmed banned socks. Targimhoi and mrMalaga were also involved on the Nazran raid article where I got involved with them. They made much of the same edits and the accounts have been subsequently banned for sock-puppeting. This is the long list of over 10 accounts that have been confirmed as sockpuppets for Dzurdzuketi and banned, including user:Targimhoi. I’ve been checking the recent history of these accounts and there are several reasons for my suspicion of @WikiEditor1234567123: being involved in tag-teaming/meat-puppeting/sock-puppeting.

• Incredibly consecutive editing. At several points has Wikieditor along with Targimhoi made edits in a very short time difference from each other. Here are examples of edits between Wikieditor and Targimhoi on articles that barely get 1 view per day. Some of these edits are minutes within each other. Note that there is no mention or tagging of each other. Wikieditor edits something on a 1 view per day article and suddenly 5 minutes after Targimhoi takes over.
  • Ex1, 1 minute difference
  • Ex2, 1 hour
  • Ex3, 7 minute difference
  • Ex4, 25 minute difference

The examples above are all on the same lines as the previous editor which you can see on the revisions, and there’s no explanation for the edits that are being done. This reminds of a joint effort.

• Wikieditor and Targimhoi seems to have been involved in numerous disputes and are seen to be backing each other. In my case on the Nazran raid article, they make the same edits and argue for the same stuff, with Targimhoi backing up Wikieditor only an hour after I edited the first time. On the same day my dispute with them was going on, Wikieditor was involved in a noticeboard incident. Targimhoi then appears out of nowhere to express his support for Wikieditor without having been mentioned or pinged anywhere.
• Editing a sandbox draft for a confirmed sockpuppet @Malhuyataza: of @MrMalaga: that make the same disruptive edits. I have no idea of where he found this sandbox draft or what led him to it. mrMalaga is also suspected to be Dzurdzuketi
• Here Wikieditor is seen editing/expanding on a draft at the same time as user Malhuyataza (confirmed sock of mrMalaga, suspected to be dzurdzuketi) literally under a day after the draft was created. Two other accounts were also seen editing on this draft, @Blasusususu: and @Iask1:. Both accounts have been banned for sockpuppeting.
• What seems like very targeted mass edits on Fyappi article. Wikieditor is seen editing with niyskho(another confirmed sockpuppet in the dzurdzuketi list), later on targimhoi jumps in. Looks like a mass targeting of the same page. Again they are not explaining their edits to each other, which further makes me believe they are connected. Edit warring for at least like 2 months.

More:

• Very long edit wars on articles such as 2004 Nazran raid, Fyappiy, Orstkhoy etc.
• After checking his revision history I also noticed most of the time he doesn’t explain his edits. This is often done when editing along with accounts that have been banned for sockpuppeting.
• Original research/misrepresenting sources. He was banned for this very thing on the Russian wiki. Keeps doing it on the English one.
• Blatant POV-pushing/nationalistic edits, heavy bias. Seems to be insisted on having Ingush written everywhere, evident by the articles I have linked. Very much in style for the 10+ accounts that are socks of Dzurdzuketi

Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I was going to have a constructive discussion with you in Nazran raid but instead you report me because according to you I do sockpuppetry, how convenient. There's no point in making these conspiracy theories that all these mentioned users are connected with me, when this has no basis in reality and was disproven many times as I was proven innocent in the sockpuppetry investigation. I could also say same thing about you, Russian viki and Reiner Gavriel being the same person because you three had the same type of edits in Nazran raid: [16][17][18]. You're also grouping everything together to make it seem like I was edit warring in many pages at same time. Let's take a look at Orstkhoy, I usually have small disputes with Goddard2000 but if you take a look at the talk page, we usually come at some compromise. Now about Fyappiy, previously there was alot of original research like Fyappiy society belonging to both Ingush and Chechen when this is not mentioned in any source, I simply provided reliable sources for it being Ingush to which Reiner Gavriel kept either reverting my edits or added the word Chechen despite him not being able to provide a source [19]. Now back to Nazran raid, to push for your point of view, you purposely revert my edits so that the reliable sources that I put are deleted. I even added a source that the battle was Chechen-Ingush Separatist victory but you purposely reverted all my edits [20][21]. I was going to answer to you in the talk page in Nazran raid, but since you reported me here, that's gonna wait. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 07:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

The Nazran raid discussion should be kept to its respective talk page. I have demonstrated that even your own sources don’t agree with what you’re writing into the article (WP:OR). You edit war, accuse editors that disagrees of vandalism and refuse to address the argument; which is awfully similar to the 4 or so sockpuppets you seem connected to and cooperate with; potentially the same person even. Do not deviate the topic. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Nobody's deviating the topic except maybe you, and I'm simply stating what's apparent. You accuse me of pushing for my point of view despite the fact that I provided sources for my claims. (While reverting my edit) you move down the text about Ingush militants (and simultaneously removing the reliable sources too) to a different section on a excuse that it's undue weight when there's quite literally 6 reliable sources cited. I provided a source which clear as day says that the result of Nazran raid was Chechen-Ingush Separatist victory but you simply close your eyes on that and revert that. I also provided a source for Ingush Jamaat on participating in the raid but you reverted that as well. I really hope that the admins will resolve this issue with you reverting sourced material, accusing people of sockpuppetry and nationalistic edits. I will once again remind you that same could be said about you, Reiner Gavriel and Russian Viki being the same person as you three were editing the same way in the article Nazran raid. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 20:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Again, this is not the place to discuss what belongs on the talk page of said article. A WP:OVERKILL does not strengthen your point or overall notability of the subject. Please refrain from cluttering this section as you're not making any effort to explain yourself except diverting it to: X did this and that. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Please review my possibly involved actions

• Google Chrome version history (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 April 25 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (#Google Chrome version history)

Please review my admin actions here, as I am a participant in the deletion review discussion. Last night while writing a comment I saw that an editor had requested that the deleted page be restored for review, and later wrote the same request in large font as it had not been actioned for some time, so I restored it myself and then blanked it with {{Temporarily undeleted}}. It's a contentious discussion that's spilled out to a few different pages and I was concerned that someone would use the opportunity to restore the article from the undeleted history against process. A few hours went by before an IP did exactly that, so I reverted and then protected the page, with a note that any admin should remove the protection when the discussion concludes. I believe both actions are standard maintenance: undeleting a deleted page for deletion review is standard practice but probably nobody saw the request (it's a long discussion), but I'm not as sure about the second. Neither action has been challenged as far as I know, I'm just asking for a review per WP:INVOLVED and WP:ADMINACCT. Cheers. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

• You would have saved yourself the effort of asking for a review by instead asking any admin to do the temporary undeletion/protection, but I see nothing contentious in your actions themselves that favor neither side of the DRV process. So a reasonable application of WP:COMMONSENSE, IMO. Abecedare (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Non-admin comment: the purposes of WP:INVOLVED and WP:ADMINACCT are (or should be) to make sure that admins (and editors in general) keep the best interests of our encyclopedia at the forefront of their minds when doing... basically anything. Clearly the undelete was done in the best interests of the encyclopedia. The blanking was also clearly done in the best interests of the encyclopedia. The revert of the restoration was also done in the best interests of the encyclopedia. The protection was very much done in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Even if any of those were ultimately found to be not what others would've done, acting in the best interests of the encyclopedia should trump that.

The text of WP:INVOLVED and WP:ADMINACCT might say different. From a European's perspective (mine), where reasonableness always bests a more USian minute text analysis looking for loopholes, you're fine. — Trey Maturin™ 19:50, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, definitely not an issue: both the undeletion and the protection are standard (see WP:TEMPUNDELETE and WP:PPDRV), and I'm sure any reasonable admin would have done the same thing. (As usual, the admins who are conscientious enough to ask for review are the ones least in need of it.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
• Since undeleting an article and protecting it while it is at DRV is a standard procedure, I think this clearly falls under the straightforward exception of WP:INVOLVED. Galobtter (talk) 01:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Third relists at AfD

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#Third relists. – Joe (talk) 12:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:SO unblock request from Charlesvet88

Charlesvet88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has, in the past, admitted to socking from User:Caramel2155 and has also claims to have followed the requirements of WP:SO. They deny being Stanleytux; I checked the initial SPI report, and here, and the story checks out: the Checkuser and behavioral evidence link Charlesvet88 to Caramel2115 and to a few other accounts but not Stanleytux. Other than that, I'm just bringing this here to see if WP:SO has been met, and an unblock may be in order per WP:ROPE or not. Pinging @Bbb23: who blocked initially for commentary as well. --Jayron32 16:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

hi

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 someone from Arab wiki administrators has bias obvious and others administrators don't take action. what i should to do ?  جرهام (talk) 08:43, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

We can't help you with issues on the Arabic Wikipedia. If you have brought an issue to the administrators there and they declined to do as you asked, the only other thing you can do is bring the issue to the Arabic Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee. If they too decline to take action, there's nothing else you can do. 331dot (talk) 08:49, 3 May 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:BigHaz

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

---

Hello, I"m concerned that this is a compromised admin account. This admin is deleting PROD-tagged articles too early, first an hour early and now hours earlier than they should be deleted. There are a few of us admins who regularly take care of PROD'd articles and they are never deleted before their dealine. I asked this admin to wait until the deadline on the article but they have continued to delete PRODs and now I'm worried about whether or not the account is compromised or they are just out-of-touch with current admin conduct. So far, I've been busy restoring the prematurely deleted articles but if any of your know this admin and can reach out to them, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

This is the notice that I posted on their talk page which they removed a minute later. They seemed to have sprung back to activity. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I can assure you that my account is not compromised. Perhaps let's all just take a deep breath, not jump to conclusions, and carry on. Your chronology, by the way, is faulty. Since I removed your post (as a "message received and understood" gesture), I have not - to my knowledge - deleted anything listed as a PROD. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

You haven't deleted a page since October 2020 and today you jumped in deleting many PRODs, some of them days before they were due to be deleted. If this is not a compromised account, then this is just incompetence and you don't know what admin standards are any more. You don't delete an article tagged for Proposed deletion days early. I still think a checkuser is called for here. Please do not remove this comment like you did my other one on your talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd almost guess that it's more likely related to this than to a compromised account. Hog Farm _Talk 01:26, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Glad to see common sense applies in places. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

In the order in which you make the points:

1. I haven't deleted a page since October 2020: Correct. I have been relatively busy in the real world, but am not at present quite so busy.

2. Today I jumped in deleting many PRODs: Also correct. I received a notification that it would be a good idea that I perform some administrative actions and happened to have some spare time to do that. Deleting PRODs is a relatively simple action and one which (last time I was involved) was welcomed as a means of dealing with articles which shouldn't necessarily have been on Wikipedia. I see now that it is no longer the case.

3. Some of them days before they were due to be deleted: As far as I am aware, wrong. I was careful to confirm that the pages in question had been listed for a week (which the information indicates is still the standard) before deleting them. I am more than willing to accept that there may be a time-zone issue here, as I am in Australia and it is approximately 11:30am on 6 May for me, but I am not aware of any which were deleted "days before" any due date. If you wish to provide examples, I am happy to be corrected, but flying off the handle isn't a promising beginning.

4. This is just incompetence: Wrong. As mentioned above, it is nothing of the sort.

5. And [I] don't know what admin standards are any more: You may be right in this claim. When last I dealt with admin-related matters, there was a general sense that it was a good idea that people were doing them. It appears that I am now trespassing on a little fiefdom where good faith is not to be assumed. If this is the case, I'll happily perform other actions in the future.

6. Please do not remove this comment: Why would I? This is a different forum to my Talk page. While you are free to escalate matters and fly off handles in either location, I consider this a more "public" environment than my Talk page. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@Liz: unless I'm reading the logs wrong, BigHaz hasn't deleted any PRODs since you left the message on their talk page. I see no indication that this is a compromised account, and accusing them of incompetence -- just for deleting articles a few hours early -- if a violation of assume good faith. I suggest withdrawing this thread, since it's clearly not going to go anywhere. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 02:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm more concerned that in response to a warning that they might lose their bit, an admin who hasn't performed a certain action in years jumps into doing so without, perhaps, catching up on current standards. There are numerous admin actions they could have performed in order not to be automatically desysopped, but they chose one that they performed sloppily. That doesn't speak very well of their judgment for continuing to be an admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

And if an editor is performing incompetently, there's no violation of AGF to point out that they're being incompetent. AGF isn't intended to be blinders to potential malfeasance. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I'm sorry if I overreacted. But when I see a formerly inactive admin deleting more than a dozen PROD'd articles in a burst of activey waaay before the articles are due to be deleted, I didn't know what else to think. I would think someone who has been around for 19 years would know the procedure for handling PROD'd articles. But looking over their logs, I see that they handled PRODs in the past and maybe they just don't know that we don't delete these articles when it is convenient for the admin but when they are due to be deleted. I guess I can assume that waiting for the "expiration time" wasn't considered as important as it is now.

I guess I jumped to the wrong conclusion but seriously, BigHaz, there are better ways to ease into doing more admin work than prematurely deleting a whole bunch of articles. I also don't know if you looked at the page histories to see if the articles had already been PROD'd in the past and were now ineligible to be PROD'd. It might seem to you that we are more bureaucratic now than in the old days but if there is a process, I think it's important to abide by it if for no other reason than to coordinate work with other administrators. Also, recently, we have had a wave of editors coming in to detag PRODs a short time before they are due to be deleted and so it's not a good idea to delete them a day early. But I apologize for raising a red flag on this noticeboard. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Just adding my interpretation of the logs and policy: PROD says "7 continuous days" (I've just edited it to add "that is, 168 hours"; note that the AfD instructions already had the same clarification). I think it's a reasonable interpretation of that text to say that a PROD placed on, say, April 28 can be deleted at any time on May 5 - that is, to count 7 days purely at the day level, not at the hour level. Of course that's not actual community practice, but the only way to figure that out would be to ask someone. And while that's a good idea before starting in a new area in general, I think that's an unreasonable expectation with a seemingly-simple process like PROD. I don't have much to add otherwise; I think it's cool that the bot's message worked and I hope BigHaz sticks around to help out with more admin tasks. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:53, 6 May 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.

Anyone want to close some old AFDs?

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

---

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old/Open AfDs is longer than it has been in recent years, and while it's not a true backlog, there are some complex ones lingering, and others that the usual closer suspects, myself included, have !voted in. Thanks! Star Mississippi 14:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I've knocked out a few, will come back for more later if no one has gotten there yet. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:59, 6 May 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.

Question about sockpuppetry

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 experienced a situation with a pair of accounts which I suspect to be operated by the same editor. My issue is that I've disagreed with some of their edits, and I don't want to assume bad faith, or start a case against this editor/these editors which will just look like sour grapes. So I'm asking what might be my best course of action.

Editor #1 made a large edit (mostly removal of information) to an article I wrote many years ago. I disagreed with some of it, and partially reverted. Editor #2, who had never edited the article before, appeared within minutes and partially reverted me back. Editor #1 also made edits to several related articles, some of which I also disagreed with, and Editor #2 partially reverted me on two of those related articles, which he had also never edited before.

Editor #1 and I then got into a discussion on his talk page about content, which ended in an argument. I then suggested to Editor #1 that he turn the article in question into a redirect since so much information had been removed from it. He then started a discussion on the article talk page with a view to merging and redirecting. Within two hours, Editor #2 had begun to merge the articles before anyone else had even commented on the talk page.

Looking at their history, they have edited multiple pages together, often within minutes of each other and in sympathy with each other's edits. I have found a few occasions where Editor #1 makes an edit, he is reverted, and Editor #2 reinstates the edit partially or wholly.

Because I had an argument with Editor #1, this looks like sour grapes and bad faith on my part. But I'm an experienced editor and I've seen a lot of sockpuppetry. This looks like it to me, although I'm happy to be corrected. What should I do? Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Could be worth using the Editor Interaction Analyser to see where their edits overlap on a broader scale. From what you've said, and without seeing greater context, it does sound like it could either be a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet. If you can compile enough evidence I think you'd be justified in requesting a CheckUser at WP:SPI. — Czello ^(music) 11:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Although, following on from this, I have to say I'm not sure I understand the merge/redirect part. If Editor #1 was willing to start a discussion on the matter, why would Editor #2 unilaterally ignore the discussion and go ahead with the merge anyway if they're the same person? — Czello ^(music) 11:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

• @Bretonbanquet: Given that the evidence of socking is overwhelming, you should not have been worried about bad faith, although, if it makes you feel better, you could have mentioned it at WP:SPI as a disclaimer. It took me a few minutes to find the two accounts, but after doing so, the many behavioral similarities were obvious. I've therefore blocked YouCanDoBetter as the master and SweetTaylorJames as the sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you both for your replies; I did not know about the tool Czello mentioned, so thanks for that too. I was a bit bewildered by the whole thing as it seemed obvious to me, but I had a couple of doubts like Czello, and I wondered if my disagreements with that editor were clouding my judgement. Thank you, Bbb23, for your swift understanding and action. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:11, 7 May 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.

CfD backlog

There is a long list of old CfD's now, esspecially on April 26–28. A large number of the ones at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 April 26 are emigrant categories that all need to be closed in a consistent manner; not sure about those ones yet. The user who normally handled this in the past, Qwerfjkl (talk · contribs), is no longer as active on closing CfD's as before, and I'm not sure that I can handle the workload. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03, I'm taking a break from CfD closing and plan to get back to it in a month or two. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

CfD has alternated between being badly backlogged and having a bus factor of 1 since at least 2020, probably much earlier. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Haha… 2020? I remember it being kept running by maybe two to three people back as far as 2010. Courcelles (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@Qwerfjkl and LaundryPizza03: I'll get to chipping away at the backlog. Thanks for your tireless work these past months. bibliomaniac15 00:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Bibliomaniac15 - That would be awesome : )

I went through and closed a bunch, but I've also commented in several as well. - jc37 02:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Fake bot account at User:DATABASE8

The account DATABASE8 is currently displaying a userpage copied from MusikBot II, including the claims to be a bot. Needless to say, this is very misleading. The account has only made one edit (creating userpage). I was unsure of the correct policy for impersonation of an adminbot, but it looks like NOTHERE behavior to me. Could also be a sockpuppet of LS C HIST due to similar naming patterns (all caps "DATABASE"). Schminnte (talk • contribs) 18:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I've deleted the userpage, undecided if a no-warning block for one edit is really needed here. Courcelles (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out in case the account makes any other suspicious edits. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 18:50, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:SO unblock request from MrTallBoy

MrTallBoy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sorry for the multiple similar requests all, I was clearing through the backlog at CAT:UNB and there's another WP:SO unblock request. Pinging the blocking admin @Dreamy Jazz: for commentary. User admits to the sockpuppetry, claims to have waited the 6 months as requested with good behavior, and is asking to be unblocked. Any commentary one way or the other? --Jayron32 16:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@MrTallBoy, In order to evaluate this request, it would be helpful to me (but not required in any way) to see an example of what we could expect of you in unblocked. Do you have any examples of other wikis (wikimedia or otherwise) that you have constructively contributed to while you've been blocked? SQL^{Query Me!} 16:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

MrTallBoy answered on his talk page. I have pasted his response below:

Dear SQL, hope you are doing well. I do not have access to edit at WP:AN, so I choose to answer your question here as a right place. What you can expect from me in unblocked mode is the constructive edits, and to continue helping new editors with some editing trainings in my community on English Wikipedia.

While I was blocked, with hundreds edits I constructively contributed to the following wikis:

• WikiCommons
• Wikiquote
• Meta
• rw.wikipedia.org
• Wikimania.wikimedia.org

Thank you for your consideration.

That's his response. --Jayron32 18:14, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@MrTallBoy, thank you for your response. It looks like you've been able to contribute constructively on other wikis while blocked here. I would support an unblock at this time with the note that I have not personally run a check to see if MrTallBoy has been socking recently. SQL^{Query Me!} 00:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

• Most of those cross-wiki accounts were blocked by Yamla - I'd be interested to know from them whether there was evidence of socking on those projects, aside from the sockpuppetry over here. I'd also observe, perhaps uncharitably, that I doubt this user's competence to get involved in training new editors. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  Strike that - those accounts aren't blocked. A script I run is crossing through them, so I assumed they were all blocked, but I see that that's just because they're linked to the account that is blocked on this project. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Back in November 2022 I was open to the idea of a conditional unblock that limited this user to use one account and to disclose any conflicts of interest. I think I would be supportive of such a conditional unblock (or even just an unblock under WP:SO) as long as the standard offer conditions have been met (most importantly number 1 of not editing for 6 months). Furthermore, it would be good to see no disruptive behaviour on other projects. Keeping this user to one account should help prevent the issues that led to this block, which is the abuse of multiple accounts.

I don't have the time to do a full review of this, but will trust the judgement of the community and other admins to make a good decision. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 10:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Based on the above responses, I have issued a conditional unblock per the conditions laid out by the blocking admin above. --Jayron32 14:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Removing Jimbo's ability to overturn ArbCom

Hi all, please see this petition to amend the arbitration policy to remove Jimbo Wales's ability to overturn ArbCom decisions, which needs a 100 signatures as per the formal amendment process. Galobtter (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Review of Topic ban (Dev0745)

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

---

Hello, recently I got topic banned from editing India, Pakistan and Afghanistan related articles by Tamzin after editing the article of Love jihad conspiracy theory. She topic banned me by citing reason of verifiability and synthesis. But I am not convinced by her argument as I think her argument is not apply to my edit as I have cited verifiable soures and it was not Synth. The sentence written by me was clearly mentioned in the article. My edit link is here [22]. Can anyone comment about the TBAN decision. Is it reasonable? Thanks Dev0745 (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dear Wikipedia administrators,

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

@MoroccanEd

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

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

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

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

Process Question About Gabrielhussein03

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

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

AC/DS applicable?

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

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

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

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

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

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

User is either a very confused person or some kind of troll

Ghu23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is having a very hard time communicating or doing anything constructive. Can an admin please assess if this person needs help or is just engaging in some kind of performance art? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Hard to say, but either way their editing is disruptive. Have blocked the account for now, and left a message urging them to have a read of en-WP policies and decide if they'd like to contribute encyclopedia content rather than these pointless talkpage questions. Happy to unblock if they're simply new and unaware of what Wikipedia is for. Let's see how or if they respond. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Change to the Checkuser team

Following a request to the Committee, the CheckUser permissions of Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) have been restored. For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

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

Pages need moving

Consensus was reached to move several Liberal Party and National Party pages. Some need to be moved by an admin because the redirects need to be overwritten. See Talk:New South Wales Liberal Party and Talk:New South Wales National Party. Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 10:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Can you itemize which ones still need to be fixed? I spot checked several, and it looks like they're all done? --Jayron32 17:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Specifically:

• Liberal Party of Australia (Victorian Division) to Victorian Liberal Party
• Liberal Party of Australia (Queensland Division) to Queensland Liberal Party
• Liberal Party of Australia (A.C.T. Division) to Canberra Liberals
• National Party of Australia (SA) to South Australian National Party

Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done. I think those four are now at the correct targets. Let me know if there's anything else you need. --Jayron32 14:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Fyi WP:RMTR is the better forum for this. Galobtter (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Block review: Willbb234

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.

---

Willbb234 (talk · contribs) was blocked from two articles by DougWeller last June for edit warring. The block was then extended to article space generally in March by NinjaRobotPirate. I reviewed the unblock request, and while that in itself was okay, they also threw a nasty personal attack at NinjaRobotPirate at the same time, so I upgraded the block to site-wide.

Looking at events leading up to the blocks, I think the real problem is Willbb234 has a history of not being able to stay cool when the editing gets hot, and so I am going to ask the community to review this and see if it's acceptable to unblock with the following conditions I've outlined on their user talk page:

• You explain in your own words why I considered the comment towards NinjaRobotPirate to be unacceptable. (note: Willbb234 has now addressed this on their user talk page)
• You agree to a one revert restriction, which means you may only make one revert on any page (article or otherwise) within 24 hours.

Discuss! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Bad block - the personal attack was made in response to NRP's block upgrade on March 11 and in the course of review of that action; we give blocked editors some leeway to vent frustrations (per WP:ADMINACCT generally) and I don't think given the context that "what a load of shit" rises to the level of PA normally meriting a block. Also, that PA was made on March 15, fully two months prior to Ritchie's siteblock. We do sometimes block for an evident pattern of abuse, but there was none here: since the supposed personal attack, Willbb234 made a few good-faith suggestions on a couple of talk pages, completed a GA review, made a comment in a deletion review which was less than ideal, pointed out an error on another talk page, moved a message on their talk page, then reposted their unblock request from March 17 that hadn't been answered and had been archived, then made an "oppose" comment in Ingenuity's ongoing RFA which may have been based on faulty reasoning but was not uncivil. There was no ongoing disruption for this block to solve, and furthermore, the optics of Ritchie's block are bad, having been done immediately after the RFA vote. The timeline gives a sense that Ritchie went looking for a reason to block an editor they disagreed with. I would encourage you to reverse this and apologize. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  I don't agree with every point you raise, but that this was a two month old comment is enough for me to reach the same conclusion about the block's validity. Return this to the status quo ante, at a minimum. Courcelles (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Simply put, upgrading the block based on an un-repeated, 2-month-old comment is unreasonable. It prevents nothing, and blocks are supposed to be preventative. At minimum, I would return the block to status quo ante as Courcelles suggests. --Jayron32 14:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I want to go further than that, and find a way in which Willbb234 can constructively contribute to the encyclopedia, can avoid the disputes that led to the increasingly escalating blocks, and address the concerns of the other blocking administrators. Simply reversing the site-wide block still means they can't actually contribute to several million articles they've never been disruptive on. So I want to review this and propose to unblock completely with a 1RR restriction in place. As that would reverse the actions of other admins, I think a discussion here is the best route to do that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with setting unblock conditions or setting up a return to editing regime, or whatever, but that's unrelated to blocking someone for a comment made 2 months ago. --Jayron32 14:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

That's a laudable goal, and I'm supportive of trying a 1RR restriction, actually. I think the confusion is why we needed a site-wide block rather than just a discussion on the request to lift the namespace block? Courcelles (talk) 14:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I have reversed the site-wide block so it is back to mainspace only, so it doesn't distract us from the unblock + 1RR proposal. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Given that that's out of the way, I think allowing mainspace editing with a 1RR restriction logged at WP:EDR is very reasonable. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

As do I. Courcelles (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I concur. --Jayron32 15:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

This user name caught my attention. I immediately thought of long-time and formerly prominent User:Will Beback.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

If you're going to accuse an editor of abusing multiple accounts, you're going to need better evidence than username similarity to an account that hasn't edited in nearly ten years. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Likely unrelated. Will Beback is not currently under a ban or a block (they had been, but that has been removed). Seems highly unlikely that a user that hasn't edited in 9 years would show up out of the blue, edit none of the articles they used to, have an entirely different set of interests, otherwise act like a complete newb, but do so under a similar username. --Jayron32 16:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Accusation? Impersonation? Coincidence? Comic relief? I’m not sure my thinking ever really advanced beyond noticing a partial alliterative similarity. “That’s odd.”

Some minds are like that.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Unblock proposal

• I think we're close to a consensus. So, formally proposed:

Willbb234 is unblocked, and is permitted to edit in all namespaces. They are subject to a 1RR restriction, specifically defined as being prohibited from "making any more than one revert to any page, except Willbb234's own user space, in any 24-hour period", that will be formally logged at WP:EDR, and is subject to the same usual exceptions, though Willbb234 is cautioned to be very careful should they make reverts relying on those exceptions. Willbb234 may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator for a length at their discretion for any violations, and they may appeal this restriction to WP:AN six months from enactment, or six months from the most recent block under this restriction, whichever is later.

• Support as proposer. Courcelles (talk) 16:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support - though while many people familiar with my body of work on Wikipedia have noted my propensity for needless verbosity, I actually prefer sanctions to be short and to the point. "Willbb234 is unblocked, upon agreement to a one-revert restriction which may be appealed in the usual manner after six months" is sufficient to cover all these bases, I think. I don't disagree with any part of the proposal, but it's not necessary to specify that all of the conditions that normally apply to editing restrictions also apply to this specific restriction. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support Though I'd like to see more voices than the three of us that have already commented several times on this matter. --Jayron32 17:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  Of course. That's why I decided to make it a formal proposal rather than pressing buttons, we need a little less of an echo chamber than the four of us. Courcelles (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support I will stress, though, that Willbb's actions are a complete violation of WP:CIVILITY, and I very much would expect that the user would be mindful of any comments they make towards another editor going forward. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 18:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support Seems sensible. Lectonar (talk) 09:13, 16 May 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.

Excess of caution?

Perhaps in an excess of caution, I have deleted this as G10. Would some kind colleague care to review that, and revert if I was wrong? I'd be grateful. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• 50K of often badly-sourced information about an incident that is already mentioned in the subject's own article? Nein danke. Good deletion. Black Kite (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
• I don't think it meets the precise letter of G10, but I think it does meet the spirit of it, and WP:BLPDELETE - an article that excessively expands on an existing BLP, with excessive detail and questionable sourcing should be deleted per the BLP policy. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
• Even if we have to call it IAR, I'd consider it a good deletion within discretion. Deleting draftspace BLP nonsense could almost be a G15 ;) Courcelles (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
• Solid deletion here. Is it verbatim G10? No. Would I delete it anyway based on BLPDELETE? Yup. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, all. It's reassuring to find your assessments fairly close to my own. I brought this here for review because of what it says here: "... delete the entire page as an initial step, followed by discussion" (not sure how grammatical that is, but the message seems clear). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I take "followed by discussion" to be a summary of the subsequent "The deleting administrator should be prepared to explain the action to others, by e-mail if the material is sensitive". Perhaps it should be changed to "to be followed by discussion if necessary". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I have WP:BOLDly added a clarification, to make it clear that a discussion may be requested, but is not mandatory unless requested. Admins shouldn't feel the need to seek justification of their use of the tools, though they should be prepared to offer one if asked.--Jayron32 15:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• Appropriate use of the tools. I agree that BLP justifies pushing the limits in order to preserve our integrity. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

CfD issue resolved after closure

Category:French Polynesian lawyers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_April_30#Category:French_Polynesian_lawyers

I closed a CfD with WP:SMALLCAT concerns to merge into a larger category, which became resolved after the closure. The page has not yet been deleted through WP:CFDW, so I am not sure if WP:DRV can be used.

At the time of nomination on April 30, it included only one article, Richard Tuheiava. During the CfD, Michel Buillard and Tepuaraurii Teriitahi were added to the category, bringing the count to 3 at the time of closure. After the closure, however, a user added 2 more pages (Rudy Bambridge and Denise Goupil) to the category, bringing the count up to 5. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

It has been deleted now, so I have gone to WP:DRV. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

An RfC that needs to be closed

There has been an RfC on Kosovo for 2 months, but it has more than a week with no new comments. It seems it is the right time to have someone assess the consensus, but it would be preferable to have an admin or a very experienced editor since such topics are controversial. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

You should move this over to WP:CR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done. I did my best to read it, summarize it, and close it. --Jayron32 17:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Beat me to it! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Jayron32 and User:ScottishFinnishRadish, thanks! Much appreciated. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

All credit to Jayron32, who actually did the work instead of telling you to move your post. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

And they did it so fast. Nice work. But also thanks to you for the advice. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I guess it was requested that the post be moved because posting here is cutting in line. There are lots of older requests at WP:CR. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

ARBPOL Amendment Referendum Live

As the petition for an ARBPOL amendment to remove the right for Jimbo Wales to act as an appeal route for arbcom decisions has received 100 signatures a referendum on the proposal has been opened.

Proposed amendment referendum

It requires a majority in favour with at least 100 supporting editors.

CENT, WLN, user talk:Jimbo Wales, and VPP will all be notified. Please feel free to provide neutral notices to other relevant fora. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

RfC on a contentious topic needs a procedural close by an uninvolved admin.

See Talk:Coerced religious conversion in Pakistan#RfC about restoring sourced content. In my opinion, this RfC (asking whether a removal of content should be reverted) needs a procedural close, since it includes material copy-pasted from a source cited - an article in the New Indian Express. Could I ask an uninvolved admin (or other experienced contributor) to take a look, and close the RfC as invalid, if they agree with my analysis? We are trying (not entirely successfully so far) to discuss the disputed material in detail elsewhere on the talk page, making the RfC rather redundant if we can actually look at it in more detail - a simple revert is clearly no longer on the cards. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• A simple revert, as asked by the RFC, was never on the cards IMO since restoring the deleted material as is would have violated WP:BLPNAME, etc. I had not closed the RFC early in the hopes that the discussion would explore the possibility of adequately summarizing and rephrasing the material so that it is policy-compliant. But the discussion so far does not appear to be about that; so I would support an early closure of the RFC. I would ask another admin to review and implement any action since I have already protected and put this article under CTOP restrictions (and I have previously closed a poorly-crafted RFC started by the same editor), and it would be good to have an independent assessment. Abecedare (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

•  Done. --Jayron32 11:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Request for double check

Would another admin please review my revision deletions on Wallace Wilkinson to make sure they are kosher? I'm not as active as I used to be, especially with the admin tools, but the information seemed really controversial and poorly sourced, and I didn't think it needed to remain visible. (Honestly, I didn't even have the courage to check one of the sources, because it sounded like it linked to some stuff I REALLY had no interest in seeing!) Wilkinson is dead, so it wasn't a straight-up WP:BLP deletion, and the "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive" criterion is a bit subjective, imo. If the action was wrong, I'm absolutely fine with it being undone and with being (politely) educated about why it was inappropriate on my talk page. Thanks. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Very good deletion. Courcelles (talk) 14:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

SPL addition link, so not to have this URL on the AN? Hell no, I've indeffed that account as a troll. Courcelles (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

And added to the spam blacklist. Courcelles (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• Typically you should specify which criterion you're deleting under in the deletion log entry, but this is textbook WP:RD3, and a good deletion, and no need to nitpick about process here. Good blacklist entry too. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, @Courcelles: and @Ivanvector:. I always want to be judicious with the tools. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

RfC notice

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Request_for_Comment:_Should_editing_on_Wikipedia_be_limited_to_accounts_only? - Notice about a discussion asking whether editing on Wikipedia should be limited to accounts only? - jc37 15:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Bebel2024

Bebel2024 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) contributions are clearly disruptive. Several of their edits and article (if not all of them) violate WP:NOTNEWS and they seem to lack WP:COMPETENCE to edit here. In their home wiki, the pt.WP, they were indef. blocked due to their disruptive behavior. During their block discussion, they stated that they were autistic and attempt to apologize in "broken Portuguese", showing very poor communicative skills. Their English, based on a few edits and article that I've analyzed so far, is also very poor. I think some sysop should give it a look. There are several articles that should be deleted and several edits that must be reverted. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 02:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

An apology for my actions in October 2022

NB. Although this is perhaps slightly outside the scope of matters of general administrator interest, WP:AN felt like the "right place" — further apologies if not.

I'm not very good at writing my thoughts down (as my article creation statistics clearly show), but over the last six months I've been reflecting on my decisions and behaviour which led to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block. For those unfamiliar, the ArbCom case has a succinct timeline.

I've made personal apologies in private to a number of people, but I also understand that I owe one to you, the community, and I'd like to take a moment to do that now.

I'm sorry for letting you down after you had placed your trust in me, both here as an admin and a functionary, and globally as a steward — I have no excuses, but have tried below to demonstrate an understanding of what I did wrong and show what I've learnt. I hope the community can come to forgive me, and allow me to cautiously rebuild the trust I've damaged, but I understand that this comes from actions and not words.

In addition to the community in general, and those I've emailed, I'd like to offer my apologies to:

• Lourdes and Athaenara, for performing an unwarranted check on their accounts,
• Athaenara directly, for leaving uncivil remarks on their talk page, and
• the Arbitration Committee for my conduct prior to, during and after the case.

What I did wrong

At the most basic level, I failed to recognise my emotional compromise and react accordingly. This led me to make further compounding errors due to my involvement in the situation, namely;

• Performing a check on Athaenara and Lourdes — I didn't follow my own advice and not only failed to request prior opinions on if this check was warranted, but when such an opinion was given, chose to ignore it.
• (Re-)blocking someone with whom I was angry, which despite the beliefs I had at the time in regard to "how WP:INVOLVED worked" is an bright line I should have known better than to cross.
• Behaving aggressively during the resultant ArbCom case — my behaviour towards arbitrators prior, during and after this incident was abhorrent, and cannot be excused by claiming I was upset and angry.

What I've learnt

It's taken time to understand that almost the entirety of the initial incident and its aftermath was caused by my involvement, so I've focused on adjusting my understanding of what it means to be involved.

• The involvement policy is designed to protect against emotional/etc. compromise — that is, having a bright line should (and normally, does) help administrators know when to step back and ask for someone else to take action.
• In some cases, the concept of apparent involvement (i.e., an administrator appearing to be involved) is more important than actual involvement.
• I got very hung up on the idea that I was being labelled as involved solely because the incident in question related to transphobic remarks, and I am openly queer. I now understand that although this contributed to how strongly affected I was, this fact was only ever "in addition to", and was never the sole reason.
• Administrators making (actual, or apparent) involved actions undermines the neutral role we've been entrusted by the community to play here on Wikipedia.

