Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive354

Massive wide-ranging IP block on Airtel India users

This section was originally posted by a fairly new editor at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), but that is clearly not the best place for it, so I am copying it here.

Hello, I'm not sure whether this is the right place to ask. According to the block log, the IP range 2401:4900::/32 appears to have been blocked from Wikipedia, with account creation also blocked. According to the WHOIS info and APNIC info, this range is allocated to Airtel India, which is India's 2nd largest mobile ISP with more than 300 million subscribers.

A huge /32 range has been blocked in this case. According to IPv6_address#General_allocation,

Each RIR can divide each of its multiple /23 blocks into 512 /32 blocks, typically one for each ISP [...]

This source [1] also seems to show that the 2401:4900::/32 range is essentially the entirety of Airtel's IPv6 range. I was also able to anecdotally confirm this as I had addresses in this range (and was blocked from IP editing) in two cities separated by over 1,600 km in the last week.

Is this massive block really what was intended?

Thanks. NS-Merni (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

First of all, NS-Merni, I would have thought that the administrators' noticeboard would be a more appropriate venue for this, as what you are questioning is an administrative action, not a technical issue. Secondly, if you think an administrative action is questionable, almost always the best first step is to consult the administrator in question. Very often the issue can be resolved very easily that way. Thirdly, if, whether for good reasons or not, you do decide to question an administrative action on a noticeboard without consulting the administrator in question then you must at least inform that administrator, which you didn't do. Certes informed me of you post here (for which I am grateful) no doubt because my name appears on the block log as the last administrator to make a change to the block. However, my contribution was just to remove talk page access; apart from that, the present block was imposed by Ad Orientem, and later extended in scope by Drmies, and they need to know about this post. Also, previous blocks on the same IP range had been imposed by the following administrators, who may wish to express opinions: NinjaRobotPirate, Favonian, Daniel Case, Malcolmxl5, and Materialscientist.

As I said, my own contribution was just removal of talk page access, which was because of persistent misuse of talk page editing. A few examples are [2], [3], and [4]]. I think it quite likely that leaving the talk page block in place for a little while and then removing it may well be enough, in the hope that it will be enough to get the disruptive editor in question to stop, and I had that in mind when I removed talk page access.

It is not for me to defend, justify, or explain any other aspect of the block, for which I am not responsible, but I will make a few observations. The scope of this block is certainly unusually large, and I would be very hesitant to impose one like this. However, there certainly has been a considerable amount of unconstructive editing, even via anonymous editing, and from what has been said in the block log it looks as though there has been more via accounts, which is visible only to CheckUsers. The fact that so many different administrators have all thought so wide a block reasonable does suggest that this may be one of the rare occasions when such a large block is justified.

On the general question of anon-only IP range blocks causing collateral damage, as opposed to this particular case, I sincerely have 100% sympathy with innocent editors affected in this way, because way back in the early days of my time as as a Wikipedia editor it happened to me. It was frustrating; it prevented me from doing any editing for a while, until I had got an account. However, I accepted that it was unfortunately made necessary to prevent damage caused by other people, and that sometimes, unfortunately, causing that kind of inconvenience for some legitimate editors is the lesser of two evils. JBW (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello JBW,

As you might see, I have a total of around 30 edits. I have absolutely no idea as to where the proper location for this kind of discussion might be. I was initially planning to post it at Wikipedia:Helpdesk, but decided on posting here as it seemed to be related to "technical" issues. I hope the community will not judge my concern on my procedural mistakes.

I don't know what information administrators or check-users might have with them. But isn't it the case that an IP range of a whole ISP, used by 300 million+ people (even if some of those are companies or duplicate subscribers, say 100 million) would be likely to have hundreds of disruptive editors in any case? If blocking a whole ISP is the only way to resolve this, then why allow IP editing at all?

Please advise me on how to move this discussion to a proper location -- whether that might be one of several admins' talk-pages, or the Administrators Noticeboard.

Thanks. NS-Merni (talk) 17:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

@NS-Merni: I see now that you started your post by saying "I'm not sure whether this is the right place to ask". I must have seen that before, but it didn't register on me. Yes of course when we start editing none of us really know our way round Wikipedia, and no new editor can reasonably be blamed for not knowing the best way to do things. Rereading my comments above, I see that the way I expressed myself may have come across as critical, which wasn't what I intended, so I apologise for that. JBW (talk) 17:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Glad that you raised this. My state has 10 crore (100 million) residents as of 2011 census, and my home & college are almost at the two extremes of the state. No matter what network I use (Airtel, Jio, or local broadband service (except BSNL)), and no matter what device I use (mobile, tablet, laptop; mine or family members'), I always end up in a range that is blocked, sometimes even from account creation. Probabilty says that the vast majority cannot edit Wikipedia from at least my state, unless they had an account before the blocks. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 17:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Most of what I did was 1) a hard partial block to stop one sock puppet from editing a specific series of pages, or 2) trying to limit collateral damage caused by other admins. I eventually gave up on both. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Any registered account caught behind that range is free to go to WP:IPECPROXY and follow those directions to request IPBE by email, as I have advised hundreds of people over the last year or so requesting unblock for exactly this reason.

We do not do a great job communicating this, however. It boggles me why we don't put this in the message those users see when they try to edit ... it would save a lot of needless work explaining this to everyone who uses the on-wiki unblock process. Daniel Case (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

That is not always possible. On 6 July, I was in the range Special:Contribs/2401:4900:0:0:0:0:0:0/32, which blocked me from even requesting a password reset (VPT discussion). Since account creation is blocked, it is difficult to create an account. Although, my current range is different (on same ISP, same device), it doesn't have account creation restrictions, but is blocked from several namespaces anyway. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 18:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

You can request IPBE by email through the instructions at the link. You can also request an account be created for you. Daniel Case (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I may be missing something, but I don't see how IPBE would be of any use here. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

For registered users, it would be. We get many unblock requests of this type. Daniel Case (talk) 22:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

1500 entries in the CU log since February 2021--I don't think I've ever seen a range that has caused us so much work. Drmies (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll say this: I didn't need to look anything up before posting this, I recognise that range strait off the bat because it so frequently crops up in cases of abuse. I'm not saying that I endorse the block, exactly - I haven't looked into the specifics - but it might well deserve the award for the most often-abused range in the world. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

If NS-merni is correct that it represents the entire Airtel IP range, then huge abuse is expectable, because Airtel is the 2nd largest internet provider in India, which is now the most populous country of the world. Not that I blame admins for this, I myself have led to the block of some Indian ranges due to persistent abuse. Just that better technical solutions will be appreciable. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 20:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

From your lips to God's ears. The Admin corp and CU team would love something other than blunt and broken cudgels to curb abuse.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

If only Airtel would split that range up into chunks. It's not completely unique, but you don't see very many ranges as wide as that one that just bounce users around randomly across the entire range. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

What all data is collected from users besides IP? Any sort of device data? So, blocks can be applied on a per device basis rather than on an entire range with several users. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 17:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

We do not have the ability to narrow down blocks based on device data.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

And I can see why it would not be a good idea. It would mean either having to have all admins sign an NDA (which means identifying themselves to the Foundation) in which they agree to keep confidential all those fields (and whether that work is uncertain; a few dozen or so Checkusers can keep that secret but can a few hundred admins?) or resigning ourselves to letting it become public knowledge and making it at least a little easier for determined sockmasters to evade (granted, in that case they get so confident that the behavioral evidence usually makes up for their technical prowess). I could *see* perhaps limiting this ability to Checkusers, but we'd probably have to take on more.

There has been some discussion of allowing the same sort of screening adjustments in blocking IPs/ranges that we currently allow in protection, i.e., hardblocks that would allow autoconfirmed, or extended confirmed, accounts through if desired. Something to take up at the next Community Wishlist Survey on Meta. Daniel Case (talk) 22:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

If device data were/is collected, there could be some automated process that filters a blocked IP range's edit by devices, visible to CUs, but not admins or others. If most disruptive edits emanate from one or two devices, they could apply a device-block on them leaving the rest of range open to editing. To the public, the device can be identified by a set of random letters, which is something, I believe, the WMF is working on. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 22:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

That information is confidential for what should be obvious reasons. Daniel Case (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• I am not unsympathetic to the inconvenience being caused by such a wide-ranging block. However, I am at loss as to how else to curb what appears to be a shocking level of disruption all emanating from the range. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
• It would be very helpful if the ISP were to suballocate into smaller ranges, but we can't exactly control that decision, and it's actually probably not a bad design decisions as far as user privacy is concerned. That being said, while we're not blocking the ISP in its entirety with the block mentioned above, and while the ISP also owns other large ranges, it doesn't look like many of those ranges are actually used for IPv6 traffic. For example, Special:Contribs/2404:A800:0000:0:0:0:0:0/32 appears to have made all of two edits to Wikipedia ever, while the other /32s of that /30 have not made any contributions that I can see.
  This sort of hard blocking is (if I recall correctly) also how we deal with T-mobile ranges in the East of the United States. The devices within T-Mobile's ranges are extremely dynamic (and WP:T-MOBILE indicates that they can be gamed), because T-mobile is more or less providing all of its users with a proxy service. We're not dealing with a proxy provider here, but if the IPs are dynamic enough, I don't exactly see anything different in terms of how that would hamper our ability to identify individuals who are conducting abuse.
  We've had issues where we've had entire countries coming through very narrow ranges (or even single IPs, such as Qatar). We generally handled Qatar with short-duration (1 day or so) blocks whenever vandalism was getting really bad, but that had much less traffic than does this /32. Given some LTA(s) within the /32's propensity for spam and mass account creation, I don't think we can treat this range like we did the entire country of Qatar; we'd be opening up windows for account creation shortly after each block expires, and we'd need to block the range much more frequently.
  Obviously, we're going to have to accept a large amount of abuse if we're dealing with a range that has 300 million+ people randomly bouncing around it (the range would likely have nearly the same spam/LTA/vandalism output as the entire United States due to sheer size). The whole range having been checked 1500 times in the past 2.5 years means that it was checked (on average) about 1.7 times per day. And if/when IP masking happens, this is going to be infinitely harder and more time-consuming to deal with should the range be unblocked.
  Has anybody considered asking the WMF to try to get into contact with Airtel India about this issue of ongoing abuse? This seems like a problem that Mediawiki doesn't give us a good solution for, but I imagine the ISP could identify and nip the spammers/LTAs in the bud if they wanted to. It might be worth looking into if our only other feasible option is to resort to blocking the range from making accounts and/or editing anonymously.
  — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Hounding and personal attacks by a new user

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.

---

Following a dispute over content at Talk:Sound of Freedom (film), a new ussr - User:Saikyoryu began hounding me to other, completely unrelated pages , e.g within an hour of me first editing A Letter to Liberals, they were there to partially undo my edit (my first edit: 01:09, 19 July 2023 , their first: 02:19, 19 July 2023). They then had the gall to go to the talk page of another editor and complain that I was following them around, The other editor told them they were in the wrong, and advised them to leave me alone, and I also warned them about it ([5]) and today the were back at it, at and just now at [Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. When I warned them again on the talk page, their response was to come to my talk page and call me a "misogynistic racist".[6] The user's editing history suggests to me they are not really a new user (I can provide detailed evidence) but whether or not they are a genuinely new user- an administrator needs to put a stop to this hounding and personal attacks. Red Slapper (talk) 04:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I see Saikyoryu accusing User:Isaidnoway of Sealioning multiple times at Talk:Sound of Freedom (film) (once saying "Holy fucking fuck I am AUTISTIC and even I'm not as fucking dense as you are pretending to be with your fucking sealioning." and of "falsehoods", accusing User:FMSky of the same thing once. Also at that page accusing you of dishonesty and "lying bullshit".

The editor asked for help at User talk:ToBeFree and when that didn't work replied "I tried that form and it failed and lost my typing twice. Thanks for being just and dishonest and giving me the same run around the "help" people did. BARF." To be fair to them I see that they later apologised.

But before the apology they posted at User talk:MJL#Talk:Sound of Freedom (film) "ToBeFree won't do a thing to help anyone. The page I was sent to at the Help Desk won't WORK to ask for an edit to the talk page. You look like you're a person who might actually give a damn". Red Slapper responded there and there was back and forth between the two. Too long to go into detail here, people can read the discussion.

I see further attacks on User:Wolfquack and User:Skarmory on their talk pages.

I do think Saikyoryu could be a constructive editor if they could avoid this type of behaviour but I am not at all convinced they can do that. I'd like to hear from the editors they have attacked. Doug Weller talk 07:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I was never attacked; all the conflict on my talk page was between them and Wolfquack. Still, what I see here is someone who needs to calm down and remember this is a collaborative project. Hostility is unnecessary and disruptive. They're constructive in terms of the work they do, at least from what I've seen, but more collegiality is needed. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 08:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@Skarmory Sorry, misread that. Doug Weller talk 10:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@Doug Weller Sorry that I was late to this conservation (I was taking a break from wikipedia). Since that the user has been blocked all I will say regarding them is that they seemed to expect an “apology” when someone “wronged” them. And even when I did apologize to this user on my own talk page, they considered it “not apologizing”.

What’s ironic about this is that this user called me a dick, and didn’t even apologize for that (and they apparently considered saying “I was taking you seriously until” the same level as saying “dick”). After I realized who this user was I decided to not respond to them. It doesn’t surprise me at all that this user got blocked. Wolfquack (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the summary. I'm now here from WP:RFPP/E because an unnecessary request was made and I had a look at the contribution list again to see if the user is partially blocked. I guess an interaction ban is the minimum that should result from this discussion here. Whether it needs to be one- or two-way, I don't know. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Saikyoryu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a pattern of continually commenting on the contributor and being uncivil towards editors on Talk:Sound of Freedom (film) — here, here, here, here, here, and falsely accusing editors of trolling or harassment — here, here, here, here, here and personal attacks as seen here and here. They were cautioned about remaining civil, shown here in this level 2 notice, and then in their revert of the notice, made an unfounded allegation about my motive for the notice here. Since the personal attack on me, I have disengaged with interacting with Saikyoryu. In relation to Red Slapper, this personal attack is way over the line and is worthy of a block. In my view, editors who make an attack like that should be shown the door.— Isaidnoway (talk) 08:36, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I now see this is more widespread and user-unspecific than I thought. I've just removed a few personal attacks from comments that have not been replied to yet ([7]). I'd be blocking if there hadn't been the unpleasant non-administrative interaction between them and myself before. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

That guy is a sock anyway. Their first couple of edits consisted of tagging pages for notability (1), lecturing IPs (2), adding "citation needed" tags (3), and explaining users the concept of WP:COI (4) ----FMSky (talk) 09:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

^Seconded. Those early edits to the help desk are a dead giveaway. SN54129 12:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Indef blocked. @Red Slapper, sorry that it took this long. Sandstein 12:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Red Slapper (talk) 12:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Red Slapper is also a sock of NoCal100, so this is probably two POV socks beefing with each other and wasting our time. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

and wasting our time

That’s one way of saying it… Wolfquack (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@FMSky that doesn’t really surprise me. When the editor first visited my talk page I thought it was strange that an editor so “young” had a lot of experience. Anyway regarding both Red Slapper and Saikoryou, their user pages were both “red” which should have been a dead giveaway that they were socks. Wolfquack (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Not really. A lot of legit editors have red user pages, and a lot of sockpuppeteers are smart enough to make their user pages blue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:56, 26 July 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.

Requested lifting of a partial (single user page) block in order to restore Wikipedia Library Project access

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 TWL aspect of this can be addressed by emailing wikipedialibrarywikimedia.org. As to the rest, @Vlaemink: If you again comment on this particular CLEANSTART anywhere on the English Wikipedia, I am going to siteblock you indefinitely. While that would not be an "appeal only to ArbCom" block, please note that, per policy, if you wished to appeal based on off-wiki information, that would have to be to ArbCom. (The same goes for appeals of your current partial block.) Furthermore, it is my finding that your usage of the RogerDE account served to evade scrutiny and thus violated our sockpuppetry policy. Please disclose the connection between the accounts on its userpage if you wish to use it in the future; if you use it again without doing so, I will treat that as sockpuppetry and block accordingly. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello all, For over a month now I've been finding myself in an increasingly kafkaesque predicament concerning a single-page block. I've tried to resolve the situation by way of the regular unblock-procedure but it regrettably came to a procedural standstill, which is why I have now turned to the Administrators' noticeboard in the hope that the matter can be solved here instead. On the 12th of June, I asked another user (with whom I had already had prior, and rather negative, interactions on Dutch Wikipedia) about whether he or she made use of sock puppets here [8] as well as tampering with sources [9]. I had suspicions about the existence of alternative accounts for some time, as this involved a rather activist single-issue editor who clearly knew how Wikipedia worked despite being seemingly new to the project. I used the Editor Interaction Analyser tool on the sole article this user edits and it correlated with another account, which I then checked out. It's hard to explain while remaining purposely vague, but the users username (in Dutch) directly referred to a village some of whose inhabitants are known to make a rather fringe claim of being the supposed place of birth of a renowned 15th century painter, which he/she had done on Dutch Wikipedia previously. I discovered that the account that came up in the Editor Interaction Analyser had made similar claims here on the English Wikipedia and used a username which uses a dialectal term for a small forest animal corresponding to the particular dialect spoken in the aforementioned village. I understand if this kind of 'logic' is rather hard to follow for English-speakers, but it's as if two users, one named "New Yorker" and other named "Fuhgeddaboudit", both made the claim that the "New York Yankees won the '55 world series on two different Wikipedia projects. I asked the user about this and they confirmed that these accounts were indeed operated by the same person. [10]. He/She claimed that an alternative account had been created to avoid being harassed by a user who, in their words, had since left Wikipedia. I thanked the user for confirming the sock puppet and, after mentioned that there didn't seem to be any harassment of the account and that I found it strange that the old account purportedly abandoned due to harassment by another user was still actively being used, left it at that. It is at this point, where things go south, because the user then contacted administrators claiming that he/she had been outed and harassed by me and that this was related to an ArbCom case on Dutch Wikipedia. As a result I got an indefinite partial block, being unable to edit this particular users' talk page. Now I want to state very clearly, as I have done before [11], that I do not blame the administrators for their initial reaction. I fully understand that if a user comes to you for help with something as serious as outing, they have to act quickly and rigorously. I also understand, that administrators here do not always have the time and/or means to get to the bottom of the nature of Arbcom cases or other running conflicts on other Wikipedias prior to issuing blocks here. I also have to admit that, although I very much disagreed with the rationale given for the block ("Personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy: related to ArbCom case on nlwiki"), I initially wasn't particularly concerned with it as it only pertained to a single user talk page and thought the matter wasn't worth pursuing further. However, I then found out that this block directly affected my access to the Wikipedia Library Project. I use this open source collection of academic sources on linguistics and history constantly for finding sources and references to accompany my edits, but as long as I am blocked here (even if it only concerns a single page), I am forbidden of accessing and using the Wikipedia Library Project. This was the main reason for me to appeal the block on the 16th of June. In my unblock-request I also tried to prove that I had been incorrectly (at least in my opinion) branded as a doxer and harasser. I explained that I did not out this user (that is, I didn't publish a name/address/personal details or anything similar) and that it was in fact me, who requested the Arbcom-case on Dutch Wikipedia against this and another user for seriously disruptive behavior there; and not the other way around. I also attempted to defend myself against the harassment charge. While I was successfully able to argue that no outing had taken place, the topic of harassment proved more difficult. English is not my first language and I think the subsequent misunderstanding concerning my intentions while discussing this point shows this. On the request of the two administrators involved, I reworded my initial reaction on the 19th of June. I politely asked them to respond to this newly formulated reply on July 6th but I did not receive a reply and the unblock-request was declined pro forma on the 26th of July for being open longer than two weeks. I would therefore kindly like the administrators here to again review this case. As stated before, I would very much like to be "rehabilitated" when it comes to the charges of outing and harassment, but my main concern is having access to the Wikipedia Library Project again. If the lifting of this partial block is dependent on me promising to not edit this page again, I will of course agree to this as already mentioned in the original unblock-request on my talk page. I have never been blocked before and am a serious editor on multiple Wikipedia projects. I hope you can help me. Kind regards, Vlaemink (talk) 07:20, 27 July 2023 (UTC) @Vlaemink - it's worth noting that the Wikimedia Library does make case by case exceptions for Library access not being affected by partial blocks/bans. Can't recall the exact procedure but @Samwalton9 (WMF): is the person to ask. Obviously that can stand alone from this thread, but given your phrasing it felt worth pointing out to you as an additional route. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC) @Nosebagbear is right! Per the note you should see when attempting to log in to the library, you can drop us an email at wikipedialibrarywikimedia.org and we'll review this. Partial blocks are quite a common reason for us to give users exemptions to the block criterion. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC) This. So you can use TWL is not a reason for unblock. — xaosflux Talk 14:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC) Vlaemink - on your talk page, I see a discussion with Seraphimblade and Primefac, where they seem to be very clearly telling you to stop posting about the connection between the two accounts because the new account had been made to escape harassment of the former account. Yet here you are, posting the connection between the accounts (anyone who follows your diffs will see it) at one of the most public noticeboards on the project. I appreciate the predicament you are in, but after so many warnings I'm concerned that the only way to get you to stop doing this is to indefinitely site-block your account (followed by deleting and supressing this thread). Girth Summit (blether) 09:59, 27 July 2023 (UTC) For what it's worth, what needed to be suppressed has been suppressed (i.e. information that goes above simply linking the two accounts). As you indicate, I find that this continued "but I was right!" cry is missing the entire point that it wasn't the account-matching, but rather the continued regurgitation of that information, that is the problem here. Primefac (talk) 10:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC) @Girth Summit: I'm very sorry, but I don't know how I can possible address this issue without mentioning the reason for my single-page block. I've tried with this post to make the wording as opaque as possible, as I tried with with my second reply to Seraphimblade and Primefac on my talk page after they told me not to mention the other account.[12] but never got a responds; which is why I came here. I did not come here to spread any information about these two accounts being linked in the most public way possible, I really didn't! I just don't know how to properly explain my situation in a way that doesn't touch on the subject. It's almost impossible to defend myself in any other way. I beg you to look simply at the facts, because what's happening here is not right. The administrators involved (including you just now) assume that the claim of the user of being harassed in the past is an established fact, but it is not. I understand why they and now you got angry with me for mentioning the alternative account, because you assume that the user was indeed harassed and that my mentioning of the accounts can potentially tip of the harasser to resume their harassment of the user. I understand that this is unwanted behavior and I understand that it then makes me look ignoble to then continue to mention it elsewhere (I only did so on my own talk page and here, by the way) but the premise is a false one: there appears to have been no harassment to begin with. It's the user with the alternative account who claimed to have been harassed by a previous user (not me, someone else) and having to make a new account because of this, but while the claim of harassment was made it was never substantiated by the user making the claim in any way. I don't know if there were harassing edits in the past have since been deleted by administrators and is invisible to regular users (I think you can verify this), but based on the visible edit-history of the account it does not show any harassment taking place. Even the person who supposedly harassed him, is unknown. The initial account has very few edits (under 50) so it can easily be verified I'm speaking the truth here. The user also continued to use both accounts, the new one and the one supposedly subjected to harassment to the point of requiring an alternative identity -- which also goes against his claims. He made a claim of harassment and the administrators went with it. Again, I do not blame them for this; harassment and doxing is real and destructive and I understand why anyone claiming this would be given the benefit of the doubt, I also understand why the administrators who handled my unblock request got angry with me because I (in my ignorance, not in an attempt to spread the information about the two accounts further) repeated what I had said on his talk page (using diffs, that were/are still available) because they assumed that this was an harassed user who sought safety by creating an alternative account. I understand all of that, but in this case the claim of harassment was merely a ruse. I don't care about linking these two user accounts, I care about being able to access the Wikipedia Library Project and having my name cleared. So please, permanently delete every edit on this page, my talk page or his mentioning these two accounts if you still think what I'm doing is completely unacceptable; but please also allow me to protest my innocence. If it preferred that I e-mail the administrators, I will do so and this post can be deleted straight away, but I don't know any other alternative to defend myself in this matter. Kind regards, Vlaemink (talk) 11:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC) @Primefac: I'm very sorry, but there were/are no edits of mine which went beyond the linking of the accounts. I have never posted personal information of this user (I have none) anywhere. Nothing I have ever posted on this user has gone beyond what I have written here and on my talk page. I've purposely avoided to mention the name of the alternative account here, and while I did mention it on my own talk page I quoted myself from diffs still available. If the controversial information got deleted and I'm only repeating the still available diffs, then I don't understand. I don't understand what you mean with "continued regurgitation of that information" when that information has not been deleted/found problematic. Vlaemink (talk) 11:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC) First, yes, you did post personal information about them, which has since been removed and suppressed. Second, the entire reason why they started a new account was to avoid harassment. You have now, in four different locations, made the very connection which they have been trying to avoid. A clean start is not a "get out of jail free" card, and users must still abide by the rules about socking and multiple accounts, but in this case they have done that and all you have done is say "HEY LOOK, THEY HAD AN OLD ACCOUNT WHICH THEY ABANDONED BECAUSE OF HARASSMENT!". Your point was made the first time you commented, and repeatedly bringing it up (and now, as mentioned, in the worst forum possible) is above and beyond what was strictly necessary. You are continually trying to justify your actions by saying "I was right". Sure, you were right, but you have been going about it in entirely the wrong way. Primefac (talk) 11:28, 27 July 2023 (UTC) @Primefac: I'm sorry, but I really did not post any personal information. I don't know anything about this person! The only thing I posted that could be construed as personal information, is that in linking the two accounts I voiced the assumption that (Redacted). If that is what you are referring to by referencing personal details, then yes, I did that; but I vehemently deny have posted any personal details, names, addresses, age, work or whatever else in relation to this user. Like I said, I don't know who this person is, at all. Please read what I wrote here. I'm not trying to be right, I'm trying to get access to the Wikipedia Library and clear my name. Please look into the account which was claimed to have been abandoned because of supposed harassment. You'll find that you and the other two administrators' good faith was abused. There was no harassment to begin with. A spiteful user created a fable because someone disagreed with him on an article talk page and found his sock puppet and lied to administrators. Yes I might formulate my posts stupidly from times to times or lack the proficiency to express myself in the best way possible, but that lie us what has ultimately caused all this. Kind regards, Vlaemink (talk) 11:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC) (edit conflict × responding to first para) Yes, I am, and clearly they do not want this information on Wikipedia because that is what kicked off this entire situation. Primefac (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC) Just as a procedural note, I have let Seraphimblade and Daniel Case know about this thread. Primefac (talk) 11:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC) @Primefac: I'm sorry, but is that reasonable? Is it reasonable for a user named "New Yorker" to not want people to make the assumption that he or she is from New York? More importantly though, I'd like to stress that I didn't mention the town name in my second reply to you and Seraphimblade or here, and hence only did so once. I did not go around and spread my assumption that this user was from a particular place. I also did not go around writing "HEY LOOK, THEY HAD AN OLD ACCOUNT WHICH THEY ABANDONED BECAUSE OF HARASSMENT!" that's a caricature and not even an apt one. I claimed multiple times on two locations, here and my talk page, that I did not intend to harass anyone, that the information I repeated was publicly available (ie. not purged) and that the initial claim of the additional account having been made and the initial one supposedly abandoned because of harassment was a false one. I also never attacked anyone personally, which is also in the block rationale. This is what happened: A user, with whom I had a content-related dispute and pending Arbcom case (on my request) on Dutch Wikipedia, had made a dubious use of a particular reference. I addressed this on their talk page. Not long afterwards, I added an inquiry about whether (s)he and another account were in fact the same user. I provided a rationale for my suspicions, which included no personal information at all, beyond an assumption about a village linked to the user due to this village being mentioned in their username (i.e. "User: New Yorker") The user confirmed that the two accounts were indeed theirs, claiming that they had been forced to make a new account due to harassment by another user some time ago. I replied that this rationale seemed to be dubious given that no evidence of prior harassment could be found in the initial accounts very limited (< 50) contributions and due to the account remaining active alongside the new account; i.e. no "fresh start". I then did not pursue the matter further. The user then, by falsely accusing me of outing, personal attacks and harassment, contacted the administrators. In doing so, they falsely claimed that they had been outed, they falsely claimed to have been subject to personal attacks and they slyly and falsely used a fabricated backstory of prior harassment, whereby my discovery of the linked accounts would supposedly put a (non-existing) harasser back on their trail. I was then immediately blocked from editing this users talk page. I contacted the administrators via an unblock request when I discovered this one page block made it impossible for me to access the Wikipedia Library Project (WLP). The administrators who responded to my request, and understandably but mistakenly assumed that the users claim and fears about being revealed to their harasser were genuine, i.e. they assumed that harassment by another user had indeed taken place in the past and that by referencing the discovery of the two accounts being linked, I was (willfully) opening this user to more abuse. I explained on my talk page that this was not my intention at all and that my only concern was getting access to the WLP again and (later) with clearing my name. I signaled from the very start, that I did not mind not being allowed to edit this users' talk page and would gladly refrain from doing so in the future, should they request or demand this from me. For over a month I received no reply. When my unblock request was declined for administrative reasons (i.e. not receiving a reply/no decision being reached) I tried to explain my predicament on the Administrators noticeboard in the hope of receiving help. The cycle (and I'm sure this is partly due to me not presenting my case perfectly) appears to repeat itself, with an administrator again assuming that the supposed harassment by another user was real and that hence the very attempt to explain is harassment, even though I'm merely desperately trying to explain that I did not disclose personal information (per WP:Outing) to begin with and that no prior harassment of this user by another user took place either -- and hence I couldn't be endangering him by mentioning his double accounts. Again, I'm not blaming any of the administrators for this, they were lied to and/or had to act quickly. But please, look at this case now and see it for what it is. This is not about me willfully attempting to stop another user from making a fresh start (there was no fresh start, the accounts were used simultaneously) or outing them (I know nothing about this person save for what is clearly and obviously stated in their username and even that is merely speculation). I just want to be able to edit Wikipedia (not just this one) with the Wikipedia Library and clear my name. Vlaemink (talk) 12:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC) Adding: I noticed you (I'm assuming Primefac) have redacted part of my post above. I don't think that's very fair, because it now makes it look as if I disclosed something very personal there, which I did not, but I also think it's a prime example of what I meant by the Kafkaesque nature of all of this: I gave the analogy of having assumed town a user was from, the same way one could/would assume a user named "New Yorker" would be from New York. You redacted that, fine ... but "New Yorker" is still his username. Anyone from Belgium will still be able to discern or assume she/he is from "New York". I mean, what are we doing here? This is what I meant when I asked what is reasonable to expect in this matter. Isn't this going beyond that? Is it really reasonable for a user called "New Yorker" to want no reference made anyone to the possibility that he or she is from New York? Is it reasonable to block someone for doing so in order to defend/explain themselves? Vlaemink (talk) 12:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC) Perhaps I'm missing something, but I really don't see what Vlaemink did so terribly wrong here in connecting the two accounts? The lead of WP:CLEANSTART states The old account must be clearly discontinued and the new account must avoid editing patterns or behaviors that would allow other users to recognize and identify the account. It is expected that the new account will be a true "fresh start", will edit in new areas, will avoid old disputes, and will follow community norms of behavior. and the entire section "Returning to previous articles and topics" warns that going back to your favourite articles will result in the accounts being connected. Briegelaer uses a similar username to their abandoned account and went straight back to the same articles they were previously editing, it's hardly surprising that someone noticed they were the same person. Vlaemink themselves seems to be misusing multiple accounts, RogerDE (talk · contribs) was created by Vlaemink as a "privacy" account and immediately proceeded to head off to the same article Vlaemink was editing, with Briegelaer noticing that they were the same person and connecting the accounts [13]. Getting involved in the same drama with a new account as your old one is not a valid clean start or privacy alt. I think both editors need to read WP:CLEANSTART and WP:SOCKPUPPETRY. If you're being harassed and want to start over you need to put some effort into making it non-obvious that you're the same person - you should use a completely different username avoid immediately editing the same articles you used to frequent. If you get involved in a dispute with someone you cannot create a "clean start account" or a "privacy alt" and re-join the editing as a new person - that is sock puppetry. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC) Just a minor note, when I created RogerDE (talk · contribs) (indeed intended to edit an article in peace after previous harassing by Briegelaer) I only did so, as he and another user had been wikihounding my edits. When I did this, I indicated right from the start [14], that this was an alternative account and used it to edit an article I had never edited before. Also, for those interested in cycling, the name wasn't very subtle: Roger de Vlaeminck. I managed to get in two edits before being 'outed' by the two I sought to avoid, and it has been a redirect to my original user page ever since. Kind regards, Vlaemink (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC) The way that I see the situation is that you got involved in a dispute on the Dutch Wikipedia regarding the "Limburgish" article which made it all the way to Dutch Arbcom. You created a "clean start privacy account" and used it to edit the same articles on a different language project, and ended up getting involved in the same disputes with the same users. That does not look like a valid clean start or a valid use of a privacy alt, it looks to me like you avoiding scrutiny. If you wanted a privacy alt account you could use to edit without risk of running into Briegelaer you should have been avoiding topics that you knew they edited in where you previously ran into conflict. I recommended that you both read the policies on clean starting and appropriate uses of multiple accounts because in my opinion a lot of the behaviour by you two is getting very close to sock puppetry. Both of you seem to have got involved in drama related to the article on the Limbugish language on various projects, "clean started" then instantly gotten into the same drama again. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC) (edit conflict) 15.238 makes an interesting note, but I'm also a little confused reviewing. Are we indicating that if Vlaemink had not duplicated pairing the accounts after the first instance, they wouldn't have the PBAN? I get their concern that making an actual appeal (as opposed to an unblock request) without bringing up the basis for it is seriously tricky. They are entitled to pursue such a route - normally on-wiki pairing that someone figured out purely from on-wiki information is not normally restricted. If we don't want them to pursue this route because we'd like the appeal in private, perhaps we should ask arbcom to handle it as a private motion. Their sharing of info which is now surpressed could make it so that even if the other aspects are successfully appealed the sanction should remain. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC) I suppose the IP is probably right about it not being a particularly smart move to edit that particular article with an alternative account, though I would like to emphasis that I did not do this to avoid scrutiny but rather to edit that particular article without being wikihounded/harassed. I know it's being the scope of this inquiry to include the (still pending) Arbcom case on Dutch Wikipedia (which I requested myself, red.) but a rather big part of it concerns the lack of respect WP:Cite and dubious use of sources. I very much stand on proper source use and using references, which is why the access to the Wikipedia Library Project is so important to me. @Nosebagbear: Thank you for tersely summarizing the conundrum I've found myself in, I'm very wordy myself. Vlaemink (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC) Vlaemink, you keep using the analogy of New York. The location you name dropped is in the ballpark of 5-10 thousand times smaller than NY. Citing New York & New Yorker is a grossly disingenuous comparison. Access to the Wikipedia Library is only given to users in good standing. Fudging the question of your good behaviour just in order to regain your access to TWL is approaching the question from completely the wrong angle. Cabayi (talk) 17:19, 27 July 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.