On reflection, I understand that had I been more conscious of how the incident had made me feel, identified the likelihood of being WP:INVOLVED by my emotions, and stepped away from taking any actions, this entire thing wouldn't have occurred.

Put another way, had I not been emotionally compromised, I would not have;

• Made any checks — my judgement was clouded by hurt and anger, mixed with perhaps a disbelief that an admin whom I had previously known quite well (Lourdes) would "do such a thing by choice" (i.e. unblock Athaenara).
• Made the re-block — for much the same reasons as above, I saw the unblock as an "egregious miscarriage of justice" which had to be "put right".
• Responded as aggressively — I considered my anger and actions to be "righteous indignation", to which any criticism was paramount to agreeing with the statements made by Athaenara.

This emotionally compromised state caused me to lay blame and reasonable suspicion at the feet of someone I was evidently angry with, and then redirect this towards a number of people who, if not trying to actively help, were at the very least doing their best to understand.

I've also come to understand that situations where you feel a need to aggressively defend yourself are often those where we should take extra care and time to reflect. I wholeheartedly regret every action I took, and each word I said in anger.

I wish I could go back, take a few extra breaths, and see that I was desperately needing to step away from what had become something Wikipedia should never be — a personal battleground.

I sincerely apologize, and thank you for reading. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 14:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Notes

• From someone uninvolved in the whole debacle, I can't say I believe your actions were right, but Arbcom has already said that, as have many others in droves, so I'll refrain. However, we're also all human, and all make mistakes, and further, are all susceptible to letting our emotions get the better of us. Do I think you probably should stay away from CUOS? Yes, most likely, because that kind of trust is not easily given back. But I think that, so long as you truly understand the problems, it's perhaps time to move on from the original incident. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 18:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
• I don't know if you want to hear this from me in particular, but I'm very glad to see this and wish you only the best. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• i thought we all agreed to forget about this lettherebedarklight晚安 01:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  Not helpful. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• Sammy, thank you for writing this. It is not every day that people own up and apologize for past actions, and I admire your humility and sincerity. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• I can't speak on behalf of the Arbitration Committee, but I can speak on behalf of myself. Thank you for your words. I understood the anger at the time, and I understood where your actions and words came from, so I never felt negativity towards you for them. I am very glad that we have not lost you as either an editor or an administrator, and I do look forward to the day that you regain the full trust of the community. Worm^TT(talk) 08:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• TheresNoTime, your apology above is highly appreciated. I wished you well even in the Arbcom case; and continue to do so. I make many more mistakes than you do, and apologise too little, so a good lesson here for me too. And like lettherebedarklight write above, time to forget about this and just enjoy being here. Warmly, Lourdes 09:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• Thank you.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• I rarely enjoy reading apologies, but this one came from the heart; it's a gem. Well done. --Andreas JN466 13:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland closed

An arbitration case, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland, has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• The Arbitration Committee formally requests that the Wikimedia Foundation develop and promulgate a white paper on the best practices for researchers and authors when writing about Wikipedians. The Committee requests that the white paper convey to researchers the principles of our movement and give specific recommendation for researchers on how to study and write about Wikipedians and their personal information in a way that respects our principles. Upon completion, we request that the white paper be distributed through the Foundation's research networks including email newsletters, social media accounts, and web publications such as the Diff blog.
  This request will be sent by the Arbitration Committee to Maggie Dennis, Vice President of Community Resilience & Sustainability with the understanding that the task may be delegated as appropriate.
• Remedy 5 of Antisemitism in Poland is superseded by the following restriction:
  All articles and edits in the topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland are subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction. When a source that is not an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution is removed from an article, no editor may reinstate the source without first obtaining consensus on the talk page of the article in question or consensus about the reliability of the source in a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Administrators may enforce this restriction with page protections, topic bans, or blocks; enforcement decisions should consider not merely the severity of the violation but the general disciplinary record of the editor in violation.
• François Robere is topic banned from the areas of World War II in Poland and the History of Jews in Poland, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• My very best wishes
  • is topic banned from the areas of World War II in Poland and the History of Jews in Poland, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • Based on their disruptive attempts to defend Piotrus and Volunteer Marek, My very best wishes is subject to a 1-way interaction ban with Piotrus and a 1-way interaction ban with Volunteer Marek, subject to the usual exceptions. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Volunteer Marek
  • is topic banned from the areas of World War II in Poland and the History of Jews in Poland, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • is limited to 1 revert per page and may not revert a second time with-out a consensus for the revert, except for edits in his userspace or obvious vandalism. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• François Robere and Volunteer Marek are prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, posts and comments made by each other, subject to the normal exceptions. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• The Arbitration Committee assumes and makes indefinite the temporary interaction ban between Levivich and Volunteer Marek. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Piotrus is reminded that while off-wiki communication is allowed in most circumstances, he has previously used off-wiki communication disruptively. He is reminded to be cautious about how and when to use off-wiki contact in the future, and to avoid future conflict, he should prioritize on-wiki communication.
• The Arbitration Committee affirms its January 2022 motion allowing editors to file for Arbitration enforcement at ARCA or Arbitration enforcement noticeboards. In recognition of the overlap of editor interest and activity between this topic area and Eastern Europe, the committee extends this provision to that topic area. It does so by adding the following text in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe:
  As an alternative to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, editors may make enforcement requests directly to the Arbitration Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
• The Arbitration Committee separately rescinds the part of the January 2022 motion allowing transfer of a case from Arbitration Enforcement to ARCA, in recognition of the now-standard provision in Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee. It does so by striking the following text in its entirety in item number 7:
  In addition to the usual processes, a consensus of administrators at AE may refer complex or intractable issues to the Arbitration Committee for resolution at ARCA, at which point the committee may resolve the request by motion or open a case to examine the issue.
  [archive / log]
• When considering sanctions against editors in the Eastern Europe topic area, uninvolved administrators should consider past sanctions and the findings of fact and remedies issued in this case.

Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked for up to 1 year. Administrators placing blocks should take into account an editor's overall conduct and Arbitration history and seriously consider increasing the duration of blocks. Any block 3 months or longer should be reported for automatic review either (1) at ARCA or (2) to an arbitrator or clerk who will open a review at ARCA. The committee will consider presented evidence and statements before deciding by motion what, if any, actions are necessary, up to and including a site ban.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland closed

Requested move

I have requested the page Elfdalian's title to be moved to Elfdalian language, see: Talk:Elfdalian#Requested move 20 May 2023. Can someone take a look on it? Karamellpudding1999 (talk) 22:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

You've opened a regular move discussion on the article talk page. The next step is to wait seven days for the WP:RM/CM process to reach a conclusion. EdJohnston (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

AfD requiring closure

This AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Udini Square (2nd nomination) has gone over the 7 day relisting period and requires closure. LibStar (talk) 04:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Somehow or other Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion has been listed for speedy deletion

Hi all,

Somehow or other Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion has been listed for speedy deletion as of 20 May 2023: please see Category:Candidates for speedy deletion.

No doubt this is due to some mix-up in transclusion of deprecated template regex . Or something like that. Pure guesswork on my part. Things like this are pretty much a mystery to me.

@Aquabluetesl, Crainsaw, Pppery, Robert McClenon, Explicit, Spiderone, Sundostund, Sundostund, DefenderTienMinh07, and Fakescientist8000: Somehow or other Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion has been listed for speedy deletion. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Appears to me to be resolved now, are others still seeing it? I believe it was caused by a G7 tag on this page; I did some purging after declining that, but it wasn't immediately effective. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it, and there's nothing in the edit history, could've been a glitch or something like that Crainsaw (talk) 13:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Per Justlettersandnumbers, sometimes XfD subpages get tagged with speedy templates, which are then transcluded to the main XfD page. Seems to have been fixed on my end. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 14:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I didn't see it this time, but I have seen this before. These errors illustrate why speedy deletion tags are requests to a trusted human administrator to delete a page after checking the reason for deletion, who can verify whether there was a mistake due to the complexity of transclusion. Thank you to whoever did the cleanup. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

For future reference, this can be fixed by performing a null edit to the incorrectly listed page. -FASTILY 07:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Bbb23 abusing rights

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.

---

As seen here, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, the user Bbb23 seems to have forgot basic rules of respect and is pointing fingers and creating a larger problem with the use of questionably agressive language. This has no place in Wikipedia and leads to more controversy and drama in talk pages rather than resolving actual problems at hand. The "administrator" is doing anything but to resolve problems in the mentioned original article and rather they are focused on attacking me and pointing fingers.

Yours sincerely, Katakana546 (talk) 13:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I was sharply critical of Bbb23 in a different thread but I don't see a problem here. You made a dubious edit-warring report. Bbb23 explained why you were in the wrong and closed it. That ought to be the end of the matter, unless there's context beyond Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:BangJan1999_reported_by_User:Katakana546_(Result:_No_violation) that's not obvious here. You should withdraw this report. Mackensen (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

No. You were the one in the wrong here. Also, you seem to not understand the criteria for speedy deletion at all. Or maybe you don't understand deletion in general, since being out of date does not cause deletion of notable articles. Suggest you spend more time understanding why we delete articles here and less time nominating stuff for deletion. Courcelles (talk) 13:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I assume this relates to this edit, with which I can see absolutely no problem. If there's some other issue with Bbb23's conduct, you really need to provide diffs and more explanation in this report so people can work out what it is. Otherwise I would strongly suggest withdrawing this report. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Please don't treat this is piling on but as evidence that multiple experienced editors see it differently than you. If I were making the rules, my rule would be that the checking a box which is not relevant to the underlying event should not qualify as notability, but I don't make the rules in my will is a decidedly small minority of views. Wikipedia attempts to reflect a broader consensus which use checking boxes as conferring notability. However, what I just said is something that should be part of a talk page discussion not a rationale for simply imposing your own views. We do have procedures for deletion of articles. While your first step was fine, adding a tag indicating a rationale for removal, as others have pointed out, when that tag is remove the proper next step is not to add it again, but to engage in a talk page discussion which you did not do. For better or for worse Wikipedia has a lot of rules and it's tricky to navigate them, but generally speaking when you are new to a place with a lot of rules, you be better off asking about the rules. Bbb23's actions were quite acceptable. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:02, 22 May 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kanpur Se Katas Tak

This AfD has gone over the 7 day relist, so asking an admin to relist or close. Thanks. LibStar (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

LibStar, done. Just for future reference, there's generally no need to make a special closure request for an AfD: as long as it's on the list at WP:OLDAFD, we'll get to it eventually (the backlog is just really bad at the moment). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Appeal - indefinite Ban of Jack4576 from AfD

Appeal Withdrawn

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 AN post relates to the closure of this thread: (linked)

Involved parties

• Jack4576 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• El_C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Notification of closing admin: (diff)

Statement by Jack4576

I accept that my comments at AfD were uncivil, and I accept that the incivility ought to be subject to sanction.

A discussion of the conduct that led to my banning is available at this thread, with various links to various discussions.

Assessment of the consensus

I disagree with the assessment of consensus by User:El_C in the discussion. The consensus is in some respects questionable due to a number of involved editors contributing to !votes that formed a part of the consensus assessment. Other issues with the discussion include dogpiling, TAGTEAMing, and general lack of quality in the overall discussion and thread that led to the ban.

There were a reasonable amount of editors in favour of a time-limited ban, or no sanction at all. Such that I do not think an indefinite AfD TBAN is a fair assessment of the consensus here. I humbly submit that the more appropriate outcome would be a time-limited sanction.

Harshness of the sanction

Additionally, in my view an indefinite TBAN from AfD is overly harsh.

Poor quality of the discussion

Alternatively, I would ask that the RNI be re-opened, with a committent from all editors (including myself) that no bludgeoning or bad behaviour ought occur. While some described my edits as bludgeoning, there were other editors involved in the discussion, not targeted, that provided a large volume of comments and indeed dominated the discussion to a degree. (I dispute that I bludgeoned the discussion, as I was defending myself from a pile-on of distinct allegations, and so required distinct responses; although I concede that it was arguable, and moderated the volume of my comments after this issue was raised)

The overall quality of the discussion was very low, and while I contributed to this, I humbly submit that the fault was not totally of mine own.

Summary

Essentially this appeal to the community is being raised on the basis that there are serious questions about the validity of the ban discussion and its closure, and the appropriateness of the sanction.

Per the comment of User:Elemimele: "I don't see quite such a convenient consensus. I see a lot of discussion with extensive "comment" sections that don't commit to supporting, and a handful of well-expressed opposes too. And this is not supposed to be a simple pile-on vote is it? For what it's worth I oppose the topic ban strongly. I disagree completely with Jack's arguments, viewpoint, and complete disregard of policy on notability, but (1) how difficult is it for an AfD closer to ignore non-policy-based, short "keeps" like Jack's? And (2) Jack is what happens when you have an open, collaborative encyclopaedia: people disagree with you. Banning Jack looks uncomfortably like banning disagreement. Not a great message to send."

Requested outcome

Regarding outcome, I request that:

(1) the TBAN be time limited to a duration of between 1 - 3 months, or

(2) the ANI be procedurally voided due to poor quality of discussion, with no restriction as to it being re-opened in future

Thank you Jack4576 (talk) 07:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Statement by El_C

The appellant did not try to discuss the sanction with me. Instead, their first action was to file an arbitration case (now withdrawn), and now this appeal. On their talk page, I noted how they have not tried discussing the substance of the sanction with me. They replied to that with: Why would I discuss "the substance of the sanction with" you (?) You provided your reasons in your closing statement, I think they're seriously questionable. There's nothing to discuss with you, unless you have further reasons to provide (permalink). To me, that is subpar.

As well on their talk page, I asked about the meaning of first when they mentioned trying a normal appeal first (i.e. AN over RfAR). I asked: So, if the community were to decline your appeal, then you'll try ArbCom? The appellant replied with Yes. As I believe the substance of your closure was seriously questionable. I don't think they even understand that this is subpar (i.e. WP:CIR issues).

As for my read of the consensus, I stand by it as a reasonable assessment of the discussion. I also did not set this sanction to expire because, in this instance, I think the user needs to prove that they can edit in that area without issues, rather than seeing the sanction simply expiring, with the problematic conduct likely then resuming. Thanks. El_C 07:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

You're not the person imposing the sanction right? Isn't this all just based on your reading of the consensus?

That being the case, and you being confident of your own reading of the consensus, I'm not sure of the purpose of further discussion between the two of us. I'm not sure what the issue is here.

As for my potential appeal to ArbCom, there is nothing wrong with my appealing to that body. Your question: So, if the community were to decline your appeal, then you'll try ArbCom?" is somewhat problematic, really. I have a right to appeal to ArbCom; it really isn't relevant to the discussion here whether I would or would not pursue that option. They might decline, as they are known to do. 'tis not an issue. Jack4576 (talk) 08:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments moved from ANI thread

When Jack inadvisedly moved this here instead of quickly apologizing for the drama and moving on, he neglected to copy the responses other editors had already made at ANI. They are:

Jack4576, as I told you, appeals go @WP:AN, not ANI. El_C 07:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Missed opportunity to provide some friendly advice to Jack that an appeal so quickly on such a clear consensus is a very bad idea, likely to lead to more permanent consequences. But coming from the closer I suspect it would have fallen on deaf ears. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

There was a clear community consensus, and Elemimele was the only editor to say that. It was pretty clear that they disagreed with the consensus formed. "Disagreement" is OK, however the issue was you based your AfD !votes (which you spammed) on arguments that did not align with policy, after being told repeatedly not to do so. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

—David Eppstein (talk) 07:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you David, apologies. As for "more permanent consequences", it already appears that the sanction being imposed is indefinite.

I did not see the consensus as being particularly clear, but I am willing to accept Admin assessment of that being the case.

Jack4576 (talk) 08:03, 22 May 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.

Close review for Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC on draftifying a subset of mass-created Olympian microstubs

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.

---

From the beginning of March until just being closed, a discussion was held on whether to move to draftspace a group of nearly 1,000 historical athletes who had competed in the Olympic Games from 1896 to 1912 created by Lugnuts. After around two months of discussion and a count of approximately 68 support–45 oppose (60%–40%), it was closed by Bradv as no consensus; his close was taken to the administrators' noticeboard for discussion and eventually he re-opened his close. It was re-closed by GRuban with a consensus to draftify. I disagree that this was the correct closure, and am bringing it here for review as such. Below is GRuban's close, with notes containing my commentary on why its wrong:

The motion carries, WP:Consensus to move the listed articles to Draft space. Note that the motion allows, and even encourages, editors to edit and improve the articles so they can be returned to main space. Not mass, or batch, or automated moves back to main space. As long as the editor sincerely believes they have improved a given specific article enough to pass Wikipedia:Notability, they may move it back to main space; at worst, that way it will face an individual WP:AfD, not 900+ all at once! Until then, or even instead of that, editors may make similarly individual and considered redirects in main space to replace some articles. Redirects will generally need to pass a lower bar, the main concerns are that the redirect will be a reasonably likely search term, and there is an obvious target article. Again, at worst, that way they will face specific WP:RfDs.--GRuban (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

TL;DR

I'd like to thank all those who participated in this discussion, over 100 people, all of whom remained civil, and many of whom brought up very insightful points. I'd also like to thank User:BilledMammal for making the proposal, User:Bradv for closing it the first time, and User:FOARP for convincing him to reopen. I'm trying to fill some pretty big shoes here; I'm an experienced editor, and have closed maybe 100 RfCs, but Bradv is not only an experienced editor, but also an experienced administrator, so it takes quite a bit of hubris to think I can do a better job, and I won't be surprised if there is another thread on WP:AN after this asking that my close be also reopened. But I am still trying hard so that there is not.

So, the decision. I counted a noticeable majority of voices in support of this proposal than opposing it here; something like 68 to 45, and even more if we consider the ones who agreed that the articles should be removed from main space, but wanted redirects instead of draftification (which, as above, will generally be individually allowed). I might be off by one or two in my count, but I am not off by 10. Now as people say, correctly, RfC is a matter of stating arguments, citing policies and guidelines, not a matter of counting votes. The closer does not just count votes. But when I close and judge arguments, I try to remember that the editors stating them are as much editors as I am, many even more experienced than I am, and if many experienced Wikipedians are all saying something, it's definitely worth considering that they just might be right.

So, those arguments. The "support" side mainly said that these articles are stubs that are essentially database entries, and cited only to one or two specific databases, violating WP:GNG, WP:SPORTCRIT, and WP:NOTDB. I looked at a randomly selected subset and they were all of the exact form: "(Name) (born–died) was a (nationality) (sportsman). He competed in the (sport) event at the (year) (season) Olympics." Exactly those two sentences, no more text, and cited as stated. The support side has a point. There are a number of people on the "oppose" side that said that the articles aren't hurting anything, there is WP:NODEADLINE, so they might be expanded, Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, so we have the space, and that at the time that Lugnuts wrote the articles, WP:NSPORT said that just participation in an Olympics, even without winning a medal, was an indicator of notability. Unfortunately, I have to discount those arguments; we have a long and time-honored precedent of deleting articles that are not actually hurting anything, but just because they don't meet Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability; and those policies don't have a "grandfather clause" that say that articles that were made before the policies were written are forever acceptable. We can work on not-harmful articles that don't quite meet standards in our user spaces, or in draft space, but until they do, we don't allow them in main or article space.

Many others of the "oppose" side, maybe even most of them, said two related things: that mass moving articles to draft space is basically deletion, as very few people will ever find them there; and that deletion is not something that can be decided at the Village Pump, that's what we have WP:AfD for. That is basically the argument that Bradv found in his close that there was no counter-argument against; he cited WP:DRAFTIFY and this previous Village pump discussion that articles shouldn't be moved to draft space as a back door to deleting them via AfD. Now Bradv had a good point as well; he's a very experienced and respected editor. Many on the "support" side, at least implicitly agreed that moving these articles to Draft space would be close to deletion; some said they were only supporting draftification because they really wanted the articles deleted, and while others said they supported draftification to avoid deletion, and that the text would still be there for people who wanted to improve them, they admitted there would be a real possibility that no one ever would. However, the "support" side said that that this many articles would be too much for AfD, which only handles one or at most a few articles in a single discussion, not hundreds as here, and especially not the thousands of Lugnuts's similar stubs, which many on both the "support" and "oppose" sides agreed would likely soon be brought up a similar discussion. In questioning Bradv's close, FOARP said that this Village pump discussion was essentially similar to WP:AFD, so should be allowed to draftify articles if the decision went that way, and this was eventually successful enough to get Bradv to withdraw his close. This similarity to AfD was actually brought up in this discussion earlier, by PerfectSoundWhatever: "Wikipedia isn't a burocracy, so I don't think its a problem to do this process here instead of AfD if enough editors come to a disagreement. Different room, same discussion." Now I wouldn't always agree with that in many cases, AfD is where it is for a reason, it's a high visibility forum, many editors specifically go there to decide the fate of articles, if this were a lower visibility discussion I would not consider it a sufficient substitute for AfD. But in this case, there were over 100 editors actively participating, including many very experienced ones. Very few AfDs get that level of participation. I think per WP:IAR, and WP:NOTBURO, we can consider this a sufficient venue, as PerfectSound wrote.

Finally, the redirect option. A noticeable number of people were opposed to draftification, for all the above reasons, but preferred replacing the stub articles with redirects to existing articles on the Olympics of that year or the competitors' countries, because that way at least the redirects could be found by readers; even more would accept redirects equally with draft space, or as a compromise. However, several were explicitly opposed to redirects, because it wouldn't be always clear which article to redirect to, and in any case, over half the participants didn't mention redirects one way or the other. So I can't see a consensus for redirect, even as a compromise. However, I can point out the initial term of the proposal, "5: Editors may return drafts to mainspace for the sole purpose of redirecting/merging them to an appropriate article, if they believe that doing so is in the best interest of the encyclopedia". So if someone believes they know a good redirect target, they can feel free to make a redirect; if others disagree, they can discuss or at worst nominate it for WP:RfD. As long as it is one thoughtful redirect at a time, and not a mindless batch or automated process, I believe the community will accept it. User:Valereee even suggested doing draftification and redirect replacement simultaneously.

Personal note: Personally I'm not much of an editor of articles about Olympic competitors (arguably if I were I wouldn't be a suitable closer here!). However I've run into Lugnuts here and there - with all his edits it's hard to imagine an experienced editor who hasn't. I had always looked at his many short articles, not just on sportspeople, but on the many, many topics that he wrote about, and thought: these are not my cup of tea, but I'm glad we have him. I'm sad that he's gone. I'm even more sad that he went like this, with a statement that he intentionally added copyright violations and incorrect information. That several people in this conversation think he was lying about this, and just saying it "to piss off all of those who did not like him" doesn't really make it much better. What we're doing here by building the Wikipedia is a 90%+, maybe even 99%+, a very good thing. If I'm ever this angry at the <1-10% of what this project does that I don't agree with, I hope I can leave without deliberately acting to damage the project as a whole. A sad thing all around.

In conclusion, based on the notes above, I believe that closing this discussion as having a consensus to draftify is incorrect and suggest that it be overturned to no consensus. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you, BeanieFan! That's a beautiful demurral, and you should probably expand the collapsed "Notes", since they are, after all, your main argument. I'm afraid I still stand by my close, with only one exception: I forgot to thank you among the list of User:BilledMammal, User:Bradv and User:FOARP. I am a strong believer in the principle behind Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard, and when I read the arguments, where you several times pointed out how you believed you were able to save some of these, I was quite proud you were one of us, and I should have pointed it out specifically. I make a special note on my userpage by those articles which I believe I played a large part in restoring after deletion, because I'm quite proud of them. So I applaud your saving any of these articles which you can; and this motion gives you, and anyone else who feels the call, a large amount of time to save them. I wish you the best of luck in doing so, and might even join you in a few. --GRuban (talk) 23:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks :) I've uncollapsed the notes. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• [Involved, opposing draftification and supporting redirection.] When I saw this close come in, I didn't read it all. That's not a judgment about the outcome or the closer; I was just glad someone took the time to tackle this and get it over with (again). Reading it now, I have to object to one big thing: the closing statement mentions the fundamental objections concerning the relationship between draftspace and deletion (i.e. that many people pointed out that our deletion policy is explicit about draftspace not being used as back-door deletion), and then counters those arguments with ... something that doesn't actually address those concerns. The other side, which the closer considered stronger was effectively "but going through proper deletion processes would just take too much work". The closer is supposed to evaluate the strength of arguments according to policy and guidelines, not invoke WP:IAR to pick a side when closing a discussion in which only one person even mentioned IAR. I am concerned about the precedent this sets for deletion and draftspace, effectively contrary to the result of all past discussions on the topic. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  The discussion was held at VPP which is where one goes to modify policy. The concern about the policy saying something about back door deletion is addressed by the venue. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  It wasn't an RfC asking whether to modify policy. It [merely?] creates a precedent which conflicts with policy, which is not ideal regardless of the venue. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  Policy is descriptive, not proscriptive, so holding a widely advertised discussion at the correct venue but not saying the magic words I invoke thee, village pump, to change policy isn't a problem. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  @ScottishFinnishRadish, I am perfectly game for a policy that requires that wording for any policy discussion to take effect Nosebagbear (talk) 11:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  The real question is can we change that to policy without the invocation being policy. A real noodle tickler. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• Without comment to the rest of it - after Bradv was bullied into undoing the close as no consensus, there really was no other likely outcome of this RFC, and any subsequent re-close had a predestined outcome. That seems incredibly flawed to me. --Rschen7754 00:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• (involved, supported) Thanks to GRuban for the thorough the close, and the even more thorough anaysis at User:GRuban/Lugnuts Olympic microstubs, which made writing this involved endorse easy. A WP:CENT-listed RFC at the Village Pump open for over two months with 113 editors participating is the highest WP:CONLEVEL possible: it's global, not local, consensus. Of the 113 editors who participated, only 32 thought these articles should remain in mainspace, while 81 thought they should be removed from mainspace. 81/113 = 72%. That's overwhelming global consensus to move these out of mainspace. Of the 81 editors who agreed these articles should be moved out of mainspace, 2 thought they should be outright deleted, 11 thought they should be redirected and not draftified, and the remaining 68 supported the proposal (5-year draftification with the option of redirection, expansion and restoration, or deletion). 68/81 = 83% - so the vast majority of participants agreed they should be moved out of mainspace (72%), with the proposal being by far the preferred method among those who thought they should be moved out of mainspace (83%). A lot of time and effort went into this proposal, over a hundred editors reviewed it, and there was broad agreement that the articles should be removed from mainspace and that it should be done using the method that was proposed. Yes, this RFC could only have been closed one way: with consensus for the proposal. There really is no grounds for ignoring or setting aside 81 !votes. Levivich (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  Where are you getting 81 people who supported and only 32 who said oppose? GRuban counted 68s–45o and the discussion certainly didn't seem that much in favor of draftification. And by the way, this is WP:NOTAVOTE. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• how long are we going to drag this out? lettherebedarklight晚安 01:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• Common sense prevails, thank god. Good close, finally. Zaathras (talk) 02:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• (involved, supported) I believe the close is an accurate reading of consensus, as there was broad agreement to address the group of articles in the manner described. This was an RfC with substantial participation, and as I noted in my comments the highly unusual pattern of Lugnuts' article creation justifies a rather unusual approach to dealing with these articles. Jogurney (talk) 02:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• Involved, supported. Good close; there are a few arguments made by BeanieFan11 that I want to push back on. First, they say that older articles shouldn't be draftified except at AfD, but there is no good reason not to permit, and a policy based reason (WP:NOTBURO) to permit, the draftification of such articles at a more visible forum. Second, they say that WP:NOTDB doesn't apply as this situation doesn't match the examples; it matches the general criteria, and per WP:NOTEVERYTHING The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive. BilledMammal (talk) 02:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• Weak endorse involved. A 60-40 margin with a large number of contributors is a solid consensus in any forum, absent appeals to policy. Weak because a no-consensus close was also within the discretion of the closers. I would hope that future closers also take into account the comments in discussion sections and alternative proposals to get a better sense of where consensus (if any land). Sometimes, I feel that closers in multi-part discussions look narrowly at one question and may miss important insights in other places as some people may not participate in all questions (this is especially true in discussions where additional questions or options are added over time). --Enos733 (talk) 04:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse, involved - No closer had an easy job on this, Gruban got the job done.

A review of an RFC close is not supposed to be a relitigation of the RFC, with respect to BeanieFan’s notes a-k, most of these points were all extensively litigated during the RFC. For example, the reliability of the prose content at Olympedia was extensively discussed with examples of unreliability being raised and the opaque editorial processes and apparent amateur nature of Olympedia being discussed. The ones that weren’t were a) and i).

Regarding a), the count of !votes varies dependent on the method applied, but there is no count that did not have a substantial majority in favour of the motion and an even more substantial majority against keeping the articles in mainspace. Numbers do not decide everything, but they do have a quality all of their own.

Regarding i), Bradv’s reasons for vacating his close do not ultimately affect the validity or not of this close. FOARP (talk) 06:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse (involved, but opposed draftification). Even though this was not my favoured option, it is a good close. I think it's time to end this here. Black Kite (talk) 09:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse (involved) Dear goodness, are we seriously going to challenge the close no matter what it is, aren't we? The closer left a highly detailed rationale, the close seems perfectly reasonable, and it's time for this to be over. Let it end, ffs. --Jayron32 11:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse this reasonable close. I'm really getting sick of seeing reasonable closes of extremely complex discussions challenged by whoever's "side" didn't "win", nitpicking over every possible misstep made by a well-intentioned closer in writing the statement. I frankly wouldn't recommend to anyone to ever close anything the least complicated ever again without the support of a panel, a proofreader, and preferably a PR flack. It's not worth the aggravation. Valereee (talk) 12:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  Amen, Valereee. This tendency to challenge any unliked close is getting crazy. We've now had two entirely reasonable closes -- even though they came to different conclusions, I contend they were both a reasonable read of the discussion. At this rate, no one will be signing up for the grief of making a close, and our entire constitutional system of weighing arguments and consensus will be replaced by a virtual division of the assembly. We had a no consensus close, it got complained about so much the admin reverted it, now we have the opposite close... and yet more complaining. It has to stop somewhere. This should be that point. Endorse in case that's not clear, not necessarily because I'd have made this particular close, but because its reasonable enough and there has to be some finality. Courcelles (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  Also concur. I had a minor issue with the last close, but not enough to actually support overturning because it was still reasonable which is the threshold for upholding a close. Maybe there should be some expectation that someone looking for a review, and those commenting on the close review, be uninvolved? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  The only people likely to look for a review are involved editors, as for the most part uninvolved ones won't take notice of the discussion and close - because of this I think involved editors need to be able to bring a close to a review board. For the second part, I don't think it is beneficial forbidding involved editors from commenting, but it may be useful to split the discussion into two sections; the first for uninvolved editors, the second for involved editors. As part of this it might be worth having a unified review forum - WP:Village pump (close reviews) - where all closes can be reviewed, and we can have a unified set of rules for how close reviews should proceed (I've brought this last idea up in the past, and I continue to believe it is a good idea). BilledMammal (talk) 13:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  We have so many review noticeboards already that barely get any attention (or even use, WP:XRV is a ghost town) but in general, close reviews that are related to policy and required no use of the mop are not really an administrator matter, so I'm not at all sure AN is the best place to be holding these. It just seems to be the default because it's so widely watched. Courcelles (talk) 13:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  Part of the idea would be to merge all the close review forums together (WP:MRV, WP:DRV, etc but not WP:XRV), as well as using the forum to support the review of closes that current lack a forum (merges, and any others that I am missing), to increase the attention on all the closes under review as well as diversify the editors engaged in reviewing the closes. BilledMammal (talk) 14:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  Or perhaps that if it's brought by someone on the "losing side" that they be joined in their objection by at least one !voter from the "winning side", so as to show bipartisan support of the review. Valereee (talk) 13:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  I could see this if it is the same as a "second" in parliamentary procedure, whereas the initial mover must be in support the motion, but the seconder only is agreeing that it is worth discussion and can freely oppose the motion when it comes to a vote. The analogue would be getting that person who agreed with the final outcome to publicly vouch there was some merit to discussing the close, not to !vote to overturn. Courcelles (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not certain that would work either for more obscure discussions; I think we need to be careful to avoid putting barriers to people opening reviews, but it would be beneficial to make it clearer who is and isn't involved. BilledMammal (talk) 14:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  If you literally cannot find even one single person who did not vote on your side to agree the close is worth discussing, maybe that's not such a bad barrier. Valereee (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  For larger discussions with a diversity of opinions I think that is reasonable, but for smaller ones it's not. To take a recent example, Necrothesp took the close of the RM at Murder of Maxwell Confait to move review, where it was overturned - but I would be surprised if any of the editors who supported the move would have endorsed such a choice. This is particularly true for discussions that are closed in favor of the minority position (for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. Lawrey) where there are even fewer editors that those who wish to overturn the close can go to for that support. BilledMammal (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  Also, we are very off topic. Should we move this to the talk page? BilledMammal (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn: I think bradv had it right. There was definitely not consensus and the concerns that those who opposed the action had are valid. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn - We have already proven that this idea is massively flawed. Alfred Keene, Alexander Duncan, Addin Tyldesley, Fred Narganes, Garnett Wikoff and Herbert Gidney were all able to be improved. How many other examples are there in a list that amounts to hundreds of articles? This is the danger of grouping articles together. I agree with BeanieFan11 that it sets a bad standard that is already going to be used against more articles. I object to Olympedia being called a database and being tossed out as a source. Pages like https://www.olympedia.org/athletes/47426 and https://www.olympedia.org/athletes/22156 are full on biographies, which is not what a database is. I reject any "hasn't this gone on long enough" arguments due to WP:DEADLINE. I agree with Beanie that this situation sets up a bad precedent and I think it's really asking a lot of people to be able to follow rules that do not exist yet like in this situation. I also agree with Beanie and I don't think anyone should pay any attention to various things Lugnuts have said. All of these articles were looked at by multiple people and many had more than one editor involved. How do we know various errors were indeed purposely put in articles and how do we know they weren't fixed if they were? People could go through and look, but people not wanting to go through these articles one by one and look is how we got here in the first place.KatoKungLee (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn and instead I'll flip a coin—heads we draftify, tails we don't—and everybody has to promise not to challenge it this time. – Joe (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  That's brilliant, and could be much more widely applied. What were Bradv and I thinking in reading what everyone had to say? Have you considered standing for Arbcom on this platform? --GRuban (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse (uninvolved). The final closure on this makes the most sense. In general, I'm a "keep everything" kind of guy but the vast majority of these are so ridiculously void of notability or content that they do not meet the standard for inclusion. Should more information become available, they should be re-added. This should not mean that all should face the same fate necessarily and I think a few would survive an attempt to make them an article again...but only by the slimmest margins. As for the !vote, 60-40 is a 3-2 ratio and a reasonable standard for a consensus. It isn't a just over the line of a simple majority and the opinions expressed are well-founded. Buffs (talk) 14:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• (involved) Two closes and two challenges, each of which likely took more time to create than the nearly 1,000 procedurally generated items under discussion. A smoother process for handling poor WP:MASSCREATE situations would be beneficial. CMD (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  Maybe we could have a widely advertised and attended discussion at the board where policy and other proposals with community-wide implications are held? Certainly that can't end with a series of closes and reviews. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment this could have been closed either way. My concern has always been that the list of articles generated seems to have been done so using automated features and there appears to have been no attempt made to check any non-paywalled sources already in the articles. As has been shown above, there are a number of these people who are clearly notable. I've seen similar lists generated elsewhere which have clearly also not been checked properly (iirc one had a knight of the realm on it with a tonne of coverage). It would be lovely to have a way of dealing with this sort of article sensibly. We don't - and I don't think the precedent being set here will make things any better fwiw, but, honestly, I've given up caring now. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse (uninvolved): The closure is a valid and reasonable reading of the discussion. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 18:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• Comment We are going to be here forever if we allow persistent "Overturn!" discussions from those that it didn't go their way. The first one was reasonable because of the issue of INVOLVED-ness, but this one isn't. It didn't go my way but I appreciate that the close was valid. The other people who are whining about it need to stop now. Black Kite (talk) 18:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  Cynical of me, but being here forever generally benefits one side of a discussion. Valereee (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  [24] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn Bradv had it right and shouldn't have been bullied into vacating his close. As Rschen7754 notes above, this outcome was pretty much guaranteed once the first close didn't stick, and that's unacceptable. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  Since this repeats an earlier opinion, I'll ask: Why do you think a certain close was predestined? Why do you believe it was guaranteed a second closer would not concur with the first close? Valereee (talk) 20:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  This is a personal opinion based on observation, so I might that I could be mistaken. However, my experience after participating in various discussions pertaining to sports bio stubs is that the editors seeking removal from mainspace will not drop the issue until they have achieved their end. I have mostly disengaged from such discussions out of concern that I may eventually be targeted for sanctions if I continue to vocally oppose this campaign. And it is for that reason that, having answered your question, I am not willing to be drawn into further discussion. If the closing admin chooses to disregard my input, as Zaathras rudely implied while twisting my words (yet another demonstration of the undisguised lack of respect accorded by deletionists to those who want these articles kept), then so be it. The deck is clearly stacked in favor of the deletionists, and I do not consider this a hill worth dying on. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  A chilling effect: pressure on the closer to close it a certain way to avoid potential onwiki harassment. Rschen7754 00:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  Because it would be so much harder to avoid potential harassment by...not making the close in the first place? Valereee (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  "I liked the last outcome, and everyone was a big meanie!" is not a valid reason to overturn. This will be laughably ignored. Zaathras (talk) 21:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  The only thing that's laughable is your comprehension of my comment. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC) While I continue to take umbrage with Zaathras' characterization of my words, I'm striking this comment because it was inappropriately hostile. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 05:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  Interesting Ordinarily, I'd let it go since you deleted it, but the Reddit-esque edit summary makes it clear that you still haven't a clue what this is about. You distorted my words and used your distortion as a basis to belittle me. Unsurprisingly, I was not amused. The next person you do that to won't like either. It's time for you to stop treating Wikipedia like a message board. This community is sometimes forgiving of boorish behavior when it comes from credible, well-established editors, but until you reach that status you should probably think about your edits more thoroughly before submitting them, especially when you're posting on an administrative noticeboard. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  I was asked at my talk page to turn the temperature down, but if you insist on poking the bear, then that's on you, my friend. Every "overturn" thus far, esp. the 18-volume novel of the OP, has just been one big I-don't-like-it. I'm sorry if your argument isn't as deep as you imagine it to be. Zaathras (talk) 04:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  We can agree to disagree on the merits of my argument. I've certainly been disagreed with many times before. I've even been wrong on some of those occasions, and it's not impossible that this is one of them. Either way, neither of us is going to change our position, which again is fine. What bothers me is when people give my words a tone and tenor that they clearly never had. You can say that I was poking you, but I'm not sure how you expected me to respond to your initial reply. As you wrote at your talk page, what is one expected to do when clearly provoked? You baited me (twice), and I admittedly took the bait (twice). So congrats, I guess, but don't fancy yourself a victim. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 05:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  I don't particularly agree with your tone here Zaathras. One thing I've got to say is that the appropriate response to bullying, if Bradv felt bullied, was to take the issue to WP:ANI to be addressed there, and not to vacate the close if he believed the close to be correct. I'm not going to minimise the impact of having a decision you spent a long time on roundly criticised, but that is not bullying even if it can feel like it. Reviewing the previous AN, I cannot say that I see any obvious instances of bullying. The accusations of being WP:INVOLVED might seem personal because they hinge on the closer's previous words/actions, but they were not unreasonable even if I personally did not buy the argument. FOARP (talk) 09:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn As others have suggested, a closer's decision should be respected barring extreme circumstances. Bradv appears to have felt pressured into withdrawing his original close through well-meaning but possibly overzealous criticism, so it would be better to overturn the second close and reinstate the original decision. Heaven bless, Harper J. Cole (talk) 00:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  Bradv's closure was vacated, the community has already made that decision. It has no bearing on the current discussion. Zaathras (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - I’d like to ask the people raising the issue of the vacated closure why exactly they think it impacts the validity of the present close. As far as I can see a vacated close is just that - a close that is no longer in effect. The present closure was not bound to follow it, nor is the reason given by BRADv for vacating it decisive of the outcome of this discussion.