In that case I will contact the Arbcom as soon as I am able to do so. As mentioned on this page, my alternative account already redirects to my main account. I have used it for no more than two edits in the past and I do not intent to use it in the future. I will also contact the Wikipedia Library Project as mentioned earlier, I sorry @Samwalton9 (WMF): I completely missed your comment. Vlaemink (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2023 Canadian wildfires

Can someone please merge the articles that were proposed? It’s been a while since closed and none actioned so far.108.58.27.76 (talk) 23:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Anyone can merge the articles, ideally some of the people who took part in the discussion. It's not something that requires an administrator. There is quite a backlog of articles to be merged, so it may be a while before someone else can take care of it. Joyous! Noise! 20:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

User MKL123

• MKL123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Problematic user? I don't know but this user in his edits tends to add stats on stats and interviews on interviews. This is not a website stats and an interview website either, rather a simple Encyclopedia. Plus, he tends to add <ref> link </ref>. This is not how it should be. Island92 (talk) 04:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

@Island92: First, please notify MKL of this thread, as is required. Second, a complaint or concern about another editor's conduct should be accompanied with evidence, usually in the form of relevant diffs. Both of these things are noted in the bright orange editnotice when you notice this page.

Now, as to the merits (based on what I can see in MKL's contribs, since you've not pointed to any particular edits) your concerns seem to be regular content/style concerns. Bare-link references are discouraged but not on their own disruptive. Whether information like this merits inclusion is subjective, and should be discussed on talkpages.

On the other hand, MKL has made over 3,000 edits and literally never edited their talkpage. In fact, they've only made 63 edits outside of mainspace. So that's not great, and maybe, once you notify MKL as required, they can address that apparent communication issue. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Unblock request by Lallint

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.

---

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

Procedural history: Lallint was blocked indefinitely in March 2022 by Ponyo, after a previous tempblock by ToBeFree. His appeal describes the circumstances fairly well; see his current talkpage and this previous version for further context. I revoked talkpage access in May 2022 for attempting to proxy edits. Last month, Ponyo and I both consented to Deepfriedokra restoring access to allow for a community appeal.

Appeal: Copied from Lallint's talkpage:

I have been blocked on Enwiki for a year and a half now. I've taken a step back from Wikipedia in the past few months to re-think my previous edits and behavior. For a while after my block I edited on simplewiki, and created a GA from a stub here, which, if I am unblocked, I will expand to about the size it is on enwiki. I was blocked on Enwiki after a year of disruptive edits hidden between genuine contributions, and the edit that caused my indefinite block was when I welcomed a user with a "cookie" template, who was blocked in 2007 for claiming responsibility for the disappearance of a girl who had gone missing and that they had disposed of the body. After my block for that, I claimed that it was an accident but it really wasn't. I made that edit intentionally because I thought it was funny, completely ignorant to how completely childish and disrespectful it was. I had a history of disruptive behavior, and I was also blocked two months prior for 7 days. After a day I requested an unblock, completely missing the point of the block. Then I requested for a partial unblock to participate in an Afd, and after another editor kindly let me, I took advantage of their good faith and stored my edits in a sandbox page. Then, in the talk page, I went on a completely unrelated tangent about my aspergers and how cool my city is. At the time, I knew the editors were assuming good faith, so I chose to be as immature as possible. I'm sorry to all the editors that I've taken advantage of, and I hope that you guys can rebuild your trust in me. Thank you all and I hope you consider my request.

Further courtesy pings to Rosguill, Dreamy Jazz, Yamla, and RickinBaltimore for past administrative involvement on-wiki or on UTRS. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

• I've tried to be objective above in summarizing the background. Turning to my own opinion, though, when I saw this appeal it was a big relief to see Lallint acknowledge what I had suspected since pretty soon after he started editing, which is that he was deliberately testing limits, not just showing poor judgment—a particular flavor of trolling that we don't see often, but is always hard to counter when we do, as it's not really contemplated in our doctrine of WP:AGF. On the one hand, that's a significant betrayal of the community's trust. On the other, it's not a trick you can pull off twice. For that reason, and based on my belief that anyone is capable of redemption, coupled with the fact that Lallint's disruption, while serious, was not targeted at any user, I support an unblock, for the simple reason that if Lallint gets into any drama going forward, there is not going to be any AGF; he will be reblocked and that block will be, quite likely, "indefinite as in infinite". Given that this is a user who has been able to do serious content improvement, I am okay with extending a bit of WP:ROPE and giving him one chance to show that he isn't that person anymore—noting that I will be the first in line to reinstate the block if there's anything even slightly disruptive. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support unblock per tamzin's rousing speech.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support Taking ownership for what you did, admitting you were wrong, and explaining how you would correct these actions is important. AGF does go a long way, and if any of the behavior that occurred in the past would to occur again, that's it. Don't make us look foolish for supporting this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
• 1.5 years may be sufficient. I don't know. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Note that Lallint has lots of warnings over on simple.wiki, see User_talk:Lallint/Archive_1. However, they've also received a barnstar over there. What swayed me here was, as RickinBaltimore points out, taking ownership of prior problems here. Good luck. --Yamla (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
  • @Vermont: Since you weighed in on one of those disputes (between Lallint and PotsdamLamb, the latter of whom you've since indeffed), do you have any comments? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

    Thanks for the ping. I'm currently too busy to give a proper re-read of this situation, but I don't remember anything from those discussions that were particularly concerning. It was mostly good-faith style and process misunderstandings. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 22:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support unblock. The unblock request seems like the user does understand what he did wrong, understands that it was childish, and wants to contribute positively. Seems like everything we look for in an appeal. I also checked over those warnings on simple, and they seem to be misunderstandings and growing pains while learning their style. I don't see any obvious behavioral issues there. I'm inclined to extend some good faith, with the understanding that if it is abused there isn't likely to be another chance. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support unblock per Tamzin. While I have my doubts that Lallint has gained enough maturity in the time since their block to stop themselves from the crap that got them indeffed, and would not be at all surprised if they quickly make the WP:ROPE taut, as Tamzin says, we're not giving that much rope here, and when they were begging to be immediately unblocked I said they need to let their block stand for months, which is what they have done. They have not caused any havoc over at Simple, which at least shows they are capable of being consistently constructive when they so choose, and I hope that it is the case here. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support unblock -- satisfies WP:Standard Offer and then some. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support. That's a refreshingly open unblock request, which convincingly addresses both the disruption and the reasons for the disruption. Coupled with some good content work, and Tamzin's analysis, I'd be happy to see Lallint unblocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support unblock per Tamzin's recommendation and Wikipedia:One last chance. I truly hope this editor contributes productively and without major problems in the future. Cullen328 (talk) 07:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support per Wikipedia:One last chance. Tamzin's analysis seems correct, but part of me wonders whether the "refreshingly open" request is just part of one last testing-the-limits hoorah. No matter, One last chance will sort it, as Tamzin highlights. DeCausa (talk) 07:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

  Ooh, you cynic... ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support for a second chance. This is a well written, honest appeal. A year and a half seems like good length of time for this editor to have gained maturity. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 10:39, 28 July 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.

Community ban proposal: Phanuruch8555

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.

---

• Phanuruch8555 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) abused Wikipedia for several years, it is specifically manifested in continuous attacks and harassment of specific administrators, as well as meaningless disruptive behavior. In addition, he has similar bad behaviors in many projects such as thwiki. I think a community ban for this user is warranted.

Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 08:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@Fumikas Sagisavas: The user has been globally locked since October 2011. There is no reason to spend time on a community ban discussion of this user. -Niceguyedc (talk) 09:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

... Why in the world would we do this? This user has been blocked for nearly 12 years now. They were blocked closer to the creation of Wikipedia than to today. How did you even find them? -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 09:55, 29 July 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.

Alt-medicine topic unban request Technophant

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 need some help formatting. The discussion is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Technophant/Archive_3. It was long ago and I’ve made numerous controversial edits. I'm dying from the consequences of undiagnosed Lyme disease and connections starting with my first EM rash in 1975, brief hospitalization for “juvenile arthritis” before Lyme was public in 1979 improved spontaneously but some symptoms never went away typical to post Lyme syndrome.

Then came camping on Memorial days at Weedstock in severe Lyme epidemic area central Wisconsin. Acquired also mycoplasma fermentans incognitus from gulf war vet first time there in 1991. Then got lost in state forest (pine farm) hiked all night 1992 had 8 tick bites on my chest in the morning. Pulled off with fingers. Mouthparts left in forming cherry angiomas. No rash but no testing either. Severe exhaustion and emotional damage at least. Mayo clinic infectious disease said I don't look infectious and refused to do Western Blot because screening was always negative. 2011 I paid for Igenex and was positive all around. Did unconventional treatment with oral doxycycline (doesn't work, bacterial static) to Zithromax once every other day for 6 month. Fevers stopped so declared cured but have since developed small fiber neuropathy for no identifiable reason and severe intractable pain leading to chest pain and heart failure. Currently forced to go to a methdobe clinic because I need 42mg of methadone day(200-250 mg MME) instead I could only get 30 so was kicked out pain management? It would be laughable if it weren't tragic.

My medical qualifications: informed by a “Soul Reader” that I was doctor/physician in four past lives and could’ve been one in this life but I was censured for unethical behavior (quackery false claims). As a child, I secretly read and understood my mom's medical textbooks and have self-educated mostly but did attempt to get a biotech option to my computer and electronics technician degree Chronic Lyme is proven in animal dark field microscope. Article was insulting to all living beings. Technophant (talk) 11:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

It's not clear what you are asking. Are you asking that your topic ban be lifted? I have to warn you, given your statements here there's exactly zero chance of that happening. --Yamla (talk) 12:03, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear of your history of ill health (though I'm less sympathetic to your "past lives" claims - in reality, "Your medical qualifications: None"), but I also don't understand what this has to do with topic bans, or with Wikipedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

• This appears to be the actual topic ban discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I echo Boing's points above - I'm very sorry to read of your medical conditions, and I truly don't want to cause any offense, but I can't give any credence to anything about past lives, and I don't imagine anyone else here will. You also haven't given any indication about what sort of edits you want to make, allowing us to understand whether your editing in that topic area would benefit the project. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I do not think that it would be good for the encyclopedia to lift this topic ban. Cullen328 (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

• I think the kindest thing to do here is a WP:SNOW close. This is not an appeal in any meaningful way. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:39, 29 July 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 requested at WP:ITNC

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.

---

Could someone please close the various discussions involving Sinéad O'Connor. The whole thing has turned in a giant cluster bleep. She has been posted to RD, which I probably would not have done, but I'm not going to make a federal case out of it. More seriously, someone has taken it on themselves to break up the discussion and create a separate one for a blurb, after that was correctly taken off the table in the previous undivided discussion. It was quite obvious that there was no chance of any consensus for a blurb forming. The entire discussion is now confused with overlapping votes all over the place, and realistically this is not fixable. The bottom line is that O'Connor has been posted on the main page under RD and there was/is no realistic chance of a consensus forming for a blurb. Dividing the discussion was, to be blunt, disruptive. It's time to lower the curtain on this mess and move on. FTR I am INVOLVED. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

This post is very blatant canvassing. Ad O, you oppose the blurb, it's highly inappropriate for you to ask fellow admins to shut down the discussion, especially since votes are still coming in (and especially since recent votes are tending to support a blurb). Even if you were going to request a close here, the close request should be neutrally worded. I'm rather surprised to see this. And fyi, the person who broke up the discussion is the same person who posted the RD. Levivich (talk) 15:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

There is no canvassing. I stated very clearly that I am involved and irrespective of who broke up the discussion, it was disruptive and seriously inappropriate. There are overlapping votes spread all over the place and there would have to be an avalanche of pro blurb votes with few or no opposes to alter the very clear reality that this is a no consensus. The discussion is a confusing train wreck and should be closed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Note It looks like the separate discussion headers have now been removed. Unfortunately I think we may still have editors who have effectively multiple votes. Ugg. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:41, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

You just voted oppose and now you posted a non-neutral message at AN asking fellow admins to close the discussion with your preferred outcome? Going so far as to accuse other editors who disagree with you of being disruptive? You're trying to win a content dispute by leveraging your status as an admin to ask other admins at the admin noticeboard to step in. Even if you weren't an admin, voting in an active discussion that is trending away from your vote preference, and then immediately requesting a close? That's not cool. And to accuse those who disagree with you of disruption is even more not cool. That you're an admin makes it even worse. You should know better, and I hope you don't do this again. Request closes at CR with neutrally worded requests. There's a section there for closes that need admins. I request you withdraw this and if you must, just go post a neutrally worded request at CR. Btw the separate discussion headers were useful to separate the discussion prior to RD posting from the discussion afterwards. Levivich (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

It was disruptive and has resulted in considerable confusion. My position as an admin is neither here nor there as I am not using the tools. Any editor is within their right to request admin intervention to correct serious problems as long as they disclose any COI or involvement, which I did. You are of course free to disagree with my view, which clearly you do, and express your contrary opinion. At this point the separate headings have been removed and I would encourage an uninvolved admin to review the discussion for possible duplicate votes at a minimum. Any additional action I leave to their discretion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Closes are requested at WP:CR, not here at AN. That's what CR is for; why would you post here? And they need to be requested neutrally. You're not engaging with either of those two points.

Let's also memorialize what happened here. 28 July 02:25, the RD was posted with a note that discussion can continue on the blurb. I posted a "support blurb" vote, and later at 05:33, I added this line: Sinead O'Connor's death made it to the front page of major papers in England, France, Spain, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Switzerland, Belgium, Denmark Australia, Brazil, Argentina, United Arab Emirates, China, Canada, and the USA. BTW, that took me like an hour to collect. That's an hour of volunteer work just to write that sentence with those links.

After that, 12 new votes came in (one person changed from a "comment" to a vote). Of those 12, 9 supported a blurb, and 3 opposed a blurb. One of those three is Ad O, who posted an oppose vote at 14:18. Then at 15:14, posted this canvassing close request. In total, not yet 24 hours have passed.

What you're doing, Ad O, is trying to engineer a shut down of a discussion that is polling 9/12 in favor of a blurb over the past 12 hours or so. And you're doing it with a non-neutral message at AN accusing others of disruption. Dude, just vote, and let the chips fall where they may. Don't try and pull extra levers or leverage your social capital or disparage other editors as disruptive, in order to engineer a result that you agree with. Levivich (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Not only was it disruptive, but I'd argue that anyone in the discussion who's trying to impose their own rules or criteria for putting something on the main page is engaging disruptively. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Ad Orientem: The bottom line is that O'Connor has been posted on the main page under RD and there was/is no realistic chance of a consensus forming for a blurb. - How, under any reasonable definition of the word, can this announcement of yours not be WP:CANVASSING? You don't excuse yourself by disclosing you are WP:INVOLVED either; there is no exemption process for WP:INAPPNOTE canvassing by doing so that I know of. We know that consensus at ITN regarding significance, especially for death blurbs, is highly subjective and it can sometimes be a very complicated process to determine whether to post or to not post. If anything, if you want a real chance at hashing out a consensus either to post or to not post, what needs to be done is this item needs to be displayed on WP:CENT in a neutral fashion. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 23:30, 28 July 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.

Paragraph restructuration

Hello, I would like the paragraph in the history section of the page to be restructured.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicktoons_(European_TV_channel)

65.92.90.228 (talk) 23:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

how would yoy like it restructured? Anyone can edit Wikipedia, so please feel free to be bold and make the changes yourself! Or you can suggest changes on the article talk page. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 00:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Editaton with IP blocked now (resolved)

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 Admins, we wanted to start an editaton now and get the message that this IP is blocked: The IP address or range 213.55.224.0/22 has been blocked (disabled) by ‪Drmies‬ for the following reason(s): disruptive editing, including political vandalism This block will expire on 17:16, 12 August 2023.

Could you please end this block now? Thank you! --Hadi (talk) 08:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

That's Special:Contributions/213.55.224.0/22 blocked by Drmies. Johnuniq (talk) 08:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

How long do you need it unblocked for (also note that the block is anon only, so editors with accounts should be fine)? Black Kite (talk) 08:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, is it just one IP address (this is a rangeblock)? Black Kite (talk) 08:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

We need an unblock until 6 August 2023. It's not only blocking the creation of new accounts, some participants also can not edit. Hadi (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

...they can not edit within their user account. Hadi (talk) 09:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

This is why I'm asking. Registered accounts should be able to edit (the rangeblock is set to anon only), so there may be a different block affecting your particular IP address. Black Kite (talk) 09:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

If you email me your IP address (it should be on the block notice) via this method I can check. Black Kite (talk) 09:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

OK, I have adjusted the block so it only affects the articles that were causing an issue with this range. You should be able to edit now. Note that you may be limited to the number of accounts you can create because of the account creation throttle. In that case, please follow the instructions on the page or visit WP:ACCP. Black Kite (talk) 09:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! One participant says its ok! I will come back. Hadi (talk) 09:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

yes, now also the last participant was able to create a user account! The other had their accounts before. Thank you again! Hadi (talk) 10:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Now everybody is editing and everythings seems ok. :) So this section can be archived. Thank you again @Black Kite. - Hadi (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

zzuuzz, Black Kite, thanks. Drmies (talk) 07:56, 31 July 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.

Update the Cover Image of Deccan Herald Wikipedia 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.

---

Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to request an update to the cover image of the Deccan Herald Wikipedia page. The current cover image does not accurately represent the latest developments and appearance of the publication. I kindly request that you consider replacing it with a more recent and relevant image to maintain the page's accuracy and appeal. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Deccan Herald

I can share with you the latest image for better understanding.

Best regards,

Ayesha Rahman Ayesha.r786 (talk) 10:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

This is not the right place to request that (nor did you send an email). Please use the article's talk page, Talk:Deccan Herald. Note that WP:FAIRUSE, a very complicated policy, would apply. --Yamla (talk) 10:40, 31 July 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 spamming suspicious link

124.168.45.118 has made a series of stats changes citing a website. The url leads just to a download I did not complete. Unsure what this is, but thought I'd raise here in case it should be revdelled. CMD (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Non-admin comment: It's just a mostly empty html file. It has php code in it, but I guess their server isn't setup correctly, so it's not working. Currently, it's not harmful, but could be if they fix it. Closhund/talk/ 06:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I did find this page at the site, which is what I think the IP was trying to cite, although that page does not have any statistics by country. I was unable to locate any other pages at that site (none of the presumed links work). It appears to be a blog, and the comments on that page are eleven years old. Obviously not an RS. - Donald Albury 17:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Mmd1193

• Mmd1193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Not sure how this noticeboard thing works quite yet, but can we please have a look at this user? He/She keeps removing sourced content from articles mainly List of United States wireless communications service providers and also the pages for AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile US. I have warned them multiple times now about removing or changing sourced content and they keep changing it, with outdated information. I am thinking they might be an employee or really big fan of one of the companies in relation to these articles. Completely Random Guy (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Blocked by Materialscientist today for 24 hours for harassment. I think this should stay open, however, since harassment and a block that is about to expire do not address Completely Random Guy's concerns. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't know. This case is complicated by the fact despite Completely Random Guy saying "I have warned them multiple times now about removing or changing sourced content and they keep changing it", this never actually happened. There have been no talk page posts related to this dispute either on Mmd1193's talk page or the article talk pages by Completely Random Guy related to these disputes. I'm not counting edit summaries which it's well accepted is a way to offer a brief explanation of your edits, but is not a way to talk to another editor. The first person to actually warn Mdm1193 was Untamed1910 after this thread had started [15], probably partly in response to this thread since Untamed1910 also gave them the compulsory notification that Completely Random Guy failed to give [16]. Of course Mdm1193's response to someone finally actually warning them was completely inappropriate [17] but they've been blocked for that. While the response also makes one wonder if they will actually change their behaviour, perhaps the block will be enough to convince them they need to change. Either way, I think this is an important reminder that edit summaries is not the way you warn or talk to another editor. Nil Einne (talk) 08:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey sorry for the delay in getting back, through edit summaries of my reverts I warned the user many times about removing unsourced content. I didn't realize it should be a talk page discussion rather than an edit summary. I apologize! Completely Random Guy (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I've extended the block to indefinite. I don't think anyone who attempts to make an edit like this will be a productive contributor. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 16:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Odds of productivity after that is about zero. Courcelles (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Remove my user rights

Due to personal issues, I do not appear to be active on Wikipedia this year as much as in previous years. So, could an administrator please remove all of my user rights except for extendedconfirmed? Also, please remove my username from Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPageJSON. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Done for the rights. Thanks for your diligence. Courcelles (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

My username is still listed at the AWB check page. Could some administrator please remove my username from the check page? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Deor (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Paradise Chronicle

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Paradise Chronicle (talk · contribs) is indefinitely site-banned.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Paradise Chronicle

Can another admin take over for me here please?

I've been talking to Global Salmon Initiative on their talk page. Obviously the username is an issue, but that appears to be heading for a resolution. As I've talked to them about COI I've realized that, while I do not have a direct COI myself here, as an Alaskan I have pretty strong feelings about farmed -vs- wild caught salmon. I feel like everything I've said to them so far was within reason but I don't want my judgement to be clouded by my personal feelings as I feel like I'm probably talking to a PR person for Big Salmon. Thanks in advance. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

<To the tune of 'Big Bad John'> 🎶 "...Big Sal—mon... Big Bad Salmon!" 🎵 SN54129 16:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Incredibly helpful response. Non-Admin comment, clearly. Good grief. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Nazi swastika on Redbone (Childish Gambino) page

Swastika image being used on Childish Gambino's redbone single page 124.254.96.90 (talk) 03:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Some troll is adding swastikas to various articles and user pages using a variety of IP addresses. I got a swastika link on my talk page a few minutes ago. Cullen328 (talk) 03:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Nazi flag. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

ToBeFree promoted to full clerk

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to announce that ToBeFree (talk · contribs) has been appointed a full clerk, effective immediately, concluding his successful traineeship.

The arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by e-mail to clerks-llists.wikimedia.org.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § ToBeFree promoted to full clerk

WT:CFDW backlog

This talk page, where non-admin closures at CfD are listed for processing at WP:CFDW, has become backlogged. Any admin is invited to move the listed procedures to WP:CFDW, where they will be processed by a bot. Be sure to collapse the processed requests. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Unban/unblock request of Shwcz

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

---

I am bringing the unban request of Shwcz/23prootie here. I make no endorsement in doing so. The request follows. 331dot (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I would like to have the User:23prootie account to be unbanned and this account to be unblocked. I have learned my lesson and I agree with the sanctions against me. I promise not to use any sockpuppets anymore and I promise to use this account as my primary account. I forgot the password from the User:23prootie account and I do not have access to the email. I would like to start fresh and use this account for useful edits. I promise not to start and edit war or to move pages without consensus, reasons why I was banned in the first place. I have refrained from editing in the last few months and I do not know if enough time have passed for my sanctions to be lifted. I apologize to the community for the disruption I have caused and I promise not to do it again. Shwcz (talk) 06:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Shwcz → 23prootie

Status:     In progress

• Current username: Shwcz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google) (ping user)
• Target username: 23prootie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google) (advise user)
• Previous renames: current user, target user, Queue: open req, closed req
• For renamer use: Email target username, usurp user, rename user
• Datestamp: 17:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
• Reason: Forgot the password. No access to email. Shwcz (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

331dot (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments on unban/unblock request

• As a global renamer, I'd certainly decline this multiple account usurption, especially with their existing blocking on tlwiki. No comment on the unblock/unban situation. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
• This request looks very pro forma to me, and not very convincing, especially with a existing block on another language wiki. Is there any evidence of this editor contributing in a productive manner on other wikis? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• Confirming oppose. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

• How long ago was the last time this user socked? I see the ban dates back almost 14 years ago.. If the user hasn't been disruptive in the past 5 or so, I'd support an unban, given the extensive period of time that has elapsed. To put into perspective, this ban was from when I was a Sophomore in high school... I'm now almost 30. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 04:28, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

• Looking into this a bit more... I'm skeptical, given that their most recent sock escapade was 6 months ago, and one of the things they did was messing with the Philippines article. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 06:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

How long since last socked? Who knows. But the most recent time they were caught was a few months ago, looking at the astonishing 23 cases documented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/23prootie/Archive. Nfitz (talk) 06:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going to oppose rescinding the ban, at this point. If the editor wants to be taken seriously, they need to prove they can avoid socking for at least a few years, at this point. Doing this for 14 years is a very bad look. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 06:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

• 2 procedural things, without expressing any opinion at this time: First, I've temporarily undeleted User:Elockid/Long-term abuse/23prootie, which had been deleted as obsolete. Second, WayKurat, do you have any comments, as the blocking admin on tlwiki in December? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose 23prootie was a persistently disruptive editor and sockmaster, and the brief unblock request barely touches on the issues. It is extremely unlikely that this person would be a productive editor. I'd note that much of their disruptive editing was focused on articles covering the Phillipines which generally have low numbers of active watchers, so any further disruption is likely to cause a fair bit of damage before being detected and stopped. Nick-D (talk) 09:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

  I also find the proposed topic ban unconvincing, not least as 23prootie has disrupted a wide range of other articles. I'd forgotten that they were also highly disruptive on other Wikipedias. Nick-D (talk) 00:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Multiple socks and blatant vandalism ([18], [19]) at least as recently as December 2022, which is a full 13 years and 2 months after being indef blocked. It's going to take a lot more than a few months of quietness and a boilerplate request to convince me that an unblock would be a good idea. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

  The proposed topic ban below doesn't change anything for me - you can't shit on Wikipedia for 14 years with nearly 50 socks and then expect to be welcomed back just like that. This is as close as it comes to "indefinite means forever" to me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment from Shwcz: Can you add in the UnBan request at the Administrators' noticeboard that a WP:Topic Ban for Philippines-related articles will be instated for me in exchange of an UnBanning/UnBlocking. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Giving someone a second chance, even for massive lapses in judgement, and in fact, even for mass disruption given enough time, is one thing. However, this is a user who, by pretty much all accounts, has maliciously used alternative accounts and has, on a severely large number of occasions, shown the community that they cannot be trusted to contribute constructively. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 04:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Neutral but given their long history of socking and disruptive edits, I would only support an unban under the condition that (1) they stick to one and only one account period, and (2) they remain on final warning status for any and all disruption on any and all pages, broadly construed. Any violations of these terms would be a grounds for a reblock for any time period or indefinitely. Both of these restrictions would be appealable after 24 months, which resets for violation of the first condition. The most recent SPI was filed by the OP on SPI as an admission of sockpuppetry. If there was actual trolling going on I would just stick with WP:RBI. Their last confirmed sock before this one is back in 2014 unless if there were additional socks not recorded on SPI. WP:ROPE is probably applicable here. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 18:21, 3 August 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.

ICLUB

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.

---

ICLUB was deleted as spam in Ukrainian Wikipedia recently. Please help with choosing proper cleanup templates for English version if needed. Anntinomy (talk) 11:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be an admin issue. Fences&Windows 18:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Although assuming it is just spam, the correct template would be {{Db-g11}}. Pinging Anntinomy for reference. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Advertising might be intended, but it's not obvious spam...a G11 speedy deletion might be declined. I do see issues with notability, so processing this via WP:PROD or articles for deletion would be the way to go. And yes, this is not an admin issue. Lectonar (talk) 10:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

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

User is uninterested in collaboration and has frequent issues with editing

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 you take a look at the edit history and talk page for HappyAppy10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), you will see repeat problems with this user's edits and literally every time someone tries to bring up an issue, he responds, "get a life" and removes any feedback on his problematic behavior. This blank talk page hides how unwilling he is to collaborate and how frequent issues are with his editing and attitude. It's not clear to me that this rises to the level of WP:ANV or anything, but I can't help but think this attitude is only getting worse and will only result in future conflict that goes unresolved. It would be nice if an admin could step in to encourage collaborative behavior and try to figure out why this user is so hostile to cooperation. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

This is a definite behavioral problem. It is not possible to formulate a consensus unless editors are prepared to WP:COMMUNICATE with one another. It's been going on for ten years. Betty Logan (talk) 02:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

And to be clear, he keeps on making the same kinds of errors/deliberately bad edits over and over again and is not interested in changing his behavior. This is in addition to making new kinds of bad edits as well. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HappyAppy10&oldid=prev&diff=1167999414 ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked them indefinitely, as they haven't responded here or on their talk page. As Betty Logan points out, this behaviour of blanking their talk page and telling other users to "get a life" has been going on for years. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 02:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Merci. I'm hopeful that he'll respond with an unblock request and acknowledge that this is a collaborative project, as many of his edits are quality. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't have anything to offer about their behavior, but HappyAppy10’s user page says they are female. Just saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:20:B047:BD5C:1CE:E2E8:3EFA:68B (talk) 05:25, 2 August 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.

Article on Pope Francis

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.

---

Note in section regarding elevation to Cardinal the consistory was December 21, 2001. I suggest adding that December 21 is the Feast Day of St Peter Canisius, a famous Jesuit saint and Doctor of the Church. The article also notes that as Cardinal he was named Cardinal Priest of St Robert Bellermine church. Robert Bellermine is a Jesuit saint as noted. I would suggest adding that Robert Bellermine is a Doctor of the Church.

John Hall 173.64.11.32 (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The article's talk page is the place for suggestions like thqt. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:50, 6 August 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.

Misuse of WikiProject to canvass?

It has come to my attention today that I was the subject of a post on this notice board on July 21 [20]. I would like clarifications on policies.

1. Is WikiProject the correct place to reverse longstanding consensus rather than article talk page? Is it acceptable to "sneak through" a new consensus on a WikiProject with no note, no notification, no reminder on article talk pages that said discussion is secretly taking place on WikiProject? Shouldn't the point of Wikipedia:Consensus be allowing as many lay editors to participate as possible rather than being held in virtual smoke-filled room? Are all of these behaviors above-board or violations of Wikipedia:Canvassing and Wikipedia:Tag team? I earnestly raised all these questions in my last edit [21] on WikiProject:Golf, but no one has given an answer to this day and instead I was arbitrarily blocked. As I wrote in WikiProject: Golf, it isn't a requirement to join WikiProject:Golf to be allowed to edit golf-related articles, but how are lay editors like myself supposed to participate in consensus-building if they're all done in WikiProject rather than the broad daylight of article talk pages? I wouldn't have even responded on WikiProject:Golf that day if I weren't tagged because I wouldn't know a discussion about myself was taking place. In fact, I wouldn't even be writing on this board if I didn't get a notification when I logged in.

2. I was arbitrarily blocked for 48 hours while I was away, despite another administrator User:SarekOfVulcan wanting to hear from me before any action was taken. Furthermore, the editor who aggressively edit-warred with me User:Wjemather was not sanctioned, even though he abused his automated rollback privilege in a content dispute [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] and refused to engage in any discussion on article talk pages. How is this fair and proportional? Perhaps I should've been less aggressive in restoring the removed content, but User:Wjemather was equally aggressively in edit-warring and even abused his automated rollback privilege. Therefore, I don't understand why I was sanctioned and he was not. I was under the impression that Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is normal. I posted numerous notes on article talk pages [27] [28] [29] [30] [31], but he flat out refused to discuss on article talk pages and continued to be intransigent even on his home turf WikiProject:Golf [32]. Even User:Phinumu, who reported me to this board, expressed misgivings about Wjemather's Wikipedia:BATTLEGROUND attitude [33]. As SarekOfVulcan pointed out, consensus can change. Moreover, as I wrote earlier, using WikiProject rather than article talk pages to alter longstanding consensus is underhanded and reeks of canvassing.

3. User:Girth Summit posted on my personal talk page that someone (not her) falsely accused me of being a sockpuppet and having links with the late Muammar Gaddafi. This is beyond the pale and flat-out bullying. They are trying to throw the book at me for daring to question their golf WikiProject and see what sticks. From what I can gather, User:IceFrappe, User:Skitash, among others have contributed to many articles on Arab nationalism and the Maghreb in the year of 2023. I assume they are also Arab like myself. However, it is irresponsible and frankly reeks of racism to accuse all of us being the same person.

I must apology in advance for the awkward English; it is not my primary language. Jamahiriya (talk) 07:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

With respect to my use of rollback, see WP:ROLLBACKUSE #5. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, inflammatory comments on article talk pages are not an invitation to collegial discussion. They were also inaccurate as it was User:Nigej who did most of the work in originally removing these tables in accordance with the consensus established and reaffirmed through several discussions. As you were advised, one individual does not get to unilaterally overturn consensus (without discussion) just because they don't like it and reject the centralised venue (a perfectly normal process when dozens of articles are involved) where discussions were held. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Just to confirm that it was me that deleted most of the "past champions" sections. See eg Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Golf/Archive 16#Nationalities in the field which shows that was not some whim on my part but part of a consensus at WT:GOLF that they should be deleted. Nigej (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

On point 3, this is my post on the OP's talk, I make no mention of links to Gaddafi. I left it with regard to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IceFrappe. No further comment on this from me, aside from the comments I made in that SPI case. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Nor does the SPI accuse Jamahiriya (or IceFrappe) of having links to Gaddafi. It notes that both have created articles on cousins of Gaddafi, which is objectively true, and states that they have both edited Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, which is also objectively true and easily verifiable by the diffs included in the SPI report. Unless we are suggesting that "edited articles related to the Gaddafi family" is "links to Gaddafi", there is no accusation of links to Gaddafi that I can see in the SPI report. (Nor, so far as I can see, is there any accusation in GS's talkpage post or the SPI case that Skitash has any connection to either Jamahiriya or IceFrappe) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I was arbitrarily blocked for 48 hours while I was away, despite another administrator User:SarekOfVulcan wanting to hear from me before any action was taken. This is misleading. The ANI discussion can be found here. The sequence of events is: Jamarihiya reported for edit warring; Star Mississippi pblocks them for 48 hours from article space and says they will take no further action; SarekOfVulcan replies to Star Mississippi saying that they "suggest no further action be taken until we get a response from Jamahiriya". Contrary to the impression that Jamahiriya gives in this AN post, Star Mississippi's block was not going against SarekOfVulcan's suggestion; SOV's suggestion was regarding any action further to SM's block. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Your reading of WP:CONSENSUS is correct in that backroom "consensus" created on a WikiProject talk page is meaningless. Editors have been topic banned in the past for acting like WikiProjects have authority over articles. There's debate over whether selective WikiProject notifications amount to canvassing, and it largely depends on context. But you were not blocked arbitrarily, you were blocked for WP:edit warring. Your messages were also hostile and accusatory, so it's not surprising if someone chose not to respond. I probably wouldn't have responded to your talk page posts either. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

As regards point 1, it seems to me that where an issue covers many hundreds or thousands of articles it is impractical to discuss them individually on talk pages. They needs to be some central place for these issues to be discussed. In this case there is a long-standing consensus that WP:GOLF is a suitable place. The idea that this is some sort of secret place where such issues are decided, is complete nonsense. Every article here is part of WP:GOLF. Nigej (talk) 20:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

As noted above, WikiProjects do not have authority over articles. You can discuss things there, and then apply bold changes based on what's discussed. But ultimately, people not involved in the project and contributors to individual articles have a voice too and if there is disagreement over issues at any individual article then those must be resolved at the talk page, there's no magic trump card to apply a WikiProject rule there.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone is claiming wikiproject superpowers. All that is being said is that WT:GOLF was, and remains, the logical venue for a centralised discussion impacting a large number of closely related golf tournament articles. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 00:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

No one's claiming some sort of veto for WikiProjects, just that it's a sensible place for discussions for issues relating to multiple articles. There was no attempt here to contravene any Wikipedia policy or guideline, just an issue of whether certain content was suitable or not. In this case I accept that my edit summary: "remove champions in the field section" was not the best, I should have mentioned the discussion at WT:GOLF. In theory it would be possible to add talk page sections linking to WT:GOLF discussions but where there are hundreds/thousands of articles my experience is that this is rarely done. Nigej (talk) 06:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

That can be an appropriate place to hold an RfC, if it was tagged as an RfC and the talkpages of affected articles were notified. Otherwise, people who work on a few articles but aren't involved in the wikiproject in general would have no way of knowing that it was even happening. A discussion taking place on WT:GOLF that lasts less than 22 hours with 4 participants is not a valid consensus to enforce on hundreds of articles like that. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, when so little time is given to participate in such a discussion, it results in a lot of potential problems with articles where good faith edits from anonymous or newer contributors can be batted down through a localized consensus. I've seen multiple times when Wikiproject users use "we discussed it, we reached a consensus, it's not our fault you didn't participate" as a justification for doing so, and it's rubbish. Many contributors don't know what Wikiprojects are or what purpose they serve, nor do they always have time to go out of their way and seek them out. I agree that the talkpages of the relevant articles need to be pinged. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 23:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

However the issue here is that these sections were all added without discussions, they were then all deleted (albeit many years later). Per WP:BRD another discussion might well have been in order but User:Jamahiriya simply embarked on a mass revert of the deletions without any attempt at any discussion on the issue anywhere. His only edits to talk pages were to complain about 3RR infringements. Nigej (talk) 06:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

That sort of behavior certainly isn't meritorious either, but remember that here at AN, or at ANI, the conduct of all parties involved are observed. There is nothing wrong with looking at ways to improve the process and editing atmosphere in addition to correcting the problems caused by a user that engages in edit wars. Just as WP:BRD has its limits, so too does WP:CONLEVEL need to be observed. You are not required to start an RfC each time you're trying to reach a consensus on a particular matter affecting multiple articles, but you do need to at a minimum loop in the talkpages of those articles affected. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 19:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Juan Branco

The biography for Juan Branco has been plagued by mass changes, sockpuppets, and single purpose editors over the last month. I came to the article via RfC, but it's been super difficult to keep things under control. Any assistance to help with the disruptions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, please! Nemov and me disagree and I totally would like more users to intervene so that I can let this article alone. Delfield (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2023

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

Administrator changes

Firefangledfeathers

• AlisonW
• Amberrock
• Closedmouth
• Scottywong

Interface administrator changes

Novem Linguae

Technical news

• The tag filter on Special:NewPages and revision history pages can now be inverted. This allows hiding edits made by automated tools. (T334338)
• Special:BlockedExternalDomains is a new tool that allows easier blocking of plain domains (and their subdomains). This is more easily searchable and is faster for the software to use than the existing MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. It does not support regex (for complex cases), URL path-matching, or the MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. (T337431)

Arbitration

• The arbitration cases named Scottywong and AlisonW closed 10 July and 16 July respectively.
• The SmallCat dispute arbitration case is in the workshop phase.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Report on User:Kshatriya Yoddha

Hello, I want to file a report on User:Kshatriya Yoddha, who apparently called me a racial slur on his talkpage. Apparently I was in an edit war with the user before, but today was the day where they took the situation very far.

This is the comment the user made to me: "Cope harder sub-narmada pajeet... and sulk when you see a tall, fair, handsome north-Indian munda flex his muscles infront of mallu and tulu chicks... should i send u a fair&lovely... will help u :)"

This is the link to the user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kshatriya_Yoddha

The link to the comment is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kshatriya_Yoddha&diff=prev&oldid=1169306784 and I believe this is the current version of their talkpage. In case they made have edited it, this link will provide the evidence.

If this issue doesn't concern you, I would like to know who may it concern so I can proceed with my report. No2WesternImperialism (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• The user has been blocked indefinitely. Black Kite (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Global ban for Бучач-Львів

Per the Global bans policy, I’m informing the project of this request for comment: RfC/Global ban for Бучач-Львів. --Jphwra (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Lil tay

Looking for an administrator to take a look at Draft:Lil tay and see what can be done surrounding the concern I added to the talk page:

• It seems that the draft for the correct capitalization, Draft:Lil Tay has been indefinitely set to requiring administrator privileges to create. Due to the recent news, should this be lifted to allow for this page to be moved to its correct capitalization? Is this page allowed to be created at all, or is it considered a bypass of the administrator lock? Hopefully an administrator can look into this ASAP and see what can be done from here.

B3251 (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I've moved the draft to the correct capitalization, and reduced the creation protection on Lil Tay to extended-confirmed instead of sysop. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 20:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. B3251 (talk) 20:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

A new source says the story is unconfirmed, so we need to take very good care on this and wait for a proper authority to confirm details; right now the history reads like a BLP minefield (and the subject's age is also in dispute between each source). Nate • (chatter) 23:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Additionally Twitter is definitely not a source, but are some posts saying the statement 'confirming' the story and the death statement was sourced through an AI tool. We may need to move to RFP with this. Nate • (chatter) 23:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Andrevan:

User is making changes to Aileen Cannon's page that have not been agreed to by Consensus. Warned him numeous times to wait till consensus. 2600:8805:C980:9400:651E:9482:536D:FE66 (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• The article has been extended-protected by Courcelles, and I've blocked the /64 range of the IP, which has been blocked many times in the past, for six months (same duration as the block in 2022).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks. Andre🚐 01:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Additions to the Bad image list

The following images were used to vandalize several pages:

Image list

01 pregnant woman.jpg Orgasm denial.jpg Smooth at the beach.jpg Stydká rýha.jpg Nude woman urinating(31318958701).jpg Chibi, 26.jpg Napletek 1.jpg Penehafada.JPG Round head.jpg Meni.jpg After male.jpg Ano masculino.JPG Bilder 2011 133.jpg Thumbnail X-20.jpg 400 Bad Request HTTP (14391721952).jpg Two Young Men by Anonymous.jpg Newborn clamp.jpg Poa Phan.JPG In need of attention.png Innie labia.jpg Klitorisvorhautpiercing horizontal.jpg Klitorisvorhautpiercing vertikal.jpg Klitoriswurzel, Klitoriseichel, Klitorisschenkel.png Labia Majora.JPG Labia Minora 123.jpg Labiamin.jpg Labios menores prominentes.jpg Labia minora.jpg Labia becoming engorged with blood as female reaches arousal.jpg Labia majora and minora.jpg Michaela.JPG Flag of Germany (1935–1945).svg

--Leonidlednev (T, C, L) 22:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment This is already up at MediaWiki talk: Bad image list#Multiple files. Nate • (chatter) 02:28, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

  That wasn't responded to in a while, so I posted that request here. --Leonidlednev (T, C, L) 09:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

JC Chasez

Last month, I removed a lengthy discography section on the page for JC Chasez as he already has a separate page for his discography. I also made edits to incorrect information in the Career section, while providing references. Since then, a user has continually attempted to add the discography back to the main article, despite multiple reverts from other editors (examples [34] and [35]). This user claims "vandalism" in their edit summaries as reasoning for re-adding the discography. The user also removed the references I added without explanation; I restored my edits and had to again remove the discography, which appeared to have been added by a sock puppet ([36]). Spectrallights (talk) 10:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Since the issue is with an IP-hopping editor page protection is probably more appropriate, but since I was there I did it. Primefac (talk) 11:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Spectrallights (talk) 11:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Mrffcknt

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

Perhaps an admin could take a look at Mrffcknt because it seems like there's some WP:NOTHERE going on that's being presented as "good faith" answers to various Teahouse and HD questions. It's either intentional NOTHERE behavior or newbie WP:CIR behavior. Could this be a LTA account? For reference, I didn't notify the user because it it is LTA or intentional NOTHERE, then it's unlikely anything positive will come from their participation here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd say their first 4 edits look like they are intentionally giving Teahouse users bad advice in order to deceive them into doing something chaotic. This includes giving instructions on how to violate copyright and instructions on how to canvass. Their last 2 edits are a bit more ambiguous. I would support a WP:NOTHERE block, but wouldn't mind another opinion before I hit the button. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: They seem to have stopped for now so a block at this point is probably not warranted. FWIW, another user notified them of this discussion, and different user added a user warning to their user talk page. So, they at least now have been warned and perhaps won't be repeating the same behavior. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

This is one of our frequent flyers. Indeffed, though I don't have time for a proper sleeper check right now so another CU might want to take a look. --Blablubbs (talk) 11:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Even if it weren't a sock, I would also view anyone who was willfully giving bad advice to users at the Teahouse as much, much, worse than anyone who just executed their poor judgement. Teahouse abuse causes more issues, and the high likelihood of losing every user they burn. It is our spiritual equivalent to bullying children. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

There's also the username... --Blablubbs (talk) 17:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm sure there are some implied "u"s in there. --Jayron32 21:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Possible user impersonation

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.

---

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

I suspect that user is not genuinely operated by the real courcelles.102.157.219.237 (talk) 14:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

You would be correct. My thanks. Courcelles (talk) 14:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome. Say, don't mind creating that user page with a block notification banner?102.157.219.237 (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

IMO a talk page is sufficient. Ymblanter (talk) 14:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I do want to point out that y'all blocked an account that hasn't edited in over 11 years. I mean, yea, fine, but I highly doubt it was necessary. Whoever created that account and made a single edit with it back in 2012 isn't coming back. --Jayron32 17:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Unlikely to be intended as impersonation anyway. Their sole edit seems to have been to create an article on Cermex, a company based in Corcelles-lès-Cîteaux, France. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

This most likely isn't intentional impersonation, but I still think they should've been blocked for being too similar to a well-established admin. J.J was blocked for being too similar to J.J. (a now-vanished former admin). CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 20:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

There have to be better ways to deal with unintentional 'impersonation' than a block notice that implies bad faith. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

It. Was. Eleven. Years. Ago. Like, what's done is done, but why are we blocking 11-year-old unused account so quickly. Like, don't undo it, but what disruption was it causing that needed to be stopped? --Jayron32 21:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Or do undo it. No evidence of impersonation, evidence points to the contrary, blocking was an error. Fix the error. —Alalch E. 21:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

See, that's the difference between {{uw-uhblock-double}} and {{uw-ublock-double}}. —Cryptic 23:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Seems like downgrading from a hardblock to a regular block would be reasonable here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

My first choice for no apparent deliberate impersonation would probably be a message, but given they're likely inactive, let's go for a softblock. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

As it's very stale I wouldn't have done anything, personally. Secretlondon (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

There's no point unblocking a 11 year old unused account now but imho they should never have been blocked in the first place. Like what was being achieved by blocking them ? ... Probably the most nonsensical block I've ever seen here. –Davey2010^Talk 18:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Is courcelles itself even seeing this, by the way? I just noticed that user, without the letter "U", made more contributions in wikimedia Commons. Here is the proof.197.0.93.65 (talk) 23:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

They are the one that did the block and participated in this thread. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 23:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Not only that, once the notification was posted the user immediately rushed to the "Hard block" button and slapped the block notice on the talk page, all within a minute, but without thinking twice.197.0.93.65 (talk) 23:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Changed to a softblock. I’m not sure I misread or just didn’t process the year. Courcelles (talk) 00:53, 12 August 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.

Status of archived ANI thread

My IBAN request in May had been archived with a unanimous consensus for it to be enacted, however the sanction was not formalized. Yesterday, the other user involved edited an AfD thread right after me and blatantly voted to redirect an article created by me. I would like an update on where the status of my IBAN request stands. Thanks.--NØ 08:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Substantial backlog at AIV

Hi! There's a several hour-old backlog at AIV. I'm dealing with an IP that's vandalized a couple dozen articles in this timespan. Can someone pop over and take care of things quickly? ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, all. It’s being resolved! ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

...And it's backlogged again. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Reliability of La Patilla closure review

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

---

After posting at WP:RS/N here at AN, I was adviced to ask for a review of the closure of the RfC on the reliability of La Patilla. If I'm counting correctly, at least eight editors (without including myself) have expressed their dissaproval with the closure at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Deprecation RFCs and quorums and have asked for its review and possible overturn. NoonIcarus (talk) 15:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• There is clearly no community wide consensus that can be derived from a discussion with such a limited number of participants, and even in said discussion the majority view is not even for the option chosen by the closer. Overturn and change the close to not enough participation to determine site-wide consensus, certainly not enough for a source to be ruled verboten for use across the entire encyclopedia. And given the closer's repeated editing sprees removing sources from articles in which they themselves close RFCs as "deprecate", dont think this person should be closing any deprecation RFCs. Since they feel so strongly about the topic they should participate in the discussions, not close them. nableezy - 17:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn closure (uninvolved with RfC) Two issues were raised in the discussion immediately after the close. One is a question regarding how many people should participate in a discussion before we agree there is truly a community consensus to apply deprecation restrictions to a source. This is a broad question that probably should be asked as part of a review of the wider deprecation practice. It also probably shouldn't be answered here. The second issue is if this discussion should actually be closed as consensus to deprecate. It clearly was not by the numbers. Thus strength of argument is the only justification for closing this topic as consensus to deprecate. However, the closing discussion didn't explain why votes for answers ranging from "1 reliable" to "3 unreliable" were discounted in favor of deprecation. I have little knowledge of the source itself. My post here is based on what was presented vs how things were closed. Springee (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Comment: Want to disclose that I am the poster of the RfC regarding La Patilla and voted for deprecation after FactCheck.org showed that La Patilla reposted an article with information from Breitbart. There are multiple sources that are currently seen as unreliable, deprecated or blacklisted with similar to less participation (see Discogs, Last.fm, Rateyourmusic, Examiner.com, LiveLeak, Crunchbase, FrontPage, HispanTV, MintPress, BlazeTV and others). Some of these are more obvious decisions, but nonetheless, had little participation. If we are to begin a difference in concluding WP:RSP RfCs here with La Patilla today, we need to review the accuracy of the entire WP:RSP list in total and establish a more concrete policy surrounding the closing process (one user raised this concern here). Though I am in no way opposed to such changes, it seems that the opposition to the closure has more to do with the closure process than with the decision made. Please keep in mind, per WP:DISCARD, "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 ... The closer is not expected to decide the issue, just to judge the result of the debate, and is expected to know policy sufficiently to know what arguments are to be excluded as irrelevant". David Gerard reviewed the arguments made and with their knowledge of policy (which they obviously have), made a decision. Also, I would like to ping the users from a related discussion to include their input: @Silver seren, Sideswipe9th, Banks Irk, Andrevan, David Gerard, Alaexis, BilledMammal, JayBeeEll, Blueboar, Peter Gulutzan, SandyGeorgia, Selfstudier, Burrobert, Feminist, and Teratix: Thanks!--WMrapids (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Disclaimer: I supported deprecation. I think if you're going to argue about vague process concerns in a situation like this you need to also make a principled argument toward why La Patilla is a suitable source for Wikipedia, and that means engaging with the fact that La Patilla republishes sources like Breitbart, RT, and the Epoch Times. The La Patilla discussion was open for two months. WP:RSN is a high-traffic, neutral venue. The discussion was lengthy, more than enough for a closer to work with. Mackensen (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  Excuse me, six weeks, I can't count. The point stands. Mackensen (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  And for that close being based on 4 out of 12 people in the discussion? Not even a majority for the close result. It's just funny that I, as someone who would have voted Option 3 or 4, can so easily see that it was a bad close, but I guess once involved in a discussion, it's a sunk cost issue to acknowledge anything else. Silverseren^C 21:38, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Silver seren ...but I guess once involved in a discussion, it's a sunk cost issue to acknowledge anything else I beg your pardon. Mackensen (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  When involved in a discussion, whether it be an AfD or an RfC, there is a resistance to any other outcome than the one desired, even when certain results are clearly not appropriate for the consensus shown. I've had to deal with such sunk cost feelings as well in other discussions. Silverseren^C 22:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  Really? Mackensen (talk) 22:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  Mackensen, those sound like very good reasons to !vote 3/4 in the original discussion. However, this discussion should not be asking if the source is reliable or not. Instead it should ask if the RfC closing process was correctly followed. Springee (talk) 22:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, and I addressed this in my comment. Process is important, and so is consensus. Consensus isn't a head count. A good closer will evaluate the strength of the arguments when closing and discount those that aren't well-grounded in policy, or that don't have a good grasp of the pertinent facts. This was done here. I feel confident asserting that Wikipedia shouldn't allow a source that republishes Breitbart, RT, and the Epoch Times, and that most Wikipedians, in the light of cool reason, would agree with that. What's the principled counter-argument, and why didn't anyone make it in the original discussion? Mackensen (talk) 22:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  Sure, comments have to be disregarded sometimes because they aren't based in policy, but there's some limit to how much a closer should use their own intuition to make up the difference — otherwise we wouldn't bother having RfCs at all, we would just have one person say "yes" and one person say "no" and then get a closer to decide which of them had the right opinions. Consensus isn't a head count, but four people out of thirteen saying a source sucks should not be recorded as a project-wide consensus to forbid any mention of an entire website. Deprecation is an extreme measure (in fact, the most extreme of any of the options listed) that shouldn't be done on a sorta-kinda-basically basis. jp×g 23:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that a good closer should look beyond the simple !vote count. However when 2/3rd of the respondents don't say 4 (or in a hypothetical case 1) then it gives the strong appearance of being a supervote. Had the close been 3 it would be easier to understand. Certainly anyone who says deprecate would agree that means it's at least generally unreliable. But when the !vote and the closing are so far out of step it no longer looks like we are following the process. This is before we even go into the issues with deprecation that jpxg mentioned below. I mean, can anyone actually say what the standard is to qualify for deprecation (cue the "double secret probation" clip) Springee (talk) 23:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse closure per Mackensen. Andre🚐 21:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

overturn and reopen I wonder whether deprecation should be a standard option in an initial RFC, but rather only discussed in follow up threads about sources already marked as unreliable. As to concerns of quorum I think it's depends on how serious the discussion needs to be, certainly sites that are WP:UGC or have WP:COPYVIO concerns don't need large attendance RSN could overturn the underlying policies the discussion just services as a rubber-stamp. However neither of these are valid reason for overturning. What is is that I don't believe the numbers and discussion add up to a close for deprecation. I'm not an experienced closer but "generally unreliable" seems more apt. With a note that republished articles from deprecated sources stay deprecated even if republished by another source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I wonder whether deprecation should be a standard option in an initial RFC, but rather only discussed in follow up threads about sources already marked as unreliable This has been said before and I completely agree. Selfstudier (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: I second this. WMrapids (talk) 22:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Seems like a very good idea to me. Springee (talk) 22:27, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd support this as well. jp×g 23:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