I should add that I am sorry that BRADv felt hard done by by the response to their close. I also have to say that that a reading of the AN discussion at the time of the decision being vacated shows that overturning of the close was a distinct possibility and that was not based on bullying or unreasonable arguments. If any closer feels they are being bullied, I encourage them to report this to WP:ANI so that appropriate action can be taken. FOARP (talk) 06:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Gentle editors. I love you all, really. I always remember that what we're doing here writing the Wikipedia, for everyone, for free, is a really good thing, and no one discussion, not even over a thousand articles, should overshadow that; we have a thousand times a thousand articles, after all. Two requests, though (there's a more detailed explanation in the collapse):

1. Please be nice to each other.
2. Give Bradv's close withdrawal full credit. --GRuban (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

TL;DR

I really appreciated that in the RfC itself, even though it was clearly important to over 100 participants, no one was personally attacked. I appreciated that when BeanieFan11 started this close review, he did it with diligence and care to address my reasoning in my close; as opposed to, say, personal comments about me, my lack of good faith, intellectual independence or courage. Can I personally request that we keep all that up? Thanks. A number of people are saying this close was invalid because Bradv's first close should have been endorsed, if only he hadn't been bullied. Well - he withdrew that close. He had the right to do that. I'm sure his reasons for doing that were complicated, we're all human, we're all complicated. But if we're saying that the only reason he did that was because he felt bullied - well, I'm not him, but if someone said that about me, I'd feel they were attacking my (as above) good faith, intellectual independence, and courage. It takes courage to stand by your principles when you're attacked, and, admittedly, not everyone has that courage, but I am assuming that being a long term admin, Bradv does. It's kind of a requirement of carrying the mop: knowing that people are going to be mad at you for what you do, and tell you so, not kindly either, and still being able to do it anyway. Sure, at least partly Bradv vacated his close because he felt bad that people were yelling at him, he's not only an admin, he's human too. But I'm also quite sure that at least partly he did it because he genuinely thought there were real reasons to let the community take another shot at closing the discussion, the reasons that FOARP and others gave in their request to reopen the close; even if he didn't completely agree with those reasons, he at least thought they were sufficient to give the community to chance to decide again. I'm giving him credit that that was more important in his withdrawing his close than him being afraid of people yelling at him; specifically because I respect his good faith, intellectual independence, and courage. I think we should all do that here. --GRuban (talk) 13:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I asked Bradv, and he does say he was only bullied into his close, so striking that part. --GRuban (talk) 12:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse both closes (uninvolved): Both attempts to close the discussion were valid and reasonable readings of the discussion as of those datestamps. NOTE: it's impossible to reinstate a withdrawn close (the discussion has grown since User:Bradv's effort), so that's not an option available, as User:Zaathras has correctly commented. We can't go back in time in the discussion. This latest close by User:GRuban is also a perfectly valid reading of the discussion. Gruban is wise to recognize how carefully User:BeanieFan11 crafted their statements in this discussion. Gruban's advice in the hatted TL;DR is well-intended and should be well-taken. BusterD (talk) 15:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  +1 to all of this. Valereee (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse GRuban's close Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
• overturn to NC We evaluate these discussions by numbers and strength-of-argument. We evaluate strength-of-argument by how well things line up with guidelines and policy. We all agree this is specifically against our rules. So the stronger argument is on the side of the opposition. If this were 70/30, sure. But 60/40 when specifically against our rules? Nope. Add in the issues with the first closure (I think bullying is too strong of a word but not by a lot) and I don't see how consensus can be said to exist here. It's about as non-consensus as one could hope. Hobit (talk) 03:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse, because this was a widely-advertised and well-attended discussion in the right place to make this decision. Consensus did exist and it was to vary our rules in this way. The alternative, which was to use AfD for a thousand identical articles, was clearly unworkable and would have swamped AfD for years.—S Marshall T/C 06:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn. The fact that so many people are arguing that both closes were reasonable is clear evidence to me that there was no consensus to discern, and that the closes were decisions for the purpose of making a decision (if you like, supervotes) rather than an actual reading of the nonexistent consensus. So I still think no consensus is the only plausible outcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:47, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn to NC - Much like David Eppstein above me, I think that because this discussion is still ongoing, with no real indication of whether "endorse" or "overturn" is more prevalent (and indeed more policy-supported), there cannot be a valid consensus in either side's favour. With this said, I must credit GRuban for their close. It was well written and argued, I simply disagree with it, though I do agree with the argument that due to it being a well advertised discussion we can consider it a deletion discussion. Disclosure that I opposed the draftification. Anarchyte (talk) 07:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse (Wholly uninvolved in this entire debacle) I don't see any misinterpretation of consensus with GRuban's close and therefore no reason to overturn it. I believe that there are some extremely invested individuals who will be unable to accept any result in these deletion-based discussions that don't result in their desired outcome. Also, I'm fully in agreement with BusterD above.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse close (involved). In my opinion GRuban's close accurately reflects the consensus reached in the RfC. I can't comment on the accusations of undisclosed involvement on bradv's behalf as I've no involvement in and only little knowledge of previous discussions on this topic, other than to say that I hope the editors making them were doing so sincerely and in good faith. Nevertheless, it's misleading to characterise the review of his close as entirely unfounded – indeed, FOARP's post initiating the review did not even mention this involvement in passing, and rather advanced argumements based on WP:NOTBURO and WP:CONLEVEL. A sizeable proportion of editors who contributed "overturn" !votes also cited these two as grounds, and they apply equally in endorsing GRuban's close. As Levivitch notes, this was an RfC listed at Centralised Discussion that was open for over two months and that attracted contributions from 113 individual editors. By sheer virtue of visibility it is anything but a "back door to deletion". As ScottishFinnishRadish notes: The discussion was held at VPP which is where one goes to modify policy. The concern about the policy saying something about back door deletion is addressed by the venue. The only thing (off the top of my head) for which a higher CONLEVEL might be needed would be for a course of action that went against the Five Pillars, but that's not the case here. As to BeanieFan11's other objections – they're relitigations of the original RfC and so beyond the scope of this discussion. XAM2175 ^(T) 11:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  I do however take particular exception to to note g holding that [if a] guideline is abolished, that does not mean to get rid of articles previously passing it by the thousands without any sort of effort to see if they're notable!, which is an absurd mischaracterisation of the draftification proposal. XAM2175 ^(T) 11:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse The close is reasonable and the second close review is not. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 03:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn just the only right thing to do. Themanwithnowifi (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse GRuban's closure. (involved) The previous closure ultimately focused on procedural issues wrt WP:INVOLVED. This challenge is premised on essentially disputing the rationale for a close itself, essentially asking for the RFC to be entirely re-litigated (a third time, since the truth is there was substantial re-litigation in the previous discussion even if there shouldn't have been.) BeanieFan11's personal opinions about Olympedia, the GNG, the sourcing of the articles being discussed, the applicability of WP:NOTDATABASE, and so on would have been valid arguments to make during the original discussion, but they are not the kind of things you bring up when challenging a close - that requires an actual procedural issue and not mere disagreement on the points of fact at issue. Most of the other points are nit-picking or irrelevant; clearly a roughly 60% majority is within a closer's discretion to find to be a consensus, and clearly a discussion of over a hundred editors on a major centralized discussion board is sufficient WP:CONLEVEL to override the other consensuses being discussed here per WP:CCC, even if they are in conflict (which seems unclear to me.) --Aquillion (talk) 16:19, 21 May 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.

Implementation - Request for admin assistance

Please see the request at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks#Mass draftification BilledMammal (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Badalucco 1766

Draft:Badalucco 1766 appears to be more of a WP:REFDESK question than a draft for a future article. Should something like this be tagged for speedy deletion? Should it go to WP:MFD? Should it be left as is to eventually be deleted per WP:G13? For reference, I came across this via WP:HD#Can I place a personal ad with Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

My personal, non-policy-based opinion is that random stuff in draftspace is usually best left for WP:G13. Since the user seems to be asking a question in good faith, perhaps you could direct them towards a more appropriate venue? Spicy (talk) 00:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this Spicy. Per your suggestion, I've posted about this on the creator's user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd CSD it as G6. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 21:52, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

It in no way shape or form meets even the overly broad requirements of G6, and I am glad to see you have not done so. Primefac (talk) 09:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@Primefac: Based on what the creator posted on their user talk page, the draft does seem to have been created by mistake. Apparently, the user is trying to find out if they're related to someone from 1760s Italy based on a photo they got from their sister. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Violeta Zü

Not sure if this is significant, or if I have brought it to the right place, but I thought it worth some more experienced eyes than mine. Violeta Zü (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a new account which has made three edits over the last month or so. All are apparently arbitrary insertions into templated parameters near the top of some equally arbitrary article:here, here and here. Makes me wonder if this is a bot under test, or something like that. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

A pretty standard type of test editing (possibly vandalism, but more likely testing) that I've seen a fair bit from IPs and new users over the past year or so. Personally I drop such editors a {{welcome-test}} to start with (IPs I go to {{uw-test1}} due to the standard prejudice that most of us have for IPs). It seems a shame that a new user who might just be blundering about gets nothing but a single warning for disruptive editing before being dragged to an admin board – it would seem better to at least try to welcome them. — Trey Maturin™ 11:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Done; {{subst:uw-test1}} seemed to work best. And I agree entirely about not biting IP editors. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Non-reviewed drafts being moved into namespace

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

---

There seem to be newly created articles that have not been reviewed by the new pages patrol. I was wondering what the proper course of action to be taken is when dealing with articles that have not been reviewed through the AfC submission process and have been moved to the namespace by inexperienced editors. For example, Tearce attack. Would I have to request a reviewer to move them back into the draft space, or are they eligible for speedy deletion, etc.? Thanks. – HPSR (talk) 02:51, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:DRAFTIFY gives a good summary of when draftification is possible, but also note WP:DRAFTOBJECT, which states that {tq|A page may only be moved unilaterally to the draftspace a single time. If anyone objects, it is no longer an uncontroversial move, and the page needs to be handled through other processes, such as deletion, stubbing, tagging, etc.}. Inexperienced (auto-)confirmed editors have the full right to create articles in mainspace, so there isn't really a rule against them moving their own drafts to the mainspace or any sort of special deletion criteria that apply to new users; AfC is fully optional except in certain cases where conflict-of-interest editing is involved. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: All of those pages (WP:DRAFTIFY,WP:DRAFTOBJECT) appear to be essays. Is there a policy (or even a guideline) that points out when articles should be moved to draftspace, because I've never even heard of the "one move to draft only" idea? Black Kite (talk) 10:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:DRAFTIFY has been widely applied for years, and it's probably about time we sought to upgrade it into a guideline. WP:DRAFTOBJECT is just an explanation of how the existing policies WP:EDITWAR and WP:BOLDMOVE apply to draftspace (basically, move wars between main and draftspace are just as undesirable as move wars elsewhere). – Joe (talk) 10:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Nothing. AfC is a completely optional process (unless the creator has a COI). Drafts moved to mainspace enter the new page queue and are patrolled in the normal way. – Joe (talk) 09:41, 23 May 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.

Appealing bad close by rude man who isn't even an administrator

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.

---

Wikipedia administrators,

I wanted to defend Jacobin at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and I started a conversation about https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea. Jayron32, who is NOT an administrator, decided that he didn't want people to talk about the conversation, and rudely ended the discussion by himself. I tried to talk to him about it, but he was rude and said "cool story bro". https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jayron32&diff=prev&oldid=1156973301

I do not need Jayron32's permission to discuss things and Wikipedia is not censored. I want you to tell Jayron32 that his "cool story bro" comment was uncool and that I should be able to defend Jacobin on the discussion board. Chances last a finite time (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Jayron32 is an administrator. Cullen328 (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I have no more faith in Wikipedia. Goodbye. Chances last a finite time (talk) 21:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

That’s your choice. But should you continue editing as you have been today, expect to have that choice made for you. Courcelles (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I made that choice. Blocked indef. My sock sense is also tingling here as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I was just about to say, it's giving sock. --Pokelova (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Mine was ringing, too, but without someone to compare to, I wasn’t getting anywhere. Courcelles (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

There's not much of an opportunity to do so when the now-blocked user throws their toys out of the pram as quickly as they've done here! ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Damn. I didn't even get to leave a dismissive comment this time. --Jayron32 11:11, 26 May 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.

Implementation of WP:BANNEDRIGHTS change for already-banned users

Per RfC consensus, WP:BANNEDRIGHTS was recently changed to instruct admins and 'crats to remove the granted user rights of indefinitely community-sitebanned users. The RfC's wording was ambiguous as to whether this should include already-banned users; I think it would be within a reasonable admin's discretion to interpret it either way. The main argument for is, obviously, consistency with this new rule. The main argument against is that users will usually be notified, on-wiki and/or by email, of the loss of rights (and some remain active on sister wikis); this may needlessly antagonize people who years ago parted ways with the community and in many cases have had the decency not to sock.

With all that said, my own opinion: Александр Мотин is SanFranBanned and so probably should be de-PCR'd. Otherwise, best to let these be; they can always be removed as part of an eventual ban appeal. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:18, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I think the questions are:

Can you (pc) review while being blocked? (it updates a log, but unless you revert, I don't think it updates edit history.)

Can you rollback while being blocked? (if the option to not add an edit summary.)

Can autopatrol happen while reading, but not editing? Or in otherwords, can you autopatrol while being blocked?

If yes, then we should remove.

If no, then I don't know if it matters at this stage, though on all 3 of these any admin could just do so and leave a talk page note as to why they did. some of them don't require an editor's premission to add, so I presume the reverse would be true. - jc37 21:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

A sitewide block prevents all of that AFAIK, except for rollback on one's own talkpage (just checked), which if abused would be dealt with like any other post-block talkpage disruption. But I don't think it's fear of abuse while blocked that led to the recent policy change; more a community sentiment that a ban indicates a loss of trust. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Then for the admin-granted ones, it would pretty much come down to admin discretion for removal. I presume an admin could remove, and drop a note why on their talk page. - jc37 03:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The real questions here are: would any users in any ban discussion have opposed the ban if they knew the user's rights would be removed? Would any of the banned users have put more effort into fighting the ban if they knew or this result? Since I have no doubt these answers are both negative, I think we can remove these rights. Animal lover |666| 11:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• I don't believe that application of this change of policy after the fact is justified, nor does it adhere to the normal course of action regarding policy changes, ArbCom decisions, etc. If editors who were banned before the change are un-banned and return to editing, any subsequent abuse of their privileges can be handled when it occurs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  I don't strongly disagree, which is why I am leaning back toward the policy for admin-added permissions. If an admin decides there is reason to remove them, they can with a talk page note. If they decide that reason is because the community banned the individual, I think it's fair to say that that would fall within admin discretion. - jc37 22:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• (NAC) It’s not altogether clear what !voters wished to achieve with this RfC, but the close doesn’t seem to require retrospective punishment for banned users and such punishment would be a timesink for our admins who are already overworked here. By all means remove all privileges from blocked and/or banned users in future, but, hey, we’ve got admin backlogs that our readers care about that need admin eyes without disappearing up our own bumholes on this type of… whatever this is. — Trey Maturin™ 22:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• Is WP:LOBU not a complete list of banned users? We used to maintain a list of all banned users dating back to 2001, but repeated RFCs eventually got rid of it. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  The category is incomplete because a few things count as bans even if they aren't labeled as such: an indef as a result of community consensus (where the thread ran for long enough), an indef appealed to the community and rejected, and a third-strike indef (a policy not all admins and SPI clerks interpret identically). Sometimes people tag accounts in those 3 categories, but other times they don't, and sometimes figuring out whether someone counts as banned (particularly under 3X) is actually quite complicated. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Enmanuelgac

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 editor has made literally hundreds of edits over the last few weeks on the follwing pages: Royal Caribbean International, TUI Cruises and Royal Caribbean Group; possibly others as well. Virtually all of them are just tinkering with the infoboxes, eg: adding an image, resizing it, removing it, adding it back in again and so on. Attempts to ask him not to tinker in mainspace but use his sandbox are ignored, messages to his talk page are deleted and attempts to correct errors are reverted with rude comments about my not knowing what I'm talking about.

I am not the ony person to ask him to stop experimenting in mainspace but they have been ignored as well. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

P-blocked from articles and told to learn how to edit in a sandbox. Courcelles (talk) 10:46, 22 May 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.

Unblock request on behalf of User:Geographyinitiative

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

---

Per SQL's advice on my talk page, moving this here as the better venue:

1. No, I don't have a double secret block on my account. (I think.) I'm just making a request on behalf of User:Geographyinitiative to undo their permanent suspension. Checking their global edit total, I accidentally noticed they have a permanent block here which was stunning to me.

2. I see now that there were extremely good reasons for the ban and they didn't help the issue with the way they handled their own appeals 2 or 3 years ago. I assume any new attempt on their own part to lift the ban now gets eyerolls and a "not this guy again" treatment.

3. If it helps, I just want to be a character witness.

1st, apparently GI is pretty young and 2–3 years ago would've been even younger. The lead of their Wiktionary user page is still complaining about colleges not giving enough credit for AP tests. They were disruptive and unhelpful then, treating even a mention of the more common way of writing Chinese characters as a political issue instead of an accessibility one and ignoring very clear messages from the community and admins. They have grown since then.

2nd, the 68k helpful edits they've built up since then at Chinese and English-from-Chinese entries on Wiktionary speak to the fact they're extremely productive, increasingly better informed on these topics, and helpful. If possible, you don't want to keep them away from all the help they could provide with Chinese places, bios, and info... or wherever else their next passion project goes.

Most importantly, 3rd, during those edits they really have taken it to heart not to push their understanding—as good as it usually is—without first WP:AGF and trying to see where the other people are coming from. They've learned to work within the process and won't be doing a repeat of the mess that set this off in the first place.

4. Of course, User:Geographyinitiative would need to come by and tell you in person that they really do understand now before the block's fully removed. I'm just someone who can point out they really do mean it when they say they've changed and shown edit after edit, month after month that they've learned that lesson.

SQL 'denied' the similar request on my talk page but only because it was the wrong venue and not on the merits of any of the above. Hopefully when someone has time to actually look, they'll see fit to give GI the second chance we'd be well served by extending to 'em. — LlywelynII 05:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

• Just noting that there is an active unblock request by the user themselves on their talk page from March 2023. ansh.666 07:07, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

We don't do third-party unblock requests. The request by GI themselves can be considered, but this section is not going to go anywhere. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

For reference: Wikipedia:Appealing a block#Appeals by third party 192.76.8.86 (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@LlywelynII: I made it LlywelynII! I have to abide by certain conditions, and the the personal rules I have had with staying within four comments and no 2R reverts and no editing the DPP page are now official for me, which will make me really be successful! So anyway! Thanks so much for your support!!! Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

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

Requesting RFC to be reopened

I think this RFC, 25 February 2023 was closed in error.

The RFC proposal is to "include 1981 bombings in the lede" but then (without any rationalization) suggests to remove accurate review of the academic literature from the lead (which is unrelated to the 1981 bombings).

None of the (2 vs 1) votes address this, so there really was no reason to remove that material (some of which was achieved through another recent RFC).

I'm requesting the RFC to reopened so a clearer consensus can be reached. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

This is not to say that closes can't (shouldn't) be appealed and without comment on the merits of this request, a reminder/FYI for those weighing in that RfC disruption was a major finding of the 2021 ArbCom case about MEK/Iranian politics. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to note, now that I see this is a discussion that is happening about my close, that the RFC was not just a proposal to include 1981 bombings in the lede, but actually had proposed text.

The count was two to one, and another editor who did not make a bolded !vote did refute part of Fad Ariff's argument. RFC respondents also aren't required to specifically answer the concerns of another RFC respondent at the risk of reopening an RFC that had already been open for ~3 months. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

• It should be also noted that an RFC with 3-4 participants has the weight of an RFC with 3-4 participants. If you think you could get better results, and have more opinions weigh in on an alternate proposal, you are quite allowed start a brand new RFC. Any consensus is only as good as the most recently-held discussion on the matter, and if you want to re-test the consensus, feel free to do so. WP:CCC and all that. --Jayron32 16:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  I closed 5 RFCs with mostly the same few participants in each. That talk page is such a slog and the content requires such a high bar of knowledge and source access that I don't think it's a reasonable expectation that we'll see significant engagement from uninvolved editors. It's, unfortunately, one of the shitty situations where only a half dozen editors really care to work on the page, four of them are entrenched on either side of every dispute, the other two aren't always involved in the discussions, and no other editors have the hundreds of hours free to do the reading and research necessary to become familiar enough with the topic to contribute. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  I wasn't impugning your close; you did the best you could with what little you were given to work with. Rather, it still remains that a consensus is only as strong as the participation in the discussion that established it, and if there's only 4 people involved in said discussion, it's rather easy to overrule with a discussion that attracts 40. --Jayron32 17:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  I agree, and it would be great if that page could attract that kind of participation. I don't think the advice to start another RFC is good in this circumstance, though, which is what my comment was getting at. Unfortunately I didn't say "Please don't open another RFC on the same thing because..." before the rest of my reply. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  Fair enough. --Jayron32 17:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I think that there was a pretty strong case for having the bombing in the lead. I think that you expressed concern that other changes/deletions which were unrelated to that question also came in with the change. It appears the two "yes" opinions weighed in on the bombing inclusion but did not express any support for the other changes and you expressed opposition to them. IMO the structure of the RFC has a problem because it bundles multiple unrelated changes into one question. @ScottishFinnishRadish: could the close be tweaked to reflect that? Or if not, perhaps a new RFC only on the other changes (and thus not on the inclusion of the bombing). Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I believe if the RFC clearly states the suggested change in prose that the respondents don't have to specifically call out supporting each part of the proposal for their support to be weighed.

If I propose we include salad with dinner, then elaborate I propose that we remove corn dogs and instead have salad one would expect that those saying "yes" support removing corn dogs as well as having salad.

If there is a consensus here that finding a rough consensus in that discussion wasn't a reasonable reading, then I'm more than happy to adjust or vacate my close. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

• I can't see how this could have been closed in any other way. I agree with Jayron that a bigger RfC with more participants would carry more weight, but SFR's belief that isn't going to happen seems reasonably well founded. If there is a specific part of the change that you have an issue with, perhaps start a discussion on the talkpage to see if you can get an agreement with those who supported the RfC on that particular change? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

My request was not at all meant to imply any criticim of ScottishFinnishRadish's close (his participation on this topic has been very helpful). I just find the RFC was formulated wrong, and if the removal of academic literature from the lead was not addressed in any way/shape/form, then it should not have been removed. That is only my assessment, and I leave it up to the rest of you to determine if this is correct or not. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I also think that listing the RFC at Wikipedia:WikiProject Iran could potentially get more editors involved in that RFC, which would be good. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

• RFCs are not definitive. They do not permanently lock parts of the article. Opening further discussion (or a new, more specific, RFC if needed) would be more productive for any additional changes. MarioGom (talk) 11:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I think the primary concern here is if the RFC was filed correctly. Should there be a possibility of reopening it, I'd participate. ParadaJulio (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

There were more than 3 months to participate, without great results. We can spend another 3 months discussing how to close it, or we can just go ahead and discuss which further changes you would like to see. Again: this closure does not prevent you from proposing more changes. MarioGom (talk) 21:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

• I don't see how this RfC could have been closed otherwise, and I would like to remind the participants that using every possible avenue to litigate a particular issue is a great way to demonstrate to the community that you're bringing a battleground attitude to the topic. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Arvind Kejriwal: Assistance needed

Requesting users to have a look @ the article Arvind Kejriwal (recent article history). Edit difs by @Kridha checkout edit history of user kridha . Seems stripping the article of all the well sourced critical parts failing WP:NPOVHOW* , the response from other side looks like WP:STONEWALL effectively leading to obscurantism. Requesting inputs and help in sorting out the issues so as to WP:ACHIEVE NPOV

• WP:NPOVHOW:

  .. Generally, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely because it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. ..

@Kridha isn't replying in consensus.he didn't participate in DRN consensus also.checkout discussion on talk page and DRN request.

@Kridha is removing controversies or negative parts from the article and he is giving reason for removal is general format of article for politicians.

He is trying to justify again and again. there are many criticism section examples of politicians like

Public image of Narendra Modi#Criticism and controversies, Amit Shah#Criticism, Lalu Prasad Yadav#Criticism, Mamata Banerjee#Public profile and controversies, Kakoli Ghosh Dastidar#Controversies, Abhishek Banerjee (politician)#Controversies, T. Rajaiah#Controversies, Mulayam Singh Yadav#Controversies, Manohar Lal Khattar#Controversies, Pinarayi Vijayan#Controversies, Yogi Adityanath#Controversies, Himanta Biswa Sarma#Controversies. 

And @Kridha's past activity in this page also mostly removing negative views. checkout edit history of user kridha

• edit 1 - in which he removed from lawsuits section on 06 September 2022
• edit 2 - in which he removed on 6 September 2022
• edit 3 - in which he removed on 16 September 2022
• edit 4 - in which he removed whole criticism section on 4 may 2023
• edit 5 - in which he remove whole lawsuits section on 4 may 2023
• edit 6 - in this he remove
• edit 7 in which he remove

Wikipedia has a neutral point of view (NPOV) policy that requires all content to be written in a way that is unbiased, accurate, and free from personal opinion or advocacy. This means that controversial or negative information about a subject should not be removed solely because it is unflattering or inconvenient.criticism with various different sources and if it is notable, it shouldn't be removed. Nyovuu (talk) 14:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This really more rightly belongs at WP:ANI, which is for discussing ongoing behavioral incidents, rather than this board, which is for other admin matters. You should probably move it there. --Jayron32 17:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks😊 Nyovuu (talk) 12:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Kvjr0604 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

If their contentious editing and deliberate source misrepresentation is not enough, they are making blatant personal attack by calling me a "dork", "am sure you guys will get its punishment", link. They are definately not here to build an encyclopedia, indef. block needed. Re Pa©ker&Tra©ker (♀) Re Pa©ker&Tra©ker (♀) 17:52, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Structuralists

Has created multiple highly POV pages about female criminals (some of questionable notability) and reverts all attempts to edit them. See Maxine Robinson for a particularly egregious example. 2A02:C7C:6468:C900:3504:681C:4BEA:6F06 (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be being a bit unnecessarily aggressive here, about essentially a disagreement on content. I can see you disagree with me on the Maxine Robinson page and I'm happy to discuss the content issues with you on the talk page, and will start a discussion there now. But I've only reverted you there once, hardly "all attempts to edit". Structuralists (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Inappropriate non-admin closure by User:FormalDude

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Redo the close and thank the closer for their effort. It has an important impactful structural problem/ oxymoron in the first sentence. In Wikipedia "Slightly in favor of" is called "no consensus" and it calls "slightly in favor of" a wp:consensus. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Undo the close, then redo it with the same result but a very slightly different opening sentence? Or am I misunderstanding your opinion here? — Trey Maturin™ 18:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry for my ambiguity. I meant overturn. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

• Endorse: So, just by the split (which is not exactly "even" BTW, there were several "either" votes, which in this case I'd count towards consensus on either option) I would ordinarily be calling for this to be overturned and re-closed by an admin. The problem with just citing the split here, though, is the same as what Black Kite said, namely that consensus is not a vote. There's an exhaustive list of sources at the bottom of the page, and it's clear from that list that many very strong sources don't use the "critics" phrasing. Even a non-admin closer has the right (and in fact, the duty) to assess the relative strength of the arguments rather than just counting heads. And that obviously goes some distance towards whether or not the close was close or not. Loki (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
• (involved) Overturn or make it no consensus. Both sides have strong arguments, sourcing, and analysis from a closers perspective and the !vote count is to close to look at that considerably. The thing about making it no consensus is it will de facto be A, but it would also leave the door open for any other alternative options to be considered, which I think would be helpful. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 19:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
• (involved) Overturn I also left FormalDude a message about this close. See User_talk:FormalDude#Improper_closure_on_Talk:Florida_Parental_Rights_in_Education_Act. A big problem here is that User:FormalDude's edit history suggests a strong POV on American Politics. This user has 300 edits at Talk:Donald Trump, which is more than double the number he has at any other page.[25] The second most edits is at Talk:Andy Ngo, again a hot-button article that is heavily tied to partisan politics. Several other articles in his top ten edited talk pages fit the same description. Then he comes along and closes this RfC, which is also deeply tied to US partisan politics, and in particular to likely Presidential candidate Ron DeSantis. Notice also the deep involvement in the RfC here[26], on whether or not Jan. 6 should be classified as a terrorist attack. Having an opinion is one thing, but per [27], USER:FormalDude contributed 24 diffs to the RfC [under two different names for the RfC, as it was re-titled in the middle], arguing that Jan. 6 should be classified as a terrorist attack, i.e.[28] Obviously, everyone is entitled to their opinion about that question, but the edits do not suggest that USER:FormalDude is a neutral observer to US partisan politics. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

  At the time of my comment above I presumed FD was acting as an independent closer. After their close it appears they took an interest in the article to the point of getting into a minor dispute with another editor over a content question[29]. While not a technical violation of involved, when an editor closes a discussion then immediately starts editing the article content it does raise the appearance of a supervote. Given the questionable logic in claiming a "consensus" vs "no consensus", especially given both result in maintaining status quo, this should be overturned on procedural grounds. Springee (talk) 00:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Overturn maybe some of you can see a consensus in that thread, but I do not. There were solid arguments on both sides, and there was no clear numerical advantage. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
• Vacate, largely per Nableezy. 10-10 splits on highly contentious AP2 articles should not be closed by non-admin active participants in highly contentious AP2 articles. FormalDude is an extremely active and vocal participant in American political disputes on Wikipedia; these disputes should be settled by admins or at least non-admins in good standing who are outside of the AP2 culture wars. Endwise (talk) 01:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  Also, I think the fact that FormalDude ended up having to reverse the actionable part of his close on a contentious AP2 article only a couple months ago (his original close said that a lack of consensus to call a BLP "far-right" meant it must remain in the lead sentence), shows why these culture war disputes should be settled by people outside of those culture war disputes. Endwise (talk) 02:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn per Lepricavark. starship.paint (exalt) 03:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse (involved editor). I considered closing this RFC myself, and I was going to have found "no consensus". But, while I was drafting my summary, I realized I was making a few points that I didn't think had been fully articulated in the discussion, and so I changed course and decided to cast what ended up being the last !vote here—"Narrowly A/Status Quo".
  As I understand, however, a close should not be overturned merely because a reasonable editor might have reached a different conclusion. Rather, per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, a close should only be overturned if it was inherently unreasonable. And I don't think that standard is met here. FormalDude conceded that this was a close call, finding "[c]onsensus ... slightly in favor of ... the status quo" (emphasis added). He fairly summarized and evaluated a few of the arguments and also noted that there was an under discussed third possibility. In the light of the discussion, I don't find anything inherently unreasonable in the closing summary or the ultimate finding.--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus (uninvolved). There is a clear problem with the close—namely that it does not accurately summarize the (lack of) consensus attained in the discussion. I agree with many stated above that merely having a political position on an issue does not inherently render one unable to make a closure—just as many editors correctly noted in this discussion that an editor's mere Christian faith does not serve as a reason to bar them from making closes in WP:AP2-related areas. While I find the nom's appeal to the fact that FormalDude has taken a generally left-liberal-favorable stance in AP2 discussions to be unpersuasive as a disqualifier per se, that does not excuse the fact that the closer failed to implement the plain reading of that discussion—one that would result in it being a clear and unambiguous no consensus close—and instead inappropriately put their thumb on the scale by making a closure that merely contained their own opinion rather than a faithful summary of the discussion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  Perhaps you could explain how it is clear and unambiguously no consensus when a significant portion of one side's arguments were demonstrated during the course of the RfC to be logically fallacious or based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact. After all, consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn The only "issue" that would really stand out to me here is the closer's history in the topic area. I do not, however, believe it was a bad close because of the closer's lack of sysop, nor because it was an "even split" (see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY). I will make the point that while administrators are implied to have the trust of the community by virtue of having passed an RFA, that does not discount the ability of any other uninvolved editor to close a contentious discussion properly, while correctly determining consensus. It may be rare, or it may be common, depending on the venue, but it is not impossible for an uninvolved editor to determine consensus better than some current administrators. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 07:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn. While obviously a good faith close, and not a violation of policy to close, this demonstrates why people usually prefer experienced admin to close these contentious discussions, particularly when opinions are evenly split. The consensus is not as clear as the closer makes it out to be. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse (uninvolved) - Are we really having a full AN review to decide whether or not to overturn to no consensus when the outcome differs little (only, to an extent, on how decisive the RFC is)? Especially when the close specifies anyway that there is a "Consensus .. slightly in favor of option A, the status quo", thus showing only a weak consensus which probably won't have that decisive an effect? In this case, whilst the close was imperfect because it fails to fully indicate why they've found the consensus to be as it is, it is a reasonable reading of the consensus to arrive at this result given the three or four "either works" votes who indicated, effectively, it didn't matter which way it came out (pointing to a status-quo close, since if the outcome doesn't matter defaulting to status quo is the natural outcome). Additionally, the closer explained why they found the option A !votes more persuasive and their explanation is reasonable - that the option A advocates had shown that the term was not only being used by critics. Stating that this was "reasonable" does not mean I agree with it, it just means it was not unreasonable, which is the standard for overturning.

As to whether FormalDude is WP:INVOLVED, simply being an American of one or the other political persuasion should not be enough to be "involved". We should not establish a standard of "involvedness" that in practically terms would mean that only people from outside the US can close US-related RFCs (and possibly not even them?). Being involved means an actual, tangible, clear reason to believe that the closer was not a fair arbiter, and no evidence has been produced to that effect.