To be clear I do believe depreciation is sometimes very necessary. But it should be used for sources knowingly publishing falsehoods, otherwise acting in a duplicitous manner, or is an ongoing waste of time. Having more involvement from editors at RSN wouldn't hurt either. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I would also suggest making it clear when Deprecation is needed. Some people seem to think deprecation is needed because we really don't like what the source has to say or because the source is really unreliable. From the opening of WP:DEPRECATE, "Deprecated sources should not be considered to be either unique or uniquely unreliable." This tells me that we should never be deciding between 3 or 4. We only use 4 when some special circumstance demands it. The Daily Mail was the first case but it was also before RSP was created. Post RSP have there been any sources that were causing issues on Wikipedia and thus required someone more than just saying generally unreliable? Looking at wp:DEPRECATE it honestly isn't very clear what qualifies for deprecation. The closest I see is a talk page comment that says it's for sources that continually come up as a problem. That seems very infrequent thus very few sources should ever qualify. Springee (talk) 00:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn closure The closure doesn't line up with the discussion shown and the consensus therein, even when weighing the different stances. And double the number of people have expressed opposition to the closure since than supported the outcome the closer went with in the first place. Just a bad close overall, not much else to say about it. Silverseren^C 21:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn (uninvolved) I mean, really, from zero to deprecated with such limited (persons) consensus.Selfstudier (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn (uninvolved). Deprecation isn't a policy or guideline — it's basically an emergency measure that disregards a lot of policy and should be taken only in the most outrageous cases. Everyday decisions about whether a specific reference (an article, a story, whatever) is reliable to source a specific claim should be handled by the people who are writing and discussing the article, not a bureaucratic determination of the entire source's "reliability" based on local consensus of a dozen people at some random noticeboard some time in the last decade(!). That said, even in the event that this was a legitimate way to determine and enforce the "reliability" of sources, it's not clear that this RfC is a consensus. One person says it's a bad RfC; there are four people who support options 1 or 2 ("generally reliable" or "additional considerations"), three for option 3 ("generally unreliable") and three for option 4 ("deprecate"), plus one person who said that both 3 and 4 were acceptable. It's difficult to see how this could be seen as a consensus for anything, but extremely difficult to see how this could be seen as a consensus to deprecate (a much harsher decision that disrupts the status quo significantly). Again, deprecation is basically a IAR-style "this website is so malignantly bad, and such a persistent problem, that we must overrule all normal editorial processes to purge it from Wikipedia" — not "four people out of thirteen said they thought it sucked". jp×g 22:27, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse - per Mackensen, etal. When reading through the arguments, 3 (Generally unreliable) had pretty solid consensus and so did 4 (Deprecate), though by a much slimmer margin. (Incidentally, just for the vote-counters out there, I went through and grouped together 1 and 2, and 3 and 4, and by doing that, 3/4 seem to have the majority. And no, no one should ever close based upon numbers like that - that was purely for the vote-counters out there.) - jc37 23:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  Based upon the clarifying comments by the closer, I am no longer comfortable endorsing the close. I was broadly trusting in their discretion, in light of neutrally assessing the discussion per broader policy/process/prior consensus/etc. I'm just not seeing that in their clarification. And the disinclination to even modify the unfortunate phrasing of "majority", doesn't help things either. - jc37 09:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn (uninvolved) w.r.t. the RSN thread. When reading through the arguments, it looked like there was plainly not consensus to deprecate. Additionally, the closer's claim that there was a majority for deprecation is plainly false; even though consensus is not determined by a bean count, the closer's assertion that a majority of participants favored outright deprecation is plainly false. As Silver seren aptly notes above, [t]he closure doesn't line up with the discussion, even though a basic requirement of a good RfC close is that it faithfully represent the discussion's result. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:33, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that there were some issues with word choice in the closure. And I think clarification statement from the closer could be helpful/informative. - jc37 23:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  It is not merely about word choice. The only basis for the close in favor of outright deprecation rather than characterizing it as GUNREL presented was that alleged majority vote, but no such majority exists when looking at the discussion broadly. There is no mere clarification that resolves that there was plainly not consensus to deprecate in that discussion; the only solutions for when the result is plainly wrong are either to (1) have the closer vacate the close or (2) have the current close overturned by the community. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  And from your perspective, I can see that. I think where you and I seem to generally disagree is to how slim the margin was for deprecation (or rather, whether there was a margin at all : ) - and I'll admit I'm leaning more than a bit on "closer discretion" here, which is why I think a clarification of some type by the closer could possibly be helpful/informative - jc37 00:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn, close relies on the blatantly false claim of a majority for deprecation. (commented on RSN talk but not RfC) – Teratix ₵ 00:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn, there was no majority (1.5 !votes out of 10 for deprecation). If the !votes for deprecation somehow had better arguments, this should have been stated explicitly. I haven't participated in the RfC and have no opinion regarding the reliability of the source itself. Alaexis_¿question?
• Comment from closer: it was a close one, heavily argued for several weeks in multiple venues. I assessed it as between "generally unreliable" and "deprecated", leaning toward deprecation - it certainly wasn't, say, between "GU" and "considerations apply" - it was clearly considered a very bad source, and the only question is the precise class to put it into. The outlet's blithe use of sources given to fabrication (for which those sources had already themselves been deprecated) seemed to swing it more in the discussion to deprecation in its own right than merely "GU". But the outcome could reasonably have been either GU or DEP, sure. I wouldn't put it higher than "generally unreliable", though. I've also noted this discussion at WP:RSN - David Gerard (talk) 07:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for clarifying. Would you consider adjusting your close? The "majority" sentence in particular seems at issue. But also, while I do support closer discretion, perhaps, based upon what you have said, and in light of the above, you might re-look at the discussion? - jc37 08:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think "deprecate" is a valid outcome for the discussion as was. This current discussion has been open for only a few hours, so changing it would be a bit premature, wouldn't you think? Particularly given the opener's failure to publicise it fully - David Gerard (talk) 08:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  To clarify, are you maintaining there was a majority for deprecation? – Teratix ₵ 17:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC) (@David Gerard: in case you missed this) 21:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: there appears to be a drive to leverage this discussion into removing the concept of deprecating sources. We had an RFC on source quality RFCs in 2019 Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_275#RFC:_Moratorium_on_"general_reliability"_RFCs that kept them. If you want to remove the concept of deprecation, then a broad general RFC in the proper venue, e.g. WP:RSN, would likely be the way to swing that - David Gerard (talk) 08:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn (uninvolved). It's as simple as, as has been noted above, deprecation is ou strongest possible response to a source and is site wide. As such the decision to do so must be equally strong and equally site wide. This close represented neither. SN54129 09:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn and reclose (uninvolved). I don't believe the number of users and forum were particularly flawed. I am however backing a reclose because I don't see option 4/depreciate as in any way having a consensus for it. An option 3 (generally unreliable) might, as could a very strict option 2 (unlikely but possible). When having the reliability scale of options (vs a change/no-change option) discussion, it's generally reasonable to assuming that anyone backing option 4 would back option 3 if the alternative was anything less. So a consensus could be garnered that way, but the current close I don't think can do so. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn (uninvolved), per good arguments by jpxg, nableezy, Silverseren, and others. And support ActivelyDisinterested's suggestion on deprecation not being the first step.

Side note: I'm increasingly seeing RfCs at WP:RSN for sources that aren't widely used, and have never (or only once) been discussed at RSN before. It's problematic when the source is obscure or foreign, because it can be hard to evaluate a source you're not familiar with; people might focus on whichever aspects the OP chose to highlight (whether cherry-picked or not). RfCs should be mostly a last resort, because they have this "aura" of seeming binding and settled, yet their scrutiny may be no better than if the source had been repeatedly brought up over the years in non-RfC WP:RSN discussions, each time involving different editors who discussed different aspects. A source that quotes Breitbart may be more clear-cut (and isn't an ideal example of what I'm describing), but I think the overall trend needs addressing. DFlhb (talk) 11:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm regularly at RSN, and the vast majority of threads end in simple advice. Unfortunately misuse of the board, as with other boards, does happen. Greater attendance would certainly help. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Worth noting that in this particular case, the RSN La Patilla discussion wasn't out of nowhere - it was a followup from a contentious discussion on Talk:La Patilla, on the issue of how to deal with a news source that was enormously popular but also reran material from Breitbart and the Epoch Times. That is, there was a genuine dispute that was squarely in RSN's remit - David Gerard (talk) 12:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn closure, and encourage the original poster to follow up on advice given them at ANI before launching other RFCs. As described at ANI by ActivelyDisinterested, the way the OP has gone about creating these RFCs has assured limited participation; that, and the WP:BLUDGEONing made me at least (knowledgeable about Venezuela since I worked throughout Latin America and the Caribbean during the 1980s and 1990s) unwilling to even weigh in to the mess.
  One thing that really sticks out, given the censorship and absence of free media in Venezuela, is that WMrapids has so far not accounted at all for WP:EXPERTSPS in their campaign to eliminate Venezuelan sources. As essentially all independent media has been shut down in Venezuela (see samples sources at the ANI), a thorough analysis of how a source can be used on Wikipedia will involve looking at how often other experts cite these sources, for example in scholarly sources and highly reliable newspapers. I haven't had time to look at La Patilla, but this, for example, is the case in spades with Nelson Bocaranda and Runrunes--another source that WMrapids has targeted. (Disclaimer: I created Nelson Bocaranda when his name came up in a 2008 Featured article candidate; [37] it's somewhat impossible to have worked in Latin America during the 1980s and not know who he is.) It is equally likely to be true of Alberto Federico Ravell of La Patilla, and I don't believe this has been looked at, but some use of the source as EXPERTSPS is likely to be possible.
  I strongly encourage WMrapids to work with other Venezuela-knowledgeable editors before throwing up RFCs (the best RFCs as those that are not launched until they have ample feedback from all "sides" to avoid garbage in-garbage out, which is what we have now on the RFCs), are those editors will be more likely to be able to point WMrapids to SPSEXPERT usage and history and sources and issues they appear so far to be unaware of. They seem to have embarked upon this campaign because of issues in Peruvian articles, and Venezuela is not Peru. In a country where the absence of press freedom is on par with that of Russia, most Middle Eastern countries, Yemen, and at the bottom of the list with the likes of China and North Korea, a solid analysis of sources per WP:EXPERTSPS needs to be undertaken before establishing reliability, much less deprecation. Doing this correctly will take a lot of work, as sources are so hard to find (most formerly reliable Venezuelan news archives have been taken over by the government and scrubbed as journalists are forced into exile, and most Wikipedia articles in the entire suite have been systematically biased by a few other editors hard at work in the entire suite inserting Maduro POV.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  I failed to indicate my level of involvement. I had no historic engagement with WP:VENRS, and I did not participate on the RFC for La Patilla beyond stating on Talk:La Patilla that the RFC there was malformed. I was once actively engaged in editing Venezuelan topics, but disengaged years ago because keeping up with the rampant tendentious editing throughout makes it a timesink. It was widely known in Venezuela that Chavez had paid editors, although reliably-sourced proof of this has not yet emerged to my knowledge. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn and reclose; there is clearly not consensus to deprecate the source: but there is also enough substance in that discussion to create an RSP entry, and to mark it level 2 at the very least (I have not evaluated all the posted links, which I would do if I were closing this). Reposting content from Breitbart and IBTimes is most certainly a red flag, and cannot be dismissed outright. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that Level 2 is likely to turn out to be reasonable in this case, but I'd want to undertake the EXPERTSPS review I mention above before entering a declaration, and that takes time I don't have. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  I have no objections to anybody conducting an EXPERTSPS review, but I want to be clear that I'm not supporting a level 2, I'm saying that's the best possible outcome for the source: no website that reposts content we have deprecated could ever be considered uniformly reliable, and indeed the default assumption should be of a lack of reliability. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  Same, for clarification: I'm not intending my post to support either 2 or 3, as I haven't done the work, but it's not 1 or 4. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn (involved) This might be implicit being the one that started the thread, but I wanted to explain further at any rate. Besides there not being a consensus for deprecation, as stated in this discussion, the fact that La Patilla generally publishes "questionable, fringe and propaganda content" (as stated in the closing statement) was hotly debated in the discussion, and the assertion that the outlet tended to be used as an "negative example" per WP:USEBYOTHERS (also stated in the closing statement) needs explanation as well, since this is not reflected in the discussion. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn (uninvolved). The RFC was malformed from the start, and the characterization of 3, or possibly 4, comments out of a dozen as a "majority" is obviously wrong on its face. There was clearly no consensus to deprecate the source. Banks Irk (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn and reopen (involved) After reviewing the concerns addressed above, I am encouraged by the large amount of feedback and agree that the "majority" calling for deprecation was an inaccurate description. Reviewing the closer's history and experience, I initially had faith in their decision, but users make mistakes sometimes (trust me, look at my recent edit history), so that is why there should be a more community-centered process for deciding deprecation instead of having a single user decide. Seeing that this RfC has sparked more involvement, I believe its closing should be overturned and that the RfC should be reopened in order to achieve a more broad consensus. Even though the closing decision agreed with my position, my goal was not to deprecate La Patilla but to determine a consensus on its reliability, which can now be established with further participation if this discussion is reopened.--WMrapids (talk) 06:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
• Thanks WMrapids for the ping. I share the concerns expressed by Nableezy and others about the idea that four people could possibly represent a WP-wide consensus to deprecate a source; by Teratix and others about the use of "majority" in the close; by ActivelyDisinterested about including deprecation in a very first RfC on a source; and by DFlhb about the frequency at RSN of RfCs on the broad use of sources instead of discussion about particular instances of sources being used to support particular claims in particular articles. It's obvious that the closure should be overturned (and frankly disappointing that David Gerard hasn't already withdrawn it). --JBL (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn (uninvolved so far, but read the previous discussions). My understanding is 4/12 participants opted for depreciate, and the close says "the majority agreed to depreciate". A Majority would 7/12, so right there - I feel the close is a problem because it's not accurate, I don't see a clear consensus other then "it's not a 1". Someone made a good point in one of the follow up discussions, that while the source had reposted content from blocked sources, it was translations of the better content of those sources, not translations of the worst content that got them blocked, and they'd even posted a retraction of one article found to be a problem later on. It does make sense to put a note that some of their content is translation of blocked sources, and those translations should not be used as a way to "get around" their block. But the examples I saw were clearly labeled with the source, so those articles would be obvious. Denaar (talk) 14:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Reclose as "no consensus". There is nothing stopping one finding a better source if one exists for a statement. Also we don't use solely one source to verify a controversial statement as far as I am aware, if that were the case, then everyone could say that this is true because the president's mom said so. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 00:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

• Snow overturn. This close has no chance of surviving community review, and further delay is purposeless.—S Marshall T/C 07:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
• Reopen I would have closed that as "generally unreliable" because there is clearly consensus for that, even if there is not for deprecation. But we certainly need to close it as something, and there is no consensus for options 1 and 2. More eyes would be welcome. Black Kite (talk) 07:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn and reopen (uninvolved). As Black Kite noted above, a "no consensus" close also seems inappropriate (and essentially kicks the can down the road when editors clearly have some serious concerns about the source; only one editor argued for treating it as generally reliable). Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 19:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
• Reopening (uninvolved): Upon careful review of the original discussion and the arguments presented here, it's evident that the initial closure decision did not adequately reflect community consensus. A clear mismatch between the closure's description that "the majority agreed to depreciate" and the actual opinion count suggests an error in interpretation of the feedback, with 4/12 not constituting a "majority" by any mathematical sense. Furthermore, several editors provided substantial arguments against depreciation which weren't adequately accounted for in the closure decision; the discussion surrounding the translation of content from blocked sources and La Patilla's behavior in terms of retractions is particularly salient. Ignoring such nuances undermines the very purpose of an RfC, which is to evaluate sources in their entirety and detail. Additionally, depreciating a source decision has far-reaching implications for how it will be used in Wikipedia going forward; given the unclear consensus and the small number of participants relative to the impact of such a decision, a reconsideration is crucial. As a Venezuelan myself, I possess a firsthand understanding of the intricacies and nuances of our media landscape, appreciating the challenges and dynamics at play. This perspective grants me an insight into the weight and gravity of depreciating a source like La Patilla in a country where press freedom is a constant challenge. Not to mention, the complex media situation in Venezuela, emphasized by SandyGeorgia's valid points about considering the lack of press freedom in Venezuela and how that might weigh on source evaluation, should influence any decision on La Patilla's reliability. Given these substantial concerns about the initial closure, I'd recommend the RfC be reopened for wider discussion and possibly invite a broader set of editors to ensure a fair and thorough evaluation of the source in question. Wilfredor (talk) 21:29, 13 August 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.

Report on User:Thewolfchild

Am having an issue with Thewolfchild who may be heading back to old habits -he inserted some misleading names, which I restored as they're linked to the proper article title(s). I've been accused false actions (not collaborating)- I asked & suggested this and received this response - I've been referred to as being Dick. Even this source has the names spelled out. We've been back & fourth with no end in sight. And still with no consensus, reached on the talk page, he does a "clean up"...basically a total revert. Would appreciate any help - Thank you FOX 52 ^talk! 06:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

FYI – notified TheWolfChild. Tails Wx (they/them) 06:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks - FOX 52 ^talk! 06:59, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, right before they called you a dick, you were pretty snarky with them. When they asked you to elaborate on your rationale for formatting the names the way you wanted to, your curt reply of "It's called reading" is not exactly civil. Calling you out by citing WP:DICK was a pretty mild response to your own rudeness. I don't know enough about the subject matter at hand to weigh in on the content dispute at hand (and ANI is not the place to have that discussion), but there's quite enough shit-slinging going around on both sides that neither of you comes off as particularly clean. WP:BOOMERANG and all that. I think the entire discussion could benefit from a turning down of the temperature altogether, and some dispute resolution may help break the deadlock over the issue. That's my advice; both of y'all need to bring some outside voices into the discussion and both of y'all need to back away for a while and let cooler heads contribute some new perspective on the discussion. --Jayron32 16:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes I agree, I don't normally activate an ANI, but given then editor past behavior, I felt it should be noted. And in time am sure it'll get resolved - cheers FOX 52 ^talk! 17:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

FYI, this is the main AN, not AN/I. Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 15:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I've noticed that "ANI" has sorta become the generic term for both of those pages. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Ackshually, this should have gone to ANI not AN. -qedk (t 愛 c) 23:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Tfd discussion on the unblock templates: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2023_August_11#Unblock_templates

As the unblock templates are well used I feel an AN notification is necessary for a tfd whose outcome would produce such a large effect. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Review of my unblock of Panda619

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 wish to start out by saying that I absolutely agree that the behavior this user caused (like here) is absolutely unacceptable in any capacity or any way. The user came onto IRC to request an unblock per Wikipedia's standard offer. I accepted, if anything, because of WP:ROPE. If the user decides to go amok and cause havoc, the block button is simply a few clicks away. We're taught here to use sound and good judgement (of course), but that can extend anywhere. Please understand this: If I'm found to be wrong for what I did, then I'm wrong; I absolutely 100% apologize for the decision I made, and I will understand, take any and all feedback with positivity, and learn from this in order improve my imperfections.

I'm sure that everyone here knows that I'm not here to hurt anyone, and I respect every (legitimate) editor here. I want to drive the spirit of Wikipedia to fulfill our mission to the best and fullest extent - That's all. This unblock generated this discussion, which I absolutely agreed to present what I did to this noticeboard. I've re-blocked this user pending discussion. My thought is this: If someone comes back a year later to apologize and explain (off-wiki evidence that I'm happy to provide), I think that's fine. I don't understand what the alarming issue is here. This isn't a "911", which are things both we and I resolve and take care of regularly. I just want a review and a discussion, even if it means that I am found to be wrong and at fault. Discussions are a critical part of Wikipedia, and I will never stand in the way of that.

Anyone is welcome to chime in, respond, and give their honest thoughts here - even if it disagrees 100% with what I did. Thank you to everyone in advance for their responses. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock Looking at the IRC discussion, Panda619 still doesn't really understand why they were blocked. They say

she died, I was happy, I am Indian, who reads lot of history and politics, I assume you know about British empire's atrocities, so at spur of moment I did that as a joke, it was there for a second I think, then one editor gave me vandalism warning and then lot admins came in and was talking how severe it was and such, and got blocked instantly, I tried appealing, they were still like, nope

... but doesn't appear to mention that if it was a spur of the moment thing, that doesn't explain why in their later unblock appeal they referred to Queen Elizabeth as a "genocidal hag" and a "pedo defender" ([38], admin only). Let's not forget the original vandalism was replacing QE2's article with a meme image and "RIP BOZO" in article space whilst the article was the most viewed article on Wikipedia. Despite being a Brit I'm no great fan of the royal family myself - to put it mildly - but a half-arsed "yeah won't do it again honest" doesn't really cut it for me. Black Kite (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• Noting that I raised this with Oshwah initially, and talked it over with him and a few others on Discord subsequently: Keep unblocked, without prejudice against proper community unblock request. The net result of the unblock/reblock is a restoration of talkpage access, which is fine. Panda's comments on IRC aren't really formatted in the manner of a community unblock request, nor were they intended for this audience, even if it's understood channel logs can be shared. So I think it's unfair to them to do a full unblock review without an actual community-oriented request from them. Let's close this sooner rather than later, and if they want to write up a paragraph or several for the community's consideration, they can. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  Tamzin, is that bolded part meant to say "Keep reblocked", or am I misunderstanding? DanCherek (talk) 23:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  OMG yes, thank you. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I don't think this was a good unblock, both on substantive (along the lines Black Kite outlines above), and on procedural grounds. Given that there were several declined unblock requests, I think objections were foreseeable, and so this should have been discussed with other admins before taking action – especially because -unblock is not a transparent venue. I also don't think this revdel reversal should have been made without prior consultation of the deleting admin. Regardless of the merits, the action was neither an obvious error nor was it causing any immediate issues. --Blablubbs (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  Blablubbs - Good call. I've redacted the edit and edit summary again under policy. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  Oshwah, I just saw this. It is another admin action of mine that you undid without notifying me. At least give me a chance, as the deleting admin, to tell you that I think it was a BLP vio (or WP:BDP, to be more precise). I mean, you're welcome to assert it was only vandalism and therefore ineligible for revdel, but allow me to at least respond to your objections before you act; to know that there are objections, in the first place. Thank you. El_C 12:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think that this unblock should have been discussed with the blocking administrator and the administrators who declined the previous unblock requests. This was severe and egregious vandalism of an exceptionally high profile article. To be frank, I am uncomfortable with unblock discussions taking place on IRC because of greatly reduced transparency. I do not participate in IRC for that very reason. I share Black Kite's concerns about the later utterly unacceptable "genocidal hag" and "pedo defender" remarks. This was not a one time incident. Also worth noting is that the original edit misused a non-free image, which is approved only for use in a single article. I think that this editor should stay blocked until they submit a much more persuasive unblock request on their talk page, and all interested administrators are invited to review it. On a personal note, I oppose all monarchies as part of my political philosophy. Cullen328 (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  Cullen328 - I appreciate your input. Thank you. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  Just to clarify, Cullen, #wikipedia-en-unblock ^connect is not normally used to conduct the entirety of an unblock request. Usually that only happens when the issue is a technicality, such as a username softblock or an IP block based on outdated information. For an OFFER/ROPE unblock request, the purpose of -unblock is to discuss reenabling talkpage/UTRS access (if applicable) and to give someone general guidance on how to formulate a block appeal. It's not meant to be a substitute for on-wiki discussion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:40, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• Not an admin, but frankly I'm shocked and surprised at the unblock. For offenses of this nature which led to the block, I think going through the standard channels of submitting an unblock request on the user talk page (or UTRS as necessary) should be a minimum step for any sort of unblock to take place, and if you lost those privileges, then I'm not sure that a request should even be heard. In any case, any conversation regarding the unblock can still take place on the talk page and could also be addressed by the blocking administrator as needed. I agree with the above calls to keep blocked. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 02:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  WaltCip - Everyone's opinion and thoughts are welcome; it doesn't matter if you're an admin or not. Thank you for commenting and sharing your input. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  After TPA is revoked, one is usually expected to go to WP:UTRS if they wish to regain it. If one is then also banned from UTRS, what do they do? IRC/Discord? And if so, is it to regain UTRS access, or less bureaucratically, straight to regaining TPA? In that sense, jumping straight to an unblock because UTRS, which is about regaining TPA only, wasn't available due to the appellant's own misconduct — that was kinda nuts. But also unintentional, irrespective of those mechanics. So indeed, a rare blunder from Oshwah, for which he apologized, and I of course accept (sorry I neglected to say so). For my part, as the blocking admin, I'm fine with the user either regaining UTRS access, or even directly regaining TPA absent UTRS. I don't intend on being too involved, if at all, in discussing any future unblock appeal/s, and am generally content to leave all that to others. El_C 10:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  It's worth noting that the WP:SO essay states that once an appeal is posted on the IRC or Discord or whichever, if [the appellate admin agrees] a review is appropriate, they'll open a thread at an administrative noticeboard (ideally Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard). I suppose we are indeed now doing this, but in a somewhat out-of-order fashion, as it didn't specify anything about opening a thread after the fact. 😊 It does also state that it's generally for stuff like bog-standard incivility and it doesn't extend to extremes, and while I feel this is certainly an "extreme" scenario, I'm not quite certain what "extremes" means in this context since it refers to police actions or office actions as an example. Whatever the case may be, I think we're at least in agreement that everybody was acting in good faith here, and I agree with El_C in that respect. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per above and also the message I had made on last ANI.[39] Even before this Elizabeth episode, there were too many problems with this user and they were never addressed by him. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 11:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
• Conclusion: This user will remain blocked. I apologize to anyone who felt that I should've looked deeper and taken more time to review the user's request. You're right; I should've done so. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
• Procedurally, the unblock was a rare mistake by Oshwah, for the reasons mentioned above. It's not a pattern, he's not doubling down, my guess is he's a fallible human like most of us, etc. But practically, it would very likely have been a good unblock, as the odds of Panda619 vandalizing again were really, really small. Now, Panda619 needs to become aware that in spite of what we say out loud, there usually is an aspect of punishment too, and there are smart and dumb ways to ask for an unblock. So some contrition is going to be needed, and if that's a non-starter for Panda619 then I guess they should give up. Whether or not I would be willing to unblock without a forced apology, I think it's clear the community (primarily from the West) won't. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  I also think an unblock on merits makes sense. An editor has an apparently rare(?) bout of emotional activity, behaves inappropriately, and later says: Yeah, It is not am excuse, that's why I said, It won't happen again & all I can assure you is, this won't be happening again and I want to go back to editing the usual anime pages - in the circumstances, I would extend a second chance. If I were in that editor's shoes in the present situation, I don't personally know what else I would say to convince people that disruptive editing would not continue, aside from what they've already said. I don't think the editor needs to change their evidently strong opinion on the monarch - they just need to not express it in any form here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  Re "primarily from the West": I'm relatively sympathetic to anti-imperial criticism of the late queen. At a minimum, I think we have a significant blindspot as a community regarding the British royal family, where many users see them as an apolitical entity and are unaware that a large portion of the world sees them as very much not so. That said, we have thousands of extendedconfirmed users from countries previously colonized by the UK, and only one of those users saw fit to vandalize Elizabeth II on the day of her death. There's a risk on the other side here of jumping from "This political view is more common outside the West" to "A person from outside the West would view this action as reasonable".