On the BADNAC point, others have already done a good job of explaining why this does not apply. FOARP (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse close is reasonable, consensus isn't about numerical arguments, and there's room for discretion. The community long ago decided to empower non-admins to close discussions and unless FormalDude was involved (involvement, isn't just having an opinion, as others have said) or that FormalDude put their thumb on the scale (alleged, but not shown that I can see), reading FormalDude's close through, and without reading every argument in the discussion at a high level of critical detail, I think that FormalDude's statement that there was a weak consensus for one of the options is one that can be arrived at. Andre🚐 00:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• Wait, I'm really confused. It seems to me that overturning it to no consensus would have no effect in the mainspace? So the purpose of this close review is what, exactly?—S Marshall T/C 09:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  The issue I see is that it makes it more difficult to have another discussion on it in the future. If someone can point to a consensus result rather than a no consensus result that will have an effect on future discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:40, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  IMO we should also consider what 'in the future' means. Sometimes when the issue is how to word something or something else which is not a binary, it's reasonable to continue discussion immediately after an RfC has closed as no consensus but this is unlikely if it had consensus. Note I'm not saying this is always the case, sometimes it's better to just drop it for a time. To further explain, I have not looked at this particular RfC other than the proposal but while RfCs are ideally not voting binaries and instead a place for discussion where all reasonable options are considered this often isn't how they work out in practice. In reality very often they are sort of votes on a small number of options. If a potentially better option is proposed too late, it will often receive no comment by most participants. Yes you do need to explain in accordance with our policies and guidelines and whatever else (e.g. sources) why you feel an option is better so it's not actually a vote but this may not prevent a better, compromise wording that enough people are happy with to make it the best option just being missed. If there was extensive discussion before hand with good workshopping of the RfC then yeah, probably it's better to just let it be even if the RfC was no consensus. But in reality this doesn't always happen and sometimes all the RfC may establish is none of the quick options considered have consensus and so it's better to go back to the drawing board. This may eventually mean a second RfC but it's also easily possible those who stick around will be able to come up with a consensus compromise without one. Nil Einne (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  In the RfC, I said that option A was status quo. It was indeed what was there immediately before I started the RfC. But during the discussion, one user said[30] it had never been stable in the article. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  Oh okay.

  There are two limbs to the original complaint here: (1) That only sysops were eligible to close per WP:NACD, and (2) That the closer wasn't impartial, which as I understand it reduces to WP:INVOLVED. Argument (1) fails because NACD is specifically about deletion discussions. You don't have to be a sysop to close a RfC. Argument (2) fails because it's utterly unfeasible to exclude every editor who's got a view on US politics from closing discussions about US politics.

  Further, the only purpose of overturning to no consensus would be to enable a repeat of the same discussion. I don't see how that's desirable. The community doesn't agree and nobody's changing their minds, so we need to leave it there and focus our time and attention on something else. So I would endorse.—S Marshall T/C 15:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  There's a third option you did not consider: That the closer didn't summarize the discussion, as a closer is supposed to do, but instead used their role as a closer to issue a WP:SUPERVOTE. Surely, that's not a valid way to close things. --Jayron32 15:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'm admittedly not an experienced closer, so maybe I'm way out of line here, but I'm not sure I agree there wasn't a summary. As I read the discussion, there were a few categories of arguments, including:

  1. Which phrasing is more supported by reliable sources?
  2. Which of phrasings is more accurate?
     1. Is "commonly referred to as" (option A) less accurate because supporters don't use the term?
     2. Is "which critics commonly call" (option B) more (or less) specific?

  Not every comment fit these categories, but I think it's fair to say the vast majority did. One exception is an argument that "critics commonly call" or an alternative option (roughly, "which critics dubbed") should be used because the term originated with critics of the bill).

  As to reliable sources: Both sides said they were supported by reliable sources, and FormalDude appeared to agree with them: There was similar debate about each option, and both are reliably sourced, so it came to down which wording is more accurate.

  As to accuracy: FormalDude first addressed the 2.1 arguments, noting, "Some brought up that option A is misleading because it implies that supporters refer to the legislation as the "Don't Say Gay" bill, but that was countered by the fact that option A is still true even though [supporters] do not use the shorthand." (fairly certain he meant "supporters" instead of "critics"). He then addressed the 2.2 arguments, in which he found that supporters of option A had the better arguments. (The option A supporters had, to paraphrase, said that, because the Option B phrasing was underinclusive—leaving out non-critics who use the term—it was not more specific.) "A more reasonable objection was to option B, claiming that it is misleading because the shorthand is not only used by critics." He then concluded, "The use of the shorthand by nonsupporters and media sources covering the bill makes "commonly referred to as" the most more accurate of the two options."

  In sum, I don't see anything that FormalDude said that wasn't covered by the discussion. Even though, as I noted, I would have found no consensus, I really think this wasn't an unreasonable close. Is there something big I'm missing here?--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  The problem, for me, comes in the "addressing", except for things which are completely egregiously wrong, you don't address to disagree with things, you merely paraphrase or state what the side said. Discounting or refusing to give weight to a particular line of argument in a summary of a close is a serious thing, and not to be undertaken merely because one just doesn't agree with the conclusions people have drawn. "Have better arguments" is a rather spurious assessment, it's just saying "I don't agree with them". If they had said things which were demonstrably false (which I don't believe they did) or which were egregiously outside of Wikipedia standards (which I don't believe either side was) they interpreted the application of said policy and of said evidence in different ways, but that's not wrong. If someone wants to disagree with the arguments being made, that's what the voting space is for. The closing should not be done with an eye towards disagreeing with the arguments, only on summarizing them. --Jayron32 18:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  Jayron: Again, I did not personally disagree with the arguments being made. I merely pointed out arguments that had been discounted by editors during the course of the RfC. I didn't say anything in my close that wasn't said multiple times throughout the discussion. Do you not see that option A is still true even if supporters do not call it the "Don't Say Gay" bill and the shorthand is not solely used by critics are objective facts?

  Also, I think I was clear that this is a rough consensus, and I explicitly left open the possibility for change going forward. ––FormalDude (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse close, as i would have closed it similarly given the discussion as it stood at the time of closure. Closing is not simply a vote, and we probably, as a community, reiterate this multiple times daily. The close should be based on the ability for pro or con arguments to sway independent uninvolved users who participate, and to sway all participants to one side or the other e.g. from WP:CLOSE: Consensus is not determined by counting heads or counting votes, 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, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. This is part of how FD closed the discussion: Some brought up that option A is misleading because it implies that supporters refer to the legislation as the "Don't Say Gay" bill, but that was countered by the fact that option A is still true even if supporters do not call it the "Don't Say Gay" bill. FD summarized the arguments presented, and tossed out ones which are logically unsound. What remained was a rough consensus in favor of option A. I agree with some users above that FD should not have used "slight consensus" but that is a relatively common mistake, and does not detract from the overall closing structure. So no, overall I do not think FD's close was unreasonable.
  All of that said, I also think my advice to FD and to anyone in this situation is to withdraw the close if it becomes this contentious. It is not worth it when so many others would close it the same way, and even if they close it a different way, WP:NOTFINISHED. Wikipedia is a work in progress, the better arguments will eventually win out in 99% of cases. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
• Comment The auto-archiver archived[31] this before anybody closed it. Within hours, FormalDude provided fresh evidence that he is not sufficiently neutral to be a closer. He found a "lean" in one contentious talk page discussion[32]. He also inserted a quote that described the law thusly: The spaces members of the public share—healthcare facilities, schools, shopping centers, roadways, and even voting stations—may become freighted, charged spaces, where people are suspicious that fellow members of the public will wield the power of the state and bring the weight of the law to bear on their activities.[33]. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

  I said as much at a user talk page discussion, but I see uninvolved closers later becoming involved editors as a good thing. I would not construe it as evidence that WP:INVOLVED was violated in any way. The quote above is from a Virginia Law Review paper. It's a good addition, though I'm not sure it best belongs in the section where FD placed it.

  FYI, I'm requesting closure of this discussion at WP:ANRFC. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment (I supported A, which this was closed as consensus for) : if I had been in the position of closing a discussion like this, I would've said there was no consensus. I understand the closer's stated thought process, and if there were an RfC on whether to include "John Doe was accused of embezzling most of the company's profits" in John Doe's article, with 10 people saying "no, BLP says to exclude this kind of thing" and ten people saying "yes, it's covered in enough RS about him that it's DUE, and he died in 1950 so BLP doesn't apply", I agree (and hope most people would agree) it's appropriate for a closer to judge if some arguments are disproven and so carry less weight... but I share the concern above that the further away something is from black-and-white "people are saying 'BLP applies' but it clearly doesn't since the person demonstrably died in 1950", the nearer it is to looking like a supervote. (OK, I concede that "some say only critics use this term, but that's demonstrated to be incorrect" is still a black/white objective thing to give arguments less weight on the basis of, unlike e.g. a subjective discussion of whether a high enough proportion of the sources about Doe's embezzlement cover it to make it due vs undue, but...) I agree with Shibbolethink it'd be best to withdraw the close. -sche (talk) 01:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  Shibbolethink endorsed the close. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  That's irrelevant. The relevant part is that Shibbolethink said: my advice to FD and to anyone in this situation is to withdraw the close if it becomes this contentious. starship.paint (exalt) 05:47, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  How is it irrelevant? I'm fairly certain Shibbolethink intended that as advice going forward. If they wanted the closed vacated, they would have made that their !vote. For the record I would undo the close myself if this review didn't have a significant number of editors endorsing it. ––FormalDude (talk) 10:20, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  It's irrelevant because whether Shibbolethink endorsed the close or not, is not what -sche was referring to. -sche was discussing withdrawing the close, just like how Shibbolethink discussed withdrawing the close. starship.paint (exalt) 12:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  My point is Shibbolethink did not say it's best to withdraw the close, so it appears -sche actually doesn't agree with them, despite their claim. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• I almosted objected to this close at the time. I just saw this discussion today. The reason I didn't object is because A was the status quo position and there's no consensus for B. Objecting seemed like a waste of time since it wouldn't change the end result. Simply rewording the close as no consensus for B so the status quo remains would solve any lingering issues. Nemov (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn per Lepricavark - I'm not seeing the consensus for one or the other either to be honest. –Davey2010^Talk 18:06, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse. There is a hatnote above Wikipedia:Closing discussions § Challenging other closures that points to WP:FORUMSHOP for a reason. CLOSECHALLENGEs are only appropriate if the close is far outside the discretion a closer enjoys, not if you would have closed it some other way. I have to respectfully point out that Dennis Brown's good-faith argument ("While obviously a good faith close, and not a violation of policy to close, this demonstrates why people usually prefer experienced admin to close these contentious discussions, particularly when opinions are evenly split") is against current consensus. And Springee hit the nail on the head above when they said "If I had to pick a one or the other I would agree with the closing". If you can see how the closer got to the conclusion they did and did not violate any rules in doing so, the close stands. Or Lepricavark's (again, good faith) comment that "maybe some of you can see a consensus in that thread, but I do not". If reasonable editors could come to the same conclusion, the close stands. FormalDude's close is a plausible read of consensus, so it should not be overturned at AN. HouseBlaster^talk 23:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  I will note that I think the close should be overturned. Yes, I do think that if this were a case of purely weighing the arguments 51% wins then yes, the close reached the same conclusion I might have. However, when both sides are making reasonable arguments I like to use a 2/3rds rule. If it were a pure numbers game then consensus is 2/3rds or more. I would apply the same thinking when weighing quality of arguments. If both sides make policy based arguments then one side needs to be "twice as good" as the other to call it a consensus. When one side is just slightly better or has just a few more supporters then the other I see it as no consensus. So even though I think the side arguing for the status quo has a slightly better case, the combination of a reasonable argument on the other side and rough parity on numbers makes this a no-consensus to me. Honestly, given NOCON keeps the status quo I'm not sure why there is so much resistance to that change. I would be more sympathetic if the call was in the other direction. Springee (talk) 00:33, 28 May 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.

IP editor 87.6.35.129 appears to be here only to insert citations into existing articles

I would like to get some eyes on the activities of 87.6.35.129. I don't see any single edit that is obviously an issue. However, in the few days they have been active it appears that they are just inserting references into articles without otherwise changing or adding to the text. My first thought was this is a single person trying to spam their works into articles but the list of references added is rather broad. Could this be a service that is paid to put specific journals into Wikipedia? Anyway, I though other eyes on the edits could be helpful. Springee (talk) 10:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Speedy close. First, the IP does not just add citations but also text (eg. here. Also, there is nothing wrong in adding high quality, academic citations like the IP is doing (eg. here or here). Furthermore, in the five edits of them I checked I noted different authors and different journals, so the accusation of paid editing / self-promotion appears doomed from the start. The IP probably would have deserved a thanks if not a barnstar, certainly not an AN thread based on zero evidence. --Cavarrone 10:47, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

The vast majority of their additions are citations, sometimes in the lead where they are not needed. I noted the additions are not from a single author/journal but the manner of the additions looks like something that could be a service that adds them. Regardless, the editing pattern looked suspicious thus I wanted to get more eyes on it. Springee (talk) 11:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

TheTranarchist GENSEX 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.

---

I know this is a bit early, but I think the circumstances of my case make an early appeal not out of the question. A few additional factors play into this 1) I just graduated so I'll have more time to edit again and have the time to write this appeal 2) there's been an uptick of gravedancing and harassment that's getting to me (there was literally more just today...), 3) I've found this ban overly harsh since the beginning and it's honestly been driving me crazy for months, and 4) I'm requesting this just shy of 3 months, but a week before Pride month so it will hopefully be closed either way by the time it starts because it'll break me to spend pride exiled from touching any article vaguely trans related. I would have done this this morning, but I just got my legal name and gender change certified and only just got back. Generally, I am cautiously optimistic this will go well, as I have laid out a thoroughly cited case for my appeal.

TLDR: There wasn't such overwhelming support for a TBAN an early appeal is unreasonable, it's been incredibly hard on me, please give me the assumption of good faith and rope and lift this ban (while instituting a page ban on Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull). If you aren't willing to do that, then I beg of you to at least recognize how soul crushing it is for me to be unable to edit even non-controversial LGBT related articles and grant me the limited exception below.

The format of this is 1) context about the case, 2) a recap of issues raised with articles I wrote, 3) notes on the close and close review, 4) some notes on the transphobic harassment I've recieved before and after my ban, and 5) a request for a limited exception to make the ban less soul crushing if you're not willing to give me WP:ROPE by lifting the ban.

Recap of the case

While the following seems like a long recap, the case was longer than the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy so this is the cliffnotes edition of the novel. For a very brief recap of my case and some context: I was a new (~ 1 year old) but well respected editor across multiple subfields of GENSEX (I wrote articles on anti-trans ORGs/activists but also edited healthcare articles, history articles, and about famous trans rights organizations and activists, and occasionally dabbled in other topics). I had only ever recieved 1 official GENSEX warning beforehand, which was about improperly confirming a COI, and the admin who left it confirmed that it was not left because my editing had been generally problematic. A sock dragged me to ANI February 18 The sock was blocked a day later and the thread was notified the same day. The close review close acknowledged the case should have been dismissed then per WP:DENY. At that point, we had a day old thread, started by an LTA sock with a history of OUTING. The thread had been notified he was a sock and that he'd made many edits dedicated to attacking me. He had not presented a single problematic diff, linking only to 1) social media posts, 2) editors who complained about my social media post without pointing out issues with the article and 3) a BLPN discussion where an editor (who was then canvassed) complained about content on Chloe Cole whose inclusion I had objected to before their complaint. At the time he was revealed to be a sock, multiple editors had commended or noted commendations of my work, some had noted style issues unworthy of a ban, and nobody had endorsed the ban. The 2 problems most discussed where 1) a post where I said I wished to expose Genspect as pseudoscientific as editors took issue with the word "expose", but as other editors pointed out, RS overwhelmingly describe them that way, and the article was well-written and did not engage in OR 2) notably the only diff of mine presented at point, dumb comments about Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull on my userpage, but as other editors pointed out, not problems with the article itself (more context on that below). As mentioned above, consensus is that the case should have been closed that day, and it was a shame it wasn't. As it stands, the case dragged on until March 4th (because DENY wasn't followed, and even though admins started a thread asking it be closed February 25th and noting the painful effects on my mental health). In the 2 weeks the case was open, the only articles even mentioned at my case where specifically anti-trans BLPs/ORGs (listed below), to varying degrees of problems, the largest of which were in Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull. The community input was nearly evenly divided, but more people opposed than supported a topic ban (I'll also note that most of the support came from GENSEX regulars who'd seen me around and not just social media posts, including those who I'd had or was currently engaged in content disputes with). I was TBANNED from GENSEX indefinitely March 3, 2023, with a minimum appeal time of 6 months (some notes on the close below). I asked CaptainEek if the ban could be narrowed to a ban on anti-trans BLPs/ORGs, CaptainEek denied my request and responded with a counteroffer of a 6-month GENSEX ban and indefinite BLP ban. I declined since frankly, BMB + GENSEX + BLP basically means over half of the enclyopedia is off limits for a minimum of 6 months. A full GENSEX TBAN already felt uncalled for since it completely ignored my contributions to more non-controversial articles covered by GENSEX. Somebody started a close review but the close was upheld.

Recap of issues raised with my articles

Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull: For context, per repeated consensus and RS: she has no notability outside of opposing transgender rights, demonizing trans people, and working with the far right. Occasionally a little racism. Literally never had any notability for anything else in the few months since my ban she made international headlines for having large contingents of open Nazis show up at 2 of her rallies (see her article if you want to know what she's notable for). Now, after I wrote the article, she publicly insulted me, sexualized me, and called me a liar for writing it. I responded in an admittedly childish way with a stupid retort on my userpage (where I insulted her back by noting she used a Barbie doll dressed in a nazi uniform as her profile picturewhich she later admitted to but played off as a "joke", get it? haha... and pointed out an example of her lying that very same day). I also made dumb social media posts where I mocked the vandals targeting the page, laughed about KJK directing abuse at me (because when you're targeted by a bigot, sometimes laughing is the best defense) and let it cloud my judgement when adding sources (~4 MREL-UNREL-No Consensus sources, used for minor details). I fucked up there, no problem admitting that. But, I must say, the article's NPOV has never been in dispute. There have been repeated accusations it is a hit piece and biased since it's creation which consensus has always denied. I link only to the talk page instead of specific examples since there are 3 archive pages and the prevalance of SPAs leaving transphobic comments and complaints is obvious. Editors have had to have meta-discussions just about how prevalent the SPAs are, which led to a FAQ being added to just have a big banner you could point to when dealing with SPAs. Beccanyr did a lot of work to trim down the article and focused on sources at my case providing the clearest evidence of wrongdoing on any article, which I appreciated, suggesting I be restricted to only talk pages for BLPs and GENSEX topics. The biggest issue with the article itself, apart from the sources, was a matter of style, particularly BLOWBYBLOW accounts of protests (and BLOWBYBLOW is an issue raised with other articles I'd written and one I've since been seeking to remedy in my general editing), and I was supportive of efforts to trim it down. Genspect and Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine: The issues raised where almost entirely with a Mastadon post where I said I wished to expose them. This was a poor choice of words, but as other editors have noted, and talk page consensus in both has repeatedly affirmed, the articles were written from a NPOV and they are FRINGE organizations known for pushing pseudoscience and opposing transgender rights. The only actual edit on either (Genspect in this case) anyone took issue with was my very first version of Genspect, saying it was "written from a clearly non-neutral perspective" without any further exposition. I feel that a bit unfair, considering 1) that was one of my very first articles and my first on an anti-trans group when at the case I'd written 10 articles, all on anti-trans BLPs/ORGs since), so I was behind the learning curve 2) the current version looks a lot better, largely due to my efforts to improve it 3) if you look at my later articles such as Gays Against Groomers (discussed below), my first version was much better written. I don't find it fair to be judged for 1) not writing a perfect first version when I was just starting to edit and 2) for having strong feelings about a group that pushes pseudoscience to attack my rights. I'll also note that discussions at SEGM since the ban have upheld that the organization is FRINGE and described from a NPOV. Also, Genspect itself had complained about their article months ago saying it was an attack, which consensus found to be spurious. Chloe Cole: I argued that we should describe her in the lead as an "anti-trans activist" based on a large array of RS which 1) described her as such directly, 2) said she was an activist who spoke at "anti-trans rallies", 3) said she supported "anti-trans legislation", and 4) noted that medical consensus (remember MEDRS and FRINGE) which said the legislation she supported is detrimental to the health and wellbeing of trans people. When there was no consensus, I re-added the description once , was warned, and then worked on a new lead proposal. The majority of editors involved, including those who I was on the other side of content disputes with, argued that a TBAN was unwarranted. Here, a little context is necessary. I can not address every single concern raised about the article at the ANI case here because the vast majority of complaints came from a single editor, Springee. Many were disingenous or tangential, and they provided dozens of diffs of supposed wrongdoing there (only 1 of which, the above linked reversion against consensus, had merit). In total, they left over 20 comments at my case. Springee was canvassed by the sock ~5 minutes after creating the case, who had called me a "root issue" to be dealt with at Chloe Cole.. The canvassing was noted in the case on the 19th.. Two important examples of their accusations spring to mind here. 1) They accused me of SYNTH for my argument concerning Cole being labelled an "anti-trans activist", the only editor who replied (apart from me stated) I'm not sure where you see the WP:SYNTH there, considering the first source contains the phrase "anti-trans activism" to describe the BLP verbatim. 2) As the case was winding down, they left a comment filled with accusations that were particularly disingenous. I replied, first explaining how disingenous the accusations were, then, since I was sick of being hounded, listing examples of their own GENSEX POV pushing behavior, mostly on Chloe Cole but other articles. Other editors agreed that Springee's GENSEX behavior was tendentious, and I had been working toward consensus. Generally, other editors throughout the discussion noted their behavior. Springee was eventually taken to AE for CPP, where editors raised concerns with their editing on Chloe Cole and behavior towards me. I asked on the AN talk page if I could speak to their behavior at Chloe Cole, was told no, then asked if I could comment on their behavior at my case (which I consider hounding) under WP:BANEX, and was also told no. I only bring this up because I believe Springee's contributions with regards to my case constituted hounding and personalization of content disuputes rather than productive discussion as they have left their thoughts in nearly every discussion of my ban since, ost recently arguing FAIR should be classed as entirely falling within GENSEX, having previously argued on talk (and been supported by consensus) that the organization is not defined by its relationship to transgender rights. Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism: I made mastadon post where I referred to them as an enemy due to their campaigning to remove protections against harassment for transgender students. The original version had 3 sources which were contested. One was found obviously reliable, one had no consensus (and I fucked up by stating a source (Passage) was reliable when consensus at RSN was unclear), and one, Idavox, I'd considered reliable with Daryle Lamont Jenkins as a Subject Matter Expert, and I realized I was wrong and agreed it was unreliable before the case began. Since there had been no consensus as to whether to classify it as an org that opposed transgender rights, I started an RFC, bungled it by being overly broad, and created a more specific one sticking to the case. Some called my reasoning SYNTH (I asked whether if an organization is notable for opposing a single LGBT right, such as same-sex marriage, should the "opposes LGBT rights" category apply), this was disputed as clear-cut synth by editors (more info in next section). I was on the wrong side of consensus when it developed, but respected it, and the complaints about FAIR where primarily content disputes Additionally, another sin to confess, after an editor replaced the lead with the organizations WP:MISSIONSTATEMENT, I created a talk page section labeled "Undoing the whitewashing and advertification", which Springee found not be an impartial, but as other editors noted, WP:NOTADVERT. Gays Against Groomers: Some sources were yellow at RSP was the only complaint. I was already aware, and working to reduce their usage. I also want to note, this artice has recieved a similar ammount of SPA complaints compared to Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, and the admin who originally raised NPOV concerns praised my editing and the efforts I took to address them and generally produce high-quality enclyopedic content. Guardians of Divinity: It may not meet Wikipedia GNG. Due to the ban I've been unable to either 1) prove they meet GNG or 2) prove they don't and move the content to a subsection of a relevant article, so the tag has been stuck there for months.

Notes on the close and close review

I'll prefix this by saying I'll discuss issues with the close raised at the close review, as well as pertinent issues I did not raise then since I was still reeling from the case the BAN. Had I raised them, I feel the close review may have gone differently. 1) The main issue raised in the close review was the !vote count. In the close, CaptainEek stated that given the votes in favor outweighed those opposed by a wide margin, I did not write down each individual editor's name and their stance on a pad as I have done in some closes; I instead did a checkmark tally under the general camps editors fell into. and The !votes indicated that the community was generally in favor of a topic ban. The close review was created on the basis that more editors had in fact opposed a full TBAN (either by calling for more limited sanctions as opposed to the originally proposed TBAN or no sanctions at all) than had supported it. Some asked that CaptainEek re-review the votes and see if that changed their opinion, and many noted that while WP:POLL applies, that's a little different when the close is explicitly based off the number of votes. At the close review, CaptainEek stated that I did not relish topic banning TT. Were I the Lord of Wikipedia, I'd probably have let her keep editing. I am unhappy at how our LGBTQ articles are covered, and TT was making a difference and noted a number of editors, including in this close review, suggest that in removing TT from the topic area, it will only make things worse. They also re-affirmed that Here, the raw vote count was for a sanction. Of those supporting a sanction, the majority supported a topic ban, however, that could be as validly restated as the raw vote count was against a TBAN. Of those opposing a TBAN, the majority opposed any sanctions. The close review argued the vote count was not important, but that the case could have been closed as either "no consensus", or "consensus to some sanction, but which specific one to be further discussed", and it would have been just as valid. I'll only say that if the consensus could have been read against the ban or for some limited sanction, and the discussion is whether an editor should be punished, I generally feel it is better to lean on the side of presumed innocence than guilt. 2) WP:RGW was cited as a reason for my ban. This one struck me as so wrong I even asked CaptainEek to keep the close but remove RGW from the reasoning. RGW was highly contested in the case and the close review. The biggest issue people took is that it is RGW has always made it clear While we can record the righting of great wrongs, we can't actually "ride the crest of the wave" ourselves and If, however, the wrong that you want to address has already been sorted in the real world, and if you have the reliable sources to support it, then please do update the articles. If you review my articles, and indeed the first drafts of all of them, they all rely primarily on RS. Most accuations of RGW came from people complaining about social media posts where I said I wanted to make sure WP:FRINGE was upheld ffs. RGW is about trying to push something that the mainstream and RS disagree with. Not wanting to make sure RS and NPOV are stuck to. Occasionally, I accidentally messed up by including sources that weren't reliable (for minor details as RS always covered the major ones), but in no article were they a majority, plurality, or even significant minority of the sources. The article with the most unreliable sources (still <~5 percent and for minor details) was Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, which I regret a lot, but the context I mentioned in the preceding section should also be considered. 3) WP:SYNTH was cited as a a major issue. Only 3 editors raised SYNTH concerns at articles, none of which were clearly SYNTH. Springee argued my description of Chloe Cole as an "anti-trans activist" was SYNTH, the only response they recieved pwas that it clearly wasn't (more details in preceding section). Levivich argued my question regarding FAIR, ie "If multiple reliable sources note that an organization is known for opposing same-sex marriage, but don't specifically call it an LGBT right, is it SYNTH to [categorize them as opposing] LGBT rights, given that same-sex marriage is very much recognized as an LGBT right?". While consensus eventually concluded in the case of FAIR that we shouldn't categorize them as an "organization that opposes transgender rights" due to their campaigning to repeal misgendering protections for students, many editors thought it was not an unreasonable question and not clearly SYNTH. Beccanyr raised possible SYNTH/OR concerns with a line in Kellie Jay Keen. When notified at my case, my first instict was to defend myself since I prized myself on never doing OR, but then I realized I had indeed messsed up by misreading the following source [34], which discussed in Tandem both KJK and another figure being investigated for twitter harassment directed at Susie Green and her daughter. 4) In reference to KJK, I believe CaptainEek's description of it as evidence of her creating near attack articles did not fully capture the situation. 1) nobody called it a near attack article. 2) on the talk page, SPA's had repeatedly called it an attack article or hit piece and consensus disagreed every time. 3) the sourcing issues were brought up at my case and I was receptive to fixing them, they had not previously been brought up at the talk page, and 4) the context that the issues with the article popped up after she publicly attacked me and I responded stupidly is important, and the article was not representative of my general editing behavior, as other editors pointed out. That being said, I have absolutely no prejudice against an indefinite page ban from the article. I sought to do good work there, mostly did despite some screwups with sourcing, recieved harassment over it and lost my cool. The harassment and waves of SPAs leaving transphobic comments took a heavy toll on my mental health and clouded my judgement. Beccaynr, who presented the most evidence of issues and did a wonderful job trimming the article (apart from sources, and my dumb comments on my talk page and Mastadon, WP:BLOWBYBLOW was I think the main issue with the content itself), did support my continued presence on talk. However, I recognize the article is best left to other editors at this point (for how it reflects on the enclyopedia in light of my past comments and for my mental health) so I'll stay away, whether the community mandates it or not. For transparency's sake, I will note that after privately consulting with an admin and being told Wikidata is not subject to the ban, I reverted some vandalism there (since my watchlist is set up to also alert me to wikidata changes), but didn't touch wikidata either apart from that. 5) I also want to make a note in regards to the consensus at the close review close and the original close. That it should have been closed per DENY immediately after learning it was a sock was never in dispute. Isabelle Bellato's notes that none stepped up to do so, and that is a mistake we made as a community, Another thing to keep in mind for the future is to be more proactive in closing threads opened by bad-faith actors., it would be unfair to them and a massive waste of contributor time were we to consider the close invalid due to the poisoning of the well by the sockpuppet. (and I think doubly poisoned since it wasn't made clear they were a sock with WP:SOCKSTRIKE until the 26th when the notification they were a sock was buried) and Another thing to keep in mind for the future is to be more proactive in closing threads opened by bad-faith actors.. I can only say it does not feel good that the community's position was basically "the case shouldn't have gotten that far and been denied immediately, it's a shame nobody did and it went like that, hopefully we can learn from it", since the community learned a lesson at my expense. 6) Finally, for the record, I want to state that I do hold CaptainEek (or Isabelle Bellato) in any less of a high regard due to their decisions. I disagree, sure, but I have always been able to disagree with other editors and respect them for the good work they do. In this case, I feel I am also culpable. As CaptainEek said in their close, I had been following along on this thread, and first considered closing this thread about five days ago, but held off at the time. TheTranarchist then reached out to me about three days ago, asking me specifically to close this. At the time, I thought that request might in fact make me a poor closer. I then tried to find another admin who would be willing to close it, but with no luck.I had reached out stating Sorry if this is a breach of protocol, but frankly I just want the ANI case to be over with as I've spent the last 10 days stressed out of my mind over it and no admin has stepped in yet so I figured I should just ask directly. Could you review and close it? Or ask another admin to? Seems to be stable at this point. I had asked CaptainEek since early at my case case I had noted one of the people calling for my ban had a COI, and had pinged CaptainEek to confirm that I had mailed Arb-com the evidence (which I now know to be a breach of COI protocol). CaptainEek hadn't participated, so I considered them uninvolved. At the time I asked, the case was taking a heavy toll on my mental health and people had been asking for a close for a while but nobody had stepped up so panicking I decided to directly beg someone to either close it or just find someone who would. I cannot lie, I've often wondered if I may have unintentionally biased CaptainEek against me, since frankly on reflection if I were an arb and someone reached out to me asking to close an ANI case, I would not want to appear like I was being biased in their favor and would be more critical than I would have been had they not. CaptainEeks later comments about not wanting to ban me and thinking I did valuable work in the topic area strengthened that idea in my mind. After Isabelle bellato closed the case, I thanked them on their talk page, but I think it's important to highlight they also explictly stated I'm sorry things went the way they did. Were it not for the perceived bias because of who I am, I would have closed the original discussion much earlier. All in all, it was clear admins were scared of closing my case for appearing biased and let it run on far longer than it should.

Things I learned from my ban and how I've improved as an editor

While the well was poisoned and I believe the case was set up to distract focus from my editing to my social media posts, editors did in good faith leave thoughts on my editing and constructive criticisms, which I appreciated and have been working on (though, I could have done so without the ban...) 1) A big source of contention in the case was my Mastadon posts. Sometimes without evidence of wrongdoing on the articles themselves... I haven't made any stupid posts since then. I've barely posted. 2) RS. Even before my ban I strove to ensure RS were used. Rarely, I slipped up. Had issues with the sources been raised on the talk pages earlier, I would have addressed them there, but nobody did. I've since been triply cautious with my sourcing, checking with others if I have the slightest doubt and asking editors to review the sources I've used for reliability. 3) BLOWBYBLOW and PROSELINE. These were mentioned during the case a few times, but not in the close as there was a consensus those are not bannable offenses. However, I take my writing very seriously, and have never wanted anything less than fully encylopedic articles, so I've diligently worked to improve on them and improve my style of writing. 4) At the close review, I created a subsection asking how I could improve as an editor. Summarizing people's recommendations 1) create limits for how often I can participate in heated discussions, 2) simply do good work in another less controversial topic area. The 1st, while good advice isn't that applicable since non-controversial topics lead to non-heated collegial conversations. I would like to think that I've taken it to heart and would stick to it if let back in GENSEX, but since I've been editing non-controversial topics, I can't really point to any evidence of conducting myself well in a controversial topic area apart from this. The second, I found a lot easier to follow and can demonstrate. I'll preface this by saying my ban has weighed heavily on me and multiple times made me question whether I actually want to edit anymore. Even when I've got the energy and drive, my BAN weighs like an albatross around my neck. In terms of what I've been editing since my ban, I've been working on Housing Rights, largely in NY, primarily on the articles Crown Heights Tenant Union and Urban Homesteading Assistance Board which I respectively expanded from a stub and practically wrote from its original state as a self-sourced mess. I enjoy editing in that area (and it's certainly never been as acrimonious as GENSEX and I don't have to worry about transphobic SPAs and personal attacks), and I'll continue editing there if this appeal succeeds (my first article was actually Boots theory). In terms of how this reflects on whether I would do good work in GENSEX, like anti-trans ORGs, these are social organizations (and in a mirror image kind of way, I appreciate as much as I detest anti-trans orgs). As a sociologist, writing about social organizations is my wheelhouse, and I have strived to write them objectively/neutrally as possible. I've also dabbled in writing about fiction (fixing up Discworld (world)#Sentient species), but I don't enjoy it as much since so much tends to rely on primary sources and I feel most comfortable documenting social movements/organizations.

Some notes on harassment I received writing in GENSEX (and after)

I want to briefly speak to my experience editing anti-trans ORGs/BLPs. I'm a relatively new editor, I started a year and a half ago. I wrote about a dozen articles on anti-trans ORGs/BLPs, and there was generally a consensus at all that I did good work and was a diligent editor. Many even highlighted how I did very good work in consideration of my relatively junior status as an editor. Now, I freely admit I find them despicable, but I want to make it clear that the following 3 things can be true: 1) an organization can objectively be a FRINGE group that seeks to strip minorities of their rights 2) members of said minority can justifiably despise them for it, and 3) said members of the minority group can both hate them and write objectively about them. The kinds of legislation they push has forced me to make plans to flee the country with my family and live every day in fear my state will be next. There is no way me, or any trans editor, will not have strong feelings about them. Not because politics or a POV, just because what they do causes material harm to trans people. The articles I wrote were nearly always determined to be written from a NPOV, most concerns raised where SPA's angry the article didn't paint them in a flattering light even though RS didn't (even if consensus always sided against them, it was taxing, see KJK and Gays Against Groomers for clear examples). I wrote these articles as a sociologist first and foremost. Now, writing these articles was emotionally very taxing. Not just because they required a lot of research into their activities, but because their fans and sometimes them themselves would direct abuse at me for it (such as KJK publicly calling me a liar and trancel, Gays Against Groomers fans calling me a groomer, Genspect saying their article was an attack, etc). When actual NPOV concerns were brought up, I was known to address them diligently since all I wanted was high-quality articles. Not only have I received harassment from hate groups, I've seen far-right and transphobic forums known for doxxing complaining about me and directing abuse at me even after the case, gloating about my ban, being called a rabid tra freak/tranny, a misogynistic tra, all about grooming, a troon, and even harassment from KiwiFarms (though the site is thankfully currently inaccesible). Even before my ban, for my work on Kellie Jay Keen, someone had this lovely rant Trans-identified males are a major bloc on Wikipedia, obvious to long-time editors. The self-serving and chauvinistic brigade of fetishistic wankers and "intersectional" red guard youngz has been obvious and unfortunate for years now. Some took credit for my ban, telling Chloe Cole We are slowly fixing your wiki page (as much as we can without balanced sources). Two activist editors were banned in association with it. We're winning, their vitriol and unhinged rhetoric stands out as badly as they do.(and even without the tweet, it's easy to see something fishy with the article) Graham Linehan, a prominent anti-trans activist with a penchant for doxxing trans people, even complained about me, calling me a fucking liar and one of the activists who have been smearing us and vandalising our Wikipedia entries for the last five years (which is almost funny when you consider I was editing for just over 1 and never touched his article). Apart from the gravedancing off wikipedia, there's also been multiple attempts at gravedancing on wikipedia where people try and add OR and POV language to articles, explicitly citing my ban as justification. Just a few days ago, some joker replaced my wikimedia commons talk page with a fuckton, pun intended, of porn... (it was revdeled but I asked it be unrevdeled so I could cite it here, since I believe WP:V even applies to my case). Just today, as I was out, someone tried gravedancing to POVpush in favor of bigots...