  I'll quote something I said to Panda in -unblock in September: I definitely empathize with having strong political views. / I also generally believe that if one's going to be very vocal about one's views, one should own up to the consequences / ... / A parting thought ... from a fellow radical: If you can't handle the consequences of taking a stand for a cause, don't. Their current approach is closer to what I'd need to see than their past what-did-I-even-do-wrong approach was. But it's still missing the point, I think. They need to show they understand that Wikipedia should not be used to further political ends, no matter how much you think you're right. Either way, I'll reserve judgment pending a proper community unblock request. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  "Reasonable" is kind of a straw man, isn't it? I never implied that - I don't think anyone has - and I've never disagreed with the block itself. I do think that a productive editor making a similar protest against, say, Vladmir Putin or Xi Jinping would have been more likely to have been unblocked in less than 1 year. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, "reasonable" was the wrong word there. I'm not sure the right one, though. Either way, something that can be settled at a later unblock request, depending on what exactly Panda says. I'm definitely not hard against unblocking. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock for now until we see the appeal. Scorpions13256 (talk) 08:27, 14 August 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.

Aman.kumar.goel

Please check the edit history on this link. Aman.kumar.goel has violated 3RR, not assuming good faith, casting aspersions without a shred of evidence and trying to hide his own meatpuppetry. 07:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.34.148.235 (talk)

I won't be notifying the user because he is going to remove this too. 07:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.34.148.235 (talk)

You are a ban evading sock of Oriental Aristocrat. Anyone who can compare these two diffs[40][41] will say the same.

You already know that blocked socks like you are not allowed to edit while everyone else (including me) are required to revert you on sight per WP:DENY. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 07:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Since Aman.kumar.goel is aware of this discussion it doesn't matter any more, but you really should have notified them. It doesn't matter if they remove the notification, they are entitled to per WP:OWNTALK. The whole point of the notification is to make them aware of this discussion, and we assume when someone removes something they read it enough to know what it's about. If they don't, well that's on them. Instead you put the fault if Aman.kumar.goel didn't become aware of this discussion on yourself. Nil Einne (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I think they meant remove the ANI thread. Moot now. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Reading again, I'm sure you're right. Still this illustrates why it was pointless exercise. Aman Kumar Goel was the first to comment on this discussion and within 2-3 minutes although no one notified them so could have easily removed it. I'm not surprised they didn't remove it since experienced editors will rarely remove a thread about them no matter how sure they are it's disruptive or justified unless it's so blatantly bad (e.g. extreme personal attack) or someone else has already removed it. Simpler to just let someone else deal with it and not worry about the WP:INVOLVED aspect or risk making a bad situation worse if you made a mistake. Nil Einne (talk) 09:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Now the user has started WP: FOLLOWING me. Maybe, after seeing the diffs, the admins come to a conclusion that you infact are part of a meat cabal. But that's for the admins to decide. Further, you can't go around accusing people without proof and without filing a SPI. First you accused me of being Liborbital and now are accusing me of being Oriental Aristocrat. Which of the two is it? If you yourself are so innocent, what are you afraid of?? Volunteer for a CU check and let the admins look into your conduct thus far. 39.34.148.235 (talk) 07:55, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

• IP blocked 2 weeks for harassment, per "I have all day to expose you and your cabal". Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Movement Charter Consultations - Firm Need for Additional Feedback

Hello all,

I'm posting more prominently here as I believe a significant portion of the potentially interested community hasn't seen the comms routes taken thus far, and we'd expect to have seen significantly more en-wiki comments than we have to date.

Consultation focus: The Movement Charter Drafting Committee (MCDC) published two additional chapters, and one "proto-chapter": Roles & responsibilities, Global Council, and Hubs. An interim glossary was also published.

Consultation Link: Movement Charter consultation

Direct links:

1. Global Council
2. Roles & Responsibilities
3. Hubs
4. Glossary

There are two action points:

1. Feedback: Every single thing within these published documents is up for questions, comments, advice, criticism, suggestions and more. Please post on the relevant page and, as you would here, suggested solutions with criticism are even more useful.
2. Open Questions: Each of these also has several "open questions" - areas where there isn't a current draft option, but instead several proposed alternatives or open topics we specifically need opinions on. These include things like restrictions on Global Council membership, role in fund dissemination etc etc.

Nosebagbear (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

AE stalled

Being worked on: A few other admins have shown up. Thanks! More, of course, are welcome. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

At WP:AE there have been no substantive comments from any admins other than me in the past 5 days. There's 5 open threads, in 5 different ethnonational dispute topic areas, which may have something to do with that. But if anyone has time to wade in to one or two, it would be appreciated. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll try and dig up some time to look into some of them, but I've been severely busy recently. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I've noticed the absence of not only admins but editors as well in areas I do work in. I assume everyone's on summer vacations this month. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Exactly why I'm so active, if you recall what South Jersey's like in the summer. Tourists peeking out of every nook and cranny. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

In my case, a mix of vacation, business, and preparing for the coming semester by avoiding biting off more Wikipedia-drama than I can quickly chew. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I can also attest to it feeling like there are more admin backlogs in the areas I edit than usual, although maybe it just feels that way because I recently became an admin. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Scorpions13256

This Scorpions13256 editing anonymously. After months of pondering, I have finally decided to scramble my password and quit Wikipedia. A lot of bad experiences and realizations online and within the real world in the past couple years led me to this decision. If you are interested, you can message me on Discord. Also, since my (reversible) operation, my mood has been unstable to the point where I am actively always in danger of doing something blockable.

I am posting here to ask for all of my rights to be removed, and thank everyone who made my 6 years of service awesome. 76.248.85.161 (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done. I've taken this request at face value. It's reversible. Take it easy, thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

David Latimer

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:JasonWeitz created the page David Latimer twice, after which were rejected by staff; user has disclosed to be paid to write the article. Suspiciously, User:Nutchladsa was created solely to revive the article based on Weitz's drafts, with the account abandoned after several edits; Weitz also contributed a photo to the new article. User:AncientWalrus had voiced their suspicion at the talk page, stating that the user might be a sock of Weitz, but it went ignored. A proposed deletion was set up but was rejected due to no consensus. I genuinely believe something is fishy regarding the article's creation and administrative action should be taken on both users. ILoveDCComics (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

ILoveDCComics, neither of these accounts has edited in several months and the article survived a deletion debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Latimer. You could nominate the article for deletion again, but I would recommend a more detailed deletion rationale, with a source analysis. We do not block stale accounts. Also, there is no such thing as "staff" when it comes to reviewing drafts. All that work is done by volunteers. Cullen328 (talk) 00:35, 16 August 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.

About 300 articles that fail WP:NOTSTATS

Over the past three years or so, Kkuchnir has been creating articles about the statistical leaders of various college sports teams, totalling nearly 300. From the few that I've looked at so far, it seems that all of these articles have been written from a single source provided on the respective college's website. This goes against at least two policies, WP:PRIMARY and WP:NOTSTATS, and the guideline WP:NLIST.

I recently brought one of these "statistical leaders" pages to AfD (here), which started a discussion that identified some of the issues that I've mentioned above — the discussion was closed with consensus to merge to the main article about the college team. In an attempt to resolve the issue with Kkuchnir directly, I invited them to participate in the discussion several times on their talk page (here). They have chosen not to respond to my messages, which is why I decided to bring this to AN.

Due to the sheer number of problematic articles, I believe it may not be practical to merge them all like at the AfD above, and that a mass deletion may be required. However, I'd like to request assistance from other editors in further investigating this situation and determining an appropriate course of action. Feel free to ping me with any questions. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand why these articles are now problematic, as they have existed on this website for years. There is a history of College football stat leaders and basketball leaders by team and this has not been an issue before. Almost none of the football articles were created by me, and some have been around since 2017.—kkuchnir (sigh) 18:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@Kkuchnir: Unfortunately, as other people have noted below, these are not reasons to keep the articles in their current states. And aside from a few other AfD nominations, I am also unsure why no one has brought up this topic before. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Kkuchnir: I understand your frustration. However, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is generally not an automatic reason to keep (or create) a page, and ultimately, consensus can change on any topic on Wikipedia. Generally, I try to create pages that explicitly cite a few sources that show that WP:GNG or WP:NLIST are met for a topic. Otherwise, a non-subject matter expert might honestly not be able to tell if its a random WP:NOTSTATS, WP:FANCRUFT list or not—then we need to invest time on deletion discussions (or noticeboards). Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 04:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Ugh! This is horrible. kkuchnir has been making these articles for ages, in all good faith, and nobody noticed that they are not encyclopaedic topics. Only now do we see that a huge amount of honest work might be up for deletion. Merging them would be a lot of work and it wouldn't even really solve the problem anyway. My feeling is that the best course of action might be to help kkuchnir to export them out to a compatibly licenced fan wiki before removing them here. That way the work is not wasted and this project can continue independently without anybody there needing to worry about our rules or objectives here. DanielRigal (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

There's an American Football Wiki on fandom.com Nthep (talk) 20:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@DanielRigal: I think this is an excellent proposal. As I also told them myself, I would prefer not to have their good-faith contributions wasted, and this seems like a good way of doing it. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

See Special:Search/intitle:"statistical leaders" for other such articles. Kkuchnir did not create all of them.—Alalch E. 19:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

None of these college-related articles has any encyclopedic value and all ought to be deleted, whatever the sport (football, basketball, ice hockey, etc). I know there's an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS sort of argument here but from my perspective that's simply a good reason for deleting all of them. Whether any of the similar non-college "statistical leaders" articles have any merit, I'm pretty doubtful but perhaps that's an issue for another day. Nigej (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

They all look the same to me, college or not.—Alalch E. 20:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

True, but best to avoid a WP:TRAINWRECK. Nigej (talk) 20:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, these articles need to go. How did they get through NPP? JoelleJay (talk) 00:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• The issue here is whether these articles pass WP:GNG or WP:NLIST. That outcome will likely vary on a case-by-case depending on the coverage that exists. Importantly, Kkuchnir is not alone in creating such lists. He was simply following precedent set years ago by other users. I think Michigan Wolverines football statistical leaders is the oldest example, having been created almost 15 years ago. I will notify the college football, basketball, and ice hockey projects to see if those members have input. Cbl62 (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for doing that, Cbl62. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• Mass deleting 500 articles of varying quality and notability created over a period of 15 years by numerous different users is absolutely not a good solution. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  Notability isn't relevant here; notability isn't a defense against a WP:NOT violation. Unless an argument can be made for why some of them violate WP:NOTSTATS while others don't, there is no benefit to not dealing with them as a group.

  DanielRigal's suggestion seems to be a good one, and I fully support it. BilledMammal (talk) 01:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  Per NOTSTATS: Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. Taking a look at a randomly-selected article, San Jose State Spartans football statistical leaders, everything is clearly understandable, put into tables, and those statistics which might be a bit more complicated are explained (Total offense is the sum of passing and rushing statistics. It does not include receiving or returns). Explaining the things further would be in my view unnecessary and could begin to get silly (e.g. in football, the quarterback throws the ball. If the receiver catches it, it is called a reception. If he runs after the catch, he gains what is called yards. A team plays games in a season. The following table has those who had the most yards off receptions in a season... is something that might happen if we try to fully "explain" the statistics). BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  That seems to be an argument against all of them violating WP:NOTSTATS (and, by extension, WP:NOTDATABASE); it doesn't justify not dealing with them as a group. BilledMammal (talk) 02:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  If it is (while noting that I haven't looked at a single page in question) - then it sounds like that ends the question of speedy deletion. - jc37 03:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  That alone does not necessarily justify not dealing with them as a group, but going back, my first comment does: Mass deleting 500 articles of varying quality and notability created over a period of 15 years by numerous different users is absolutely not a good solution. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  @BeanieFan11: I agree, deletion would likely cause more harm than good here. Please see the discussion below, we're working on an alternate solution. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  NOTDB requires the context to be from independent sources. Almost all of the prose in SJSU is sourced to the SJSU Spartans media guide, so it still fails NOT. JoelleJay (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  WP:SOFIXIT. And FWIW, I see more references to ESPN than to the media guide in the SJSU article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  How can anyone fix it if there is no independent sourcing to contextualize the stats. And none of the ESPN links are being cited in prose context except for a single sentence about NCAA rules that doesn't even mention SJSU. JoelleJay (talk) 22:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

IMO they clearly need to get deleted in some do-able fashion. North8000 (talk) 02:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd suggest individually nominating say 5 pages related to the popular sports of American football or men's basketball from a Power Five school, and assess those results and underlying arguments first before further considering any mass proposals in this area.—Bagumba (talk) 02:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bagumba: This has already been done to a certain degree. Looking at Kkuchnir's talk page, it seems a few other "statistical leaders" pages have been AfDed in the past. I believe most of them closed as delete, while the one I mentioned in my original post closed as merge. However, merging several hundred articles doesn't seem like a realistic option in this case. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69: On their talk page, I only saw Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michigan State Spartans men's ice hockey statistical leaders. I'm suggesting using football and men's basketball from Power Five schools as the test, as they would be more likely to have coverage, if it were to exist for any sport. —Bagumba (talk) 04:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I also saw only one. And that one did not close as delete, but rather with a consensus to merge. Cbl62 (talk) 04:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bagumba: My bad, I misread the notices. The ones I was referring to were left either by NPP reviewers or by editors who had PRODed an article. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• My take is this: Statistical leaders pages are WP:SPINOFFs from the main program articles -- they can in appropriate circumstances avoid over-burdening the main program articles. That doesn't make them exempt from the requirements of WP:GNG or WP:NLIST. In the case of major college football programs (e.g., Alambama/Notre Dame/Michigan), there is extensive coverage of statistical leaders, but less so for non-major programs. What happened historically is that lists were created for the major programs, and then others began duplicating the format, on the belief (incorrect IMO) that if Notre Dame has such a list, James Madison and Eastern Michigan should too. I suspect that most (but not all) of these lists fail GNG and NLIST and are supported solely on non-independent sourcing (i.e., the school's own web site or media guide). Cbl62 (talk) 03:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Cbl62: I invite you to consider the point made in BilledMammal's messages above: notability and coverage in sources are irrelevant when considering these articles as a violation of WP:NOT. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I assume you and BM are referring to the stats subpart of WP:NOTDATABASE which deals with "excessive listings of unexplained statistics." The better lists (e.g., Michigan Wolverines football statistical leaders) are rich with "explanatory text providing context" which is what NOTDATABASE requires. In other cases, that's a fixable issue by adding narrative context. The real issue here is whether the lists pass WP:GNG and/or WP:NLIST. I suspect most of them do not, and that's the issue that we should be examining. Cbl62 (talk) 03:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Most of the "explanatory text providing context" on that page isn't sourced at all, and the paragraphs that are are sourced exclusively to pure statistics databases or non-independent record books that don't offer any context either. NOTDB is clear that context must be provided by independent sources, and the text sourced to the zero-prose stats list is OR. JoelleJay (talk) 22:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Cbl62: I believe I agree with you on this point; this case might be a bit more complicated than I originally thought. The article you've linked looks nothing like the article which I AfDed, and it wouldn't really be fair to group it together with the others. However, I have to bring up the numbers we're dealing with again. Doing a search for coverage/source evaluation for these many articles is a massive project, not to mention the subsequent expansion of the articles once their notability is determined. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Just because they can't all be deleted en masse doesn't mean there's not a problem. Your post raises a valid issue, but mass deletion is simply not the solution. Cbl62 (talk) 04:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I see a few issues:

1. How to handle existing pages? Can we, at a miniumum, WP:PRESERVE verifiable career leaders of major statistics on the related school sports program page (e.g. career top-10 leaders)?
2. Establish expectations on mass creation in this area. I think the pages were created in good faith, but there are probably expectations we now have in hindsight. This will reduce frustration for page creators, minimizing "lost" work, and the community's time to patrol and nominate pages for discussion.

—Bagumba (talk) 05:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Some thoughts:

1. What do you think about a mass WP:DRAFTIFY as an alternative to deletion? It would make it easy to restore the content once an article's notability is determined individually (possibly through an AfC review, but I understand if that would be an unfair burden to place an already overloaded WikiProject).
2. No comment, as I don't edit in this topic area. I'd love to hear the thoughts of editors who know more about this.

—TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69: For my consideration, are there precedents for mass draftification that might be applicable for this case? Thanks. —Bagumba (talk) 05:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bagumba: I'm honestly not sure, and I'm not equipped to go digging through talk archives at the moment, as I'm currently travelling. However, I've never heard of any mass DRAFTIFY that would provide precedent here, and definitely not at the scale we're talking about. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Just came across these two RfCs (here and here) which concern the mass creation of stub articles by Lugnuts. The first one is open, while the second was closed with consensus to DRAFTIFY all. The closing comment by GRuban may be very applicable here: "...the motion allows, and even encourages, editors to edit and improve the articles so they can be returned to main space." This does now provide precedent if a similar decision is made here. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 09:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems that Lugnuts create 93,000 articles (presumably many of which were microstubs). They are also now banned. On the other hand, we are talking here about an editor in seemingly otherwise good standing and 300 articles in question. I'll need convincing as to why mass draftication should not be considered too extreme here. Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 09:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bagumba: I don't consider Kkuchnir's standing to be relevant to this remedy, as I'm not proposing to DRAFTIFY as a way of punishing them — I still believe their contributions were in good faith. However, we need a practical method of sorting out which articles belong in mainspace and which don't, and this seems like a viable option. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 10:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I don't see it as punishment either. It's about the content, not the person. Not being much involved in the other cases, I'm not sure if the editor being banned (or their actions that led to it) played a part in the mass handling of their work.—Bagumba (talk) 11:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Per BilledMammal's comment below, I believe Lugnuts' conduct was a factor in the decision. However, the practical alternatives so far for this case being either mass deletion, or doing nothing, I think a mass DRAFTIFY could be the most appropriate solution. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 12:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69: Do you have thoughts on my earlier suggestion to WP:PRESERVE verifiable career leaders of major statistics on the related school sports program page? —Bagumba (talk) 12:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bagumba: If by that you're referring to a merge to the main article, similar to the way the AfD I nominated closed, then I am not opposed to it. That being said, how many articles are we talking here? This goes back to my reply to Cbl62's comment: it could take a long time and a lot of work to determine who counts as "verifiable career leaders". I don't think the DRAFTIFY idea is incompatible with this one. The way I'm thinking about it, the DRAFTIFY could be a quick fix to remove the problematic articles, and then editors can work on the content in draftspace and restore it once it meets notability/NOT standards, whether by a merge or a move. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 13:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

The precedents established by the LUGSTUBS RfC's do not apply here; those only apply to mass-created articles, and my understanding of these articles is that they were not mass created. BilledMammal (talk) 11:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: Thanks for your comment as well as for opening those RfCs. Again I don't mean to apply the conclusions of that RfC to this discussion directly, I was just citing them as past examples of mass DRAFTIFYs. Whether it should be applied in this case is what is being discussed. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 11:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• I'm also sad to see how much work was carried out here that fails WP:NOT, but under 300 could be handled as a bulk nom at AfD if correctly narrowly tailored. In any case, we need a complete list of articles before we can move forward. SportingFlyer T·C 22:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Why is this discussion even here? Is there anything for admins to handle? This is a content issue. --Rschen7754 06:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

There was an intitial proposal for a mass deletion, which would require an admin to carry out. —Bagumba (talk) 06:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Change to the Functionary team

Following a request to the Committee, the CheckUser and Oversight permissions of bradv (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) have been restored.

For the Arbitration Committee, Primefac (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Unresponsive

Hellohello124 (talk · contribs) is having WP:TCHY issues. It's getting boring having to repeatedly revert their edits. Can a block be applied to grab their attention? Cheers. – ².O.^Boxing 02:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Alleged Racially Biased Editors/Administrators For A Certain Wikipedia Article

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 are two editors named Doug Weller and Hipal who appear to harbor racial bias because they are constantly edit waring with other editors on the Tariq Nasheed wikipedia page. There are several users who post reputable links and according to the page history, User:Doug_Weller and User:Hipal constantly removes those links. Yet they allow sources from websites like Refinery29 that has ties to white supremacist groups. It appears that these editors could possibly have ties to that site and others. They are violating the Neutrality policies with the article. 65.57.178.10 (talk) 01:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy link Tariq Nasheed. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

IP blocked for personal attacks and probable block evasion. Acroterion (talk) 01:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not familiar with Hipal, but the idea that Doug Weller "harbors racial bias" is one of the most ludicrous charges I've even seen on en.wiki. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  If you look at the talk and edit history, there does appear to be some type of racially motivated selective editing and censorship. Many sources from Black media outlets are dismissed and removed. And all the people who post neutral source links are accused of being sock puppets and their texts have strikes put through them. And User:Doug_Weller appears to be the ringleader of that suspected racial censorship. And that should be investigated. 216.250.210.88 (talk) 03:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  I find that Highly ridiculous and untrue. Untamed1910 (talk) 03:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

The IP is probably a sock of User:Fijiwahwah. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:31, 18 August 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.

Wrong information about kahar category in UttarPradesh

kahar always come under OBC in Uttar Pradesh. They are not sc/st so please correct your content so many are following you don't miss guide them. 2402:8100:2085:C86C:0:0:E0A5:33E2 (talk) 07:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I have made the change. In the future, please make requests such as this on the talk page of the article. Donald Albury 13:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

49.190.249.131

49.190.249.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), especially Talk:Shaking beef#Page Mover Turaids or using edit summaries to name me and express their opinions on me. 49.190.249.131 just casually picked up the discussion where 49.190.240.37 left off, which makes me suspect it may be the same person, also because the style of communication with other editors they disagree with is very similar. And there already was a report on 49.190.240.37, where a suspicion of sockpuppetry was expressed by a third-party editor, but was not pursued any further. Please advise on how to proceed. Turaids (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Nice attempt at trying to get me banned. It's called replacing a router. That other ANI became inconclusive and no further discussion was needed because all parties stopped getting involved. Funny how I brought up your edits removing Thai and Vietnamese dishes and cultural cuisine and then you yourself create and further edit in articles of other cultural dishes but not doing the same merging and page moving activity you have done to those Thai and Vietnamese dishes. 49.190.249.131 (talk) 04:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I see a lot of personal attacks from the IP at Talk:Shaking beef and at the moment see no reason not to block the IP. Doug Weller talk 10:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Very convenient to replace the router soon after you end up on thin ice about your behaviour and then continuing the very same behaviour under a new IP address:

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

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

Since it's now been established that it is indeed the same person, tagging the two third party editors @InvadingInvader and HandThatFeeds: who commented on the previous report to renew the discussion. Would it be appropriate to inform editors who have interacted with the said person under the previous IP address outside of the administrators' noticeboard (such as the editor who filed the previous report) about this report or would it be considered canvassing? It's very unlikely they'll stumble upon this report otherwise due to the circumstances of the said person having operated under multiple IP addresses. –Turaids (talk) 07:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Definitely deserving of a block, given both IPs consistent argumentative nature in the face of consensus & nationalistic personal attacks. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 10:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

IP that is currently active, ie 49.190.249.131, blocked for 72 hours. Doug Weller talk 10:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

108.41.81.126, believed sockpuppet of CreecregofLife, continued editing after 6-month block

Ah yes CreecregofLife again. They should pursue the WP:STANDARDOFFER already, but the IP continued editing recently seen on Special:Contributions/108.41.81.126. I'm not sure if they had redeemed, but it probably shows that Creecreg doesn't understand the whole situation. Should the IP get blocked again? BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 02:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for one year.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

User pages as webhosts

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.

---

At the bottom of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Attorney at Law magazine, attorneyatlawmagazine.com, I added two WP:UPNOT queries. I don't know where to put those, and don't believe I can/should remove the webhosting myself, so would appreciate someone knowledgeable in that area having a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

This is why CSD criteria U5 exists. Deleted those two. Courcelles (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Ah, ha, {{Db-notwebhost}}; thank you, Courcelles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 18 August 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.

Bot block needed at User:OAbot

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:OAbot#bot_incorrectly_removed_manually_added_free_access_tag

It's been going on for a while with no action from the bot ops. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Done. firefly ( t · c ) 18:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I did a stupid thing

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 explained at Wikipedia talk:Teahouse#Account temporarily compromised but control restored, a family member briefly had access to one of my devices, which I was logged in on. The last edit made from my account at the Teahouse was not made by me (well, the revert was but not the original edit). No other edits were made and the device is now back in my possession. Would it be in order for someone to revision delete the content of that Teahouse edit? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

300 editors have just scooted off to take a look. Knitsey (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to trout me. I'll administer the in-person equivalent to my offspring... Cordless Larry (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm going with WP:BRO and a trout. Knitsey (talk) 18:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

You're going to whack your kid with a fish? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I've just cooked dinner and we're not having fish tonight, but that would also seem unfair given that the fault here was 90% mine. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:20, 19 August 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:Qwerfjkl and non-admin closures of categories

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

---

A week and a half ago, I nominated Category:United States presidents and death for renaming to Category:Deaths and funerals of United States presidents. Earlier today, I moseyed on over to CfD to see what happened. I noticed that User:Qwerfjkl had non-admin closed the CfD as rename…but they hadn’t actually made the move, nor had they even removed the CfD template from the article. And then I noticed that this wasn’t the only CfD like this. As I see it, one or more things need to happen here:

1. Admins need to clean up some of these CfDs, completing the moves that User:Qwerfjkl has closed
2. Qwerfjkl needs to stop closing CfD discussions like that

pbp 18:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

After closing the discussion, Qwerfjkl listed it at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working in this edit, in accordance with the instructions for closers, so it is already flagged for admin action. DanCherek (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is the standard process. It's a shame that only one person is processing that queue right now, and thus a large backlog has built up. When the crats finally implement my RfA I will definitely help clear that queue, and of course any other admins watching this are welcome to join us, but Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive354#WT:CFDW backlog was archived without reply. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I have now cleared the backlog of CfDs needing admin action. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks for doing that. Way to put your new tools to good use :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, and Qwerfjkl should probably put seven days of his life to one side in the nearish future to avoid having to use the {{nac}} template. In the meantime, this can be closed, as the OP's assertion has no basis in policy. SN54129 11:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

The community doesn't think so, per Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Archive 15#Qwerfjkl. But then I passed RfA with many of the same supposedly-disqualifying flaws... * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, not doing an RfA based solely on that feedback isn't reasonable IMO. Pppery's RfA would be a good thing to read over carefully before you proceed, but if the issues raised in the discussion are the only ones, I think you'd be fine. Hobit (talk) 02:22, 18 August 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.