Now, all the harassment I just mentioned was bad enough for my mental health, but it was a trade-off I felt I could live with since the community was generally supportive and I wrote better articles each time and enjoyed improving my old ones with other editors. But the ANI case and TBAN doubled then quadrupled the toll on my mental health, Not a single day has gone by, editing Wikipedia or not, trying to avoid Wikipedia or not, that this case hasn't weighed heavily on my soul. I thought given the split community !votes, the full accounting of my wrongdoing being not exactly overwhelming, the fact even discussion of wrongdoing was localized to a specific subfield of GENSEX, the fact it was started by a sock who was targeting my social media posts because his efforts to claim articles were biased had failed, and the fact that consensus normally found my articles to be written from a NPOV, the outcome would be 1) lighter targeted sanctions according to where editors raised issues 2) a formal warning (I had previously only received one GENSEX warning, as mentioned, for improperly reporting a COI) or 3) no consensus to ban. Whichever outcome, I was going to take a break in non-controversial areas of GENSEX. I felt blindsided by the full TBAN.

So, if all the above hasn't persuaded you the ban was unncessary, or that I at least deserve rope and a chance to prove myself, please, for the sake of my mental health, grant me a limited exception to the articles below, since the most soul-crushing part of the ban is how completely exiled I am from anything vaguely trans related, even completely uncontroversial articles. The limited exception would be the following GENSEX subfields (and associated talk pages/ noticeboard discussions):

Articles of the form LGBT Rights in XYZ. I created WP:USALGBT to help coordinate work on them (at least, specifically US ones), and was working on LGBT rights in New York before my ban forced me to avoid it.

Historically significant trans/LGBT rights groups and activists. Before my ban, I intended to revisit and clean Angela Lynn Douglas and Gloria Hemingway, create Transsexual Action Organization and move most TAO stuff from Douglas to there, and during my case I saved Tri-Ess from deletetion but didn't get a chance to polish it before my ban.

In summary, as a trans sociologist (and since I just graduated, that is indeed an accreddited one), being completely cut off from all transgender topics hurts. There is escalating organized violence and targeting of trans people, and I documented it per RS, NPOV, and FRINGE. I was banned for mentioning anything related to trans people, as if there was some overarching fringe pov I was trying to push in every single article vaguely related to trans people, in no small part for using coarse language about bigots off wikipedia whose articles were agreed to be written from a NPOV. I have had flashbacks to this case nearly every day, even when I'm trying to avoid wikipedia, sometimes so bad I literally couldn't sleep and stayed up 40 hours (2 or 3 times at this point). I've thought about quitting multiple times. Absolutely nothing I've tried has made it hurt any less on a daily basis. I do not believe the ban has benefited either the enclyopedia or me as an editor. I think there was a clear consensus this case was not fair to me or my mental health, it certainly hasn't been good for it since, and I believe that there is enough reasonable doubt as to whether this ban was necessary in the first place and enough positive commendations of my work and constant desire to improve as an editor that I should be granted WP:ROPE, the assumption of good faith, and the ability to re-enter GENSEX (with an indefinite page ban on Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull). There was indeed a consensus that the community was not so overwhelmingly supportive of a TBAN that consensus could have been against a TBAN or in favor of some limited sanction. I've been sticking to it for three months, and every. second. hurt. If my behavior is untenable, I know I'll get banned again, presumably infinitely instead of indefinitely. That's the point of ROPE, something I was never granted in the first case. If you still believe I am such a complete and utter danger to GENSEX that I should not be allowed back in, and are not even willing to give me a chance to demonstrate improvement or fall on my own sword, for the love of wikipedia and in consideration of my mental health, at the very least please allow me to edit the non-controversial GENSEX articles mentioned above.

Finally, as alluded to earlier, I want to state that ANI and AN send me into near panic attacks. Since the original case, I've felt terrified of ending up here again because of how I was treated the first time. These forums put me into fight or flight mode since what is being discussed is my character and I feel driven to defend myself, which can lead me to shoot myself in the foot by replying too much. There even was a consensus the first case was created in bad faith and the fact it dragged on so long was bad for my mental health. Recognizing how AN/ANI make me feel backed into a corner and pressured to respond, as a check on myself I will automatically withdraw this appeal if I make any comment here either than 1) a direct response to a pinged question (it must be pinged, no rhetorical questions or etc) or 2) minor edits such as correcting typos/broken links/etc. I also ask that this be closed May 31st, so I don't get stuck in limbo again.

References

TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)TheTranarchist

Discussion

• This is far too long for anyone to read. Spicy (talk) 01:09, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
• It hasn't been 3 months, yet alone 6 from the ban being implemented. Also, this is WAY too much for an appeal. I suggest two things: One, come back in September when it's been 6 months. Two, work on being MUCH more concise in your request. This is a wall of text. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
• (comment from involved editor) I'll call myself involved here, but I wanted to make a point of providing my moral support — I can empathize with the feelings you describe, and hope that the community sees fit to extend a measure of good faith.

Irrespective of the outcome of this appeal, please place your own mental health miles above editing, and be mindful of how this discussion may make you feel — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 01:13, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

• I'm reasonably sure that if a ban explicitly says that it can be "appealed in X months" it can't be appealed earlier. I also second the comments above about this appeal being way too long. Like, by a factor of ten. Nobody is going to read all that and words that won't be read can't help you.

That being said, if I'm wrong about the appeal being valid than I do support unban, because it's still my opinion that the original ban was awful in all respects. It was clearly an attempt to remove an opponent from the topic area, the OP of the original thread was banned shortly after opening it, it was based almost entirely on poorly phrased Mastodon posts and not any hint of misbehavior on-wiki, and it didn't even have consensus when it "passed"! Like, literally the closer miscounted the votes! Loki (talk) 01:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm reasonably sure that if a ban explicitly says that it can be "appealed in X months" it can't be appealed earlier. – sigh. Why can't guidelines just be clear about these things? How do we even have "appealable after X" as a standard if we don't even know what that means? If we did, someone might just be able to hat this discussion here and now. Instead it will probably eventually be closed as too hastey or no consensus, but not before causing TheTranarchist and the community even more respective emotional and ocular strain. small jars tc 22:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support unban. I've read through the initial ban discussion and the close review, and I'm not convinced that the consensus was as strong as the closing statement presented it to be. The initial complaint was made by a sockpuppet who was clearly desperate to get rid of an opponent, and relied almost exclusively on off-wiki information to make their case rather than on-wiki evidence of misconduct. Generally I am supportive of people editing in areas that they are passionate about, provided they can do so congenially, and there are very few diffs in evidence that allege that this has ever been an issue. Furthermore, it is clear from this statement that TheTranarchist has learned from this ordeal and has a plan on how to move forward. That's really all we're looking for in an appeal, so for me this checks all the boxes. – bradv 02:52, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose early unban. If a user wants a TBAN overturned early, the first thing they should do is abide by it. While I understand the desire to become unbanned, the user has skirted the edges of the ban and has even been given a warning for outright breaching it less than three weeks ago. I see no reason that an early unban is warranted, and the case presented above is uncompelling in light of the previous and recent failures to adhere to the ban, as well as a instances of pushing the edges of the ban that have continued since shortly after the TBAN was enacted. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Note that that warning was contested by a number of editors (including myself) and lead to an ANI thread that declared it was a grey area. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose early unban - Without regard to the actual merits of the appeal, which I did not read, I oppose on the basis of an appeal being disallowed at this time. Everyone thinks that their appeal is special and the most important thing in the world, but no appeal should ever be granted before the date of allowed first appeal. Come back at six months, and trim the appeal so it's readable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
• if wikipedia editing is impacting your mental health this much, to the point where a topic ban has driven you to the point of despair... it feels like you should take a long break away from here. lettherebedarklight晚安 03:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. We just went through this EXACT same scenario barely a month ago with Newimpartial [35]. Did TheTranarchist not notice? If they post any more on this thread I vote to enforce a one-year ban on appealing the TBAN. Do not waste the community's time is the major maxim of Wikipedia, especially when it comes to TBans and other sanctions. Softlavender (talk) 03:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
• Comment from the peanut gallery Sorry, but the paragraph that begins with In summary, as a trans sociologist etc, does it not seem like WP:RGW? It is justifiable, yes, but the principle still stands, no? Please feel free to correct me on this but it is what I get from reading it. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 04:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
  • I suggest reading that whole paragraph. It might not say what you think it does (i.e. it certainly does not say you can't edit topics you're knowledgeable in, or even passionate about). – bradv 04:50, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

    Yes, I did, & that's I asked for a second opinion so I could affirm/change my interpretation of it. Cheers. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 07:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

• @TheTranarchist: I echo TheresNoTime in a lot of ways here, but I'll just say, I'd really encourage you to withdraw this, wait till September, and figure out how to distill this appeal to 2 to 3 paragraphs. I would like to see you editing in this topic area again, and still feel that you were banned with very little evidence of actual disruption in the area, but an early and very long appeal like this is not going to succeed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. It has only been a couple of months since this TBAN was enforced, and I see no indication that this user has tried to change their overall approach towards editing to actually warrant a lifting of the ban. Also, declaring "There wasn't such overwhelming support for a TBAN an early appeal is unreasonable, it's been incredibly hard on me, please give me the assumption of good faith and rope and lift this ban" right after trying to skirt around such a ban (as mentioned above by other users) leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth. The Night Watch (talk) 05:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
• In addition to what's been said above, I've found that emotional or personal investment is not a good way to choose what topics to work with. I edit articles where I think the subject might be interesting to learn about, not ones where I feel compelled to document wrongdoing or to engage in a broader social conflict. If someone finds an article where they have a strong emotional reaction to its subject matter, that's probably the last article they should be editing, for the sake of the encyclopedia and for the editor's mental health. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
• This was always going to fail because of being so soon after the disruption. The community likes to impose a period of self reflection. I'm surprised that there's been no discussion of the proposed limited exemption? We should think about that.—S Marshall T/C 08:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

• An appeal to change the terms of a sanction are still an appeal, which is allowed only after the passage of 6 months. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

• Unless the community decides otherwise. Okay, I'm at support limited exemption: the Tranarchist can edit articles of the form LGBT rights in XYZ, and other articles about historically significant LGBT figures. And even if fully unbanned, I feel the Tranarchist is not yet ready to be trusted to edit BLPs about gender-critical people.—S Marshall T/C 16:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I would withdraw this. Yes, it was an extremely poor community decision, but an early appeal is not going to work, especially on the significant number of editors who voted for you to be t-banned for their own ideological reasons. This is where Wikipedia consensus fails, unfortunately, and it has always been the case. Black Kite (talk) 08:50, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
  • How about potential editors voting against the topic ban based on their own ideological reasons? Does one group exist but not the other? starship.paint (exalt) 13:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• Strong support. Per Loki et al, this topic ban is extremely unjust WP:PUNISHMENT: it was requested by sockpuppet to get rid of opponent, there was no evidence of any on-wiki disruption or misbehavior by Tranarchist, and there wasn't strong consensus to topic ban either. About all that stuff like "6 months", WP:NOTBURO is still here. If community made a poor decision in the past, it can be amended or repealed now to restore justice. And about "walls of text", guess I'm "nobody", 'cause I've read them. Comrade a!rado🇷🇺 (C🪆T) 10:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support unban
  1. I know of Tranarchist because I watch LGBT+ discussions on wiki, and also I met them at a Wikimedia New York City public online event.
  2. I am an organizer for Wikimedia LGBT+. We often discuss cases of harassment against LGBT+ people, such as this one.
  3. The ban encourages continued harassment. This user is demonstrating that they are the target of an off-wiki harassment campaign due to their wiki editing. That harassment has entered Wikipedia and was tolerated contrary to the meta:Universal Code of Conduct. I do not fault any particular Wikipedia users or processes at this time, but something in the Wikipedia process is a problem and our colleague deserves some relief and compassion for the harm they experienced through the Wikipedia bureaucracy. This is an extraordinary case and should not be processed as a routine editorial dispute. I think that any opposition to this appeal should acknowledge that this person is our LGBT+ colleague, and she is editing LGBT+ Wikipedia topics, and that harm has come to her through Wikipedia for only those reasons. To assume that LGBT+ people who edit LGBT+ topics are putting themselves in harm's way, and should expect harassment, is contrary to our Code of Conduct and our values.
  4. Hate politics enter Wikipedia. There is a global organized hate movement against LGBT+ people. It is connected to politics, and it decides the results of elections which grant government power. Since Wikipedia is the world's most consulted source of information on LGBT+ topics, the hate-based movement entered Wikipedia to attack this editor in this case. Hate on wiki is intolerable, and yet due to innocence, ignorance, or lack of infrastructure to react, sometimes hate activity trolls the Wikipedia bureaucracy into entertaining it as legitimate branch of discourse. We in Wikipedia cannot completely control that, but we can support our colleagues who are the targets in hate campaigns.
  5. The support that she is requesting is an unban. Unbanning will neither stop the harassment nor the ongoing global political hate movement, but an unban to participate in Gay Pride Month is what she is requesting. Our priority should be to support our own community members, and this is a person who has been attacked for being in our community. History looks favorably on the oppressed and history is happening here and now. I trust that if an unban comes first, then Tranarchist will comply with wiki editor community standards and mentorship from Wikimedia LGBT+. Wikimedia LGBT+ can mediate if anyone wants checks on her editing.
  6. I have respect for Wikipedia's justice process but it has its limits, and this case is beyond the routine. If this user's case were printed on paper then it would be a book of hundreds of pages. We have a systemic problem in allowing cases to grow to complexity beyond anyone's capacity to read them. The length is because our system allowed so many others to require responses to accusations, and not because of this user's actions. I recognize that this user has a long appeal but it is a response to a long case which should have had capped length and participation. Also the appeal is proportionally small if one compares the usual size ratio of appeals:original cases. Although Tranarchist wrote this appeal is not just to the administrators' noticeboard, and she has not mentioned this to me, I imagine that she recognizes that what happens here is a historical record with potential for ongoing use. The text here is also for the social scientists in political campaigning, LGBT+ issues, politics, and media studies, and know we at Wikimedia LGBT+ have another example case to share when anyone asks how mediation works in Wikipedia. This is off the map of our usual process and we need similarly exceptional action to guide the case back to a reasonable and just outcome.
  7. There is strange social pressure in our wiki environment where trans and LGBT+ editors sense that they will be in danger for speaking out about transphobia. What LGBT+ wiki editors can say to each other is very different from what people feel safe discussing in open in Wikipedia. Speaking out results in harassment. Unbanning this user would be a step toward countering some of that chilling effect. Also, this is not just an LGBT+ issue, but an anti-hate issue. Right now LGBT+ people are a focus but minority groups all get their turn being persecuted, and whatever we do to develop fairness for LGBT+ cases also advances fairness in our overall community infrastructure.

I cannot speak for all Wikimedia LGBT+ members, or even on behalf of the organization, but there is a pattern in Wikipedia that when LGBT+ editors use our community processes, they get worse outcomes. I have seen this enough times over the years to believe that our infrastructure has problems which lead to these outcomes. This merits study - Wikimedia LGBT+ would support a grant proposal to the Wikimedia Foundation from any research team which would look at the issue - but for now unbanning this user would be a meaningful step toward recognizing that our processes are manipulated and played by hateful movements. Bluerasberry (talk) 11:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Comment: Bluerasberry’s lengthy allegations are entirely evidence-free, and cover matters not involved in this appeal. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

They get worse outcomes than what? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

than regular editors who are brought to ANI for similarly-sized offenses, I'd imagine. This is something we see in a lot of environments by the way, not just trans editors on ANI. [36] --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Ever wonder why LGBT+ supportive editors like Colin, FireFangledFeathers, and Sideswipe9th never get topic banned? What could they possibly be doing differently..?  Tewdar  15:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Experience, for one thing --Licks-rocks (talk) 22:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Experience is not something that one does.  Tewdar  09:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

It is something that makes you do things differently, however. gotta get yelled at over violating WP:??? a few times first. I can think of a bunch of examples where TheTrannarchist messed something up simply because she didn't know How We Do Things Around Here. --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Well that's one reason why it's generally a bad idea for editors to start editing in a hot button area. Some editors survive the experience. Many don't especially if their don't take the generally multiple hints that person they should start somewhere easier. In this case, TheTranarchist still fully has the ability to easily come back and become a productive editor in such areas, they've only been topic banned i.e. it's only a case of forcing them to start somewhere else. (And it's not likely they've been banned from all hotbutton areas although as the warning shows, they should take care given how related things can be.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment This request to lift the topic ban appears to primarily rehash the arguments made in the ANI thread and the subsequent close review. Considering that these arguments were already considered and rejected I don't believe this is a productive use of the communities time. BilledMammal (talk) 13:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose This is quite frankly one of the worst ways to request an unban without ending up with more sanctions. There's a wall of text that most of us are going to skim over, a large part of that is an attempt to relitigate the original ban, there's also an attempt to paint themselves as the victim, and a lot of text on how this matter has harmed their mental health. An unban request is suppose dto convince us that you are no longer going to waste our time on the dramaboards with your conduct when editing in the subject area. If this appeal consisted entirely of the hatted section titled Things I learned from my ban and how I've improved as an editor, it may have succeeded. You know what you should do to get unbanned, next time, actually follow the advice the community is offering as anything else will be wasting our time and may lead to further restrictions. Iffy★Chat -- 13:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
• Moral support Heaven forbid people have to take a few minutes to read an argument before coming to a conclusion... this whole saga has, in my opinion, been poorly handled. I'll echo the concerns of bradv et al., without any hope that they will be taken seriously in the face of our not-a-bureaucracy bureaucracy. XOR'easter (talk) 13:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support I am normally a stickler for WP:SO conditions, but 1) there were far too many issues with the initial ban discussion, from the fairly close initial vote (58% by the closer's count, which to me doesn't read "clear consensus" as they seem to think it does) to the fact that it was started as a revenge hit by a sock account of a blocked troll, and 2) I don't see an ongoing threat that Tranarchist will be a problem if they are unbanned. The "Things I learned from my ban and how I've improved as an editor" section above provides me with sufficient assurance of that. --Jayron32 15:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  I run the risk of being accused of harping on this by bringing this up again, but the closer's count was wrong. In fact, there wasn't even a simple majority for the specific sanction imposed. Loki (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  If you're going to badger someone, pick someone who didn't already support unbanning them. Seriously, pick your battles better, dude. --Jayron32 18:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Jayron32 Oh uh, to be clear, my comment was not aimed at you or an attempt to badger you. It was to clarify a thing you said for other readers. Loki (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support – 50% off first-timer (?) punishment for (reasonably) good-ish behaviour of a new-ish editor. The wall of text is horrendous and is almost worth an oppose on its own, but the Things I've Learned section is quite good and perhaps a reason to be optimistic. I don't think continuing sanctions are really beneficial for the encyclopaedia, the topic area, or TheTranarchist at this point. Give 'em another chance to fuck up, I say.  Tewdar  16:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
• Strong Support for an unban per Jayron32 above. I don't see any compelling evidence that there was a "threat" to the topic area to begin with, let alone a continuing threat, and I find the condescending moral grandstanding from some of the editors in this thread about the structure of this appeal even less compelling. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 16:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
• It's a Support from me too, essentially per Bradv and Jayron32. There were problem with the ban, as pointed out by those two and by others, and I really don't think TheTranarchist is going to be a future problem in the area. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:37, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support unban for all the reasons given above. It's insane to me that the ban was ever approved in the first place. TheTranarchist is a very valuable contributor to this space. --Pokelova (talk) 21:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see someone who is reflecting on the issues raised at ANI nor someone who has shown they understand the topic ban. Blaming others isn't the key to a proper appeal but that is what we are seeing here. A number of people disagreed with the block but it wasn't overturned. TT hasn't shown they will be a productive editor when they return to a contentious article space. I think a larger example of editing and interacting with editors, especially editors who disagree with them, is needed before anyone assumes they aren't going to be an issue going forward. Springee (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose the purpose of an appeal is not to relitigate the original sanction. This appeal would be unconvincing even if the OP had waited 6 months. The fact that they didn't is another reason for me to oppose. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, per my earlier comment, Lepricavark, and Red-tailed hawk. BilledMammal (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support per Boing, non-moral variety. nableezy - 22:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose :This appeal should not have been made. The result of the first discussion was a topic ban appealable in 6 months i.e. no appeal is allowed until 6 months have elapsed from the imposition of the topic ban. The close was challenged, and upheld. There was recently a warning to TT which was challenged, and upheld. That TT has now appealed before the 6 months is up shows a contempt for Wikipedia processes. Sweet6970 (talk) 23:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support per Bradv. --JBL (talk) 23:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I don't know the specifics of this case (just wandered in and saw this thread), but looking at it, I do not believe the close and close review were properly done. This seems more like a punishment than a preventative measure, and a significant amount of the opposes are sticking by the book just because the close was endorsed at close review. WP:IAR is a thing, and so is WP:NOTBURO. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:27, 26 May 2023‎ (UTC)
  • Making this a weak support – I don't think evidence has been provided that Tranarchist will be a problematic editor if their TBAN is lifted. The "things I've learned from by ban" section, along with accepting of the mentorship below, and willingness to go down via WP:ROPE if they violate it all show me an editor who should not still be blocked. I think narrowing the TBAN to GENSEX BLPs (this seems to be the worst area, as far as I can tell, though if I'm wrong feel free to ignore that) and/or the limited exceptions they provide themselves are acceptable compromises as well.

However, I would note that a wikibreak is probably a good idea at some point around here. I understand wanting to edit during Pride Month, but at some point, with the mental health state that Tranarchist claims they're in, it may be a better idea to take a wikibreak during it if they start to trend towards heated discussions and/or just generally take one at any point (probably once Pride Month ends). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 20:12, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support per Bradv and Jayron32: she should not have been banned (I was not involved in the discussion that led to the ban, but seeing that a sockpuppet sought it for off-wiki ideological reasons, canvassed people and still didn't get a majority let alone a consensus, but found someone sympathetic to close in their favour; the idea above that that blatant an effort by someone thinking in battleground terms to "remove an opponent" should be un-appealable before the troll's perferred time is hard to take seriously), and she's learned to be an even better editor since then. Yes, it'd be ideal if she also learned more concision, but frankly that's another issue I've noticed lately: sometimes people use the neurodivergent ways some users communicate (like providing all relevant details in the hope of not being misunderstood) to get them banned, rather than working to teach them the site's not-always-written Rules / cultural norms against talking too long or too often. -sche (talk) 02:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

  Side note, it saddens me to observe in recent threads how many editors take one position on one ban or block and a different position on another, in such a way that whatever nominal rationale for when bans are appropriate they articulate one time and act differently to the next is not as good a predictor of their stance on any one ban as whether they previously !voted the same or contrary to a user on content RfCs; I could have predicted several of the opposes and a few of the supports from that. I suppose it'd be hard for a community process to not exhibit that, since even professional judges have been getting increasing press for their own partisanism, but I'd love to think of anything we could do to improve things in that respect; I understand we can't workably make a rule like "be consistent" (for editors who comment) or "care" (we can't make editors who aren't interested in a discussion spend their volunteer time processing and commenting on it). -sche (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, are you arguing that CaptainEek is someone sympathetic to the views of World's Lamest Critic? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose, and that is putting it lightly. TT's appeal has not given me any reassurance that she will edit neutrally in the WP:GENSEX area. The article she created for Chloe Cole read like an attack page before it was improved by other editors. If she were editing from any other viewpoint, support for a TBan would be unanimous. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
• As they say, no good deed goes unpunished. Its not like I swooped in to cast out a trans editor, TT herself asked me to close her thread. I was a bit uncomfortable to do so, but no one else had stepped up. Since then, I have been subject to continued sniping by people who think I somehow caved to community pressure or am transphobic (that's rich isn't it) or what have you. I have further been subject to TT's continued wikilawyering in her quest to skirt her ban. I'm fed up that this has somehow become a referendum on trans editors writ large, when it was obviously never that. Someone can be a trans editor...and also be a problem. TT's mission of improving our trans content is a laudable goal. But it can also be true that she was doing a piss poor job of it. I respect whatever decision the community comes to here, but I'll note two things. First, when I said she could appeal in six months, that wasn't some kind of joke. I was more than happy for her to appeal in time. But we put appeal restrictions on things for a reason. If the community is suddenly unhappy with appeal time limits, it should say so. Second, not to invoke the bureaucracy, but this really feels like a close review of a close review. While we can certainly correct glaring errors, having a degree of finality is also important. TT cannot have her cake and eat it too. She chose me as her closer, and is upset that I did not give her the close she wanted. Wikipedia is not Closes-R-US where you can just pick out the close you want. Sometimes you get one you don't like, but it doesn't make it wrong. We should only be considering lifting it if TT has abided by its terms, which she has not.
  Lastly, a note of self reflection. This is a bit stream of consciousness as I'm sick with a cold and am struggling to refine this. I actually agree with TT that the circumstances of her asking me to close this may have resulted in a different sanction than she might have otherwise received. When I first read the discussion, I admit that I felt a certain solidarity with TT, and that was part of the reason I felt hesitant to close it. But a closer's job is not to impart their will, it is to impart the community's will. Perhaps in trying to account for my own bias I overcorrected and misread the community's will. Though I still believe that the community found TT's editing problematic, and the disagreement was over what sanction to levy. I know some folks might try to use this as evidence to overturn the close or otherwise excoriate me, but I wanted to be honest. I hope y'all can grant me some grace and respect my honesty without trying to weaponize it; my goal here is to have a learning moment. I've certainly learned a lesson here, and will never again accept a request to close a thread except at a neutral place like ANRFC. No good can come of choosing closers. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'm gonna be super frank here that I agree that this is a close review of a close review, but I don't think that's a problem. The reason this issue keeps popping up is exactly because there were so many problems with the original close. It was just a bad close, through and through, for countless reasons. And those reasons are not limited exclusively to the fact that you were asked to do it.

  You literally miscounted the !votes and claimed there was a consensus when there wasn't even a majority, for one. For two, the thread was opened by a sock. For three, it was blatantly an attempt to remove an opponent from the topic area. And it was also based entirely off off-wiki evidence with zero evidence of on-wiki misbehavior.

  Like, Newimpartial was also topic banned at a similar time and for similar reasons, but their topic ban doesn't keep getting relitigated because it didn't have any of these issues. It was just a reasonably clear consensus for reasonably clear on-wiki reasons. Even though I still disagree with it, nobody's making a big fuss about it. Loki (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. I wouldn't be against lifting the TBAN at some point, but for goodness' sake, it's only been 3 months. I seem to recall suggestions that the TBAN should be for no less than 6 months, and I agree with that. However, on a different note: @TheTranarchist: if a TBAN is causing you this much mental anguish, I strongly recommend you take a break from Wikipedia. It's not healthy to be so emotionally tied to this website, and I assure you this place is not worth your mental health taking a beating. Indeed, I think lifting a TBAN because it's causing emotional distress is precisely the wrong thing to do – it implies to me you might not be in the right headspace to work in this topic area, still. Ending the TBAN shouldn't be done to help your emotional state; in fact, it should be the other way round. In the words of a professional wrestler (humour me), "I was never going to get healthy staying in the place that got me sick in the first place." Please look after yourself, and don't let this hellhole dictate your mental wellbeing. My hope is that you'll get into a good headspace outside of here and then appeal the TBAN in another few months. — Czello ^(music) 08:18, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support unban The original discussion was flawed in so many ways that it's ridiculous to keep this up. I would also ask that editors really think about the matter at hand here, and not try to base their decisions on their own diagnoses of someone's mental health. Parabolist (talk) 09:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
• Question: As somebody who feels that the original outcome was overly harsh (and let me be clear that I am not blaming CaptainEek for that in the slightest!), I would like to ask whether there is any way in which the ban could be lifted early in a provisional or probationary way? --DanielRigal (talk) 12:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

The suggestion below for an unban with mentoring sounds good and I support that. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose User appears to have learned nothing from the Tban. Attempting to relitigate the ban instead of considering how to resolve their behavior is unbecoming at best. Lulfas (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
• Strong support the original thread was a farce and the amount of gravedancing that went on afterwards (and is still going on) only proves that a sizable number of those who supported the original ban were not doing so in good faith but to remove an ideological opponent. On top of that, as a few editors have alluded to in the past on this very board, Transarchists ban started a wave of aggressive attempts to get pro-LGBT editors banned from the topic area that only stopped when User:Korny O'Near attempted it and received a boomerang for his efforts.
  Wikipedia should be supporting editors trying to defend LGBT rights, not banning them at the behest of the alt-right. 2601:18F:107F:E2A0:58B:3BD4:1DAB:AEB4 (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Comment: Evidence-free allegations. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:35, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support unban simply based on the fact that the ban is invalid to begin with - the filer of the ANI thread being a sock should invalidate the ban. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 16:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support, per Bradv, Jayron, and Boing. We shouldn't litigate the close itself: but the overall circumstances weren't ideal, enough that I'm willing to ignore the time limit issue. And while the appeal is too long, it does show genuine self-reflection, which is not typical of overlong appeals. I particularly appreciate the willingness to work on less controversial material. And if this is successful, TTA would be on a very tight leash and I think they know it; new issues should be easy enough to handle. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
• Sideswipe9th reached out to me via email and asked me to make a quick note on their behalf as they don't have access to edit for the next few days. They wish to offer themselves as a mentor, if TheTranarchist accepts. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

  I accept and am honored - I can think of few editors as good as Sideswipe9th in the topic area. I recognize I fucked up, but those were issues with inexperience and a poor handling of harassment rather than outright maliciousness. I've been working to improve and internalize all constructive criticism offered during and after the case and address the issues raised, I feel I've demonstrated that in my new niche of choice (housing rights), I've honored the ban though it hurts save for a warning ruled a grey area, and I feel the mentorship of an experienced editor such as Sideswipe9th will further ensure there is never reason to take me to ANI again. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Query: What exactly would mentoring involve? Would TT submit all her proposed edits to Sideswipe9th before making them? Would this include Talkpages? Comment: TT has been editing for more than a year, and so has had ample time to work out how to behave on Wikipedia – mentoring should not, in fact, be necessary. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:55, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

@Sweet6970: Apologies for taking so long to get back to you, I've been on holiday to Disneyland Paris for the last few days and was only able to occasionally read discussions while stuck in queues.

The short version is that this will be a more formalised version of what TheTranarchist and I have already been discussing off-wiki in the time since the TBAN, based on her editing in other content areas. There's a little bit of everything involved in this, question and answers, peer review of proposed content, discussing edits to articles of interest by other editors, talking through content ideation, discussing how to handle content disputes, going through different interpretations of policies and guidelines.

The exact nature of what the mentoring involves naturally depends on the specific circumstances of each article. If this is approved, for mainspace GENSEX content in particular, we would be discussing in detail any proposed edits to articles, with a particular focus on the issues that were raised when the TBAN was applied. For talk page discussions, it'll be a little bit of a lighter touch, though I will be trying to work on finding the balance between brevity and clarity. As others have said in this discussion, the writing style that TheTranarchist used when opening this appeal is a pretty standard hallmark of a neurodiverse editor, and one that typically emerges because of constant misunderstandings from neurotypical when they encounter the neurodiverse method of communication. In my own experience as an autistic editor, there is a balance that can be struck between the two types of communication, though finding it can be difficult.

While TheTranarchist has been editing for over a year now, I think we can all agree that our policies and guidelines have a lot of ambiguity in how they are interpreted and applied. That ambiguity presents a significant hurdle for fully integrating newer editors, especially so for those who are neurodiverse and who have trouble picking up on the unwritten parts of those guidelines. Some of the work I've already been informally doing has been focusing on that, which like any good teaching relationship has also helped with my own understanding of those same rules. Sideswipe9th (talk) 12:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: Thank you for your careful and detailed response. No need for apologies - I hope you had a good holiday! I am still opposed to an unban at this time, but I asked my question so that the proposal might be made clear for other editors who might support an unban subject to this condition. I still think it would be better to wait until the full 6 months has expired, but at that point I might support this proposal. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support per Boing and Jayron. A lesson for us all to do better, I think. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:49, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support unban: As noted by the closer of Close Review: Tranarchist Topic Ban, this whole matter could've been averted if the discussion had been properly struck after the sockpuppet was revealed, and it should've been. Frankly, I don't see anything like further discussion, editor time, etc., as a good enough excuse to justify upholding this. The violations the nominator committed were so blatant that it should've been easy to throw this out and that it wasn't is embarassing. Regardless of some poor word choice on an unrelated social media platform, I see no evidence that any of Tranarchist's editing was anything but above board. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:57, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
• Tentative support. I do share some reservations with the oppose editors. I'm someone who is actively trying to work on some bludgeoning tendencies and verbosity. Based on my own experiences, I'm a little worried that there isn't a distinction between the mental stress that comes from being told not to edit/comment on a topic and the mental stress that can come from knowing that you shouldn't respond to a comment you strongly disagree with, and so I imagine the "create limits for how often I can participate in heated discussions" advice will be difficult to follow. That said, credit to you for adhering to your self-imposed rule as to this discussion. I also, unfortunately, think you would've been better by recapping your entire case by just saying, "I was TBAN'd in relation to some contentious comments I made off-wiki and in the talk-space and because some editors found I was inserting contentious material without sufficiently strong sourcing." and posting diffs, trusting other users to see for themselves whether the diffs are that bad.
  This all said, I do think that this ban, while a completely reasonable close based on the discussion, was a bit harsh based on the conduct at issue. (To be clear, that's absolutely not a critique of the closer—a closure should adhere to the discussion rather than make their own determination! But this isn't a close review.) I think the severity relative to conduct is relevant here, in the same way that it would be relevant if an editor was given a particularly lenient sanction and still sought to lift it early. Based on the overall February discussion (though not each editor participating), I think that it's almost certainly the case that editors wouldn't have favored the sanction absent the off-wiki posts. As I see it, TheTranarchist made some edits with questionable sourcing and occasionally added material in a way that amounted to undue weight, but, because editors knew, based on her off-wiki posts, that she did feel strongly about a subject, those edits were viewed in a light that made them appear more serious than they actually were.
  An indefinite ban from a user's favorite topic area is a tough pill to swallow; frankly, a 3-month topic ban for a 1-year-old account is a tough pill to swallow. Despite being banned from her preferred topic area, TheTranarchist has stuck around and worked on other spaces; she's edited responsibly. I think she deserves another chance.--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:35, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - At TheTranarchist's request, I have offered feedback and guidance about editing in a discussion at my user talk page. I do not wish to rehash or relitigate what I actually said and did during the TBAN discussion, but my sense at this time is that it seems beneficial for the encyclopedia if TheTranarchist would continue to reflect on her editing and the application of various policies and guidelines. I think it is best to focus on the future and how to minimize disruption. Beccaynr (talk) 19:47, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
• The major problems in TheTranarchist's editing identified in the TBAN were a) her avowed goal of writing articles on anti-trans subjects that she believed would be negative enough to influence the subjects in the real world; b) the NPOV issues in the resulting articles; c) substantial resistance to critiques of her source choices and POV editing.

As said in the TBAN proposal, approaching a topic you are ideologically opposed to with not only the belief but the hope that creating an article on that topic will harm the subject (even if you try to remain neutral) falls under advocacy editing. TheTranarchist vehemently opposed her editing being characterized as WP:ADVOCACY; Thebiguglyalien noted in the TBAN discussion At its core, the issue is that throughout this discussion, you haven't demonstrated an understanding of why your approach isn't tenable, and from how much this appeal spends defending her behavior and maligning the circumstances of her TBAN, it seems she still doesn't acknowledge there are faults here. In fact, she (and some of her supporters) has continued to minimize the existence and/or seriousness of the NPOV violations she introduced in her articles, despite many examples being identified by multiple people; instead, she has represented much of the criticism as being nitpicky sourcing quibbles (that she promises to address with greater attention to source reliability) or restricted to the Keen-Minshull article (which she offers to be indefinitely pblocked from).

Given how intensely her wiki editing was focused on anti-trans/persecution of transpeople topics, and the apparent mental health toll being banned from GENSEX has had on her, I feel there is still far too much emotional investment in righting great wrongs for the ban to be fully lifted.