More sockpuppet accounts of Holiptholipt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Holiptholipt/Archive It's not even fun at this point, hes been doing it for months now on these pages [42] and [43] and [44], I don't know why he can't take a ban, the guy is just creating a new account after new account...it's easy to know because the banned user is adding the same links he added 3 months ago when he got banned with his old accounts...I was told last time to report any new accounts made by him so here it is. . God damn, how does he have time for this? @Spicy: @Drmies: to let y'all know about it as you were involved with me on the previous case. Goloshisima Riquísima (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 186.141.136.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 2800:2502:122:a7d4:e72:ed5f:8621:8db0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 2001:4451:120c:6600:c988:b042:409b:8b66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 186.141.201.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 181.170.173.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

~~~~ BastianMAT (talk) 12:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Swept the sock drawer, think I blocked 3 or 4. Laid down some ECPs on the frequent targets. Courcelles (talk) 12:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

BTB Electric

Please review the article about BTB Electric. If it is accurate and meets the requirements, could you help me move this article to the main space? User:Ging Ging 90/sandbox to BTB Electric. Thanks Ging Ging 90 (talk) 00:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

This is not a matter for administrators. I have put your article into the articles for creation process. A fellow editor will review it and get back to you. — Trey Maturin™ 18:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Ging Ging 90 (talk) 04:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Ah, you took it out of the AFC process and moved it to main space, without it being reviewed and despite a fairly evident conflict of interest, as soon as your account was old enough to do so. That’s a pity. — Trey Maturin™ 06:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

AldezD

I posted this on the editing restrictions talk page and was told to bring it here.

I would like to have my interaction ban with User:AldezD expunged, as he left wikipedia about six months ago. Thank you! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) What happens if he comes back? casualdejekyll 15:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

And if they're gone how are you going to interact with them in the first place? This should be only an issue if they do begin editing again, not while they're not here. Nate • (chatter) 16:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that, as I understand it, I cannot edit anything he has edited or I'll be in violation of the restriction. I'm not currently aware of anything of his I'd want to edit. But if I were to unknowingly do so in future, even though he's gone I could still theoretically get in trouble for it. I am fine with retaining a direct interaction ban. I've got no reason and no desire to interact with that character. I just don't think it's right to never again be able to edit anything he worked on, even though he's gone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

The relevant discussion is here. Baseball Bugs, we could maybe discuss relaxing the "undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means" to "undo each other's edits over the previous six months to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means" to allow you to edit freely without having to check the edit history of every article you edit to make sure you aren't inadvertently undoing such an edit.

But first, can you comment on what looks like some pretty remarkable obtuseness from you in that discussion? Have you maybe developed some insight over the past year? Valereee (talk) 11:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Trying to be calmer is an ongoing effort on my part over the course of time. There was plenty of obtuseness on the other user's part as well - and I've seen that meeting obtuseness with more obtuseness is futile. Better to not be tempted to take that bait. When he dragged me to this page, I should have ignored it. And if it ever happens again, with him or anyone else, I will try to adhere to that rule. Let others decide the dispute. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

What I was getting at was the multiple times you excused yourself for going to their talk page to ask for their assistance -- when they'd repeatedly told you they didn't want you there -- and then doubled down because no one was suggesting someone better to ask for help. You even demanded at AN that AldezD suggest someone if they didn't want you asking them. Then got a bit shirty with the AN volunteers (Fine. I'll find someone else to ask, somehow, somewhere and then complained that I asked a good-faith question and got schlepped to AN yet again and This is my punishment for assuming good faith. No matter. I've asked for advice elsewhere now. I do not see anyone else in that convo being obtuse. I'm still willing to discuss amending your Iban, but it is pretty concerning that even after all this time, when I assume you are no longer actively upset, you still don't see what was the problem in that discussion. Valereee (talk) 16:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I see plenty of things wrong with it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to assume you aren't being deliberately obtuse here with me. Do you not see what you were doing wrong in that discussion? Valereee (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, I see plenty of things I did wrong. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Other than not ignoring the discussion at AN altogether?

The reason I ask is that in your first response to me, you said When he dragged me to this page, I should have ignored it. And if it ever happens again, with him or anyone else, I will try to adhere to that rule. Let others decide the dispute. Which to me looks like you might think that was your primary mistake? Valereee (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

My primary mistake was ever attempting to engage him in the first place. And my secondary mistake was in attempting to engage with him again, as it was clear he didn't want to hear from me about anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @ScottishFinnishRadish, @Golbez, @Canterbury Tail, @EvergreenFir, @Drmies, @Malcolmxl5 for input on whether we could relax the IBAN to not undoing AldezD's "edits over the previous six months to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means" (emph mine) to allow this editor to edit freely without having to check the edit history of every article they edit to make sure they aren't inadvertently undoing an edit by the other editor, as that editor hasn't edited in 6 months and has marked themselves as retired. Valereee (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Do not care. --Golbez (talk) 18:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. As it stands, I don't expect that anyone would have looked back a year to see if BB was reverting a very old edit of AldezD's. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

We do not ordinarily remove IBANs simply because one of the parties has stopped editing. The reason for this is simple: if they return, they will come back to a project more hostile than the one they left, which in turn reduces the chances of them returning. For an IBAN to be lifted, there needs to be a clear understanding from the banned party that they understand what they did wrong and have a plan to avoid these problems in the future, per the advice at WP:GAB. The comments from Baseball Bugs above appear to me to fall short of this standard. – bradv 17:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Hey, Bradv! It's not a removal, just an allowance for BB to edit articles that haven't been edited by AldezD in the past six months without inadvertently violating the ban due to AldezD having edited it two years ago. All other IBAN restrictions would still be in place. Re: the rest of the restrictions, BB has said they don't want to interact with the other editor again. Valereee (talk) 18:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what's so important about AldezD's edits that someone who had an iBan with them should regain the right to undo them after that editor left--iBans are installed to prevent harassment or prevent furthering disagreements, and whether or not one editor is gone doesn't change that purpose. If there's something wrong with a user's edits, any of the other million editors can fix that. Drmies (talk) 19:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Drmies, it's just so that BB doesn't have to do a "edits by user" search on AldezD before every edit they make. It's arguable the hardest thing about an IBAN: making sure you aren't doing something that undoes a previous edit by the other editor. Everything else is fairly straightforward: don't interact, don't participate in current discussions the other has participated in. Valereee (talk) 19:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

OK, I guess that makes sense--I was thinking of undoing edits rather than simply editing an article. But here's the other thing: I remember BB from all the noticeboards and reference desks. Over their entire career only 16% of their edits are in article space, and it seems to me that such an editor would probably have a better idea of who edited which articles in main space than others. Drmies (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:PERM backlogged

Has unanswered requests dating back to July 23. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I've worked through the autopatrolled and NPP backlogs. Page mover, pending changes, and rollback still need some attention. – Joe (talk) 08:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

And File Mover. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Online News Act concern and discussion

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)/Archive 6#Online News Act that may be of your interest about the Canadian Online News Act, legislation that may have implications for Wikipedia. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Please bear in mind this things before reviewing my article

Moved to User talk:CHeram citizen

Primefac (talk) 09:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

How many times am I allowed to reply to someone on an article talk page?

Leo Frank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User Beyond My Ken is threatening to seek administrative action against me because he feels I am making too many replies on the Leo Frank talk page.

Isn't the point of the Talk page to carry on a debate about how to improve the article? I don't see what is inappropriate about replying back and forth a few times. I feel that I have been polite and stated my position dispassionately.

Am I only supposed to state my position once?

The user in question has himself replied several times across the Talk Page.

I feel that threatening editors with administrative action for politely making their cases is harassing and inappropriately seeks to end debate.

Could someone please advise me on this? Livius Plinius (talk) 23:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process yet? Even if someone else is bludgeoning the discussion, that does not give you permission to do so. Donald Albury 23:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider Beyond My Ken's action a threat. This would be a time on your part to reflect. Is there something about you edits that would lead others to consider that you're bludgeoning the process? Read the article and carefully consider its contents. Nemov (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, your replies to almost every !vote in this discussion can be described bludgeoning the process. M.Bitton (talk) 23:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Livius Plinius, here's some advice: I'd drop it. The argument you have been making on the article talk page isn't going to get anywhere, since Wikipedia doesn't work the way you think it does. We can, and do, base content on the consensus of informed opinion (which in regard to Frank, is more or less unanimous that he was wrongfully convicted). We are under no obligation to engage in nitpicking semantics over the failure of the US legal system to put any serious effort into correcting hundred-odd-years-old miscarriages of justice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

If you find a discussion going in circles, such as this one, then it's a good idea to stop replying in see if other users with fresh perspectives contribute. Sometimes the appearance of bludgeoning makes other folks less likely to contribute. Mackensen (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I would advise User:Livius Plinius to also read the boomerang essay before their next post here. What I see at Talk:Leo Frank includes one editor who is bludgeoning. It isn't Beyond My Ken. Drop the bludgeon. It isn't a good throwing weapon. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Leo Frank and its talkpage have recently been attracting a lot of attention, ranging from outright anti-Semitic trolling to editors who want to discard what they assert are "Jewish" sources. A few more eyes on the talkpage and article would be helpful. I assume that there's a recent thread on an off-wiki messageboard somewhere that's bringing people in. Acroterion (talk) 12:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• Just to make it simple: as long a discussion is cordial and productive, as much as keeps the discussion moving forward. If, however, a discussion is "going around in circles" and you're repeating essentially the same things over and over again, or if the discussion is taking on a hostile tone, it is time to disengage. If necessary, use dispute resolution to bring in additional voices to the discussion. --Jayron32 12:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you. This is helpful advice. Livius Plinius (talk) 13:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Jayron32 Good point, one I hadn’t thought of. I also note that since returning from a three year break virtually all (about 40 ) of their edits hand been to Leo Frank or the article of the person killed. Doug Weller talk 17:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Rename wrong city name to correct one

Hello, based on most reliable encyclopedia about iran and as a person who lives in this city, i want to inform you the correct name for the city is Cheram (latin: ČERĀM), please rename these articles to correct names,

• Charam, Iran to Cheram, Iran
• Charam County to Cheram County

Also in persian wikipedia the correct name is cheram also, Thanks. 2.184.172.100 (talk) 07:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I note that the article in Tajik Wikipedia (Tajik being a variant of Persian) spells it Чаром (which corresponds to "Charam", noting that standard Farsi /a:/ often becomes Tajik о), sourced to what appears to be a 1986 USSR map. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 10:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Also noting that Charam, Iran does list "Cheram" as an alternate spelling. I think an RM might be appropriate here over a unilateral move. Primefac (talk) 10:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree, I suspect this might turn out to be more controversial than it seems, so best to get community consensus. WaggersTALK 21:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Page creation request: Wikipedia:Help:

Since Wikipedia:Wikipedia: redirects to Project namespace, can someone create Wikipedia:Help: to redirect to Help namespace? (Sorry if this is not the correct format) LOOKSQUARE (👤️·🗨️) talk 16:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Seems reasonable.  Done --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! LOOKSQUARE (👤️·🗨️) talk 17:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Why isn't crypto an ECP subject?

Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies is said to be modeled after ARBPIA, including its 1RR provision. So why does ECP not apply to it (yet), especially with ARBPIA also calling for ECP? FMecha (to talk|to see log) 13:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Because ECP was not part of ARBPIA's discretionary sanctions regime. (Indeed, at the time PIA was decided, ECP didn't exist.) The ECP restriction was added in PIA3 (2015); it wasn't until PIA4 that the PIA CTOP was harmonised and the PIA1 and PIA3 sanctions were put in one case. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 14:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Understandable then... but I thought crypto being an ECP subject matter would fit to curb down spam/COI editing on the subject even further. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 17:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

A lot of individual crypto pages have been placed under WP:ECP by administrators since 2018; see WP:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies#Page level sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 17:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Barabashenjatko, violation of WP:PAID

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 details see Ukrainian Wiki noticeboard. Short story: Barabashenjatko made paid contributions using Ukrainian freelancing site and hid that fact. As I can see, she created few articles in EnWiki, one of which was already deleted as promo. The second one is also paid: on May 11 user's employer wrote a review about her work, which must be Ukrainian version of the same article, created on the same day; on May 16 the same employer wrote one more review about a new article, created in another language: English version was created on the same day. Айнене (talk) 08:12, 25 August 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 DeFacto

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.

---

It seems evident that DeFacto is engaging in an ongoing pattern of edit warring, repeatedly reverting my contributions on Nadine Dorries while vaguely citing Wikipedia policies.[45] In some cases, he referred to my edits as nonsense which is evidence of personal attacks.[46] On one occasion, DeFacto has even undone my edits when I highlighted their clear WP:POV bias, dismissing it as personal attacks [47]. This consistent employment of ambiguous policy references and repetitive mentions of nonexistent concerns strongly suggests an effort to promote a conservative bias on Wikipedia. It has been pointed out by other editors as well.[48] It's worth noting that DeFacto seems to have faced multiple blocks in the past due to similar behavior. In light of this situation, I kindly request your assistance in addressing this matter. Your support would be greatly appreciated. Thank you all. 92.1.168.50 (talk) 14:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: One more revert: [1] 92.1.168.50 (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

DeFacto has reverted you twice, and asked you to go to the article talk page to build a consensus for your edits. Why did you reinstate the edit, which you know was contested, and start a thread here instead of going to the talk page to discuss the matter and working to establish a consensus with other editors? (Thought - is this BKFIP?) Girth Summit _(blether) 14:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Consensus? For what? He is the only one who disagrees. (What is BKIFIP?) 92.1.168.50 (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Per Girth Summit, this should be discussed on the article talk page where the appropriate level of coverage for Dorries non-resignation (and in particular how much should be in the lede) can be agreed. Note that it is correct that we shouldn't have stuff in the lede that isn't covered in the body of the article. In addition, it is usualy unhelpful to accuse other editors of political bias - as Dorries is being heavily criticised from both left and right, that claim doesn't really stick.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

This is clearly a disingenuous report, made by a disruptive editor. You can see from their edit history that they are not here to build an encyclopaedia, but to cause trouble. Not only do they revert rather than engaging, they also make unnecessary personal attacks in their edit summaries and on article talkpages:

• in response to a reasoned revert they said this: [49]
• then added this to the article's talkpage: [50]
• I warned them about that previous one and they restored it and added this: [51]

-- DeFacto (talk). 14:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• They then removed the warning notice saying this: [52]. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: Three Revert Rule and WP:Edit Warring in Nadine Dorries by DeFacto [1] [2] [3] [4] 92.1.168.50 (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Number 1 isn't a revert though. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Haha, of course it isn't. Why did you erase this? It's interesting how the situation has now escalated to being labeled as vandalism. It's worth noting the way you seem to selectively apply rules to align with your own objectives, similar to how you handle reversions of others' edits. A discussion is ongoing on the talk page, and it's worth mentioning that your absence from that discussion is noticeable. This page itself isn't meant for the discussion at hand; instead, it falls under the guidelines of WP:3RRNO. It's my hope that the moderators step in to address the situation. 92.1.168.50 (talk) 17:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I corrected my misunderstanding, that's all, which is a normal and acceptable practice as no replies had been made. If I was you, I'd stop digging now, if it isn't too late already. And beware of WP:BOOMERANG. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Four reverts in less than 12 hours. I hope we see a response from some moderators. 92.1.168.50 (talk) 17:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

When you say A discussion is ongoing on the talk page, which one do you mean? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I have removed a conduct discussion unsuitable for an article talk page ([53]) and semi-protected the article for a year now. Regarding the restoration of content others have objected to in good faith, WP:BLPRESTORE (and thus a requirement to gain a consensus for those favoring inclusion) applies. 92.1.168.50 has unnecessarily personalized a content dispute and may be blocked from editing if the behavior persists; a detailed warning can be found on their talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Nothing the IP has said makes me less suspicious that this is BKFIP trying to cause trouble again. Personalise a dispute, attempt to goad their target into violating NPA or 3RR and then escalate rapidly to AN/ANI is very much their MO, and the geolocation is about right. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:34, 25 August 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:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute closed

The SmallCat dispute arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision is viewable at the case page. The following remedies has been enacted:

• BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Laurel Lodged (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Laurel Lodged is indefinitely topic banned from maintaining categories. In addition to discussing categories and their maintenance, this includes – but is not limited to – directly adding or removing categories from pages, and moving or renaming categories.
• Nederlandse Leeuw (talk · contribs) is warned about their behavior during conduct discussions.
• Editors participating in XfD, especially those forums with a small number of regular participants, are reminded to be careful about forming a local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers at an XfD forum may also want to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute closed

IP address edit warring without any attempt to reach consensus

Hello there, I'm requesting administrator attention towards the article New Brunswick New Democratic Party. In this article, an IP address keeps adding "Vacant" to the list of NDP leaders, for a period of two months where this political party was vacant. As I've stated in the talk page discussion, I personally believe a period of two months is not significant enough to list it in the list of past leaders, yet instead of holding a discussion with me to attempt to reach consensus, the IP address 2607:FEA8:D1E0:7C10:7088:57ED:14C9:DC4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which previously made edits to the original article under IP addresses 2607:FEA8:D1C0:E67:25F6:598:2660:55D (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 2607:FEA8:D1C0:E67:1D7A:5B08:B8C2:816B (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is continuing to add the same edit to the article.

Checking the revision history, you can see that I've reverted it in the past due to my personal beliefs of it being unnecessary to add, and, through reverting the IP's unexplained persistency in adding the "Vacant" line, my attempts of using the revert reason to either tell the IP to use the talk page or reach consensus with me in the talk page. The IP did make a talk page section, but they have not offered any response to my own response and resorted to once again adding the "Vacant" line without any explanation, without any attempt on reaching consensus with me.

Due to not wanting to stir up an edit war with the IP, I left a warning on their talk page relating to edit warring in order to try and see if that would result in them actually trying to reach consensus with me on the talk page, which they would end up reverting and once again, adding the "Vacant" slot on the disputed page. B3251 (talk) 04:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

AFD snowball?

For admins who like doing BOLD closures, we have a dynamic discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mug shot of Donald Trump which will probably quickly have a hundred opinions given the AFD tag on the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I am heavily involved, but a look by an uninvolved administrator may lead to editor energy being redirected to improving the article instead of the AfD debate. Cullen328 (talk) 08:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm on it. WaggersTALK 12:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done WaggersTALK 12:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to revert given the discussion on my talk page - a few people don't agree with the SNOW close so it makes sense to let it run for the full week. WaggersTALK 20:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

You were right the first time: there is no possibility of that discussion coming to any conclusion other than "keep", it should be closed with no prejudice to re-evaluating in a reasonable timeframe (say, a few weeks from now). I say this as someone who thinks a merge is a more appropriate outcome. (Also at least one of the people on your talkpage doesn't understand the difference between 'speedy keep' and 'snow keep', even though you linked the essay -- le sigh.) --JBL (talk) 23:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I think SNOW appliess here. Since there are now apparently articles appearing about this AFD discussion in the media, things will only snowball. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:47, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Probably safest to just follow procedure and let it run a week. There were multiple objections to the snow close and mentions of DRV. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Involved, but SNOW definitely applied and seeing it re-closed as such is hopefully vindicating. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:27, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Richard D. Gill

Hi there,

I added some sourced information to Richard D. Gills article, and fair enough maybe it was a bit undue including a summary of it in the lead and so another editor (@Yngvadottir:) fairly shortened it and kept it just to the body [[54]]. But then the actual person who the article is about came along and removed both me and the fellow editor's edits under the justification of 'vandalism' [[55]], presumably as the content added was negative about them. The other editor had to restore it [56]. It was my understanding that Wikipedia:Conflict of interest editors shouldn't really be editing pages about themselves in such a way as to remove all negative things about them? I tried then to add to the page with some more information about Benjamin Geen to balance some of the content, with Geen having already been written about in the same section, and cited a reliable source (The Guardian), but then Gill reverts his own page again, saying it 'doesn't belong in that part of the article' and makes no attempt to put it in any other part of the article, again presumably as it is not a particularly glowing review of him so doesn't want it to be in at all [57]. So I change the section title [58] to make it more appropriate for the content the section includes, including the stuff of mine the other editor had re-added about a non-proven miscarriage of justice which wouldn't make sense under a 'wrongful conviction' part, but he then just reverts again without explanation a second [59] and then a third time [60], so I've stopped as I don't want to edit war. But then Gill goes on my talk page and starts making personal comments towards me, such as that I 'have an agenda' and that I'm 'just a troll': User talk:MeltingDistrict. This is despite me attempting to warn him that conflict of interest editors are strongly encouraged to not edit on articles about them and that he should be commenting on content, not on the contributor. Gill just said he had 'Alterted other Wikipedia users to my vandalism' [61] and said some slightly confusing comment about how he 'should not touch the article about myself (a living person) till I’m no longer a living person'.

Look I know my conduct here hasn't been 100% perfect myself and the stuff I was trying to add to Gill's page wasn't making him sound fabulous, but I did source it to reliable sources and the other editor refined it and re-instated it? Can it really be allowed that a conflict of interest editor is allowed to just always revert a user (or users) on his own page? And make personal attacks against me?

Oh, and to update, he has now removed entirely all edits, including the stuff I'd included which the other more experienced editor refined and re-instated [62]. Is this really allowed, seeing as he's reverting two editors now, and isn't it also edit warring, having reverted this four or five times now?: [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68] MeltingDistrict (talk) 01:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Huh ok. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah fair enough but I was already given a 'level 2 warning' for that [69] as I'm a dumb fresh editor MeltingDistrict (talk) 01:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad this section was started; I was about to report MeltingDistrict here for axe-grinding and edit-warring over Lucy Letby. I haven't examined their edits at the main Lucy Letby article, but that personal attack on User talk:Gill110951 noted above by the IP was vile. I would have given it a warning above Level 2 had I not been creating a new editor's talk page. Their edits at Richard D. Gill demonstrate a serious problem with maintaining a neutral point of view and after posting here I'm about to re-examine the article from a BLP point of view; the edit war and extension of MeltingDistrict's focus to Benjamin Geen came during my household's grocery run. I seem to recall a contentious topic banner on Talk:Lucy Letby; if I remember rightly, could an admin please give MeltingDistrict appropriate notification? Yngvadottir (talk) 01:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Could I just ask for clarification please on how I've been edit warring at Lucy Letby? Genuinely don't think I have... I've been adding lots of content. This evening it got a bit messed up because of intermediate edits, but I wasn't edit-warring. MeltingDistrict (talk) 01:47, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, I feel like everyone is somewhat in the wrong here - MeltingDistrict's axe grinding, and Gill's conflict of interest editing. Also, anyone can give CT notices, not just admins. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:50, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm 100% happy to admit that my conduct has been bad and needs to change, and I would like to apologise. I will just say that while I hold my hands up and say I have had an axe to grind with Richard Gill, I have only meant to add sourced content to Lucy Letby, not edit war. I think I reverted someone once today but that's it. But in any case happy to just hold my hands up and say I need to be better MeltingDistrict (talk) 01:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

If you have an axe to grind with a BLP subject you absolutely should not be editing their article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough I won't then, but is the article subject also allowed to control edits on it? MeltingDistrict (talk) 02:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

That's my main concern: the subject of the article is actively editing the article. Y'all know me, I hate COI editing. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

((ec)) @LilianaUwU: As I say, I have not examined MeltingDistrict's work on the Lucy Letby article itself, but their feelings about the case are on display in that personal attack. I now see they didn't edit the Benjamin Geen article either, but added something about that case at Richard D. Gill. It will take me a few minutes to look at what they added and its source and try to come up with a neutrally worded addition that is less UNDUE about Lucy Letby; the state of play last I looked is that the subsection on Letby has been completely removed. I note that Gill110951 started a talk page section, MeltingDistrict did not. Dashing off to the sources .... Yngvadottir (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify I probably would have opened a talk discussion/replied there sooner if I wasn't distracted by already being told I was a troll on my talkpage and told to stick to the Lucy Letby page by Richard Gill [70]. When I realised he'd opened a talk page discussion (I didn't get the ping as the ping was not formatted properly) I did reply. MeltingDistrict (talk) 02:17, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, other than his initially labelling me a vandal (LOL), which was probably inadvertent, I've been impressed by Gill110951's comportment. MeltingDistrict gives the impression that Gill110951 came right at them with the "troll" accusation, but it's actually quite far down this section on their user talk, which Gill110951 started by engaging the content perfectly reasonably: So the analogy with these nutty conspiracy theorists is a bit weak. They have now apologised for the "troll" accusation. MeltingDistrict can indeed claim to be new—although they initially started editing in December 2020, they went away after only a few edits, and that spooky WMF note at the top of their contribs says they have 139 edits total. Nobody had welcomed them, so they may have not been aware of policiy. I am mindful of WP:BITE and in particular that everyone starts off as a single-issue account. But since returning on 19 August, they've focussed on Letby. And the first thing they did on their return was leave that steaming pile of PA on Gill110951's talk page. Gill110951's over a bit of a barrel in attempting to defend an article about himself (see his user page) from edits based on personal feeling, RIGHTGREATWRONGS, etc. MeltingDistrict, this is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper; advocacy has no place in our articles, and respect for living persons and civility toward fellow editors are fundamental rules here. Do you understand this now? Yngvadottir (talk) 03:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Very well then. Yes I understand what you say and will leave Gill alone from now on. MeltingDistrict (talk) 07:19, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello

Moved to WP:Help desk

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:56, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Linking to Good Russians on Template:Russian invasion of Ukraine

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 article Good Russians was deleted via WP:GS/RUSUKR, and me and Super Dromaeosaurus are debating whether the red link to this article should be kept in Template:Russian invasion of Ukraine to encourage article recreation. In my opinion, it should not, since the term is encountered mostly (or even only) in online op-ed sources, so WP:N is not met (and the article should have been deleted even if it didn't violate WP:GS/RUSUKR because it was based solely on op-ed non-RS). --HPfan4 (talk) 14:28, 26 August 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 lacks competence, refuses to learn, and is editing from an account and an IP

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.

---

JMFan05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 75.132.39.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) are the same person. He keeps on making edits to articles without having any understanding of our policies, guidelines, or best practices. See the IP's user talk where he repeatedly refuses to even try to read WP:V or WP:OR and the account's user talk, where he keeps on making bad drafts of articles that cannot be published. He's removing accessibility features, breaking references, inserting nonsense into pages, removing sourced information, etc. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Note he has also posted copyvio information before and had several deleted edits. He has no concept of basic sourcing or how to write articles for this encyclopedia. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh and he purports to work for Mellencamp with otherwise undisclosed affiliation on articles. Plus this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JMFan05&diff=prev&oldid=1172297813 ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

What I would do is remove this jackwad from having anything to do with Wikipedia in the future. I’ve written all of John Mellencamp’s main Wikipedia entry, all of his album and single entries as well. I know what I’m doing. This Justin guy is a complete jackass. JMFan05 (talk) 06:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

The current block is solely for incivility. I haven't examined the other issues, so anyone should feel free to extend the block without reference to me. DrKay (talk) 07:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Upon further review of the editor's history, I have blocked them indefinitely as NOTHERE, per what they likely did not realize was their own suggestion: "What I would do is remove this jackwad from having anything to do with Wikipedia in the future." Indeed. Daniel Case (talk) 18:33, 26 August 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.

New anti-vandalism tool starting development at the Wikimedia Foundation

Hi - I’m the Product Manager for the Moderator Tools team at the Wikimedia Foundation (and long-time editor and admin here). I wanted to let you know that now that we're wrapping up our work on PageTriage, my team is in the early stages of designing and building Automoderator - an automated anti-vandalism revert tool like ClueBot NG. Although most of the details and discussion can be found on MediaWiki, we’ve created a project page here to discuss how this tool might be evaluated or used on the English Wikipedia. We think you have unique insight into how we should build the tool given your experiences with ClueBot NG. Please take a look at our project page and share your thoughts on the talk page. We’ll try to keep the page to date as we progress with the project, so consider watchlisting for updates. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:44, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of the name "automoderator," not just because of the obvious (Wikipedia is not a forum; we don't have any clearly defined non-automated moderators so it'd be rather confusing to suddenly have an automated one, etc.) but mostly because it rather implies the kind of authority that the tool simply won't have, and could never have because it's an automated process. How about something more in line with Wikipedia's culture, such as "Automatic Vandalism Reverter" (or AVR for short)? 78.28.44.127 (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm definitely open to new names. 'Automoderator' stuck as a name because we were researching similar tools on other platforms. Twitch, Reddit, and Discord, for example, all have 'Automod'/'Automoderator' tools. Additionally, we've been using the term 'Moderator' to encompass administrators, patrollers, functionaries, and generally experienced editors who do content curation work. I agree, though, that 'moderator' isn't a word we use here, so other names might be better. Automatic Vandalism Reverter is a nice suggestion, though perhaps a bit wordy. AutoPatroller might be better since Patrollers are the non-automated equivalent, though it's perhaps too confusing with Autopatrolled. Either way, very open to new name suggestions. Perhaps we could even let each community name the tool/reverting account themselves? We're going to have to think about the issue of localisation at some point anyway. I appreciate this response was a little unfocused - a reflection of how early in the process we are here! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 06:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

‎Online News Act concern and 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.

---

There is a concern about the Canadian Online News Act, its possible implications for Wikipedia, and a discussion that may be of interest as such to administrators at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)/Archive 6#Online News Act. (I had previously posted but the diff was removed as it was in the middle of other Oversight situation). Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Whilst access to the diff itself was removed as part of oversighting another editor’s post, the actual section survived along with everything else on the page and was archived on schedule as part of the ordinary operation of this page. — Trey Maturin™ 20:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Request to delete some taunts from a userpage

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 had planned to just remove these as personal attacks, but as it was already attempted by someone else and reverted, I'll bring it here for discussion. Someone who was just banned has some comments on their userpage that are inflammatory and inappropriate. WP:UP#POLEMIC deals with this specifically. The comments are here [71]. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 03:05, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

The first thing that should be done in these cases is to ask the user to remove the content you find inappropriate, or ask their permission to do so (such as, for example, if they are blocked and unable to do so themselves). DrKay (talk) 07:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

This doesn't make sense... she clearly wants it to stay there or she would have removed it previously. And why would I ask permission from someone who is sitebanned by arbcom? This is a userpage content guideline violation. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 12:52, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@Balph Eubank: Another editor removed those comments, and I reverted them. Neither that user nor you is entitled to alter another user's userpage. In this instance, the fact that BHG was banned by ArbCom makes it even more unseemly for editors to alter her userpage. DrKay's suggestion is impossible as BGH does not have access to her Talk page, so she wouldn't be able to respond. My first suggestion is you let it go. If you are unwilling to do that, you might e-mail ArbCom and ask them. As an aside, you should be using your actual username in your sig.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:07, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the relevant guideline is at WP:CUSTOMSIG: A customised signature should make it easy to identify your username. Also, bearing in mind the high profile of that particular editor and the number of editorial opponents she had, I think if the comments were considered that egregious whilst she was active, they would have been challenged by now. It seems the height of gravedancing to try and remove now they are banned. SN54129 14:17, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I completely disagree and have removed the first one as it is particularly egregious. Making fun of someone's command of English is obviously not appropriate content for a user page. I have done this as member of the community as opposed to an arbitration action. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Good call. If BHG makes an appeal at a later stage, when less burned out, the presence of the section would have worked against her. Ceoil (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

And now users are edit-warring over the comments. Unbelievable.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

yes, it is rather unbelieveable that I am now being asked to get a consensus that removing the deliberate mocking of another specific user for their English skills is now something we need to debate rather than simply agreeing that it is an absolutely deplorable thing to have on anyone's userpage. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

In practice, we only enforce CUSTOMSIG when it comes to new users and as an additional charge against people who find themselves at ANI for other reasons. There are tons of long-timers with signatures that have nothing to do with their username, nearly all of them are aware that some people find it confusing/frustrating/unfriendly to newbies trying to figure out norms/procedures, and little appetite to enforce it. YMMV. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:09, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Soo ban someone for their behavior towards other editors, and fight to preserve that behavior? Odd stuff. At the end of the day, has anyone just pinged Headbomb, as the subject of the two remaining? If we were talking about someone who wasn't sitebanned, I'd consider that his response might be influenced by a desire to avoid interaction with the user, but I suspect with things as they are, we can just defer to his wishes. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:09, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Headbomb, as the subject of the two remaining? I'm the subject of what? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:45, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

The links in this "Jewels" section. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I couldn't care less. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

While these comments aren't great, making a big deal of out of them now smacks of gravedancing. I hope this doesn't devolve into a free-for-all for anyone who's been waiting to get their pound of flesh from BHG. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with those who say that language comment clearly had to go. I'm surprised no one noticed it until now, but I AGF that it isn't intended as grave dancing, especially since frankly if someone really wanted to harm BHG, it seems to me there's a fair chance bringing it up while she was still active would have been more successful. Nil Einne (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for assuming good faith. The gravedancing accusations from others are without merit. I cannot recall having any negative interactions with BrownHairedGirl in the past and this has nothing to do with her being banned. WP:UP#POLEMIC is a guideline and I'm not sure why removing inflammatory comments from a userpage of someone who cannot edit is controversial to anyone who is unbiased. Additionally, Bbb23 should note (despite the comment "Neither that user nor you is entitled to alter another user's userpage") that I didn't touch her userpage... I raised the issue here to be discussed and reach consensus. Not sure why the massive overreaction, but whatever. The end result seems good, as the subject of the two remaining inflammatory comments doesn't care about them. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 19:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Well Bbb23 is deliberately giving wildly incorrect information there anyway, as they know full well what WP:UOWN and WP:NOBAN say in clear English. And it is not "Neither that user nor you is entitled to alter another user's userpage". What it says is user's do not own their own user and talk pages, and other people have every right to edit them. It is a courtesy to not make substantial edits to another editors userpage without their permission. But that does not extend to content that should be removed on sight, such as attacks on others. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Bbb23 is deliberately giving wildly incorrect information. Yeah, it's something I do so well. I've bowed out of this post-ban circus. Have fun.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Gravedancing is not vandalism and this is not article space, so your wikilink to that herring essay is whatever. And this still looks a lot like gravedancing to me. It seems unlikely that you just randomly stumbled across the userpage of a freshly-banned editor you had never interacted with before. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@Lepricavark: When did anyone say it was random? It's entirely reasonable that someone may come across the case, and visit BHG's user page for any myriad of entirely acceptable reasons including to get to their contributions page for again any myriad of acceptable reasons, and while at the user page notice the highly disturbing content on BHG's userpage and act not because of any malice to BHG or because they knew BHG was blocked but simply because they saw content that was unacceptable for which they would have taken action in any case. This isn't random, but it clearly isn't gravedancing either. We shouldn't do things to intentionally harm editors at any time and this applies even when they've been blocked, but this doesn't mean blocked editors have some sort of protective shield and are entitled to have all their contributions protected forever more even when those contributions are extremely harmful to Wikipedia. Instead we should just treat all editors including blocked editors the same. Let them be provided they are not causing problems but if they are or have created problems then only take the necessary actions to protect Wikipedia from these problems. Note that we generally allow even blocked editors to request deletion of their user pages (excepting for ban notices then they are deemed necessary). And while I don't think this is articulated anywhere I would fully support as a courtesy allowing a blocked editor to request (once or twice) some minor edits to their userpage, in particular blanking it excepting for a ban notice where the community feels that is necessary. So it's not like BHG is powerless here, if they feel this issue has highlighted that their userpage needs a lot of work but they can't deal with it, they could simply request we blank it until they are able to deal with it. (There's no realistic chance they will be allowed to keep the language comment. As my original comment hinted at, in fact if they had tried to, this would not have ended well for them even if they did not have the history that they did. But with their history, it would have ended even more poorly. As sort of highlighted by Ceoil, anything less then them acknowledging they made a serious error in posting that is in fact likely to prevent them ever being unbanned since even if the arbcom makes the decision to unban them, there's a fair chance the community will just override them. Especially if BHG actually tried to defend posting that comment. With it being removed there's a fair chance they people will just leave it be if an appeal comes. Although even if not, it's hard to have sympathy since BHG did chose to make such an atrocious thing on their user page.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

BTW, as far as I can tell the editor who the comment was from is still active and in good standing although possibly with a tendency to create too many categories, and not notified of this thread. Normally I'm a stickler about notifying editors when we are effectively discussing something to do with them but I'm going to make an exception here because I'd much rather this editor is not aware that this happened. Let them be blissfully unaware how shockingly they were attacked and that other editors then tried to allow this attack to be kept. Nil Einne (talk) 13:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

The OP wrote that I cannot recall having any negative interactions with BrownHairedGirl in the past and this has nothing to do with her being banned. If they stumbled across the case and that led them to BHG's page, then this does have something to do with BHG being banned. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Confusion of necessity and sufficiency. Please stop casting aspersions. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 20:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not casting aspersions. Get your story straight or don't tell it at all. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Let's take a breather here, you did just accuse them of gravedancing. And the heat to light ratio is getting high pretty quickly. --qedk (t 愛 c) 22:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• Seems to me that it was a clear violation of WP:POLEMIC, as is the comment still left about Headbomb, they don't care about it, which is great, but such things should never be posted on anyone's userpage in the first place. It's as simple as that, whether they are banned now or later carries no weight in this particular conversation. --qedk (t 愛 c) 21:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Delete the entire "Jewels" section as a violation of WP:POLEMIC which clearly prohibits maintaining negative information about other editors. Please note that restoring polemic content is also considered disruptive. –dlthewave ☎ 23:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

• There's no encyclopedic merit in retaining a public statement mocking another editor's English language skills. Let's remove the comments then move along. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:30, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  FFS, I do not understand why this even gets a thread. The tasteless, crass, WP:POLEMIC "jewel" should have been got rid of long ago. Whether or not it's only been spotted now because of the ban...irrelevant. DeCausa (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Request restoration of some of my editing privileges

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.

---

Last year, I made an unban request that was accepted at AN. One of the active participants in that request, User:GizzyCatBella, suggested adding two further restrictions to my editing, one of which was a topic ban from Eastern Europe broadly construed. I believe this editing restriction should be removed for the following reasons: 1) it is unnecessary: I have never been involved in disrupting pages related to Eastern Europe, so it is unlikely that I would start. 2) it is overbroad: it has hindered me in work cleaning up after an LTA, and more recently has regularly prevented me from working on certain paragraphs in entries related to (French) history, the French press, and French political figures (notably Emmanuel Macron, an article I've been trying to pare down per the consensus view that it is overlong). 3) there was no consensus for the restriction: only one person not sanctioned in the most recent case related to the Holocaust in Poland supported Gizzy Cat Bella's suggestion, possibly because they were not familiar with the topic area. The vast majority of people ignored it. 4) WP:BANREVERT says that edits by banned users can, and in most cases, should be reverted. As a result it seems logical that the effects of the edits by User:Jacurek requesting my topic ban from the topic area which had led to their banning should be reversed, especially considering points 1), 2), & 3). Thank you for your consideration. I have informed SFR of this request on his t/p. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 09:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support. At the very least, in line with new information revealed in and around the latest arbitration case. El_C 14:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
• Can we get links to A) the discussion that generated the ban, B) the relevant ARBCOM case and C) anything else that is likely relevant to the ban? I'd like to hear from the closer of the discussion and the proposer of the ban why they took the actions they did and how they feel about them now. Hobit (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  A) what little discussion there was began after this ultimatum

  B) Signpost executive summary. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 14:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  Also [72] is the entire discussion. @ScottishFinnishRadish: was the closing admin. Hobit (talk) 16:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  C) Here are two examples I reported to SFR about a month ago of the self-censoring I have to engage in to be sure to avoid gotcha' filings. SFR confirmed he would consider them topic ban violations despite being very tenuously related to that vast swath of territory. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 21:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. In all honesty, I don't recall interacting much with Sashi on wiki, and I'd have stayed away from this request if not for the extreme levels of battleground and incivility I've seen displayed by him at off wiki forum (WPO) in this thread directed towards a number of the participants of the ArbCom case they mention (and non participants, for example . At first I thought the account they were using there was a sock of Icewhiz himself. I have zero desire to see a user with some weird grudges and poor attitude to civility edit in the Eastern Europe topics. I recommend editors who consider lessening the restriction to read Sashi comments there (there are few dozens...).
  PS. The unban request from last year should be linked. My cursory look at it Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive349#SashiRolls_requests_a_!ban which I think is the most recent development mentioned, suggest Sashi is quite incorrect in framing this as related to GCB. There were dozens of participants in that discussion, and concerns were raised by many others (the closer wrote: There were several responses with specific caveats, e.g. GizzyCatBella and Shibbolethink. Yngvadottir was also open to additional restrictionss and the ban also included One-way interaction ban with VM, One-way interaction ban with Tryptofish which suggest those editors are not very likely to hold high opinion of Sashi; and I know that at least VM is quite active in EE topic area.
  There's also more in the archives I don't have time to peruse: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive303#Unblock_appeal_by_SashiRolls (2018: unblock after an ArbCom block), Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive321#Site_ban_proposal:_SashiRolls (2020: site banned), Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive328#Ban_removal_request_of_SashiRolls (2021: appeal withdrawn) and a bunch of others. The community seems to have given that editor a second (third? fourth?) chance. Fine, I believe in reforming people and letting them stick around - but again, there is no need for Sashi to venture into the EE topic area; it does not seem like a good idea for anyone concerned, including himself.
  PPS. Sashi writes above "what little discussion". Well, that "little discussion" linked above (#Site_ban_proposal:_SashiRolls) was very little indeed - I stopped counting votes/comments around vote/comment ~50. Clearly, what I think as littleand what Sashi thinks as little are in quite different ballparks. Bottom line #2, I am not impressed by the framing of this request, which ignores almost all reasons those restrictions were implemented in the first place, suggests that the editor appealing has not learned how to behave better, and is just trying to use the fact that one of their critics got blocked a while ago as a 'gocha' and 'get out of jail card'. Nope. Try again in a year or two, showing that you were able to stay away from battleground mentality, and explain better why you want to join this topic area (which needs less, not more, drama and battleground).
  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support. I've looked again through that long unban discussion (opened on December 24 last year, closed on January 15). I count 6 times I contributed there; I tried to help with brokering an agreement, and as part of that, I didn't object to the topic ban from Eastern Europe, which so far as I can see was proposed by GizzyCatBella at 22:11 on December 27 (SashiRolls' "ultimatum" link above), seconded by Volunteer Marek at 18:39 in response to my support !vote (A topic ban from Eastern European topics, including Russia, would also be a minimum since I’m not the only one they’ve “followed around” in that topic area., and thirded by Shibbolethink at 15:13 on December 30 (echoing GCB's wording). I thanked ScottishFinnishRadish for closing the discussion, which was sprawling and I'd had no idea which way it would go. I appreciate their reasoning for implementing the unban with the addition of both the new topic ban and the new one-way interaction ban with VM (it should be noted here that that one-way iban will be a constraint on SashiRolls' responses here). But I have felt bad about not pushing back against the topic ban, because I didn't realize that it would affect SashiRolls' work far beyond political issues. SR has given the examples of Polish jazz (SR and I have different interests, my interest in jazz falls away sharply in the Big Band era and I hadn't even been aware of Polish jazz) and of someone involved in the purchase of a French publication who is from the Czech Republic. It's more of a limitation to SR's editing than I'd imagined, and I should have urged getting their response. Especially since a large part of the reasoning appears to have been things SR had said at Wikipediocracy. That's also the first thing Piotrus mentions in his !vote above. I don't think criticism on an off-wiki forum is an entirely fair basis to give someone a broad topic ban like this. For one thing, it's a forum (a Wikipedia-critical forum), the culture is quite different. For another, I and most Wikipedians can't see posts in the private sections. However, since Piotrus still finds some of SR's posts on WO to be unpleasant, and maybe there's stuff I can't see, or whose nastiness I am underestimating ... SR expressed willingness at the time of the appeal to stay away from discretionary sanctions/contentious topics, so why not walk back this broadly construed restriction to Eastern European politics, whatever the CT abbreviation is?
  I've looked at how SR is doing since the unban, steadily less and less (I wouldn't have known about this appeal if Piotrus hadn't quoted the close and thereby pinged me). I've seen them working away improving articles, and discussing civilly and logically on matters like Macron's terms/presidencies. I consulted with them almost immediately on a touchy article and have since then from time to time butted in on articles they were working on, mainly gnome edits like this one where I remembered there was a template workaround. I truly believe they've justified the trust we extended to them with the unban. The only time I recall seeing them get nasty was at SFR's talk page in March, when they asked for this editing restriction and the new iban to be lifted. So I advocate either lifting the topic ban or restricting it to Eastern European Contentious Topics / Eastern European politics. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Basically per Piotrus. Dawid2009 (talk) 12:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
• As this is a hybrid appeal/closure review of my close I won't make a bolded !vote, but I will share some of my thoughts. My initial close, which I explained to SR, took into account multiple editors' concerns including those who were neutral, and I found that in order to find a consensus to unban those concerns had to be addressed with the additional restrictions. Was that the only possible reading of consensus? Probably not, but it was the one I made. This appeal reads more like a challenge to that close than an actual appeal of community imposed sanctions as conditions for an unban.
  As Yngvadottir points out above, they were nasty at my talk page when they first requested that I remove the restrictions. During that interaction they made personal attacks and demonstrated that the concerns of those who opposed an unban were well founded. Specifically, that they view every disagreement as a battleground, and treat it as such. They were also "nasty" at Talk:Killing of Nahel Merzouk/Archive 1#undue weight where they brought up the possible nationality of another editor to ascribe a motive to their edits. They were rightly called out by other editors on the talk page for this behavior. This is more evidence that they should be as far from any contentious topic as possible, which was a common theme in the unban discussion, even among some of those supporting the unban. Those two examples clearly demonstrate that their statement that I hereby promise you it will be very boring as far as PvP-drama goes has not been fully adhered to.
  I would have much rather seen this as an actual appeal of the restriction, rather than a challenge of the close with a focus on a now blocked sock. They say above that there was no consensus for that particular sanction, but what I read was that there was no consensus for an unban without accounting for all of the qualified support. A focus on the good work they've been doing, and specific examples of the edits they would like to make would be a better appeal than complaining about the original sanction. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
• Comment / Clarification As previously stated, I do not mind staying away from entries in the Eastern European area that are marked as contentious. What I object to is being banned from a continent without a single diff showing disruption. Piotrus above compared me to Icewhiz, presumably because I criticized off-wiki his on-wiki assessment of Glaukopis as a good source from 2012 to 2022. (nb: WP:BANEX). This strikes me as the same "guilt by alleged association" ArbCom saw repeatedly in the topic area, as in fact my only edits related to Icewhiz were to tone down his incendiary language. As for his misunderstanding concerning my statement about "what little discussion there was" concerning Jacurek's proposal (i.e. the one we're talking about here), I'm not quite sure what could have caused that.
  As Yngvadottir correctly said above, SR expressed willingness at the time of the appeal to stay away from discretionary sanctions/contentious topics See here. Saying that I should not be able to add uncontroversial information about foreign ownership of French journals, or write about, for example, Frédéric Chopin, Tomasz Stanko, André Citroën, or Marie Curie is punitive, not preventive. As such, especially given that zero diffs of on-wiki disruption in the EE area have been produced (either then or now), I would request that "broadly construed" be removed from the topic ban, if the ban is not removed entirely, as it really should be. The wording can be clarified such that it is clear that it only refers to contentious entries labeled as such. This is not a closure review; this is a very moderate and reasonable request that I be able, going forward, -- as said above -- to edit in my area of developing expertise without having to constantly look over my shoulder at sockpuppets past.
  SFR: Adding diffs that you label as "nasty", while neglecting to mention the actual name-calling ("racist", "islamo-gauchist") used by the individual in question (who, as the diff shows, was using dubious sources in the lede) does not show you in the most neutral light. I have understood that it would probably be wrong of me to call you an American, as that adds nothing to the discussion. With that acknowledgment, can we bury the hatchet, please? Yes, you made a mistake in banning me from half a continent on Jacurek's diff-less request; no, I won't hold it against you (you couldn't predict the ArbCom case and its conclusions concerning who you were dealing with), and no, I do not intend to get involved in the various EE battlegrounds, as I've said before. You'll notice that I am not appealing the other equally unfair (one-sided) special penalty Jacurek came up with... why? because peace is good. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 14:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
• I don't see any basis for a challenge of SFR's close, which was well within discretion for closing a siteban appeal. Treating this as an appeal, though, I think narrowing to "Eastern European politics, broadly construed" would be reasonable—but with the understanding that that's a somewhat nebulous sub–topic area, and that SR should be very careful to not wander into (what anyone might reasonably perceive as being in) it when editing about EE topics. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
• I don't think there is enough evidence specific to Eastern Europe for a tban on that subject, so I'd probably say go ahead and lift it within the parameters SR lays out. However, the kinds of comment SFR links above are why SR was blocked in the first place (personalization, insinuation, etc. -- which isn't to say I think SR was wrong on the content matter, of course). It's why I supported the initial block and expressed reservations about the unblock (though I didn't outright oppose). I suspect SR already knows this intuitively, but with the amount of scrutiny on his behavior, and on the EE space in particular, it's likely that if issues come up (specifically talkpage/interpersonal issues), a reblock is probably more likely than a re-tban. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
• I became aware of this discussion because Piotrus pinged me (thanks), and would not be commenting here except that I was pinged. As long as the 1-way IBAN with me remains in place, I'm not really concerned with anything else, and won't stand in the way of what is requested here (that's a no-comment, not a support). I think the views of editors who have been directly involved in the Holocaust in Poland dispute are more relevant here than are my own. I see that Piotrus also pinged VM, and I think anything VM might choose to say here should have some considerable weight. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support I don't see if there was significant disruption in Eastern Europe area from this user. There is simply no harm in supporting this request. Orientls (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose full lifting, especially per ScottishFinnishRadish's comments in general and about behavior at Killing of Nahel Merzouk. Otherwise, I would have been more open to modifying the EE sanction had there been a clear attitude change. I had to deal with Sashirolls' relentless battleground behavior in the GMO subject a lot, and I don't wish that on other subjects. While I could be open to loosening restrictions in other areas they weren't the most disruptive, Piotrus' initial oppose is what reminded me of why SR was so disruptive. Whether it's the grudges they pursue, WPO stuff, etc. there really needs to be a high bar for recognition from SR on what they did and how they'd avoid it to return a topic. Instead, Sashirolls clearly seems to still be taking a WP:NOTTHEM attitude about how disruptive they have been and instead is trying to shift the focus to what others have done. That indicates a high likelihood of disruption coming into an area again from them if they still have that attitude.
  Now my mind can be changed as someone outside this particular topic, but it really depends on what those who have been followed around by SR have to say, like when Volunteer Marek said A topic ban from Eastern European topics, including Russia, would also be a minimum since I’m not the only one they’ve “followed around” in that topic area. at SR's site ban appeal. They at least would have a better read on the situation and have examples handy to further assess rather than the sidestepping going on with this appeal. If SR is addressing their behavior head on instead, then it's maybe time to look at what can be loosened. KoA (talk) 21:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  Well, I'm glad to hear your mind can be changed. My interactions with Piotrus are here. You can see that I have not followed him around in EE. Our second closest interaction is this very thread. Anyone interested in verifying KoA's claim about "relentless battleground behaviour" can substitute "KoA" for "Piotrus" in the Edit Analyzer Tool to find our limited interactions. (Or, much more to the point, you can substitute anyone else's pseudo who should happen to claim I've followed them to a wiki page in EE and caused disruption). You will find... nada. I don't think calling for the support of the WMF Edit Interaction Analyzer tool is considered canvassing? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 23:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  Comments like this are pretty illustrative for those who have dealt with SR before when it comes to sidestepping their behavior. Anyone can read the 2020 site ban for examples of the battleground behavior, or concerns at their 2021 appeal, or the 2023 appeal. If someone wants examples of battleground behavior in general, there are plenty of AEs you can quickly look up too.[73][74][75] For following people the interaction bans they have already highlight that, like with how SR followed Tryptofish around to the point they're under a one-way interaction ban[76][77][78] That last link should be pretty indicative of how bad the battleground/hounding was getting in the GMO subject.

  That's why I stress why a serious demonstrated change in attitude is needed for SR to even think about editing any contentious areas. For EE specifically, it looks like that actually originated less than a year ago at SR's site ban appeal. SR is engaging in some strange wiki-lawyering with #4 in their appeal that since GizzyCatBella was one of those supporting a topic ban, they should should be free of that restriction because that one account even though the community agreed additional restrictions were needed for consensus. The close of their unban appeal also cautioned them to stay away from any contentious topic That said, SashiRolls should, as Objective3000 said, stay away from all DS/contentious topics and administrator noticeboards. My very best wishes rightly pointed out that it would be difficult to make a full list of topics and editors SR should stay away from, but hopefully they follow Iridescent’s sage words, "you are topic banned from anything remotely controversial". . . The EE sanction is as much for SR's own protection as it is to protect the rest of the community, so it's not something to entirely do away with.

  If there was a clear attitude change, then sure, look at tweaking it so it's not quite so broad. If more EE topic editors have suggestions for possible tweaks to the sanction, I think that should still carry some weight. The WP:NOTTHEM attitude in SR's comments is not helping that though. To paraphrase the unban appeal close, the community didn't trust SR carte blanche in contentious areas. What I'm seeing here so far isn't helping build that trust at all. KoA (talk) 01:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support - The best way for an editor to prove themselves in these situations, is to give them a chance to do so. GoodDay (talk) 02:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support per Good Day, Orientls, El_C and the thorough reasoning of Yngvadottir. Jusdafax (talk) 04:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Like SFR I had deep concerns about SashiRolls behaviour at Talk:Killing of Nahel Merzouk. Despite that, I was originally just going to ignore this thread because it seems fairly distinct from SashiRolls particular problems. However seeing them here trying to once again defend the indefensible, I can no longer hold my tongue. Frankly I think SashiRolls should be site banned again. Failing that, the more areas of the encyclopaedia we can keep them away from, the better. Let's be clear what happened at Killing of Nahel Merzouk. On an article about French scandal relating to the treatment of French people of black or Maghrebi origin by police and to some extent by society in general, SashiRolls chose to refer to someone who they knew 'was born and bred in Mauritius' and was now a 'lawyer in France' [79] as "the (Indian) person defending this anti-Muslim material" [80]. In other words, SashiRollls knew this person was at a minimum a resident of France yet chose to ignore the editors connection to France and instead emphasise one and only one particular aspect of their identity irrelevant to anything related to the article or dispute. I'm assuming that SashiRolls wasn't explicitly aware that Varoon2542 was 'Naturalised french' at the time [81], nevertheless they shouldn't have been surprised by this. I don't defend Varoon2542's use of 'islamogauchiste' in response, that was clearly wrong and two wrongs don't make a right so no matter the provocation it should never have happened. As I've said before, 'xenophobia and racism' is a bit of a wash. I don't think they should have said it, but I would also have opposed sanction over it given the circumstances. Ultimately of course, this is an appeal of SashiRolls sanction. So whatever another editor may have said in response to what SashiRolls had already said is largely moot anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 07:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not even sure if Varoon2542 has ever actually identified as "Indian" the closest I found was "indo-mauritian" [82] but maybe it was somewhere else. I decided at the time not to investigate since frankly it's a minor aspect of this and I wasn't reporting it anywhere. I would note however that if someone has only ever identified as "indo-mauritian", it's fraught to call them "Indian" without qualification unless you're sure it's okay with them. Nil Einne (talk) 07:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  I've notified Varoon2542 of this discussion since I directly brought up their behaviour and although I wasn't the first one, it doesn't seem they were notified before. Nil Einne (talk) 07:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  Background / context: On 4 July, the page Nahel Merzouk protests was protected due to persistent disruptive removal of the section on BJP misinformation related to the protests (see here and a specific example). As Nil Einne likely knows, the AN3 thread on Varoon2542 was closed as stale on July 25. source I thought this was a good decision, as Varoon did indeed stop edit warring. I struck the "offending" word as soon as I became aware of his distress and apologized on his t/p for the imprecise designation. The tension between Muslims (17%) and Hindus (49%) in Mauritius is indeed largely irrelevant, as noted. The edit warring of blogs and far-right commentators into the lede was not. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 08:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  Yes the tensions between Muslims and Hindus in Mauritius is indeed irrelevant, especially when we have no idea if the editor is either one. So once again I'm not sure why you bring it up. Nil Einne (talk) 08:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  I was hoping to clarify what I said above about the article I got hit by an edit conflict so I'll just say it here. I want to emphasise why SashiRolls behaviour is particularly troubling here. For those unaware, the article is a French scandal starting with the killing of a 17 year old French youth by the police and initial misleading statements about that killing and which has resulted in protests and riots which in part arise from concerns over the treatment of French people of black or Maghrebi origin by police and to some extent by society in general. Not surprisingly as documented in that article, suggestions have also been made that these people a number of whom were born in France to French citizens, are somehow not French. So of course having something very similar on the article talk page, where an editor choses to ignore an editor's Frenchness, yes not born in French but a lawyer in France and as we later not surprisingly found out, naturalised French, and instead just call them an "Indian"; I find very troubling. That the editor who did this has then spent the next month or so defending or semi defending this behaviour whenever it came up I find even more troubling. Nil Einne (talk) 08:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support per El C and Yngvadottir above. I didn't think there was a compelling reason at the time for the topic ban in the first place. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose because of some truly nasty exchanges in the (Redacted) WPO thread mentioned above. Yes, they have different standards there (I am not a member) but as I recall (Redacted) required a fair amount of moderation from the moderators. I was going to try to find some quotes, but frankly I found it distressing to re-read some of that stuff again, even though I absolutely was just not buds with GizzyCatBella, and presented evidence against her at the Arbcom case. (Redacted), which is SashiRolls' name over there, made a lot of cryptic aspersions that seemed unwarranted at the time, and why do we want any more of that? I have not, as far as I know, had any interaction with this editor, perhaps because I have mostly been involved in World War II and the legal system when it comes to France. However my comment would be that although we mostly manage to settle things without drama in the French TA, things that might seem to be uncontroversial aren't always. I'm actually rather uneasy to hear that someone who has displayed that level of malice is editing a BLP. Elinruby (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Your memory seems faulty. I also haven't been all that much work for staff over there at all, though I did somehow inspire management to make me a proper avatar and find me some Michelin stars. Not sure how you learned on-wiki what my pseudo over there might be, though. As for malice & BLPs, the irony is that you are linking to a page where there are concerns expressed about the hostile editing of a BLP... -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 00:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