However, I think mentorship by Sideswipe in combination with a TBAN from mainspace editing on anti-trans orgs/people (but not necessarily broader or systemic persecution) would be a reasonable compromise. This would still allow her to make suggestions on talk pages, but would force her to workshop with other editors on how to frame contentious material. This would also mean her article creation would need to be supervised so that other editors could add all DUE negative material before publishing, but I think that wouldn't present much trouble considering how many GENSEX editors are here supporting an unban. JoelleJay (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose There's no reason given for lifting the ban aside from mental anguish, and the entire appeal smacks of a) not really understanding what the issues were with their behavior that led to the topic ban, and b) a lot of words that run into WP:NOTTHERAPY for me. Absent of any other issues, I'd have been fine with removing it as a NOTBURO thing, but they have continually skated into infringing on the restrictions. If they can't even manage a few weeks of clean behavior, why would we remove the restrictions early? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:33, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support – should never have been banned in the first place. I'll keep it terse since others have said most of this in more detail. Original nominator was a sock, which was ignored when it was revealed. Reasons are not enough to ban. Close was (to be very generous) questionable.
  Importantly, the scope of the ban is also spurious – there is no sense in being banned from the Gender Gap Task Force for problems with articles about transphobic organizations.
  The appeal's long but the length is justified by the fact that this situation is a trainwreck. It also does manage to show clear intent and capacity to learn from criticism. The appeal time limit is moot at this point as the community is clearly at least willing to consider this. If the consensus is to lift the ban because it should not have been instated in the first place, it is extra inapplicable as unjustified bans need to be removed ASAP. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 00:41, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support unban as I agree wholly with Bradv and Jayron32 that there was a lack of clear consensus and that it was very evidently a revenge hit by a sock, but I also wish to echo what some others have said - please put your mental health first and take all the time you need before returning. I cannot begin to imagine how difficult the doxing and harassment must've been to deal with. Patient Zero^talk 01:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per David Fuchs, Czello, and Springee. Imagine if the ultimate rationale here were applied to other areas: "at least recognize how soul crushing it is for me to be unable to edit even non-controversial [Israel / Palestine / Armenia / Azerbaijan / Holocaust in Poland / pseudoscience / American politics] related articles". At this point, this editor appears to be too emotional to edit properly. starship.paint (exalt) 03:45, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose the point of a topic ban is to spare other editors from the disruption. The wall of text boils down to 'I should be able to do what I want' which indicates a profound misunderstanding of the privileges of editing. That thinking is why we apply topic bans in the first place. I also take issue with this not being closed straight away, it was appeal in 6 months. I would support resetting the clock at this point, but if the above is an indication of their mindset, I wouldn't support it being removed in 3 or 6 months without significant change. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:00, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I wasn't involved in the original discussions, and supported Newkmpartials' request for a tban exception as I thought it well reasoned. This is not that, I sympathise with TT and the harassment they've faced but can't support removing the tban at this point. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Prior to the ban Transarchist inserted and reverting deletion of trivial details which supported attack-page-like aspects of Chloe Cole. [37][38]. I find this concerning. That said, I don't have a sufficiently broad picture of Transarchists' editing to support or oppose overall. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Didn't participate in the original ANI thread; and also, I like TheTranarchist. But the appeal mostly focuses on the sanction being unjustified, which is a non-starter. There's also the warning earlier this month for skirting the TBAN, which was appealed, and the appeal closed with the warning still standing. I would have supported JoelleJay's compromise, but WP:ROPE feels too risky (for TT). More importantly: when someone says they've become dependent on Wikipedia emotionally, it does them no favour to lift a sanction early. TT, toxic-Wikipedia is not going to help your emotional health like you expect it to. Please consider getting counselling rather than hang your emotional health on an appeal, which can't alleviate this unease. You don't have to listen to my advice because we don't know each other well, but if your friends have any sense, they'll tell you the same thing. DFlhb (talk) 11:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The topic ban was to prevent further disruption. This coming up so soon and attempting to relitigate it again shows that some editors have completely missed the point. We need a long break on this topic, please? Nemov (talk) 14:37, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support (either full or limited) per Bluerasberry, bradv, Skarmory, Jayron32, Tewdar. Even with faulty circumstances of the original case, TheTranarchist's thorough post demonstrates they have acknowledged the things they did do wrong and wish to improve upon, and that they understand what WP:ROPE means. Echoing everything else by mentioned users. –Vipz (talk) 13:12, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Given my well known tendency for verbosity I can't really fault TheTranarchist for the length of their appeal. However while I don't participate in that many appeals, I participate in enough that my view that even in an ordinary case you need exceptional reasons for not waiting 6 months. Note only do I not see anything exceptional here, but this is not an ordinary case, but one where the minimum 6 months was set out as part of the ban. As someone who supported the ban I'm obviously biased but again I think my record in not being interested in relitigating bans is also fairly established so again that's another negative. Whatever the flaws in the case, this already had a close review etc. But even if we put that aside, and come down to the fundamentals, the appeal just does not convince me that TheTranarchist now understands that there is a very big difference in being here document what reliable sources say about a person in proportion to the weight reflect in sources and in accordance with out policies and guidelines; and being here to document how nasty someone is/expose them for the horrible person the area. Don't get me wrong, I don't think there's anything wrong wit the latter, I regular check out RationalWiki and other places for it. But Wikipedia is not the place of it and can never be. As much as I hate the people TheTranarchist is trying to expose, I know when editing here I have to put that aside and if I can't I need to stop editing and not edit to expose or harm them. As a final comment, the fact that TheTransarchist feels such great need to return to the area is for me a final nail in the coffin. While we generally expect people to have some interest in editing an area when they appeal, that only works up to a point. Past that, my experience and I think I've sort of mention this before, is that the more desperate a person is to edit an area, the more likely they are to be a problem. I sincerely hope TheTranarchist is able to find a way to put their mental health right but Wikipedia can at most only be a tiny part of that and this applies whether or not the appeal succeeds. Nil Einne (talk) 13:39, 28 May 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.

Oh joy, an out of control ANI 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.

---

For anyone not watching it, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Long Term pattern of violations of WP:CIVIL by The Rambling Man has devolved into personal attacks, misrepresentations, and general anarchy, and it's been firing off at nearly a comment a minute. I don't know if the solution is to start page blocking people or just to close it up and send the whole thing to Arbcom as some have suggested, but Isabelle Belato has already issued a general warning to the discussion that's being thoroughly ignored. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:14, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I've started formally warning users and collapsing discussions that are spiraling. While I understand most administrators prefer to let users skirt the line between civil and uncivil, I think this thread is getting out of hand and I will issue pblocks if need be. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 15:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm wondering if it should just be closed. This discussion isn't going to result in anything other than hurt feelings. – bradv 15:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

@Bradv, do you think it's inconceivable that consensus to sanction TRM or another user could develop? I'm not sure the community would react well to their input being curtailed like that, if many users agree that a community sanction could be necessary. Just my 2 cents as an uninvolved editor who has never really interacted with TRM, but did comment and recommend a sanction. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

At the same time, people are clearly angry and inflamed on both sides of the discussion. If there's going to be any way to resolve this, it needs to be an intermediate sanction of some kind. The veering back and forth between total exoneration and a total siteban is concerning. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the decision to withdraw the SBAN proposal from the OP was a good one, and I hope it sticks. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:47, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

What kind of comments exactly are going to be considered out of line, just the "snowflake" commentary? If I oppose the siteban because I feel the process is an extreme overreaction, am I at risk of being blocked? This is a genuine question, not sarcasm. Also quite frankly, I don't understand why there needs to be a separate AN thread over this; it reads a little bit like forumshopping, to tell you the truth. There aren't any additional eyes here that wouldn't also be monitoring ANI. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Anything that creates attrition in an already prickly situation. Calling users opposing the sanction as "being part of a club of problematic editors who help each other" (paraphrase) is another one, for example. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 15:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thank you for clarifying. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 16:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

In the hopes of heading off further drama, I intended this post to seek action from uninvolved admins who haven't closely scrutinized the discussion. I don't want it to become a referendum on the discussion, and I'd rather this post be closed if it starts to become that. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I apologize for generating so much drama with this discussion.. I hope I'm not one of the users you're concerned about, Isabelle. I really didn't want to bring it here (hence why I reached out to TRM to try to resolve it). If this were just a one-off, I would probably have not said anything at all. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I've also made an apology on my talk page. Butting in with a siteban proposal was probably the dumbest thing I've ever done on this website. (I started editing when I was 13 years old, so I've done plenty of dumb things here.) — SamX [talk · contribs] 00:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@SamX: I've been editing since I was 12, so I know that feeling... but I don't think proposing the siteban was a dumb idea, at all. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I would say "fair idea given how many others were discussing it as a possibility" but also "great idea to withdraw it when it was clear there was likely not to be consensus, and also very likely lots of PAs etc in that section." — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

ANI isn't competent to handle vested users with plenty of allies to enable them. I thought everybody knew that. —Cryptic 08:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

A truer statement has rarely been spoken. 2603:7080:8F00:49F1:58B:3BD4:1DAB:AEB4 (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

It's funny that it's "out of control" because it is being WP:BLUDGEONed by certain users whom feel the need to reply to every comment that isn't to their liking. Hey, it's just like an ITN discussion. 2A02:C7C:9491:9000:79EC:D911:F266:AB79 (talk) 11:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

+1 2601:196:4600:5BF0:718C:F34C:6CBF:92F6 (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with User:Cryptic that WP:ANI isn't competent to handle vested users with plenty of allies to enable them. ArbCom has been established to resolve conduct disputes that the community is unable to resolve. Occasionally a dispute about the conduct of a user should go to ArbCom. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:15, 29 May 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.

Second editor needed for closures at WP:CFD

I have gone great lengths to clean up the CfD backlog, but I will need a second uninvolved editor to close discussions such as Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_April_5#Category:Films_without_soundtracks where I am involved. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Did that one and added to CFDW. If you have a list of more that you can’t close, versus just haven’t gotten to yet, that would help, as I haven’t been active at CFD for a decade. Courcelles (talk) 11:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Courcelles - Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion#Discussions_awaiting_closure -I think pretty much anything older than a month that's still open, has most of the regular closers commenting. So any help would be most welcome : ) - jc37 01:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Multiple IP addresses making rapid threats on a user’s talk page

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.

---

Please see the revision history for User talk:Zzuuzz. Thanks, Dylan | ✉ | ✓  22:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Well that's one way to route out a ton of proxies. I've protected for a bit.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:45, 30 May 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.

3RR and the definition of a "revert"

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

---

Hello. There is a user I have butted heads with several times now around the exact definition of 3RR, and so I'd like some feedback.

The situation always plays out like this: the user adds new material to an article. They are reverted. They then proceed to re-add the material 3 more times. So, 4 edits within a 24-hour period. I have always considered this a 3RR violation.

The user in question does not believe they have broken 3RR, as the first edit technically wasn't a revert. It was one initial edit followed by 3 reverts.

Ignoring the fact that you can still be blocked for edit warring even if you haven't broken 3RR, which is the correct definition of 3RR? Also asked at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring — Czello ^(music) 06:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Their counting is correct. Their first edit is not a revert. However, consistently going right up to the line of 3RR before stopping is still edit-warring. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. — Czello ^(music) 07:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Requesting lift of Topic Ban on Sports Articles from NicholasHui

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 will like to have this Topic Ban on Sports Articles lifted since my editing over the last two years has been unprobmetic. In the future if I edited NHL Hockey Articles, I will avoid using unreliable sources and use reliable source when editing player stats in NHL season articles. I shown that I had been editing positively and constructively in different topics such as Transportation Infrastructure and Movie films. I am willing to answer any questions related to the Topic Ban and the current topics I edit on. Thanks. NicholasHui (talk) 00:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I've no objections to lifting the t-ban. GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to lifting his t-ban. Xolkan (talk) 15:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose until at least July 1, 2023. It is very strange that the editor decided to request a lift on topic ban right before the Stanley Cup Finals. I am not convinced that this editor has changed its editing ways. What led to topic ban was the addition of inaccurate player statistics, which the editor used to "calculate himself" instead of using official NHL sources (sometimes it was done during games and then quickly inserted after they were over), which led to multiple edit wars with other editors. I am also listing two discussions that would give a better view to other editors who might consider supporting or opposing this request:

• The editor has previously edited as Portmannfire (talk · contribs) (until that account's block) and has also used various IPs for making edits as seen at User talk:Portmannfire#User Contributions Notice (and who knows how many more IPs were used).
• Here is a link to last request on lifting the topic ban.

I hope other editors will review this and decide if NicholasHui has really learned from his mistakes. – sbaio 16:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Here are some diffs previously as evidence that I used to have done [1], [2], [3], since I thought manually calculating the stats was the proper procedure without knowing how it will lead to mistakes. But after taking a long time off away from Sports Articles, I am aware that the proper procedure means that the nhl player stats should updated after at least 5 games by using an NHL Official source and not every single game since it is proven to lead to more mistakes. NicholasHui (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Support on basis ban has been for 2 years, and editor will likely be under close scrutiny for any bad behaviour and unlikely to revert to bad behaviour Jack4576 (talk) 10:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support, with brief probation - per the primary comments above. The user was TBANNED for a mix of competence, over-enthusiasm, and mishandling of consensus. Actions taken are at least indicative of giving them a chance. The Finals highlighted by Portmannfire may well be the reason for them bringing it up now. But that would only be of real concern to me if they had a history of wilful mis-editing. Still, I suggest removing the TBAN but any admin may re-implement it as a community sanction within the next 3 months. I would also highly advise OP stick to a firm WP:1RR voluntary policy in this field. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support It's been over four years - give them some rope. I'm surprised by the one oppose that implies 4 years and 8 weeks is not enough, but is happy with 4 years and 13 weeks. Nfitz (talk) 07:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support The issues brought up by Sbaio are, respectively, 4 years and 3 years old. At this point, WP:SO is more than met, I fully support lifting the topic ban. The user seems to have learned in the intervening time, and i have no problems with lifting the ban. If the old problems return, I expect re-instituting the ban to be rather easy as well. Let them see how long the run with the WP:ROPE. --Jayron32 17:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support per Jayron32. Plus the Stanley Cup Finals would be a good litmus test for a change in behaviour. starship.paint (exalt) 10:13, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

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

Requesting lifting of one-account restriction

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

---

I would like to request my one-account restriction logged here be lifted. I have stuck to this account since the sanction, logged as a temporary restriction "until MaranoFan are (sic) demonstrate good editing history", was placed. I am now a user in good standing and have been contributing constructively for several years now, as documented on my user page. There is no preventitive benefit to keeping this sanction since I am not abusing multiple accounts, making it redundant. Thanks.--NØ 10:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@MaranoFan: Do you have a need to use multiple accounts, such as editing through a public device or in a place with unsecure internet? Nythar (💬-🍀) 10:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd use one like any other user uses them, which would include the reasons you've listed, like editing at my uni library or Internet cafes. But I would also like the sanction lifted because it is redundant and unnecessary, and was meant to be temporary to begin with.--NØ 10:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I believe that's sufficient reason for an unban. The unblock discussion closer stated "as the length of the restriction has not been discussed thoroughly, it will be tentatively indefinite until MaranoFan are demonstrate good editing history after being unblocked, to convince the community to lift the restriction altogether." Since your editing is good, this should likely be an uncontroversial request. Nythar (💬-🍀) 10:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• I would also be good with lifting the restriction, with the caveat that multiple accounts are publicly linked on each-other's user pages, which is not normally a rule, but is best practice, per WP:MULTIPLE, to wit "It is recommended that multiple accounts be identified as such on their user pages" --Jayron32 12:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support with Jayron's caveat. Which is entirely within best practices for the requested use cases of alts, anyway. Courcelles (talk) 13:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support per Jayron and Courcelles. Mackensen (talk) 13:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support - I don't particularly mind either way on the caveat, but should specifically note that if we are including it without giving them a way to move out of it, it should be clarified as not a sanction or a impairment to good standing Nosebagbear (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support. I notice there's also a two-way interaction ban between MaranoFan and Winkelvi still in effect, but given that Winkelvi was blocked several years ago, that's moot. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support with Jayron's caveat. Indeed whilst not normal practice in this specific case given the issues I think it would be a good idea. –Davey2010^Talk 16:10, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support with Jayron's caveat. starship.paint (exalt) 05:08, 1 June 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 AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old has discussions that are overdue closing by more than a week. – Joe (talk) 05:43, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Challenge to non-admin closure of RfC at BLP article Victor Salva

Please review the decision on Talk:Victor_Salva#Request_for_comment which seems like a bad joke. 13 users were in favor of including the photo in some form, only 3 were against it (not even 4 like stated in the closure note), yet somehow the closing user came to the decision that the picture should not be included at all. I'm requesting someone with more experience to review the decision. Thanks --FMSky (talk) 01:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

The question in the RfC was specifically about including the mugshots in the infobox. Several of the 13 you mention supported including it elsewhere in the article instead, where it now is (although arguably still in contravention of WP:MUG). – bradv 01:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't really call the close a "bad joke". The opposition had several policy-based arguments, including WP:UNDUE and WP:MUG, which are part of the NPOV and BLP policies respectively. I agree with the closer that there was no consensus to include the image in the infobox. Maddy from Celeste's close doesn't specifically state whether there is consensus to include the images elsewhere in the article, though I believe there is sufficient consensus for this. (also, please remember to notify users when posting to AN or ANI; I've done this for you.) — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 01:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

thanks a lot. i thought that was only needed when the discussion was specifically about the user ---FMSky (talk) 01:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to comment, as someone who !vote'd in the RfC to include the picture, that I think the closer did an excellent job. The especially did an excellent job even noting that that closer explicitly said they were counting my vote with less priority due to the nature of my arguments. This is exemplary behavior on the part of the closer, and exactly what a closer should be doing. Fieari (talk) 07:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

That looks like an excellent close to me. Black Kite (talk) 08:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

yes its especially excellent how the "oppose" votes were miscounted --FMSky (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@FMSky: Closers should not solely take a look at vote counts. See WP:NOTVOTE.
While it may be true that, generally, when a majority of users are on one side of an issue; that is generally where the close should land. However, it is not the sole factor for determining consensus. This is for a variety of reasons including: polling is not a substitute for discussion, a local consensus can't override a global one, or a close shouldn't normally contradict policy.
If you understood these principles, then you wouldn't really be arguing for the close to be overturned. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

• I voted to support the image being included in the infobox before changing my vote based on some well reasoned arguments. I believe the closer adequately evaluated the discussion and it's a good close. It's hyperbolic to describe the close "a bad joke." I'd urge FMky, to tone down the inflammatory rhetoric. This is isn't the first time.[39].- Nemov (talk) 20:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
• I also think this was a good close, although it didn't go according to my recommendation. Also, it should be noted that the page was changed on May 30 to include the image on the page anyway, one day after the closure on May 29. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

New WMF Moderator Tools project: Automoderator - input requested!

Hi - my team (Moderator Tools) is exploring a project to build an automated anti-vandalism tool next year. This would enable admins to configure automated reversion of bad edits, based on new machine learning models (think ClueBot NG). This is still in a very early phase so we have a lot of questions about how this could work. Please see Moderator Tools/Automoderator and let us know what you think on that talk page or here! I'm especially interested in your experiences of how ClueBot NG functions - how valuable do you find it, what kinds of vandalism does it commonly miss, what feature improvements could you imagine for it? Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 11:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions at WP:ITN

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Long_Term_pattern_of_violations_of_WP:CIVIL_by_The_Rambling_Man
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Oh_joy,_an_out_of_control_ANI_discussion

So several hours ago I read the above thread here at WP:AN, and went to AN/I to see what was going on.

At that point I very nearly shut the whole thing down. I don't think I'd need to explain to any admin why. I think if anyone read the AN/I thread at that point, the reasons would be obvious. (Hence placing the warning there, today.)

But at that time, I decided that a.) "many eyes" were on this and none had yet done so (and I'm a firm believer in "many eyes"). b.) at that point the site ban had been self-closed and the topic ban was about split vote-wise (though, I wouldn't call it a consensus by any stretch of the imagination), but I thought that maybe letting the community continue to discuss, something productive might appear. and c.) with apologies to everyone for whom this is important, I decided some sleep was a better use of my time at that point...

So I come back today, and the vitriol has become worse. And it's devolving into a political fight, rather than an assessment of editor behaviour.

And it seems to me now that I've had some sleep and have re-read all of this, setting aside the questions about the editor in question, that something User:Masem said in the WP:AN/I discussion about a broader issue seems to potentially be informative here. [40] - "We all know at ITN that when the subject of a shooting in the US comes up, things get heated really fast, and yes, no one should be dragging US politics into the mix; I've called for such concerns on the talk page many times. But TRM is not the first, not the last, to be doing that. [...] I'm all for ANI-based caution, but again, civility without being directed any any specific editor is near impossible to enforce or we have to enforce it across the entire board, and I'm pretty sure that will not happen."

Actually - We have Wikipedia:Contentious topics all set up for such things. And when I look at the list at Wikipedia:General sanctions it seems to me that Wikipedia:In the news is just naturally a hub for where these and many other topics are just likely to come up.

Now, per Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Contentious topic restrictions, as an uninvolved admin, I could right now go and apply the restrictions. But as any admin is trusted to apply these, I think it would be interesting to hear what other admins think. So I think I'd like to hear from other admins first, to see if we can look at the options listed with the "standard set", and agree on something that will work for WP:ITN, but to try to not get too much in the way of the work being done there.

Or in other words, to look at what we can do to reduce disruption, while trying to minimize any disruption such sanctions could potentially cause.

I look forward to your (plural) thoughts. - jc37 19:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

As an admin who gets WP:INVOLVED in those U.S. mass shooting nominations Masem was referring to, I 100% support applying discretionary sanctions against users who make uncivil comments there. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

This would apply it to the page, and so would affect all editors there. It's intended as a (hopefully) preventative measure. - jc37 20:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

That's why I support it. We should all be held to account for our behavior and hopefully this will succeed at prevention of bad behavior. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

per Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Contentious topic restrictions, as an uninvolved admin, I could right now go and apply the restrictions is not correct: ITN as a whole does not fall within any of the areas for which these restrictions have been authorized. Now, we as a community could certainly decide to put ITN under general sanctions (although I don't have a strong opinion about whether that's a good idea, it's at least an option), but individual admins definitely don't have the ability to do that unilaterally. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:45, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Arguably there are topics at ITN that fall under various ARBCOM GS and DS, and we had discussed a few months ago the idea of tagging the page with the appropriate notices, but without any closure. This would be a similar idea. Masem (t) 20:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Query from not an admin, and although a long-time editor, I really just don't understand how contentious topics and arb enforcement and the like work, so apply a big grain of salt to my feedback. But an observation about WP:ARBMED; unnecessary discretionary sanctions were applied in this case (evidenced by the fact they have not been invoked once, and the problem completely resolved itself by the removal of a few problematic editors from the topic of drug pricing). Is it really necessary to apply discretionary sanctions to an entire area, until/unless/while problematic behaviors from individuals are in the process of being addressed? It seems to me that some of the alarms going off about the thread that started this are only serving to obscure the issues; why not wait 'til that is settled ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't know about the specific example you note, but sometimes, just applying the sanctions can help act as a preventative. - jc37 20:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

In that case, three (maybe four, memory fails) editors were seeking to install a fait accompli re WP:NOTPRICE. Discretionary sanctions were applied to the entire area, rather than deal with those editors. In this case, a couple of editors made really unnecessary and unhelpful posts at the beginning of the thread; is not this yet another distraction from the matter at hand, and should we not let it work itself out first? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Even if the community decides to remove one particular editor from the equation; per what we're seeing at AN/I and a perusal of ITN discussions in general, suggests that perhaps this is still not "working itself out", and seems likely to continue. So, seeing if we can act as a preventative, would seem like something worth discussing. - jc37 21:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I concur with jc37. We've had years for ITN's problems to "work itself out". It hasn't. There have been several proposals made to tone down the battleground rhetoric and the forum-like discourse, and they've gone nowhere. People still engage in it, because they don't fear any consequences from administrators. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 19:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• Speaking as an admin who has done a fair bit of CT/DS work; I recognize the need for a more civil atmosphere at ITN, and perhaps CT restrictions will help, but it's procedurally a little messier than is suggested above. ITN as a whole cannot be placed under CT restrictions; as ExtraordinaryWrit points out, it's out of scope, and I don't know what page-level sanctions would be useful anyway. However, both US politics and gun control already are designated as contentious topics, and uninvolved admins may unilaterally sanction users who have been made aware of the CT restrictions. As such, I think it likely that ITN will benefit from administrators watching the rather frequent discussions about mass shootings in the US, making users who stray from the straight and narrow aware of the CT restrictions, and imposing sanctions if they become needed. This is something we can already do, however; no community consensus is necessary. If we wish to place ITN as a whole under general sanctions that would need a proposal at AN, and I'm not sure I would support that, as I don't see ITN as a whole being disrupted any more frequently than the rest of the encyclopedia. And if you want to use CT restrictions specifically on ITN as a whole, you would need authorization from ARBCOM, and I don't see ARBCOM accepting a case about ITN as a whole. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  (ec) Thank you, I very much appreciate the clarification. - jc37 21:41, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  So could someone give the first CT alert to those misbehaving at ANI and at ITN now? (I can't post at one of the user talk pages, and the CT alert would carry more weight from an admin anyway.) I'm asking because I'm all in favor of avoiding an arbcase if there are other things that can be tried. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  Someone whose misconduct is relevant to AmPol or Gun control should receive an alert if they haven't already. I will not personally be leaving any, and with respect to TRM specifically I'm INVOLVED. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• I have stated my recommendation at WP:ANI once, and have stated it here at WP:AN above, which is that ArbCom should be asked to deal with The Rambling Man. I don't expect anyone to jump up and write an RFAR, so if this drags on without any resolution, I will write an RFAR, but probably not this month. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
• Question - Can an uninvolved admin topic-ban The Rambling Man from gun control and American politics? That would deal with one area of incivility, and would allow us at least to think that we have accomplished something. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  As a procedural note, I can find a diff showing awareness of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation, at Special:AbuseLog/13823181. Has this editor 3ver been formally made aware of AP2, or GC? Noting I’ve not done any deeper checks than just looking through their talk page filter log. Courcelles (talk) 00:48, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• (non-admin comment) I've been one of the louder voices for reform at WP:ITN. I wrote about the issue at WP:VPP#Wikipedia guidelines and In the news, but the gist of it is that there's virtually no guidance for what's "significant" enough to post, and editors are asked to debate their own subjective opinions and engage in original research. This facilitates arguments more than anything, and I don't believe the issue will go away until this is addressed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  Interesting thread; we have editors at VPP saying on May 15 there is no problem at ITN, and we have lots of editors at ANI saying two weeks later there are big problems at ITN. You already started a VPP thread, and I'm not yet seeing how this is a matter for ArbCom, so ... back to CT warnings? Is there a precedent of ArbCom having to look at an entire content area (I recall the Cyclone/Hurricane/Discord matter-- unsure if similar)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  The closest I can think of is probably WP:ARBGGTF that imposed Discretionary Sanctions on the Gender Gap Task Force. There's also WP:ARBDEL which had a lot of discussion about ARS, but no real remedies for the area as a whole. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 01:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• (non-admin comment) In the interest of contributing to the discussion and providing a reference case (possibly the only existing reference case), please find a AE Case relating to the usage of DS/CT restrictions at ITN which directly resulted in sanctions. The case relates to myself, and my posting the case here should not be construed as commentary on the case itself. Carter00000 (talk) 04:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• I could get behind community-imposed General Sanctions on the ITN-related project pages. The current Arbcom CT restrictions seem like they're built more for article topic areas, though. I think WP:ARBPIA-style restrictions (which have been used by the community many times before with success) might be more effective. An example of the wording would be at WP:GS/Crypto#GS. We could cut out the part about page restrictions unless things like edit wars are an actual problem on ITN pages, but from what I see the problem is mostly civility. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 01:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
• To formally state my opinion: yes, I support the imposition of general or discretionary sanctions on ITN. The incivility is getting out of hand. It's almost a guarantee that discourse will become uncivil on any contentious nom, particularly those related to gun violence, even without TRM's presence. In fact, just about any nom regarding an event that occurs in the United States is a potential flashpoint. --Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:21, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Appeal for Limited Exception to topic ban for TheTranarchist

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 withdraw this appeal. It's obviously going to go nowhere, and knowing how things turn out, even if it ends up 2-1 in support of me it'll be closed citing a nonexistent majority opposed to the appeal...

I kept the discussion away from the context of the original case this time. At my appeal, I asked for an unban or a limited exception, the majority supported an unban, some supported the limited exception, and nobody opposed the limited exception. Somehow, the limited exception was not even mentioned at the close. So here I asked if people thought there was any chance of disruptive editing with just the limited exception, keeping it short and to the point, and so far there's a lot of opposes without a shred of evidence my edits in the area I'm asking to edit would actually be disruptive.

Why did I do the limited exception? Because there was actually a pretty favorable consensus for it at the appeal and ti was completely ignored in the close. Last night, I tried to get back into editing, I wanted to write the article "jail support" so started collating the sources, and I realized I wouldn't be able to write it because someone would drag me over the coals for faithfully summarizing the fact many sources explicitly called out the gender-gap in jail support groups/networks.

And yes, the case was a trainwreck, that was actually supported by consensus. There was never a clear consensus it was the appropriate punishment.

1. At the original case, the majority opposed it, and the evidence was entirely centered in anti-trans BLPs/ORGs. People asked for someone to close it for weeks in the thread and AN, nobody did. I panicked and asked CaptainEek to close it or even better find someone who would, they couldn't. Isabele Belato later explicitly admitted they wanted to close it a long while ago but didn't because of fear of appearing biased. CaptainEek closed it by explicitly stating that the sock would have been a tie-breaker, but there was a majority in favor of a ban, but as shown in the close review, there was actually not.
2. At the close review, started by someone else (so stop blaming me for it...), the consensus was that the case should have been thrown out per DENY the day we learned it was started by a sock and that the case could have been interpreted as either no consensus for a ban or consensus for some lighter more targeted sanction. In essence: yes it was a trainwreck, but it already crashed, yes it didn't have to be so painful a crash, too late. It was not a consensus the ban was the right course of action, just that it was a possible course of action when alternatives would have worked.
3. At the appeal, the majority once again believed my ban should be lifted due to a combination 1) the fact it was highly questionable whether it should have been given in the first place, and 2) per ROPE and AGF I should be given the opportunity to prove myself. A minority opposed, mostly on procedural grounds, and were called the majority... CaptainEek admitted they may have misread the communities will and instituted a harsher sanction than actually called for at the appeal and that wasn't taken into consideration at all.

To those who said I am too emotional because I am suffering a ban that is a punishment rather than actively protecting the enclyopedia? That comes across most charitably as patronizing, especially given the majority of the community has always agreed... To those saying too emotional because I want to edit LGBT articles this pride? Jesus the cultural insensitivity - I am passionate about editing enclyopediacaly, not for a particular viewpoint, LGBT rights is literally one of my academic areas of expertise. To those who point to 1) me asking CaptainEek if certain LGBT-related articles I thought were non-controversial were covered by GENSEX and 2) my warning as somehow evidence of evading my ban, it's ridiculous to never mention the contexts that 1) I did not the edit the articles I was explicitly told not to and 2) the warning was ruled a grey area since it was vandalism unrelated to GENSEX on an article where prior consensus was that the organizations stances/activities on trans rights are not a defining part of their notability. To those arguing that me saying the ban hurts and the fact I asked for an appeal and the AGF that I'll not edit disruptively is evidence I'll edit disruptively, is a mind boggling orwellian statement. Saying I don't want to be punished any longer is proof I should be punished!

There were issued raised. I do not think they merited a full TBAN, true, but I have been diligently working on them. I have never claimed my editing was perfect, but neither was it so terrible no article vaguely related to trans people is safe. I'm taking a break from this kafkaesque NOT-NOTBURO nightmare of a site for at least a week, hopefully two-four. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTranarchist (talk • contribs) 16:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll keep this short. I just appealed my GENSEX tban, asking for either an unban or a limited exception. There was a lot of outspoken support for an unban, some support for a limited exception, and opposition to the unban (without mention of the limited exception). The unban was denied.

Since it got ignored in the close of the appeal but there seemed to be support for it without opposition, I ask for a limited exception in the following articles (and associated noticeboard discussions):

Articles of the form LGBT rights in XYZ. I created WP:USALGBT to help coordinate work on them (at least, specifically ones for US states) and was working on LGBT rights in New York before my ban forced me to avoid it.

Historically significant trans/LGBT rights groups and activists. Before my ban, I intended to revisit and clean Angela Lynn Douglas and Gloria Hemingway, create Transsexual Action Organization (moving most TAO stuff from Douglas's article to there), and during my initial ANI case I saved Tri-Ess from deletion but didn't get a chance to polish it before my ban.

The hardest part of the ban has always been the fact articles such as the above were caught as collateral, when all discussion at my case was related to anti-trans BLPs/ORGs. I'm a trans sociologist who really enjoys documenting queer history and I'd just like ROPE and the assumption of good faith and the chance to edit these articles for pride. I find editing regarding queer history very fulfilling and I do not think there is any evidence letting me edit such articles will prove disruptive to the encyclopedia.

I ask this be closed in 48-72 hours, I've turned off all my Wikipedia notifications and will check this page in 72 hours. In all honesty, if approved, I'll cry tears of joy and probably immediately get to work on fixing up Tri-Ess to make up for lost time. Then move onto fixing up Angela Lynn Douglas, then start overhauling LGBT rights in New York. If denied, it'll honestly be very hard on me, so I'll take a break from all editing for a few weeks and hope it feels less raw when I get back. Either way, you won't see me back at AN until the 6 months are up, but in the former case the next 3 months will feel like an inconvenience/annoyance rather than downright painful. I'm probably an idiot for trying this, but the lack of any opposition to it in my appeal make me feel taking this shot is worth it, and hey, hope springs eternal. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 12:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - I can't speak for other editors but it appears this issue is becoming a huge WP:TIMESINK. At this time, I don't believe TTA is capable of returning to GENSEX in good faith for a long time. Their edit volume has dropped off a cliff since the institution of their tban, with a significant number of those edits trying to work around their ban, appealing it, and in one case dealing with a warning for editing a page that was created due to their involvement in GENSEX controversy. I'm in favor of a full siteban at this point. I believe a reset of the TBAN and a restriction on appeals is appropriate. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose I'm sorry but I agree with Kcmastrpc that this is a timesink and at this point is honestly becoming a bit disruptive to the project. This is, I think, the 4th or 5th discussion on this topic? I would have had confidence in TheTranarchist's eventual unban if she'd accepted the TBAN and continued working elsewhere in the meantime, but instead she's entering WP:STICK territory. We're getting continual reruns and appeals for exceptions, which does not inspire confidence, and each discussion inevitably descends into an attempt to re-litigate the original discussion and how justified it was. Please just close this discussion now rather than another endless pit forming. I would support a ban on future appeals, and honestly at this point I'm leaning towards a reset of the original TBAN. — Czello ^(music) 12:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Kcmastrpc that this is becoming a huge timesink. This is the fifth discussion we have had on this exact topic in three months - the initial ANI thread, the close review, the topic ban warning dispute, the first appeal, and now this second appeal. I would oppose a full siteban at this time as I believe they can become a productive editor again if forced to take a break from this topic, and to that end I do support banning TheTranarchist from appealing any restrictions on them for a period of one year, to be enforced strictly with escalating blocks if breached. BilledMammal (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Quick comment, I don't think it's either fair or reasonable to hold either the close review nor the warning review against TheTranarchist as she did not initiate those. Both of those examples were initiated by other editors in good faith. Sideswipe9th (talk) 13:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

TT also initiated a discussion on the Talk page of the admin who closed the appeal: [41] Sweet6970 (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

There was some excellent advice given on that talk page discussion by Tewdar [42] Tewdar's five-step plan: Stay away from GENSEX / Practice encyclopaedic writing style / Appeal when six months is up / Don't start any more appeals until six months is up (don't listen to anyone who tells you this is a good idea) / Profit (hopefully). Note that TT did edit that talk page after [43] Tewdar's post. starship.paint (exalt) 13:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - given this attempt, obviously too emotionally involved for the topic area (already planning multiple articles to edit after unblock?). From the history provided by BilledMammal above, it's plain WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Perhaps we can institute another six-month ban on appeals starting from the time of this close. I do not support a siteban. starship.paint (exalt) 13:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
  • ... and if this isn't speedily closed, I may just ping everyone who was involved in the recently closed appeal. It's not fair if they are not notified, and OP has asked for this to be closed in 48 hours. I'm giving this about 12 23 hours before a ping. starship.paint (exalt) 13:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

    yeah don't. This is one of the most active pages on Wikipedia. I think there's enough people here already. Considering the comment about this being a time-sink you're stating you agree with I don't see why you'd want this to be an even more massive waste of time. --Licks-rocks (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  FWIW, strictly oppose any ban on appeals in this case, up to and including the current one. I think the ban is so bad for so many reasons any pathway to overturn it should be open. Loki (talk) 14:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support per previous support for overturning the entire topic ban. I also want to specifically say here, even though I didn't last time, that I actually strongly disagree with the closer's comment and the comments of people here that Tranarchist is too emotionally involved somehow. Of course she's got strong emotions about this! She was banned for bad reasons against consensus! I'd be mad too! Loki (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Oh, so uninvolved admin CaptainEek got it wrong in the initial consensus! Then either the community or uninvolved admin Isabelle Belato got it wrong in the close review! After that either the community or uninvolved admin RoySmith got it wrong in the appeal! They're all wrong! starship.paint (exalt) 14:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

    CaptainEek got it very transparently wrong in the initial close, and the remaining discussions have all ended as no consensus. The community has never once actually endorsed this topic ban. Loki (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

    The fact that the community has not found consensus either that CaptainEek was wrong to impose the ban, or that the ban should be lifted, suggests that whether or not you believe the initial decision was wrong it was not "transparently" so. Whether or not TheTranarchist agrees with the merits of the ban, she needs to understand that enough of the community does support it that it continues to remain in place. I have no personal disagreement with TheTranarchist – indeed I am not sure we have ever interacted – and I suspect that I agree with her on many things, so I hope she takes this advice seriously: opening a second appeal only days after her previous appeal was rejected, still less than three months into a ban which was imposed with the provision You may appeal this topic ban, at WP:AN, no sooner than 6 months from now can be charitably be described as brave but more realistically as foolhardy. Repeated unsuccessful appeals, especially ones which are seen as poorly thought through (for instance by appealing multiple times in quick succession, or several months before the first permitted appeal) may end up meaning that the sanctions remain in place for longer than they would otherwise have done, as you exhaust community patience. If I were TheTranarchist, I would do my best to put any idea that the topic ban was "wrong" or not endorsed by the community out of my mind – I cannot see any way in which believing such a thing would be helpful, and several ways in which it could be actively harmful to her prospects of successfully appealing the ban in future. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

    @LokiTheLiar Isabelle Belato closed the review of Eek's close as endorsed. That means there was a consensus supporting Eek's close and it was not closed as no consensus. I've pinged Isabelle in case she they would like to correct my read of that. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

    In that case I also think that she they read the consensus wrong, because that discussion was also a fairly clear 50/50 split. Loki (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

    @LokiTheLiar: When you say I also think that she read the consensus wrong, are you talking about Eek (she/they) or Isabelle (they/them)? The pronoun choice indicates Eek, but the broader context indicates Isabelle. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

    Huh. I thought I remembered that being flipped. Corrected! Loki (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  Also I would like to note explicitly to @BilledMammal, @Kcmastrpc and @Starship.paint that this course of action was explicitly suggested by the closer of the previous appeal:

  I'll also go out on a limb and suggest that if a future appeal were to ask to soften the TBAN to just cover BLP articles, I suspect that might be better received. Loki (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  If you think future = 5 days, I'll have you know that RoySmith literally sighed when notified of this appeal. starship.paint (exalt) 14:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  If Roy, or the community didn't want an appeal in that short a time frame, then that should have been explicitly stated. However it wasn't, and it was left open to interpretation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  CaptainEek explicitly stated in the initial closure that a first appeal would be permissible after six months. TheTranarchist has now appealed twice and it is not yet three months into the TBan. Whether or not RoySmith stated a restriction on when the next appeal could be, the fact that it's only five days since the last one closed and we still haven't got halfway to the timeline set out for a first appeal logged at WP:RESTRICT, TheTranarchist would have done well to consider whether such an appeal at this time was wise. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Sideswipe9th since I was pinged here and there is a question about how my close should be interpreted, I'll respond. It's not a question of what I wanted; my job as closer is essentially clerical, i.e. to distill the discussion, not to express any opinion of my own. I didn't say anything about when a future appeal could be made because I thought it was obvious that the original 6 month wait time was still in effect, and that "future" referred to that time frame. Frankly, I find it difficult to believe that anybody thought I was encouraging an immediate repeat appeal. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  It might be. However, less than a full week later is a bold move, one that I would have likely advised against, but we're probably not going to agree on this matter regardless. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  A future appeal in 3 months, yes. --Licks-rocks (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  Please point out in that closure where a 3 month wait before appealing was stated. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  The original sanction was appealable after six months, they appealed anyway and were unsuccessful. The original sanction, still prohibiting an appeal for six months, remains in effect. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  that's from the original closure. That being said, I've been up for 20 uninterrupted hours yesterday, so I may write a less grumpy and more charitable response to this case tomorrow. --Licks-rocks (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• Apprehension - I would have preferred that there be some distance between the previous appeal and this current one, or that if the prior close was going to be reviewed or amended, that it be done by a third party. I think these sorts of hasty appeals are detrimental to your cause, and rarely yield positive results. Anytime the community feels that you are becoming a burden on their time, it diminishes the future credibility of your actions. Of course I get that you're upset, I would be too, but you need to focus your efforts on more constructive tasks. --Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:18, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
• Please, everyone who has more than ten total responses in all of these threads, just say your piece and stop. No need to reply to each other or try and convince each other. At this point everyone knows what everyone who's been discussing this disagrees with or supports. Just make your statement and try and ignore it. Please. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The previous appeal by the user, which also explicitly asked for the community to grant the user a limited exception to the articles... of the form LGBT Rights in XYZ, was declined by the community a mere five days ago. I do not see anything that has meaningfully changed since that short time ago, and so I will echo my prior comments there: if this user wants their TBAN narrowed, they should abide by it for a good amount of time prior to their appeal, rather than violating it and being put on final warning less than one month before appealing. I initially favored a more narrow TBAN in the first AN thread (one that would have allowed for this sort of editing while disallowing editing about the intersection of BLP and GENSEX), but I can't currently get behind narrowing the restriction in light of the recent TBAN violation (for which they received a formal warning) and the user's pattern of attempting to push the TBAN's limits since very shortly after it was enacted. That the user is appealing again after the community discussion five days ago denied their appeal seals it... please wait for six months before appealing again. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I respect TheTransarchist as an editor. I understand their desire to be able to edit in the area they choose. However, this is another appeal for a lifting of restrictions shortly after one was declined. Please, you need to stop. Wait the ban out and THEN go back to editing. Repeatedly coming to request changes to your topic ban is going to begin to wear out the patience that the community has. It's been 5 days since the last appeal. This isn't a good look to keep coming back over and over and hope for a different result. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - Based on my review of TT's editing style before and after the TBAN was implemented, I think ROPE is premature and would likely be counterproductive at this time. My hope is for TT's editing to improve before she returns to the GENSEX topic area - for example, as she and I have discussed, by more closely citing sources as described at WP:TSI. From my view, TT appears to be minimizing issues with her editing that existed before the TBAN was first implemented and therefore should not yet return to the GENSEX topic area until there is 1) greater recognition of editing issues that can be improved, and relatedly, 2) reassurance that these issues will improve. Beccaynr (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - There is no reason that this TBAN should be narrowed. Also this idea of limited exceptions for editors is not really a thing that happens. As I explained in Newimpartial's request for a limited exception: WP:BMB says On very rare occasions, a limited exception may be requested; for example, to participate in a particular discussion. There should be a very compelling reason given for a ban exception, and I really want to edit these articles is not a good enough reason. TTA appears to be way overly emotionally invested in editing LGBT-related articles as demonstrated by her now two appeals to her TBAN prior to the 6 month TBAN appeal period and saying just above "If denied, it'll honestly be very hard on me," which is further evidence that she has not learned her lesson and is not ready for reintroduction into those areas. Arguments that the original TBAN was unjust should be rejected in this discussion because they have been rejected in now 3 (soon to be 4) past discussions. Enough is enough. This is becoming a time-sink. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 15:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: Speedy close this per WP:SNOW

It's becoming very clear very quickly that this proposal doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting through; almost every response is in opposition to overturning the ban. I'm honestly amazed TT was unwise enough to start it, and five separate editors (myself included) have called this a time-sink. Some editors have even proposed further restrictions be put in place. Given the track record of previous such discussions, which can end up the length of a literal novel, I don't think it's wise to go through all of this again (for the fifth time, and less than a week after last time). Sadly TT said she was turning off notifications and running off for 3 days, and so she won't be able to self-close. I'm requesting an admin speedily close this and ideally WP:TROUT OP. — Czello ^(music) 16:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Shutting off notifications for 3 days while appealing a topic ban is honestly... not ideal. I support close, let's hurry up and avoid further rancor. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 16:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Support, no chance this will be successful. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 16:38, 2 June 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.

removal of protection from all articles related to the Russian-Ukrainian war.

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 ask the administrators to remove the extended protection from all articles related to the Russian-Ukrainian war. Please help . Kiriuxa2002 (talk) 07:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Why? Girth Summit _(blether) 07:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Gosh. Every single one of your edits so far has been about asking for this protection to be removed. That isn't giving to happen - the protection is needed to prevent disruption from inexperienced editors and bad faith actors. Go and do something else while you learn the ropes. Girth Summit _(blether) 07:12, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe that's gonna happen anytime soon, considering the contentiousness (is that even a word?) of the topic, and the numerous occasion where point-of-view pushers will attempt to insert false/unsourced information. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 07:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Ummm User contributions for Kiriuxa2002. User page created with this comment/text: участник из славгорода, which translates from Russian to participant from Slavgorod. I think this can be marked as answered and archived/closed. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:58, 3 June 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.

Cannot edit own js page

I can't edit these own subpages User:DefenderTienMinh07/EditCounterOptIn.js and User:DefenderTienMinh07/minerva.js which are belong to my userpage. When I click Edit button, it said: "You do not have permission to edit this JavaScript page because it is a redirect and it does not point inside your userspace." ☀DefenderTienMinh⛤☯☽ (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) You may be trying to look at the page it redirects to, which you can't edit. You might want to try User:DefenderTienMinh07/EditCounterOptIn.js and User:DefenderTienMinh07/minerva.js. Heart ^(talk) 23:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I’ve deleted those redirects, I think that will fix the problem. Courcelles (talk) 23:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

IP block exemption request

Copied from user talk:Mjroots
Hello Mjroots, Please i will like to request for an IP block exemption for this user:LordXI01 for a duration. He will be contributing to a wikipedia project " Africa Day Campaign". If you can grant him a minimum of 6 months IP block exemption. I did be glad. Below are his details: User:LordXI01 IP Address:102.176.94.159 JDQ Joris Darlington Quarshie (talk) 06:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I've no objection to the request, but I don't know how to do this . Would someone please oblige. Mjroots (talk) 06:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done: I've granted IPBE for a sufficient period of time. Can I just take this opportunity to add for other admins in the future: If you're in Ghana it's almost certain that all your IP addresses will be hard blocked. Users who are almost certainly in Ghana, and who are almost certainly not socks or spammers, please don't hesitate to grant temporary IPBE. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot @Zzuuzz JDQ Joris Darlington Quarshie (talk) 07:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, see the Diff blog post series starting here and m:Talk:No open proxies/Unfair blocking. It's a difficult balancing act, to say the least. Graham87 07:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot let me share these links with the communities. JDQ Joris Darlington Quarshie (talk) 07:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2023

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

Administrator changes

Ingenuity

• Ddstretch
• Prodego
• Resolute

CheckUser changes

Courcelles

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
• As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.

Technical news

• Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.

Arbitration

• The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.

Miscellaneous

• Following a community referendum, the arbitration policy has been modified to remove the ability for users to appeal remedies to Jimbo Wales.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Involvement check

I'd like to get a quick check with the community about my level of involvement with Hunter Biden laptop controversy before I take any strong actions dealing with the article. I don't see myself as involved, but the threshold is if the community believes I'm involved, and the area is grey enough where I'd like to make sure. I've made eight edits to the article, the last back in January, reverting edits that were by drive-by editors making edits against existing RFC and noticeboard consensus, removing "falsely" from from claims of election fraud, and adding large quotes to the lead that were not covered in the body. The main dispute has been the subject of an RFC, and edit warring discussion, a close review of the RFC, a BLPN thread, an AN discussion, an ANI thread, a second RFC, which I closed, and more.

These edits are similar to the types of edits I've made on Waukesha Christmas parade attack and The Kashmir Files, which are subject to a high level of drive-by editing that isn't aware of, or disregards, existing consensus. I don't feel I would be administratively involved in either of those situations either.

Input on whether I should avoid any administration around this article would be appreciated. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish as a member of the community, I do not consider you involved as you only edited the article in administrative role, returning it to consensus version and responding to an edit request. Lightoil (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Giving this a little bump after the excitement below. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

You're good IMO, and something definitely needs to be done there. Arkon (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Like others, I think you're good to go here. Lightoil has summarised your contributions well, and I agree that there's issues at that article's talk page that need administrative input/action. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Request an 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.

---

Hello. It seems to me that User:Raven is engaging in disruptive editing at this time at this subsection of an ANI .It is OK to comment, of course. But the amount of text they keep adding after my post seems to be dominating this subsection of the ANI. I have no other way to describe it. I'm wondering if an Admin could discourage this behavior somehow - or put a stop to it - if that is the appropriate action. Anyway, please take a look. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:21, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I addressed each of the four specific claims you made about "tendentious editing" by Randy Kryn. In our last exchange, you insisted you had not cited WP:TRIVIAL, and I quoted your "Here User:Nyxaros edits out trivial images"  [underline added]. This you bring to WP:AN? – .Raven  ^.talk 08:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Did you know that people can use the word "trivial" without it having anything to do with WP:TRIVIAL? JoelleJay (talk) 08:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Then where's the policy mandating the "edit [ing] out [of]  trivial images"? – .Raven  ^.talk 08:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Nyxaros reverts pointing out that trivial images contravene WP:IMGDD, "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative." IMGDD draws directly from the WP:image use policy and WP:NOTGALLERY. JoelleJay (talk) 09:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE maybe? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Apparantly the fringe crew doesn't enjoy anyone logically pointing out that their accusations against me don't amount to a hill of beans (and rice). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:29, 2 June 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.

Just a note that administrator involvement at the general ANI thread would still be greatly appreciated to cut down on all the unproductive and tendentious IDHT commentary. JoelleJay (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

The original complaint here was sound, .Raven's behavior there has been incredibly poor. --JBL (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Please direct us all to WP:PAs like:
Please stop playing (?) dumb. --JBL 18:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Not playing then, I guess. ... --JBL 17:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
At your leisure. – .Raven  .talk 02:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for demonstrating here the kind of low-quality, combative contributions you are making at ANI. In hindsight, rather than trying to correct your poor behavior, I should have started hatting the inane subthreads you multiplied -- hopefully some administrator will do that. --JBL (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Hopefully they'll consider WP:CIVIL. – .Raven  .talk 22:04, 5 June 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.

Bullying by User:Annabais

The user Annabais (talk · contribs) is supposedly a new wikipedian and is misusing wikipedia policies like adding unecessary info and violating WP:TVPLOT. On reverting those edits on article Ghum Hai Kisikey Pyaar Meiin, the user has stormed my talk page with rude messages and accused me of dictating while i have not done so.. [44] Imsaneikigai (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@Imsaneikigai: I have blocked Annabais (talk · contribs) from the article Ghum Hai Kisikey Pyaar Meiin and advised them about civility etc. Hopefully they'll re-evaluate their mainspace and talkpage conduct. For future reference, WP:ANI rather than WP:AN is the proper venue for such reports. Abecedare (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Thankyou so much for your prompt reply and action. I will take care of the directions and will report to WP:ANI for any such reports. Thanks once again Imsaneikigai (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Unblock

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 got blocked for ghkkpm wiki page for unnecessary accusations. Please don't allow some dictator editor on wiki who uses their power for others harrasment. Annabais (talk) 05:32, 7 June 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:BigHaz redux

I'd like to re-introduce a discussion around the unusual behavior of admin User:BigHaz. Whatever their situation – a long hiatus with barely any activity for 5 years, and then suddenly performing numerous unilateral speedy deletions with poor justification – I feel their actions fall short of proper admin behavior and merit more investigation.

The previous discussion from 5 May 2023 can be found here where Liz first brought up an issue: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive352#User:BigHaz. In retrospect, I do not believe Liz's posting was an "overreaction," as the user's actions have continued a pattern of poor judgment and problematic interactions with other users. Pinging previous folks in that conversation as a courtesy: Ingenuity, Beyond My Ken, Enterprisey.

I don't remember encountering BigHaz in the past. But what I found unusual was that an article I created in 2019 was just tagged for speedy deletion (WP:A7) by Thewritestuff92, an editor with barely 200 lifetime edits [45]. The CSD/A7 tagging was that user's first edit of 2023. Less than 15 minutes later, it gets deleted immediately by BigHaz.

To recap, we have this odd situation:

• Thewritestuff92's first edit since November 2022 was to tag Christianné Allen with CSD/A7 at 19:50 local time.

  There is substantial WP:RS coverage of her as Rudy Giuliani’s former communications director (see Google News search), so the proper process would be WP:AFD and not CSD.

• Thewritestuff92 leaves a note about the CSD/A7 on my talk page at 19:53 local time.
• Ten minutes later, at 20:03, BigHaz deletes it.

  Any decent admin should see that it's not a proper CSD/A7 situation, and should go through a regular AfD process.

• There are also at least three other issues with this admin's deletion actions in the last 24 hours.
  • User_talk:BigHaz#R3_deletion with J947
  • User_talk:BigHaz#Role_of_the_Chinese_Communist_Party_in_lawmaking with Pppery
  • User_talk:BigHaz#10_000_BC with Pppery

I'm concerned that even when it was pointed out by J947 that the CSD criteria clearly says, "Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion" [46], BigHaz dismissed this [47], and has kept performing dubious deletions.

In that earlier May conversation, BigHaz admitted they may be out of touch with the current norms. To wit: And [I] don't know what admin standards are any more: You may be right in this claim. When last I dealt with admin-related matters, there was a general sense that it was a good idea that people were doing them. It appears that I am now trespassing on a little fiefdom where good faith is not to be assumed. If this is the case, I'll happily perform other actions in the future. [48]

I am therefore formally asking BigHaz for the time being, please refrain from acting on CSD deletions, and to use your own words: "perform other actions in the future."

I welcome BigHaz's response and others to add any additional context. - Fuzheado | Talk 01:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

To respond to the accusations being made in the order in which they were raised:

1. The article cited was not written in a way which made it anything other than promotional. If the subject was in fact notable, I'm happy to accept that I made a mistake. I'm human, after all, and I assume everyone else around here is as well. The fact that it was deleted ten minutes after being tagged for speedy deletion is, quite simply, a function of what speedy deletion is. Had it been tagged in some other way, the process would have taken longer, as we know.

2. Regarding my interactions with J947, the other user is well aware of the process to contest a speedy deletion tag and (for reasons I don't claim to understand, but which probably make sense to them) opted not to in this instance.

3. Regarding my interaction with Pppery, I'm presently discussing the issue with that user on my Talk page. They have raised (somewhat belligerently, but so be it) cogent points, and I'm happy to take the relevant action if that's the best outcome.

4. To the concern about "dubious deletions", I would respond that any and every page could be seen as a "dubious deletion" in some respect - some for more cogent reasons than others, but there's usually going to be someone who doesn't like something being deleted. Following J947's comments, I haven't deleted anything dealing with redirects, for example.

5. My response in May has been taken out of context. The allegation, largely, was that by handling the PROD process the way that I was demonstrated a level of dangerous incompetence. My response was that I was labouring under the misapprehension that we assumed that we were all "pulling in the same direction", so to speak. I'm happy to reiterate that point now, as it appears that there is a willingness to fly off the handle when someone does something remotely different to what you expect (even to the extent of J947's willingness to ignore processes in the interests of making a point). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

As a further point, CSD is by definition "unilateral". I fail to see why that should be a criticism. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

And one final PS (apologies, I know this is rather poor form), I am moving back into a situation at work where I'll be very much busier for a few months, so depending on how long "the time being" is, you may get your wish without needing to make a big thing of it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

There is definitely someone being belligerent on your talk page, but it’s not Pppery. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:05, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Do we need IP addresses throwing in comments? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 13:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

More than we need administrators who refuse to take any kind of negative feedback. I mean, I haven't deleted any Wikipedia articles on questionable grounds this week! 100.36.106.199 (talk) 14:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

So asking someone who says "You shouldn't have deleted article xyz" to explain why I shouldn't have done so is "refus[ing] to take negative feedback"? Righto. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is probably what I mean, and not at all a continued demonstration of your unwillingness to take criticism seriously. Oy vey. --100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Ad hominem is fun, isn't it? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:03, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Ad hominem <-- please read it. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I mean for crying out loud, there is definitely one ad hom comment in this discussion; it was Do we need IP addresses throwing in comments? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

• BigHaz - with regards to the article itself, if you thought it was promotional (FWIW, I do not), the correct criterion for deletion would have been WP:G11. Now, in your point 1 above, you are talking about notability. An WP:A7 deletion is obviously tangentially related to notability, but it is much stricter than that - admins do not have discretion to delete articles purely because they believe the subject is not notable. To be eligible for A7, an article must fail to indicate why its subject is important or significant in some way. Your mileage may vary, but I would consider the following sentence a claim of significance: "She served as Director of Communication for Rudy Giuliani." As such, the article was not eligible for A7 deletion; it should have gone to AfD to allow other editors to look for additional sources, weigh notability, etc. Based on this deletion, and on your response above, I would advise you to spend some time getting reacquainted with our deletion processes before taking admin actions in this area. I haven't looked at the other aspects of this report. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  My apologies for misspeaking in that instance. The article was, as you rightly point out, tagged A7. When I saw the article and the tag, my conclusion was that simply serving in a position for a notable person does not make a person notable. I have, in the past, worked in the office of a person who held a very senior political role here in Australia. That doesn't give me sufficient (or indeed any, really) notability for an article here. A relative has held the position of Director-General for a government department in Queensland. He doesn't rise to the level of notability as a result of that, despite the fact that he reported on a daily basis to ministers who were themselves notable. And so it goes.

  As mentioned above, I'm moving back into a "busy phase" at work, so my ability to interact with Wikipedia beyond the superficial will be reduced once again. At some point in the next 12 months, I may end up with another few weeks where I can attempt to make myself useful. I will need to reconsider my default idea that Wikipedia is a place to do that. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 13:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  You are again talking about notability; the question is not whether or not the person is notable, A7 requires there to be no claim of significance or importance, which is a lower threshold than notability. I don't think that there are many people who would agree with the notion that holding that role is not a CCoS, especially when the article had three sources, each discussing the subject in significant depth. I am not saying that you cannot be useful here, just that your understanding of our deletion processes seems to be at odds with current practices. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  Replace "notable" with whatever other adjective suits if it matters. As mentioned on my talk page in response, I still remain unconvinced that "worked for a person who is himself highly notable" amounts to a claim of anything much other than having a job, but there you are. Perhaps my relative's career does add up to an article - not that I intend to write it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  BigHaz, the point is that the determination of notability in this case should have been made through a community discussion at AfD, not unilaterally by an administrator who is out of touch with current norms and practices. Please be more cautious in the future. Cullen328 (talk) 23:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  Point taken. The point I've been trying to make throughout has been that the determination appeared pretty clear-cut, which was (and, unless I'm radically mistaken, still is) the point of CSD tags. Had it not done so, I would have removed the tag, as you can see that I have done on a number of other occasions. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

• User:BigHaz clearly doesn't understand CSD criteria. Their understanding of A7 is so far off the mark. And they keep trying to dig themselves out of the hole but they're making it worse. Now they're pulling the "I'm too busy to respond" gag until criticism dies down so they don't have to explain themselves. Clear violation of WP:ADMINACCT. Maybe we need to reconsider their use of the tools.--v/r - TP 11:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Unblock appeal by HugoAcosta9

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.

---

HugoAcosta9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is requesting to have their indefinite block lifted. He was initially blocked [49] for disruption surrounding AfDs and personal attacks, and then engaged in sockpuppetry and block evasion after being indefinitely blocked. That said, there was certainly a fair amount of constructive editing before things came to that point as well, and there is at least some support for the position that HugoAcosta9 did have a point about what was going on, even if it wasn't expressed in an appropriate way. Given the various factors involved here, I think it should be discussed by the community whether this editor should be unblocked, and if so what, if any, restrictions should be applied. Quoted text of the appeal follows below. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I am writing to request an appeal of my block that was imposed in October of 2022. I was wrong and had been uploading disruptive edits, including personal attacks, disruption at AfDs - doubles down at thread brought by user to ANI. This behavior ultimately led to my block from Wikipedia. I acknowledge that I was frequently advised to stop, but I chose to ignore the warnings and continued my actions, which resulted in my block. At that time, I frequently added disruptive edits to discussions, including sockpuppettering six months ago despite editors' instructions that I do not do so. I disregarded their warnings and persisted in my irresponsible behavior. After I was blocked, instead of taking time off to do other things, I was deceitful and frequently engaged in Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry, originally using the IPs. I also utilized a wide range of various IP addresses. In December 2022, I was not aware that I had engaged in sockpuppetry and believed that I was able to request a standard offer (SO) in good faith. I now understand that my actions were inappropriate and have since learned more about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. While I recognize that this does not excuse my behavior, it does help explain why I have kept coming back to the site. I want to emphasize that I did not have any malicious intent and did not intend to violate any of Wikipedia's rules. I am a passionate supporter of Wikipedia and deeply regret any harm that my actions may have caused to the community. Since my account was banned, I have taken steps to educate myself about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and I have stayed away from the site for over six months. I am eager to return to the community and make meaningful contributions. And for over six months, I have been editing at Spanish Wikipedia, making positive contributions like creating new articles. I feel that it could benefit my contributions to Wikipedia, especially with football articles. I realize that my past behavior was unacceptable and violated Wikipedia's policies. However, I am deeply remorseful for my actions and am committed to making positive contributions to the community. I want to prove that I can continue to contribute to Wikipedia in a responsible and productive manner. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

• For ease, copying my Undeniably involved comment, I do somewhat agree with @Nfitz: above that "the AFD system completely failed", which was a big part of what led to Hugo's frustration. I was the closer of some of the original AfDs and ultimately ended up agreeing with them being relisted/restored once the full picture became more clear. Courtesy links: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 October 19, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1112#Concerns_about_articles_nominated_for_deletion. I'm not going to take action and have not reviewed the Spanish edits they refer to above, but I do thank them for their clear & direct request above. comment from their Talk. Star Mississippi 01:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
• I remember the ANI thread that led to their block. The OP was upset that a number of their articles had been nominated for deletion and started throwing around personal attacks, accusations of racism, etc. That's not good of course, but later in the thread there was a clear consensus that the deletion nominations were inappropriate - so inappropriate, in fact, that the editor who initiated them was topic-banned from AfD. It's understandable that someone might become frustrated after being carpet-bombed with meritless AfDs, and aside from this incident the editor's history seems mostly uneventful and productive. I would support an unblock assuming that there is no evidence of recent block evasion. Spicy (talk) 01:56, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
• I'm all in favour of giving them a chance. I think some of those deleted Liga articles may still be under my user name. Nfitz (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support this seems to have gotten ignored among the other drama. I support the unblock, with no editing restrictions. The unblock request statement and rationale aren't perfect, but it is good enough for a second chance. Walt Yoder (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support ah yeah, I remember that messy thread. HugoAcosta9's anger, although problematic, was very understandable. I'm fine with a second chance. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support – I did check some of his contributions in the Spanish Wikipedia and he has been quite productive there; I expect that he will continue being productive here as well. –FlyingAce^✈hello 04:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  in which case, I'm also happy to support this request. Star Mississippi 12:45, 7 June 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.

Note from WMF Trust and Safety regarding emergency@

As of June 2023, it has come to our attention that some messages sent to emergency@ wound up in our spam folder. This seems to be a backend issue with our email provider and we are currently reviewing the problem. If you do not receive a response to your message within 1 hour, please send a note to cawikimedia.org. Thank you. Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Urgent Request for Assistance with Changing a Wikipedia Page Name or Reviewing a 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.

---

Dear Wikipedia Administrator, I hope this message finds you well. I am reaching out to you today to kindly ask for your assistance regarding an important matter. It concerns the renaming of a specific Wikipedia page that, in my opinion, requires immediate updating. I wanted to ask if you could change the page names from Operation Valuable to 1949 Anglo–American invasion of Communist Albania because as you can see in the discussion here, many didn't contribute and I have also given sources that consider this an invasion if you wish you can watch the whole thing here.Talk:Operation Valuable Best regards NormalguyfromUK (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, this isn't 'urgent'. If you can't come to agreement, see WP:RM#CM for how to ask for external input. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:34, 7 June 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.

CSD backlog

There's a bit of a backlog at CAT:CSD. Mostly user pages that are in non-English, that are blatant promotion or otherwise gibberish, and there's lots of them, spotted by Veracious. Some hands on deck would be welcome. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:15, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Looks like it's all cleaned up. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Requests is stalled

There are untouched reports of proxies here since April 20; the last proxy checker action appears to be May 6. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Done a few - might take another look later. :) firefly ( t · c ) 10:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

give me autoconfirmed please

i should take this, im getting tired see this "This page is semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it." . ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 10:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@Modern primat you are autoconfirmed, as this handy page confirms. Do you mean extended-confirmed? firefly ( t · c ) 10:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@Firefly see: c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Strugglehouse . i wanna change problmetic files with proper ones. so, i wanna do edit in Addison Rae but cannot do it. please give me whatever it requiers. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 11:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

erm, you are autoconfirmed. what are you seeing? you should be able to edit the page. lettherebedarklight晚安 11:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

yes you are right, my bad..... ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 11:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Could someone take over?

Would some kind colleague with copyvio experience/expertise care to take over the discussion with CompulsiveResearcher relating to the copyvio in this page – the user is clearly dissatisfied with my attempts to explain the nature of the problem and establish whether it is wider than this one article. Many thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

The user was dissatisfied w/ the picking at a couple of compound sentences and the way the other admin decided to make things personal on the article's talk page. The user believes in succinct language and in flow, but was planning on bringing the prose up to the admin's standard, ideally w/o compromising language quality. The user made no changes to the mainspace while waiting hours for the admin to share. The user is uncomfortable w/ the bad faith accusations on the user's talk page and the article's talk page that came about. The user was ready to play at fixing the problem in userspace, where the draft had been grown initially, while waiting for specifics on how to please the admin, but the admin hints at unpleasant things for the user. The user doesn't know how to address any of it now or where a safe space to ask for help is. The user's hands are tied. The user does not understand why. The user will probably go into semi-retirement again because the user feels sick. The user says bye. Compulsive Researcher (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers did not make things personal; they're reasonably concerned that you don't understand copyright and have copied passages wholesale into other articles. Wikipedia:Copyrights is a core policy with legal implications. Your responses on the question of copyright so far don't inspire confidence. Mackensen (talk) 11:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I keep asking for specific help and I'm not seeing it. I will try again and perhaps go to the Teahouse or WIR for advice next...

Consider a sentence like: "Kennedy was President of the United States from 1961 to 1963". Could an article us it or lose it?

The close paraphrasing guideline's substantial similarity section reads: 'The US Copyright Office states that, "Copyright law does not protect names, titles, or short phrases or expressions... The Copyright Office cannot register claims to exclusive rights in brief combinations of words ... To be protected by copyright, a work must contain a certain minimum amount of authorship ... Names, titles, and other short phrases do not meet these requirements."' So, a simple sentence that amounts to job title + verb + employer = not protected by US copyright.

So one may legally write "Kennedy was President of the United States from 1961 to 1963". Or one may not and the individual or organization who published that first owns the copyright and similar or identical statements are violations of that copyright. And it seems like one legally may do so about Flora Warren Seymour.

Or please point me to a policy that contradicts the Copyright Office and supersedes Wikipedia's substantive similarity stance and I will take that into account.

Thank you. Compulsive Researcher (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

On the subject of Wikipedia's guideline on close paraphrasing, the §Selection and arrangement section is relevant. It says in part: Although facts are not subject to copyright, a selection or arrangement of facts may be considered creative and therefore protected. In the case of the article on Flora Warren Seymour, I see at least nine sentences closely paraphrased from the American Women Historians source; all but one of those are in the same order they appear in the source. Even if each sentence would be okay individually, that doesn't necessarily mean that the total effect is – just as you couldn't defend a clearly copyright violating sentence on the grounds that each individual word could be used appropriately! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Regarding "make things personal": I wrote "make things personal on the article's talk page". I want to clarify that I don't mean personal attacks. On the article's talk page, I asked about the article. The reply included a comment about how many of my 11k edits violated copyright. That is a personal and is appropriate for my talk page, not the article's. I still don't have answers on the article's talk page, last I checked. I still want to focus on the copyright, but I think I've been blocked for writing about that in response to you here, so I will zip for now. Thank you. Compulsive Researcher (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• Interested in wikilawyering more than addressing the issue. As such I've p-blocked from mainspace until the copyright issues are sorted. They're welcome to contribute elsewhere in the interim, ideally to cleanup. Star Mississippi 13:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  I don't see where I was asked to do anything or answer anything on this thread, so I'm confused about where I fell short to the point of being blocked. I was not trying to wikilawyer or avoid an issue. No one addressed the alleged copyright violation as the first admin asked.

  What am I blocked for? What did I do wrong? I am told I am confused on the issue of copyright. I addressed that with my interpretation and asked for clarification. And I was blocked.

  What cleanup outside of the mainspace is to be done and is ideal? Compulsive Researcher (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  You say I was not trying to wikilawyer or avoid an issue. on the heels of Or please point me to a policy that contradicts the Copyright Office. That is wikilawyering. Telling an admin to stay out of your userspace is not collaborative nor is it a path to resolving the issues raised, which @Justlettersandnumbers was doing. Star Mississippi 14:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for replying and promptly.

  I do not know what is wanted here. And that's OK.

  I would like to clarify didn't so much tell the admin to stay out of my userspace. I asked the admin to have future communications made by a different party. That's because we were getting nowhere good fast and I wanted to deescalate things. It did. A block and a visit to AN aren't ideal, but I didn't try to shut down conversation, and I'm not now.

  Regarding "point me to..." I use that sort of phrasing all the time because I do not know all of the policies, guidelines, rules. Like saying "am I wrong?" or "change my mind". If that is wikilawyering, OK. I will assume someone will point out when contradictory info exists.

  Again: What cleanup outside of the mainspace is to be done and is ideal? Compulsive Researcher (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  To be honest, announcing that you're not wikilawyering and then saying I would like to clarify didn't so much tell the admin to stay out of my userspace. I asked the admin to have future communications made by a different party, a distinction without a difference, is wikilawyering. — Trey Maturin™ 15:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  OK. We can agree to disagree on interpretation of my intent and whether asking for someone else is the same as telling the first party to go away. Compulsive Researcher (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  Looking at this guy's record, he (or she) looks like a steady productive, largely peaceable editor for whom things suddenly took a wrong turn. Someone we'd like to keep working. I'm just wondering if there's a way we can turn this around and keep him working? I'm not saying anyone has done anything wrong in dealing with Compulsive Researcher, just that we've come to a bad outcome. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:14, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  per our discussion on their Talk, @CompulsiveResearcher is happy to remain blocked from mainspace. I'm absolutely willing to unblock once the copyright violation issues are resolved to those reviewing's satisfaction and pointed them toward experienced copyright admins. I have no history with this editor that I'm aware of (nor have they raised one), but I have concerns about their understanding of what copyright is and until that's resolved I'd prefer their edits not be in mainspace. Copyright is not something that's "offensive" (Talk:Flora Warren Seymour) but that's how they appear to see it and that's an issue. Star Mississippi 00:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  Some interesting stats:

  This person has almost 12,000 edits and appears to have zero experience with any noticeboards until this week. They've created 157 new articles, only 2 of which have been deleted. >80% of their edits have been to Mainspace. I spot-checked their user talk pages; Compulsive Researcher has spent a lot of time encouraging other editors

  --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  appears to have zero experience with any noticeboards until this week. I don't believe that search works 100% accurately as my search shows something different. That said, I don't believe there's any bad faith here, just an incomplete understanding of copyright when the issue has been raised. If there's consensus that my my p block is wrong, giving my blessing to undo it as I'm going to bed shortly and likely won't be on line until afternoon. Star Mississippi 01:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  xtools says 20 edits each to AN and ANI. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  My attempts at offering or asking for clarification keep getting me in trouble, but I'll try again anyway.

  I am not happy to remain blocked. I am unhappy. I would prefer to be unblocked. If someone spends some time reviewing what's been said and decides to unblock me, I'd find that a positive development. (I'm too disheartened to believe I'd be "happy".) But I won't request an unblock hours after being blocked. That is all I will say about that right now.

  I did not say I am offended by copyright, so that is not an issue. "Inoffensive" modifies "first 2 sentences", not "copyright". I asked what changes would satisfy. Compulsive Researcher (talk) 02:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  I don't understand what is unclear here. You can't copy someone else's words. You can paraphrase--but if you paraphrase too closely, it is still considered plagiarism and, in this case, a copyright violation. I can't read page 204, but I'll take the other editors' word for it. That may be a judgment call, but many things are. So, paraphrase less closely. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  Drmies, also available here (if you have an archive.org account). Yes, A. B., I agree. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  Drmies, thank you for joining in. I won't beat the copyright/plagiarism horse as it's really most sincerely dead.