See, this is an example what I mean by cryptic aspersions. 1) Your link above takes me to a blank search form. Not sure what it is supposed to prove and I don't really care enough to figure out what that log id I see in the url might be. 2) I didn't learn it on-wiki. You have discussed your various bans quite openly in a public-facing forum. If we are going to point at WPO, people should know what they are looking at 3) The courtesy link on my post above, assuming that that's what you're talking about, goes to the WPO discussion of the Holocaust in Poland Arbcom. Probably that monster thread does include a discussion of somebody hostilely editing a BLP -- there was a lot of that going on -- but not by me, as you seem to be implying. I am quite certain of that, since I almost never do anything with BLPs, and definitely not in Poland. So. You should either provide some specifics, or apologize, if you ask me. I came back in here to unharsh my judgement a bit in response to Serial Number 54129, and I am still going to do that, but you're proving my point, and I will still be an oppose vote on this, for whatever that might be worth.Elinruby (talk) 04:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

1) I logged out to doublecheck: as anyone can verify the public log I linked does indeed show you thanking me for an edit: 10:55, 15 March 2023 Elinruby thanked SashiRolls... as I recall related to my addition of references to Je suis partout before I added it to a hatnote to a page you were eventually blocked from editing (I haven't looked into it so I don't know the details, nor is this the place for you to provide them as it had nothing to do with me). 2) This used to be a violation of policy, I don't know if it still is. 3) You linked to page 2, where the BLP of Jan Grabowski is discussed. You are not mentioned in the discussion of the BLP on that page you linked to, as ctrl-f verifies, so I'm not sure why, after reading and linking the page, you say above that I'm implying you were involved. As I recall, you only were mentioned much, much later in that sprawling thread (and not by me), when you had an interaction ban placed on you for your exchanges in the topic area. 4) thank you for your copy edits to sections I had not yet looked at on the Macron article. They were improvements to the page. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 11:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

pro tip: NOTTHEM 1) Ok then. Maybe a mobile thing, don't know. In any event, yes I thanked you, I do remember that now, along with absolutely everyone else that contributed at all to the remediation of that HiP article. I am, yes, currently page-blocked, because apparently I don't let other people work on the article. I *will* say that this has done *wonders* in terms of people working on the article. And no, this has nothing to do with you, except that you appear to think it is relevant here. Thank you for further proving my point. 2) People keep saying Wikipediocracy is not Wikipedia. 3) Sorry, I was confused by the fact that you were saying this to me for some reason. And actually the 2-way i-ban had nothing to do with my exchanges in the topic area, but as you well know I can't talk about it. No, it has nothing to do with you except that for some reason you are bringing it up. Thank you for further proving my point. 4) You are welcome, and lest there be any confusion, I will say again that do not think any of what I fixed was caused by you. It looked like French speaker + MT + much moving of text. I did not get into the apparently contentious page split discussion. Elinruby (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support with the usual sense of exhaustion brought on by the argumentum adopocrisy (the ablative for calling on WPO threads, I believe). No harm no foul here, play on. This is a simple PERM request, at the end of the day, but with much muddying of the waters along the way. SN54129 22:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I respect your exhaustion. However the WPO posts are still an indication of personality, which gives me pause. But fine, in response to your remarks I just took good look at Emmanuel Macron, which is SR's own example of their work. It badly needed a copy-edit, which probably had nothing to do with SR, and yes, it is way too long, as they say. The talk page has nothing egregious, but it still isn't really an example of being boring and uncontroversial, and there seems to be a lot of bold going on, and not enough discussion imho. That is all I know and if it isn't helpful, oh well, it is all I know. I'm going back to being a content editor now. Elinruby (talk) 04:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support I had supported unblocking SashiRolls and it seems he has been abiding by his commitments. I don't see any evidence of disruption in Eastern European area that would cause me to oppose this request. Capitals00 (talk) 08:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support and would also happily go for Tamzin's suggested narrowing of ban to EE politics. The overly broad ban is getting in the way of some useful non-contentious contributions and was pushed for by a sock. And WPO has a different standard of discourse to here.--Dronkle (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support - I don't see any use in this overbroad topic ban and the fact it was proposed by a sock of someone later sitebanned for disruption seems pretty unjustified. Let him edit and if actual disruption happens then the topic ban or a siteban can be revisited. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 16:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support per El_C, Yngvadottir, Orientls, Good Day, SN, Capitals, Dronkle, John Galt, et al., each of whom make good points that I won't repeat here. The TBAN shouldn't have been imposed in the first place, and if we start getting into what editors write on WPO, we'll be here all day sanctioning people. Levivich (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support the lifting of what seems to be an overly broad ban that isn't really preventing any actual problems. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
• No Opinion as to lifting the restriction, except that an admonition is in order that any future personal attacks should result in a new site-ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Neutralhomer unblock request

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

---

As we all know and saw, I was blocked on October 20, 2021. I went to the defense of an editor who I preceived was being bullied and I took that defense too far. I displayed behavior that was not conducive to a collabative enviroment such as this. For reference and per request of notification, I was blocked by Floquenbeam. I don't believe the issues that the community saw will be raised again as I am currently under the care of a psychiatrist and a therapist who are helping me with my anger and preception issues. Full disclosure, I am also taking two new medications which seem to be working quite well. I have more of a thought process instead of a react and think about it later process. As mentioned above: I have started editing at CVillePedia, a wiki for the City of Charlottesville, as I will soon be a resident there. As one would expect, I am editing mostly their radio station articles (TV station articles to come). I have incorporated some of the templates from WP:WPRS within that project. Granted, it hasn't been a month, but I have caused exactly zero waves in my less than 30 days within that project. I remain open to caveats to my unblocking including 1RR, interaction bans, and a daily edit count limit among others. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

:I will attempt to respond to everyone, if I get wordy, please don't hold it against me. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Copied from this edit of 20:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC) — Trey Maturin™ 20:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

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

• The above user is requesting an unblock. Their unblock request is on their user talk page. They have expressed that they are willing to answer questions and concerns promptly, and will do so on their user talk page. @Floquenbeam: who asked to be notified as the blocking admin. There is an extensive discussion on the talk page already, including prior unblock requests and the initial block notice. I remain officially neutral on the matter, and I am only acting to open the request here at WP:AN. --Jayron32 18:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for the ping. So... do people comment here? or on NH's talk page? Either is fine with me, but I think it would quickly turn into a mess if both places were used. I'd suggest that be decided (or clarified) first. User:Deepfriedokra, did you have one or the other in mind? User:Jayron32? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  I am undecided on either. I was merely checking some CAT:UNB requests, and noticed this one needed to be posted at WP:AN. I am of two minds (and in some ways no mind at all) as to where the discussion should happen. The advantages of happening here is that the normal !voting process works better here. The advantage of having it there is that it would keep everything in one place. Not sure how to proceed. Don't we normally have these discussions on this board? --Jayron32 18:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  We usually have the discussion here, copying any responses from the requesting user from their talk page to this page. --Yamla (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  Normally, yes. But I don't quite understand what DFO and NH and one or two other admins intended in their conversation at User talk:Neutralhomer#Deepfriedokra. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I have noted on NH's talk page that further discussion should take place here and that interested editors will copy their comments over. This will increase immediate drama, but will decrease ArbCom-level future drama. Revert me at will, I'll get over it. — Trey Maturin™ 18:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Generally, we copy the unblock request over to WP:AN and comment at WP:AN -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Prior threads, to save duplication of search effort:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive340#Unblock review of Neutralhomer. January 2022. No consensus to unblock
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive343#Neutralhomer, requesting an unblock. May 2022. Unblock declined; no CBAN
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive350#Neutralhomer unblock request. March 2023. Withdrawn

Folly Mox (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

To save others some clicking around: Global contribs, SimpleWiki contribs, Cvillepedia contribs, and for those unfamiliar with it, Cvillepedia stats. Levivich (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

For those unfamiliar, CVillePedia is the Wiki for Charlottesville, Virginia, locally known as C'ville (among other spellings). I will soon be a resident of Charlottesville, so I am working on that Wiki, as it is a better fit than Simple (as previously discussed). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

— Copied from NH’s talk page Trey Maturin™ 06:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support. I'd wondered how Neutralhomer was getting on; I seem to have missed the March 2023 appeal. At the January 2022 appeal, I took too long typing a comment advocating starting again with a new unblock request, then played a part in clarifying that the block had not become a community ban (see the unhatted section below the appeal); in May 2022, I advocated unblocking with restrictions and mentorship. This is a more satisfactory unblock request (on point and well expressed) and I am very glad to see the constructive participation at the Charlottesville wiki, as well as at Simple (let's please not judge an editor for recognizing that they are not a good fit for Simple and instead finding somewhere else they can usefully contribute). As I have said previously, Neutralhomer has made a very large number of constructive edits in the past, and in a topic where he has rare expertise. (It has also been pointed out before that there is a long stretch of years between his prior blocks.) Mindful of Wikipedia not being therapy, I appreciate his disclosure of his reasons for confidence that he will be less reactive and emotional in future if his editing privileges are restored, and I believe him. Time has passed, his circumstances have changed, he's demonstrated trouble-free and useful work on other wikis, and he is volunteering to be subject to edit restrictions. In my opinion, he deserves a new chance, although clear edit restrictions such as he suggests might be advisable to allay community concerns. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support Understands why they were blocked, credibly promises to discontinue the behavior in question and edit constructively. That's good enough for me. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
• Conditional support I think NH has taken time away to truly assess the issues (on/offline)that led to their block, and this appears to be coming from a more solid place. I also think they had a track record of productive editing before the last few years happened. Together with whatever limits are decided on, if any, I think NH needs to remember that we're all volunteers. While some of us might be willing to help edit in a specific area, we cannot be voluntold. I suggested mentoring which somehow led to I should mentor NH, which was not what I intended nor was it something I have capacity for. My hesitancy here that leads to the conditional is that NH has received outside help in the last few months which is commendable, but that cannot be guaranteed here. Just my .02. Star Mississippi 02:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
• Not sure what it would take for me to be willing to support the return of someone who called me a racist for absolutely no reason, but I went to the defense of an editor who I preceived was being bullied and I took that defense too far somehow fails to persuade me. I will leave the !voting to editors who can evaluate this request more fairly since they weren't targeted by your diatribes, but please do understand that every time I see your username I will remember what you said about me. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  Still going to leave the !voting up to others, but I will note that I accept @Neutralhomer's apology. If you are unblocked, I will not hold our prior interaction against you. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• The very weakest support possible; at first reading the unblock request seems to hold everything the community could want in such a request, self-awareness, a modicum of regret, reasons why the disruption will not happen again.... With a second reading, however, there doesn't seem to be any real acceptance of the awful behaviour that unravelled previously; it doesn't actually blame the other editors, as the previous requests did, but it doesn't say much other than I [went] too far, either ~ too far? ~ so far across the line that a community site ban was seriously considered. I truly believe in this community, i believe we are open and accepting and doing a great thing, and that Neutralhomer can benefit us and for that reason i'd like to see this be successful. I also believe that we owe more to our current members than to those who were once and essentially exiled themselves and now want to come back. For those reasons, i do support, but i suggest that stringent editing/behavioural conditions be attached. Not like, "Don't call other editors racist," but more along the lines of "A single reactive outburst means you are banned for good." Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 06:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose (hopefully provisionally). I hate to do this, and I'd love to see NeutralHomer back. But I see no mention whatsoever in this appeal about those disgraceful racism accusations against Lepricavark. And I can not support an unblock while that remains unaddressed. Should it be addressed while this appeal is in progress, I'd be prepared to change my stance depending on whatever NeutralHomer might say. (I know the kind of thing I'd need to see, but he has to work it out himself). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  In the light of the apology (and other comments) posted below, I'm going to change to cautiously Support an unblock. NeutralHomer says the words might be hollow now, but I never look at an apology like that. Obviously I can't speak for Lepricavark, but I always value a genuine apology - and in my opinion this one is genuine. In fact, I'm convinced that, apart from the obvious bad times, NeutralHomer is an honest and caring person (I have personal experience with autism/Aspergers that guides me, but I don't want to go any further on that route). I do get what Cullen328 and others say below, and they're people whose opinions I value. But I'd like to see the community give NeutralHomer, with his new health plan, one more go. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• (EC) Oppose And ban. Look at the block log, and the causes for the blocks. Going back over a decade. The idea that somehow they have radically changed as a person so these issues will not happen again is insane. And it would be a disservice to the future targets of their behavior to lift the block when we know there is a very high risk of them doing it again. Enabling editors like this is why huge amounts of volunteer time gets wasted dealing with them, and ultimately ends up at arbcom (see BHG). Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: To support is to get your ass broken on The 'Ocracy, people. And per OiD. SN54129 08:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I will openly disclose that I was involved in blocking Neutralhomer in 2020 and 2022, and this request brings back vivid memories of the bizarre misconduct in both of those cases. But my blocks were nowhere near the first. This editor has been blocked over and over and over again, going back to 2007, which is 16 years ago, according to my calendar. We are assured that the editor is under the care of a psychiatrist and a therapist and that the editor is also taking two new medications which seem to be working quite well. I have a son in a similar situation, and I extend trust to him only as he truly earns it. We have heard such claims before, and yet this editor, who I believe has good intentions on their good days, repeatedly goes off the rails and spreads chaos and disruption and damage to other editors in their wake. Personally. I would expect to see multi-year prolific problem free contributions to other Wikimedia projects before I could support an unblock on the English language Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 08:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as I said in response to the last request: I count 21 separate blocks including 4 indefinite blocks. The reasons cover most of the possible block rationales including incivility, harassment, edit warring, sockpuppetry, personal attacks and "Don't say that editors should be executed". Many of these blocks were undone with some conditions or a promise to change behaviour which obviously haven't worked. I don't think the project is likely to benefit from unblocking someone with that kind of record. Hut 8.5 11:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
• To write what I wrote not even 6 months ago: Oppose unblock and Support Site Ban I think we are at the point where a site ban might be best. It's becoming clear the community does not want to lift the block on NeutralHomer. Their block log is extensive to say the least, and as Cullen said above this goes back now 16 years. It's not just a recent string of events that has done this. We've gone past any last chances at this point and it's time to end this once and for all. Wikipedia is the "encyclopedia anyone CAN edit" not the "encyclopedia anyone SHOULD edit". This is not a criticism of the person mind you, just that I don't think their mindset will work collaboratively with the community anymore. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
• (ec) Support. This is somewhat reluctant; I would like to have seen a clear and direct apology to Lepricavark for calling them a racist. I also think NH should have accrued a year of constructive editing elsewhere rather than 30 days. But, too late for that now. I truly believe that the combination of a psychiatrist, a therapist, and medication is very likely to lead to a very different outcome this time around and on that basis, it's worth a shot. Obviously, any resumption of the prior inappropriateness would result in an immediate, indefinite (and, frankly, permanent) block. I'm optimistic for the future and believe people can change (particularly with therapy and medication). However, NH's past behaviour may have soured the community on any reasonable possibility of an unblock. If so, NH, I sincerely hope you can be a constructive editor elsewhere. en.wiki is just one site. --Yamla (talk) 11:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Yamla: Could you clarify what you mean by "too late for that now"? Why is it too late? Is there any reason why NH can't be asked, still, to generate a year of constructive editing elsewhere before being unblocked? DeCausa (talk) 21:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

  Too late for this unblock request. NH absolutely could be asked (or required) to generate a year of constructive editing elsewhere before being unblocked via a different unblock discussion. --Yamla (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

  Got it. Thamks for the clarification. DeCausa (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per Cullen and OID. I'm still not seeing that they really understand that it wasn't the defense of another editor, or even the accusations against other editors, but the entire pattern of behavior - the instant springing to being offended and then going to full on attack mode. Until that's fully internalized, I can't support unblocking. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm looking at this block log and an unblock request that boils down to: "I currently still actively need a psychiatrist, a therapist and medication to deal with the issues that led to my blocks, but at least I've been active in the following community for almost 30 days and its Recent Changes page doesn't yet display signs of wiki-wide drama caused by me". I can't take this appeal seriously. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
• FWIW, this is the best unblock request I've seen from NH. But I do have one issue, which I hope won't come off as self-pitying. This was the unblock request he was going to use on Monday. I think everyone here knows that request would have crashed and burned. But instead of posting it here, I asked if he was sure about it, and suggested why it should be changed. He called that gravedancing and snark (and then he seems to have taken my advice...). At this stage, it's not like my feelings are hurt, but doesn't this demonstrate a continuation of an underlying battleground attitude just below the surface to pretty much everything? I just don't consider 30 conflict-free days on a wiki with 10 active editors as evidence that his battleground days are behind him. I really wish he'd waited longer, and that there was more reason to believe that this block was the last. That block log is pretty strong evidence to overcome. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Taking full responsibility, and was usually a very good editor before, but with some obvious problems that he is getting help with. While Wikipedia is NOT therapy, half the people here are on meds or getting therapy, so it seems hypocritical to not allow this this one last chance to someone who has demonstrated problems in the past, but has demonstrated a lot of good work as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support, with trepidation - I think this is a very well crafted request, and I appreciate that NH has disclosed personal information that he was not strictly required to, as I believe it does help the community with assessment. It is perhaps a fault of mine that my subjective life experiences have led me to believe in basically endless second (and third, and fourth...) chances, but it is where I am. Obviously, NH will be under heightened scrutiny if only informally, but I also can certainly see a case for some constructive restrictions as a condition of the unblock. I obviously don't know the specifics of what you're dealing with, NH, and I don't seek to, but please trust me when I say I can definitely empathize in a general way. Which leads me to my trepidation--I support an unblock, if only on the principal of WP:ROPE, but NH, I do worry that Wikipedia may not be a healthy place for you--I fear that the community presents perhaps a greater threat to you than you do to the community. That's not an argument against unblocking, but it is a sincere suggestion to take time and meditate upon if and how you should participate here at Wikipedia. That said, a Happy Friday Eve to one and all. Dumuzid (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too much risk involved in an unblock, for too little potential benefit. As has already been demonstrated (e.g. at this ANI thread from January 2020 [83]), negative behaviour has already had consequences beyond disrupting the community, and damaging article content. A contributor who thinks it is appropriate not just to engage in off-Wikipedia canvassing but to contact the subject of a biography to ask unsolicited deeply-personal questions about sexuality in furtherance of a content dispute has no place on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  To add to this, I would like to make it clear that I consider Neutralhomer's response to my above oppose, as posted on his talk page, [84] to be utterly disingenuous. The individual concerned (who I'd prefer not be named here, given the invasion of privacy involved) didn't 'get in touch' with Neutralhomer, as his own statements at the time made entirely clear. Instead, the individual was contacted by Neutralhomer, with the specific intention of winning a content dispute based around a single ambiguous word in a social media post, relating to unverifiable claims regarding the individual's sexuality that were of no relevance to their notability. Neutralhomer was blocked for harassment, and topic-banned from the individual's BLP as a result. This is all documented in the ANI thread I linked above, as well as at Neutralhomer's talk page [85] and on the relevant BLP talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

• My nature and history makes me want to show grace and forgiveness for people who are making progress with mental health issues. And I'm a big believer in the idea that a place like this can be a very good stepping stone to in-person interactions. My desire to see volunteer time and energy not wasted with BS is what stops me from supporting. So I'll sit this out. Come back in 3-6 months showing sustained good work and interactions at the city wiki and I'll be a lot more likely to support. And enjoy Cville. It's a nice town with a very strong board gaming community that goes back a long time. Hobit (talk) 17:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Check out [86] as a starting point. I think Rolemaster and Titan are also from Cville. Hobit (talk) 03:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support per previous supports, with fingers crossed.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  Noting appellant is much more gracious this time around. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  I believe the past should be left in the past when possible and that appellant has changed quite a lot. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support based on apology and time that has passed. --SouthernNights (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
• Weak support - If we consider that the misbehavior associated with this lengthy log of blocks is so egregious that there are absolutely no circumstances under which an appeal can be successful, then we are effectively wasting our time here. On the other hand, if we are predisposed to show forgiveness for sufficiently worded appeals, then we need to accept that we may never receive one that is perfect. The disclosed life circumstances of this editor will at worst be meaningless and lead to an immediate reblock, or at best will hopefully lead to a productive editor. So this may hopefully be worth a try, but this is truly the very, very, very, very, very, very, very last chance. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 23:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  This is where I think the maybe c-ban, maybe not back and forth did NH no favors. It needs to be crystal clear whether he's: welcome to edit/not welcome edit yet but potentially down the road given x changes/never welcome, or at least not for a good long window, so please stop asking. I say that as someone who was a solid oppose in prior discussions and found their conduct frustrating, at best. Star Mississippi 01:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support - I would support an unblock with an understanding that there will never be another chance after this. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 02:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support if and only if all of the following conditions are imposed.

• Complete ban on describing any edit as "vandalism". NeutralHomer has had a lot of trouble distinguishing vandalism from good faith editing.
• Indefinite WP:0RR restriction. NeutralHomer has not shown good judgment when reverting.
• Indefinite anti-bludgeoning restriction, such as a maximum of one edit to each discussion page in a rolling 24-hour period.
• Indefinite accusation restriction: Not to accuse any editor of racism or any other prejudice; and not to suggest or imply that any editor is prejudiced in any way.
• No emails restriction: Not to use the email another editor feature.
• Last chance clause: No more short term blocks, ever. Any further block for misbehaviour to be indefinite.

I still have qualms and misgivings even with all these conditions.—S Marshall T/C 08:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per their extensive block log and Talk page. I !voted oppose on an unblock in 2022 and am not persuaded now. Jusdafax (talk) 12:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose...but possibly wavering. When I saw the original request with the "I took that defense too far" weasel words formula he used in previous requests i was going to be a definite Oppose. But his apology to Lepricavark (below, added after the request was opened) is the first time he's shown some real recognition of the indefensibility of what he said. That seems to be a big step forward and seems to be genuine. However, two things still concern me about the request. The first is that the 30 days on a local Wiki without incident doesn't seem to be very good evidence of a new leaf turned over. The second is the outburst and attitude displayed on his talk page just a few days ago (in the lead up to this request emerging) doesn't fill me with confidence. He was still going with "I think my previous unblock requests (here, AN, ANI, and UTRS) are good enough reading material to get the general idea" and people should be focussing on his work at CVillePedia (in the last 30 days) rather than his history. That was on 21 August. The apology, if genuine, is a big turnaround in attitude in such a short time. DeCausa (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
• Weak support - Several opposers mention the block log. I'll note that most of the block log is 11+ years old. There wasn't much action there in the 8 years between 2012-2020 aside from a brief edit warring block and a "clumsiness" block which led to an unblock less than an hour later. To read the opposes above, it sounds like NH was consistently blocked over the years rather than blocked 11 years ago, and then things were fine for the better part of a decade. Cullen's block in 2020 is concerning, and then there are of course the blocks/modifications still in effect. In other words, "just look at the block log" is not as persuasive to me as it is to some. I'll admit I don't have that much experience with NH. I do see some evidence of really problematic behavior, but for some reason I'm inclined to think another chance is in order. I'd urge any closing admin to consider whether there are and one-way IBANs that should be instituted first, if this happens, and would advise NH to really meditate on the reality that if this is accepted and he winds up blocked again, that'll realistically be the end of the road on Wikipedia. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support NH seems to be taking responsibility (including getting IRL help). That's a dramatic improvement from his last unblock request(s). To my knowledge, NH's last major issue before 2021 was way back in 2007 (issues between that timeframe AFAIK were minor). NH's had his share of issues over the years, but if we didn't give multiple chances, I myself wouldn't be here today. I get why some wouldn't be comfortable unblocking NH, but the worst that can happen if he goes back to his old behavior is to just block again. A conduct probationary period is probably the way to go if there's any conditions (although given his block log, the community/admins might not be so patient next time around). An umpteenth chance for sure, but not hold NH's hand this time necessarily.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support I do wish requests like this came with a summary of initial reasons for blocks as well as links to the initial controversy.

• Summary of what happened: A self-inditifying Hispanic editor raised a complaint in ANI in which they expressed their suspicion that race may be behind what they felt was a hostile treatment by an admin. Neutralhomer, who seemed to have a negative view of this admin, came to their support. The discussion turned very acrimonious and personal attacks and/or 'behavioural concerns' were expressed on all sides. The hostile exchange continued on their talk page (see old version), where Neutralhomer accused a group of editors for racism. Neutralhomer was also subject to personal attacks: they were referred to as 'classless' and was criticised for using 'buckwheat' an allegedly racist slur. After warning by an admin against making allegations of racism, they persisted and was given an indefinite block. They have appealed this block of a few times.
• My views: While wikipedia does in the abstract acknowledge systemic bias, the community generally considers it unacceptable to insinuate any sort of racial bias in any specific instance. As one admin put it in this controversy "Do not, even in vague suggestion, accuse editors of racial bias" (Ritchie333). Nonethtless, Neutralhomer persisted and was blocked. The only justification for a block as per WP:NOPUNISH is to prevent future disruption. I don't think a continued block is needed, since he has indicated he will be more collaborative in the future. I advice Neutralhomer to present his views more succinctly and dispassionately, as it will be more effective. Jagmanst (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support as per the conditions listed by S. Marshall. NH says he is receiving psychiatric assistance for his anger problem, and we can give him a chance to show whether that is helping. The acknowledgment that his block log is the result of his anger is unusual in unblock requests. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Replies from Neutralhomer

• @Lepricavark and Boing! said Zebedee: I apologize for what I said. Hollow words, I know, considering it's been said, that bell can't be unrung, and will always hurt and for that I am sorry. Those words, I know, are meaningless, but hopefully my actions are. I do apologize and I am sorry. This is why I am working with a therapist and psychiatrist to address problems that were raising their heads (which we all saw). I can only say "I'm sorry" and promise that it won't happen again. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
  • @Lepricavark and Boing! said Zebedee: Thank you both. Lepricavark, I appreciate you accepting my apology and, if allowed, look forward to seeing you out there. Boing!, thanks for the support. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
• @Cullen328: I actually have you to thank for that 2020 block. Had you not done that, I would never have met some amazing people via Twitter. Had you not, I never would have done some introspection on myself, worked with two amazing people who I owe my life too, did a LOT of thinking (basically all one could do in 2020-21), and came out (publically as well as on my personal social media accounts, now here) as PanroAce Trans. So, thank you for that. I owe ya one. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
• @Serial Number 54129: Could you translate that, please? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
• @Only in death, Hut 8.5, and RickinBaltimore: I can see I am unlikely to change your respective minds, but I'd like to try. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
• @LindsayH: I am very conversational when I speak. So "too far" is a very shortened version of "so far across the line that a community site ban was seriously considered". So, when I say "too far", I did/do mean I royally screwed up in ways that can't easily be put into words. All of that said, I do support your terms for coming back in addition to mine (0/1RR, daily edit limit, interaction bands). I basically welcome all terms up to and including tell me to "go take a hike". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
• @Yamla: Therapy continues (and will for a very long time) today at 10a. Thank you for your support. I do appreciate it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Copied from NH's talk page by — Trey Maturin™ 12:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• @AndyTheGrump: Actually Ms. Perrette did get in touch with me and we had a nice conversation, which was a refreshing surprise. No personal questions were ever asked. I actually apologized for the mess that was going on (at the time) on her Wikipedia page. I would never ask someone personal questions regarding their sexuality. As for my "canvassing", I was interacting with a community who viewed the actions of Wikipedia as "erasure". I communicated with them, explaining the procedures of Wikipedia, and the process as it was going forward. Most of the people in that conversation had never edited Wikipedia, so they were confused with the entire conversation. I acted to bridge that gap. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
  • @AndyTheGrump: I won't respond to your latest post. Suffice to say, it will do no good. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
• @Hobit: Also, from what I have seen, several rather large trivia spots as well and at least 2 old-school arcades. I love me some trivia, a good arcade....and board games. That part I didn't know, you'll have to let me know where. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
  • @Hobit: Dude, you rock! I will definitely have to check this out. Hopefully by this time next month I'll be in