  Regarding "paraphrase less closely": I wanted to figure out how to make the article work to everyone's satisfaction so we could get a decent if short bio back out there and go back to our stations. I tried to fix it in my userspace. I made decent progress. Then I found out it is very wrong to do that. It was a violation even after I'd changed the phrasing and found other sources for some of the information. Trying to fix the prose like that is a horrible thing and I have no excuses beyond unfamiliarity with the policy, some fatigue, mixed signals from the template (both "page" and "article") and my "boldness". But anyway, I can't paraphrase it at all right now, and my attempts to try were rightly reverted.

  C'est la vie. Compulsive Researcher (talk) 14:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  Compulsive Researcher, I've run into that as well--that you can't try it out in Wiki space--and my workaround (short of pasting into a word processor) is to paste, rewrite/rephrase, cut (to clipboard) the stuff I haven't rephrased yet, and save, and so go paragraph by paragraph. Drmies (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  I'd rather remain blocked for now. was the accurate quote. Apologies for phrasing that as "happy to". My error. Star Mississippi 02:40, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Star Mississippi, you think we can undo the partial block and leave this behind us? The editor's most recent comments make me think that further disruption is unlikely. Drmies (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping @Drmies as I've been offline until just now and hadn't caught up. I'm doing so right now. @CompulsiveResearcher happy editing. Please ping me if I can be of help. Star Mississippi 20:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Haha you know what we say in Alabama: thank God for Star Mississippi! Drmies (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

anyone else think that's grounds for an indef right there? ;-) Star Mississippi 21:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you allowed to delete it? I blanked everything else with db-author, but I know better than to touch this again. Compulsive Researcher (talk) 23:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Deleted. Now, did someone say something about blocking Drmies? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Goodbye. Compulsive Researcher (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Kind Attention to Wikipedia Adminstrators/contributors.

Moved to the Teahouse

 – ToBeFree (talk) 08:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Unblock/Unban request from User:Greenock125

Greenock125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

• Carrying request over from UTRS appeal #73557. Yamla found no evidence of recent socking.

I believe this block is no longer necessary because I understand why I was blocked. I broke copyright rules by copying text directly from websites and evading my block after it was imposed by abusing multiple accounts, creating another account, and using multiple IP addresses. I admit continuing to keep editing in 2022, I should not have done that and fully apologize for my actions. I promise this will never happen again, make productive contributions, and abide by all Wikipedia polices.

What is copyright? It allows the owner the exclusive rights to use their work. When someone creates an original work, fixed in a tangible medium, they automatically own copyright to the work. How is Wikipedia licenced? All content published on Wikipedia is licensed by the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). Why is copyrighted content not allowed on Wikipedia? The database servers for Wikipedia are found in the United States, which means any copyright content published on Wikipedia would infringe US copyright law. Under what circumstances can we use copyrighted content? To get permission to use copyrighted content you need to contact the owner of the content which is the original author.

How do you intend to avoid violating the copyright policy in the future? To avoid violating the copyright policy in the future I would make sure to use my own words and not copy text directly from websites.

--Carried over by -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@Greenock125: If you are unbanned what do you plan on working on? -- Shadow of the Starlit Sock 02:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

• If I was unbanned from Wikipedia I would be mainly working on music articles but also I would edit movie and sports articles.

-- Carried over by -- X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 09:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@Greenock125: Your November, 2020 block also mentions "no communication" as a rationale for the block. Why do you think the blocking admin felt the need to note that in your block rationale, and how do you plan to address that particular problem if unblocked? --Jayron32 18:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Carried over from user talk-"When I was blocked in November 2020, I was asked to answer questions in my own words about copyright to establish if I should be unblocked, but I violated copyright in giving my answers. I should not have done this. If I am unblocked, I will make sure to answer any questions or concerns on my talk page when I receive them, Greenock125 (talk) 4:03 pm, Today (UTC−4)"-- -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@Greenock125: How specifically did you violate copyright policies? -- Shadow of the Starlit Sock 20:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Carried over from user talk. "When I was answering questions on Copyright, I copied text from the Copyright article and used it in my answers, I should not have done that and answered in my own words. Greenock125 (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC)" -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Greenock125, you answered "Under what circumstances can we use copyrighted content?" incorrectly. You appear to have missed all of WP:FAIRUSE. Would you like to comment on this? --Yamla (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Copied over. Not sure if it was meant to answer Yamla's question. ':Also I would avoid copyright violations by avoiding long quotations from sources when creating any articles [50]. Greenock125 (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)" -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2023 (UTC) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Ummm, I am not be an admin, but I don't think the user grasps how to avoid copyright. – Callmemirela 🍁 04:28, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Carried over from user's talk. ":You can use copyrighted content if it is Non-free content and is fair use in US copyright law and complies with the criteria for Non-free content. Greenock125 (talk) 21:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

You are allowed to use Non-free content in articles only if the usage of the content is considered in United States copyright law and complies with the criteria for Non-free content. Greenock125 (talk) 09:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)" -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:51, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:51, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

[[Yo|Greenock125}} Can you be more specific/clear, please?-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

carried over "When creating music articles, I am allowed to use brief quotations of copyrighted text as extensive use of copyrighted quotation text is prohibited. Any changes to quotation text in articles must be marked clearly (e.g. [...]). Greenock125 (talk) 6:10 am, Today (UTC−4)

" -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

My two cents? Have them summarize an article quelconque. Because you can use long quotation as long it's relevant to the content itself; say it's an actor summarizing their feelings for the role, a review for a film or politicians' words after a shooting, just as long as it's not the only content, quotation marks are clear and a source follows the quote. – Callmemirela 🍁 15:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

• CCI on this editor: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Greenock125. I'm ambivalent to this appeal. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
• I also am not supportive of an unblock at this time. I asked a pretty straightforward question above, and instead got an answer to a question I asked nothing about. I asked about lack of communication, and got some rambling reply about copyright. That doesn't make me feel like letting this editor back in the fold would be productive at this time. --Jayron32 15:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  (Carried over from user talk)

  If I am unblocked and unbanned, I will tackle the lack of communication by stopping any editing, and when an editor comes into my talk page with a concern, question, or warning, I will comment on it, I will not ignore it and make sure I acknowledged that I have read it. Greenock125 (talk) 15:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  See, I hope that their desired meaning was something like "when someone queries their edits on their talk page, they won't keep editing but will respond to the message"...but I don't know that's what they were going for, which isn't ideal for a communication-linked block. I'm neutral on a general unblock, or supportive if someone wants to try something like a mainspace restriction. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

User seems to be having trouble editing, possible language barrier

Sonyesaumbisikmbov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is having some hard time understanding the function of things like the see also section and I fear there may be a language barrier issue, so I'm not sure that I can help. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Agisiga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made very similar edits. For instance Agisiga here and Sonyesaumbisikmbov here both using "Nederlands New Guinea" rather than Indonesia or Western New Guinea, and posting lists of provences that include there own user names (note that it appears as "Sony Esau Mbisikmbo" in Sonyesaumbisikmbov edit).

If it is the same editor I don't know if it's a language / competence issue, or whether it's just trolling. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me like some lo-level political soapboxing but not outright vandalism. Again, tough to discern. I think it's more a competence issue than anything else, but I can't even determine that. :/ ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I think id:Wikipedia:Penyalahgunaan jangka panjang/Sony Esau Mbisikmbo shows that their an LTA from idwiki. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for identifying the sockmaster. I've indef-blocked the new account. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

"Discussion tools will start its final test and graduate from Beta Features. Please opt-in now."

Does anyone know if this means that the old discussion system (manually editing and adding comments) will go away? If so, I'm really not happy about that. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think so; the visual editor is not in Beta and is still optional. Guess VPT would be a better forum to discuss this, though. –FlyingAce^✈hello 00:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

No. You can still edit sections with DT turned on. But yes, wrong forum to ask in. IznoPublic (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

It's definitely not going away.

What's going to happen in this last stage (assuming the test results come back favorably – I don't think the data analysis is done yet) is that the appearance of talk pages will change. There's a separate Phab task about making it work on this page, but this magic link will give you an idea of what it looks like. The key point for folks to know is that if you don't like it, you will be able to turn it off at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion (last item, about discussion activity). We all know it often takes a week or two to get used to a visual change, but if you're just done with visual changes for the year, then you could opt-in to the Beta Feature now and then turn off the pref, and then the deployment won't affect your account anyway.

The one thing I'll add here is that I think RFC closers in particular will find this feature useful. It adds an item under each ==Level 2 section heading== that says when the most recent comment was, how many comments were made, and how many different individuals participated in the conversation. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I currently use the reply functionality, but have problems with the new page layout. Will setting Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion still allow the use of the reply function as it currently stands? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Of course. There are half a dozen separate controls in that section of prefs. You can turn on the Reply tool, turn off the New Topic tool, turn on automatic subscriptions, turn off the new page layout – any combination you want. The last one in the section is the one for the new page layout. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Whatamidoing - I looked at the example you posted and also at mw:Talk_pages_project/Usability/Analysis#Feature_overview. I was going to post at mw:Talk:Talk pages project/Usability, but it looks like no one has edited there in months.

Setting aside my (mild) concerns about presentation and what not (I think several people made some interesting points on that talk page), I'm concerned about "Breadcrumbs" - I really really think it's a bad idea to list the username of the most recent poster at the top of a page. I think there are more than a just few WP:BEANS reasons for not doing this.

It's also bad because we already can easily check this in a page's page history - and getting people to be used to checking there, is better than having this at the top. Sorry for the bluntness, but we want better editors - not lazy editors. And this will likely cause very bad wiki-habits.

Besides that major concern, there seems like a LOT of extra spacing, which is going to increase page length. And on high traffic pages, I don't think that that is a great idea. - jc37 18:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

If you don't like it, then turn it off.

I think the little line at the top will be handy on low-traffic pages. Specifically, it'll make it faster to identify when nobody's posted a new comment for years. That adds almost no space, as it replaces the line that says "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". The height of the "topic container" is the same height as two lines of text, so the pages will be longer.

(It's easy to force a username out of the list; just break the signature (e.g., add a space in the "(UTC)" timestamp) or add a new signed comment to the page. You could also remove the comment, if it's a purely disruptive comment. Unlike the mobile site, it's reading the comments on the page, not the actions in history.) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The problem has nothing to do with me or my preferences.

Putting a username at the top of a page is a really bad idea. I'd like to avoid spelling out the various (presumably obvious) reasons why. - jc37 22:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Whatamidoing - To clarify, you can still place a timestamp at the top, which achieves your stated goal concerning "low-traffic pages", without having the username listed there. As you note, it should be easy for the programmers to separate it out. - jc37 07:33, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I remember when someone made a WP:POINT some years ago about the mobile site displaying the name of the most recent editor to an article by creating an inappropriately named account, and I remember being disappointed when the oversighters said that they were not explicitly authorized to hide usernames in their policy and therefore they wouldn't. But: while it is possible to cause a problem this way, this has not been a significant problem in practice.

Displaying anything involves risks. In my experience, the section heading is far more likely to have unwanted content that usernames. And, again, such problems are easily and completely fixable by just editing the page. Treat unwanted content exactly like it is unwanted content, and fix it with the editing button Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I understand. But there is no benefit to adding the username. Your goal is achieved through adding just the time stamp. Similar to WP:5TILDES.

Why create potential problems when we don't have to, and for no benefit. - jc37 02:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Apologies if my questions have already been answered somewhere, but I'm really struggling to see the benefit of listing the username of the last editor of a page on the mobile site, either for articles or for talk pages. Where did this idea come from? Was it a feature requested by the community somewhere? I also can't imagine making a null edit to a page just to get rid of an offensive username – that would likely be seen as disruptive, and it's not currently part of our workflow at all. – bradv 02:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

The idea of listing the most recent editor on the mobile site was, I believe, to help readers understand that Wikipedia is written by individuals. It's been there for years. (Also, a null edit wouldn't change the name shown; it'd have to be a dummy edit, because the mobile platform responds to the most recent name in the history, and a null edit doesn't get recorded in the history.)

On talk pages, the goal is to help editors see what they need to know to decide what they want to do on that page. I expected editors to respond differently to "Latest comment: 6 hours ago by Newbie in topic Help needed" than they do to "Latest comment: 6 hours ago by ExperiencedAdmin in topic Help needed". Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

If you remove the username, you remove that difference.

And I would guess that no one has tracked site vandalism (among many other things) associated with that change on mobile - there's really no way to do so. So we might be having an upswing of nonsense, simply because someone didn't think about the repercussions and thought "the risk is worth it", and none of us would know why... - jc37 01:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I suppose I get the idea behind showing this information, but in my mind it fundamentally contravenes the egalitarian nature of Wikipedia. We're writing this encyclopedia based on consensus and reliable sources, not by experienced editors throwing their weight around. What I add to an article should be subject to the exact same scrutiny as a brand new editor, or someone with a million edits. And I believe that philosophy should be reflected in the user interface design.

This also means we should get rid of the hats and edit count that shows up when viewing a diff on mobile, but I suppose that's a different battle. And forgive me if this is not the right place for this conversation, but I don't have the foggiest who to talk to about this sort of thing. – bradv 02:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

It sounds like two different things have been confused here.

1. Mobile view tag: For articles. At the bottom of the page. Has been in place for 10 years.
2. DiscussionTools tag: For talk pages. At the top of the page. Is new.

I'm talking about the new thing at the top of talk pages. Yes, I personally agree that edits to articles would ideally be treated equally regardless of experience, but that's not quite as true for discussions. Sometimes, seeing that an experienced editor has posted could mean that you can move on to other work. Being able to quickly see that a newbie posted the last comment on the page means you know that you need to look at it, because they're probably posting because they need help. Behaving differently is efficient for editors, who don't necessarily feel like they have a lot of time to spare for duplicating each other's work. And in more awkward cases, I realistically expect it to occasionally be used for "ugh, that editor again – I should {move on | see if it's time for another trip to ANI | leave a note at FTN | check my blood pressure before reading it}" situations.

If you want to remove the usernames from talk pages, I think the use case you need to write begins something like this: "If an editor is subject to a IBAN, it would be really bad for that IBANned editor to easily be able to see, at a glance, at the top of the talk page, that the most recent comment on that talk page was posted by the person they're not allowed to interact with, because ________".

If you can think of something that goes in the blank that doesn't sound like "they might be less likely to violate their IBAN if they have this information readily available to them", then I'm willing to present your use case to the Editing team. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

How magnaminous, our "Community Relations, Wikimedia Foundation" is willing to present our remarks to the Editing team if we follow their very restrictive format which doesn't address the actual complaints about this "feature" at all, but starts about Ibans for some reason. How many years are we already putting up with this kind of stonewalling? It was just the same at the time of VE and other dramatic implementations, and it just goes on and on. Perhaps just present the remarks here to the editing team, instead of putting up all kinds of obstacles? FWIW, I also think putting the name of the last editor at the top of talk pages is a bad idea, a new venue for spam and vandalism. And no, I'm not going to put this into a use case. "We don't do customer support unless the customer writes a properly formatted use case" is not acceptable. "If you don't like it, then turn it off." was an even worse reply though... Fram (talk) 08:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

My home wiki (dewiki) is one of the communities testing this new feature for a couple of weeks now as a default for all users and so far we have not encountered any problems with the user name being displayed.

If LTAs with a problematic user name comment, this will be reverted quickly -> once it's reverted the tool shows the user name of the latest comment which is actually present, not the LTA's user name.

Especially on administrator's noticeboards this feature seems very helpful to me to quickly determine if another admin has already commented or not when deciding which section I want to turn my attention to. Johannnes89 (talk) 08:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

That's great to hear, and I'm glad that works for you. But that just makes the argument that this is something that should be opt-in, not opt-out.

What I really don't understand about all of this is why this isn't editable in the MediaWiki namespace. One would think that that's exactly what that namespace is for. - jc37 09:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

To bring at least a partial change of opinion: I think everything other than the spacing and the username presence is a positive. I'd prefer narrower spacing, but it's not gratuitious (it's no V22 for actively unhelpful extreme white space). In response to the username discussions above (as opposed to jc37's proposal of just the timing of the most recent comment, which is a clear benefit over just status quo): Hmmm.

I get WAID et al's reasoning (though I think the benefits might be somewhat over-stated in practical uses), but I also suspect the negatives are being somewhat played up as well, bearing in mind people have to have an interest in the subject header to have read the recent name anyway.

In terms of ideal outcomes, I actually think something like a magic word on/off button would work best (just for recent username aspect) - there are pages where this is good and pages where this is bad. Which should be default can be disputed. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Deleted image assistance

I'm a Commons admin trying to investigate some copyright violations on the Commons. Could someone tell me whether w:File:Mercy Chinwo.jpg is the same image as this? If not, would it be possible to provide a link to the image (assuming it was merely taken from the Internet) so I can see it? (This seems easier than temporary restoration or emailing it to me, but those would be options too.) Эlcobbola _talk 15:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Elcobbola: yes, it's the same image. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 15:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Excellent, very much appreciated. Эlcobbola _talk 15:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:RM notice about WP:CIR

• Please see Wikipedia_talk:Competence_is_required#Requested_move_13_June_2023. - jc37 09:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Unilaterally making the change [51] before requesting the move is entirely improper. Move it back. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:23, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I see the essay has now been moved back, by another contributor. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:28, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Try again. I boldly moved the page. And when I saw it was reverted, I started an RM. And noted it here. - jc37 10:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

That's... not true. I reverted you 10 minutes ago. You started the RM 40 minutes before that. — Czello ^(music) 10:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

So, you're saying that you didn't look at the edit history before reverting the move? User:DIYeditor reverted the talk page move about 5 minutes after I did the bold move. I saw that on my watchlist, and started the RM. Then you apparently stumbled through reverting the rest later. - jc37 10:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah, apparently DIYeditor moved the talk but not the main article. That's what I'm talking about. — Czello ^(music) 10:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I thought it would be better to delete Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Competence is required (double "Wikipedia") as it was a mistake and very recently created, with nothing pointing to it. Then I looked at its talk Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia:Competence is required and realized I was out of my depth (check its history). Would someone please clean up. Johnuniq (talk) 10:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

The two talk page archives also need some surgery. Johnuniq (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Nice irony. I fixed that. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

That one's on me. You can direct me to an essay about how required competency is, if you like — Czello ^(music) 10:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I was trying to avoid a comment about irony : ) - jc37 10:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm accepting WP:TROUTs — Czello ^(music) 10:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Sooo, I believe I followed typical process...

But, if someone was so inclined, I think it could be possible that the three of you in your attempts to revert, might very well qualify for Wikipedia:Village stocks. The page name being the qualifier, I think. I'll leave that up to someone else to decide though : ) - jc37 11:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Incidentally, since I didn't try to re-revert, I think I (hopefully) spared us all from Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars... - jc37 11:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Unblock request of Riceissa

The following is the unblock request of Riceissa, who was blocked per a discussion in 2017. I bring this as a courtesy and make no endorsement in doing so. 331dot (talk) 06:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is that I was blocked for some combination of paid editing, SEO spamming, and use of index tags on userspace pages (see the ANI thread). My responses are:

• Paid editing: I understand that this is very controversial on Wikipedia, which is something I did not appreciate/anticipate back in 2017. (My understanding is that it doesn't go against any hard rules but a lot of editors on the site really dislike it.) I will not edit for payment if I am unblocked. Additionally the person who was paying for my work, User:Vipul, no longer pays people to make edits.
• SEO spamming: I never engaged in "SEO spamming". I created informational articles about a variety of topics, and none of my material was promotional (a lot of my work was about global health and government forms). I believe the editors who wanted to block me have a deletionist bent and did not want to see articles written about topics they considered not notable enough. Even some of the articles mentioned as promotional in the ANI thread, such as Slate Star Codex, have since been re-created by others because the topics did end up being considered notable enough.
• Index tags on userspace pages: I understand that this looks suspicious, even though as far as I know there was no rule at the time against their usage. If I am unblocked I will not use index tags on my userspace pages.

Riceissa (talk) 00:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC) 331dot (talk) 06:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

• Unless there's something I'm missing, there is only one reason for adding tags to userspace pages and that is SEO spamming. Why would you do it otherwise? Black Kite (talk) 09:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  Somewhat concerned by the rules-lawyering aspect - I can't speak for whether there was a specific prohibition against index tags in 2017. I did, however, just go and check that WP:NOTPROMOTION was a policy. Since you've not stated you were acting promotionally, what non-promotional/advertorial reasoning was behind your index tag creation back then? Nosebagbear (talk) 09:24, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  vanity. small jars tc 13:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment from Riceissa: There's some questions of why I decided to use index tags on my userspace pages back in 2017, so I'd like to respond to that. My thinking at the time, though it's been a long time and seems pretty naive now, was that I wanted to start writing a draft of an article and then have others help improve it, so that eventually the article would be ready to be published to mainspace. I know there's a special draftspace for this sort of thing, and I'm not quite sure why I didn't use it (User:Vipul liked using userspace for drafts back then and I learned how to edit Wikipedia from him, so perhaps I was just copying his behavior without fully understanding why). But anyway, in the context of all of this, the index tags were a way to make it easier for potential editors to find the page (I know experienced Wikipedians have no trouble finding article drafts like this, but I believed at that time that there was a long tail of knowledgeable people who could contribute but who wouldn't be searching on Wikipedia itself, who might find my drafts via internet search). Anyway, I believe that was my reasoning at the time. Since then I've become a lot more pessimistic about people helping me write articles like this so I wouldn't bother putting index tags to make it easier for people to find my drafts. Riceissa (talk) 20:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Unblock request for Djm-leighpark

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.

---

Djm-leighpark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has requested a standard offer. They were blocked in April 2022 for this reason: Disruptive editing: perennial disruption, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:CIR (both language and policy). The following is their unblock request:

My editing merited a block because I was incorrect to challenge an administrator as I did following block following the 16 April 2022 ANI; even if I felt convinced I had due cause. The fact this arose out of harassment by a block-evading sock is in many ways irrelevant - I accept I needed to maintain better control even in this and other difficult situations and I had overly-harassed the sock myself in that case before the sockpuppetry was known. I acknowledge with shame some of my earlier interactions with administrators (and others) in some pressure situations: most especially in some cases where I was totally wrong. I also need to avoid the use of slang, as identified in of one (or more) of my blocks. I will focus in the future to ensure problems are raised calmly through the proper channels and processes and avoid BATTLEGROUND and CIR.

For constructive edits on the English Wikipedia I would expect to be improving a range of articles though I regard my particular areas of interest are Irish Railway History, some biographies (mostly non-blp e.g. engineers and whatever the BBC news website throws up), local/Irish settlement articles, and local/Irish river systems. In particular I am keen to improve article sourcing and have been accumulating books and and identifying books online for this purpose. I would resume doing anti-vandal work etc. Regardless of the outcome of this appeal I (as DeirgeDel) expect to continue activity on Wikidata, Commons, enWQ and gaWP but would likely avoid :simpleWP as too difficult!

If possible I would like to request a Standard Offer please.

Thankyou in anticipation and feel free to ask any specific questions. -- Djm-leighpark(DeirgeDel) ^t_a^c 00:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

My alternate accounts :DeirgeDel, Bigdelboy, Djm-mobile, DeirgeBot

— Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 16:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

For more context, this thread is the background behind the block. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 16:55, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• DeirgeDel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bigdelboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Djm-mobile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DeirgeBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Socks/alts. Secretlondon (talk) 14:24, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. The problem wasn't "challenging an administrator"; people do that all the time. The problem was a long history of bizarre behavior that invoked CIR concerns. If Djm did return, if anything, I'd suggest avoiding anti-vandal work or collaboration involving other people at all given past problems with over-the-top and hard to understand communication... although I'm honestly not sold their content contributions are always a net positive, either. I'd suggest that if allowed back, at a minimum, Djm restrict himself to no new articles and to uncontroversial type things like finding references for trains & railways. SnowFire (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Djm-leighpark replied here. Djm, I'm not angry at you or anything. I'm quite sure you operate in good faith. I'm not still salty over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overwriting (computer science) or something (while creating that article was bad judgment on your part IMO, everyone is at variance with the community sometime on article standards, so individually, it's not a big deal... although there are other, similar borderline articles that probably should be examined). The problem is - to repeat myself - "a long history of bizarre behavior that invoked CIR concerns." Which you should know already, because El_C's original block wrote "perennial disruption, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:CIR (both language and policy)," so trust an admin, not me. It's not any one single "bad" thing you did that annoyed people. It's a long, long pattern of strange behavior - the equivalent of 100 individual 1-point demerits, rather than a single 100 point demerit. The essential analogy of CIR is the volunteer at the local garden who sows too many weeds and pulls up too many good plants. Even if this person genuinely loves the garden, at some point they need to be ushered out as doing more harm than good. The fact that some of the work they do is fine is not necessarily enough to keep them around; like I said, I don't think you're a vandalism-only account or anything. For the "collaboration" note, maybe that was too strong a word, but your !votes on Wikipedia-namespace issues were very often nonsensical or weak IMO and I'm sure at least some closers discarded them on that reason. It's harsh to say at loud, but true. It's hard to stress just how nonsensical your statements talking with Polycarp were in the Monisha Shah incident that led to the ban, which is what I was thinking of when saying "collaboration" to try to lead you away from interactions like that. Anyway, I don't doubt that restrictions would stop you from doing some useful work, but understand that we don't need some useful work, we need mostly useful work. Restrictions would be guardrails preventing you from going down the same path as caused problems before. (But that might be getting ahead of ourselves - there's certainly a strong case just to say it's not even worth trying loosening restrictions.) SnowFire (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
  • I'll keep this short since I don't want to be grave-dancing, but Djm-leighpark: You're basically wrong about everything that I wrote, and ensured I don't have much confidence in you working on any project, so yeah, support conversion to full siteban and possible heads-up to other projects to check his work. I specifically said the problem was not any one old dispute over the Overwriting article, and yet you want to relitigate old disputes. I didn't say anything about the substance of the Shah article, just that your words on your own talk page made zero sense REGARDLESS of what came before, and yet you dive into the irrelevant background of that incident. You're offended that I brought up the fact that you were blocked on reasons of CIR, but you actually were blocked on grounds of CIR, so take it up with the blocking admin not me. And you spend great length going on about irrelevant issues, like how you'll plan on editing under a new account name. Nobody cares about that. The problem is with you, not the name of the account, so constantly saying you'll edit under a different name is irrelevant to an appeal. Mention it once as an FYI if you must. I'm afraid CIR is still a problem: if you are this bad at understanding what others write, then you're going to continue to be a net negative with others. You'll just have to trust us that those beautiful flowers you think you're planting in the garden are actually weeds (or to make the analogy very explicit: you think your contributions are good, but they're not). SnowFire (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think I ever disagreed with DJM's aims over anything, but I found discussions involving them to be like wading through treacle. Even when they were posting to my talk page agreeing with me, it was very hard to parse what they were saying. This problem, which might be second-language based or might be neurodivergence making for disorganised language (also guilty as charged, m'lud), was just very hard work. That's not to say that I shouldn't've put the work in, or that the issue wasn't at my end for not being able or willing to do so, but it got tiring and I was not unhappy when they went away.

On that basis... yeah, I'd welcome them back – as I say, I don't think I ever disagreed with their aims even when their methods didn't suit me personally – but I'd like them to... I don't know... slow down a bit? Think on before posting on talk pages? Spend some time working on what they want to say vs. what they end up typing? Something like that. My thoughts here, ironically, are unclear. — Trey Maturin™ 16:12, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the basis for allowing an appeal is whether we disagree with an editor's aims. It's more appropriate to look at the reasons for the block and whether they have been addressed. In this case it seems to be about handling conflict and incomprehensible responses. I guess what I would like to see is evidence that DJM can now handle conflict calmly and cogently. Absent that I don't see that we have a basis to consider an unblock. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Barely coherent walls of text such as this do not convince me that the issues that led to the block will not recur. Spicy (talk) 04:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Sandstein 12:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with every word Spicy said here. — Trey Maturin™ 16:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• I see zero reason to lift the block at this time. The 5 accounts just adds to the issues --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
• Argumentative unblock responses do not convince me that we won't immediately be back here. Decline request. Star Mississippi 13:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  followed by The Blocking admins and cabal disruption to an ANI I seriously took to ANI, easily remembered by their warrior at the top of the talk page, was an incitement to BATTLEGROUND. Zero acceptance of blame, zero indication this is going to have a productive outcome. Star Mississippi 14:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  and suggest re-revocation of TPA to prevent the immolation that appears to be forthcoming. Star Mississippi 15:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - There's no benefit to the project here by unblocking and seemingly great benefit by leaving them blocked. Maybe worth converting this to a full siteban. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 15:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Having looked at Djm-leighpark's latest output - borderline incoherent, and clearly making things worse - I simply cannot see how anyone in that state of mind could usefully contribute to the project. And given past history, it seems highly unlikely that the situation will change for the better. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose my only interaction with Djm-leighpark was at WP:Requests for adminship/Hog Farm#Oppose, where the oppose in question was completely incomprehensible gibberish. The writing above is marginally better, but not enough that I can see any return to editing being a net positive. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. DJM is still too emotionally invested in Wikipedia and, as evidenced from their Talk page, keeps attacking fellow editors, often for imaginary "offences". While I don't think they deserve a lifelong ban, I'd recommend them to wait another six months before re-applying. I still hope they will understand one day that Wikipedia is not a battleground but a collaborative effort where bold edits are done with respect and in good faith and don't usually require 10,000 bytes of passive aggression in response. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I've been asked by El C to reremove TPA. I hate to cut short appellant's ability to respond, but it looks like they've seized this opportunity to deepen the whole. Well, that was the whole point of carrying the request here-- test drive their constructiveness and ability to focus. It also looks like this request is going badly, so maybe once I wake up (it's 3am) if no one opposes TPA removal I will remove TPA. Thnks. (now I'm ramb;ling)-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  If I hadn't suggested it up thread, I'd have done it myself. There's no path to this ending productively. Are you OK with the inevitable UTRS flood since you're the one who watches that the most? Star Mississippi 12:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  In all likelihood, UTRS access might get pulled too if their behavior continues. I sincerely hope they don't appeal to UTRS until 2024 to be honest to give them time to adjust and focus on why they are blocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:39, 14 June 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.

1Lib1RefNG campaign 2023

Aderogbabo (talk · contribs), a participant in 1Lib1RefNG campaign 2023, has added user-generated, circular, copyvio, verification-failing, and flat-out bogus sources. It's not clear from the Meta page who to report this to or what measures (e.g. disqualification after a certain number of reverts/warnings) are in place to prevent mass addition of inappropriate citations like this, which seems only inevitable if the participants are incentivized. Pinging participants in the AN thread re 1Lib1RefNG last year: @DMacks, Fram, Primefac, Atibrarian, Phil Bridger, and Kusma:. Nardog (talk) 09:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I was going to block them outright (they received plenty of warnings) but I noticed that they have not edited in the last hour. As a courtesy I will wait until they start editing again to see if they have anything to add to this conversation. I won't be upset if someone decides that enough is enough, though. Primefac (talk) 10:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not about just this user though. It's about prevention. Or are we to clean up loads of low-quality (or worse) refs year after year? The way the contest is designed, with reference to the Citation Hunt tool, seems to be incentivizing mass addition of low-quality sources. Nardog (talk) 10:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Can we just make an edit filter to block their hashtags? If a contest doesn't do quality control, we should not allow it to run here. —Kusma (talk) 10:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

A filter tracks them currently. Here is the "contest or editathon" RecentChanges filter and here is the relevant filter log. (Within the timeframe being discussed, these are identical, just two different ways to look at the same data.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 10:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

And one user is already blocked for Advertising sexual services presented as a citation... Nardog (talk) 10:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I know that we can track them; the question is whether we should block #1Lib1RefNG for being a net negative in terms of reference quality. —Kusma (talk) 10:35, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Even setting aside the quality of the contributions, it seems particularly misguided to run a contest that's focused on finding sources for statements that are already slapped with . What that tag is typically saying isn't just that the statement doesn't have a citation but that it might not be true verifiable. So the premise of the contest is like the scientific method in reverse. Yeah we might as well block them altogether. Nardog (talk) 10:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

My only issue with the "ban hashtags" thought is that if we filter out and prevent folks from using the hashtags in summaries, we will not be able to track them as easily. I have zero issues on dropping blocks on competition-players who cannot manage to do it right, as only by blocking those individuals can we get it through the coordinator's heads that we're serious. Primefac (talk) 10:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

My impression is that they use the hashtag counts to see who "wins" the contest, and we could stop that by blocking the hashtag, so that should also send a message to the coordinators. —Kusma (talk) 10:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

As Kusma says, the Meta page says they're using the hashtags to track the contributions. Another way is to allow admins to block participants with lower tolerance (e.g. after 1 warning), though I'm not sure if that's currently possible without changes to PAG through community consensus. Nardog (talk) 11:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

The problem I have with blocking after one warning is more that we might lose a misguided but good-faith potential contributor who isn't only there for the prizes. No issue with blocking those who are in it only for the prizes quickly (from mainspace, and for the length of the contest); disruptive editing needs to be stopped, and such blocks would clearly be preventative. —Kusma (talk) 11:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Huh? If people involved in this competition manage to find reliable sources supporting the claims tagged as {{cn}}, then clearly they are verifiable, as evidenced by the fact that they have been verified. The whole point of the {{cn}} tag is to mark a statement which an editor thinks might be true, verifiable, and worthy of inclusion in an article but is nonetheless in need of support; if whoever tagged it didn't think it were true, verifiable, or worthy of inclusion then they should have removed it rather than just tagging it. Maybe 1Lib1Ref are doing it badly, but a contest focusing on adding references (though fixing statements tagged as {{cn}} is one suggestion, that's not the only possible way of participating listed by 1Lib1Ref) seems like a sensible idea. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

As we often have it that a huge proportion of the sources added this way are unreliable, the idea is only sensible in theory, and disruptive in practice. —Kusma (talk) 11:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but is that a particular problem with contests focused on cleaning up {{cn}} tags? All sorts of contests get reported to this noticeboard for having too high a proportion of problematic edits. There are all sorts of causes for this, but probably the biggest are that they bring in lots of editors with little experience, they don't give them enough guidance or supervision, and they incentivise them to make many edits rather than focusing on edit quality. I'm not convinced that the idea of fixing {{cn}} tags is a particularly misguided focus for a contest. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Another WP:CIRCULAR [52]. —Kusma (talk) 10:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Kusma in previous years Special:AbuseFilter/1158 has been used to limit the rate of contest edits to try to encourage people to make fewer, higher quality additions, it might be worth doing something similar here if the issues resume after the training course? 192.76.8.70 (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Finally found users listed as "facilitators" on the Dashboard (link was broken): @Kaizenify, Ayokanmi (WUGN), and Olaniyan Olushola: Can you tell us what measures, if any, are in place to prevent contest participants from making disruption to wikis like mass addition of non-reliable or bogus sources? Nardog (talk) 11:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Nardog: and other users on this thread. Thank you for calling our attention to this and we apologize for the mass disturbance this has caused.

As an emergency response to this disruption, we have temporarily discontinued this campaign and have directed our members to stop participating until these issues are resolved. Although a series of trainings were organized to train participants prior to launching this campaign, it seems that this is not sufficient and additional measures are required. We are reviewing the level of disruption the campaign has produced to identify the knowledge gap and how it could be bridged going forward.

We see the potential of 1Lib1Ref as a strategic campaign to recruit new volunteers for the Wikimedia community, and we want to provide the necessary support for the newly recruited volunteers for this campaign, which includes but is not limited to building capacity and providing guidance for them. To this end, another training has been scheduled for June 17, 2023, by 4 p.m. GMT+1. This campaign would not resume until after training. In addition, a number of experienced volunteers in our community would be patrolling the 1Lib1Ref hashtag to fix any errors on sight while fixing the current disruptive editing.

While we may not second-guess the motivations of the participants to conclude that they are participating because of the incentives, we have reviewed the prizes to only include souvenirs such as T-shirts, water bottles, and banstars.

We believe that these measures should suffice. If these measures aren't working, we will impose stricter rules of participation, including throttling contributions from new editors. We respectfully ask the community to give us the opportunity to try these new measures. We continue to appreciate the support of the English Wikipedia, and we are open to any feedback from community members.

Once again, we are sorry for the inconvenience and harm this might have caused and promise to mitigate this as possible. Kaizenify (talk) 13:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, it seems an emergency stop was necessary. Two more totally irrelevant non-references. More than 95% of edits for this contest should be improvements; currently it seems under 50% are of any use. —Kusma (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Kaizenify: I want to thank you for these measures and your efforts to recruit new volunteers in Nigeria! Best of the luck with the second training! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your swift response and explanation. I look forward to constructive contributions and hope your effort leads to recruitment/retention of good-faith editors. Nardog (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't really help of course when our own admins use the tag to add dreadfully formatted refs[53]... Fram (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't seem related to 1Lib1RefNG. And dreadful formatting is far less serious than any of the problems we identified above. Nardog (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC)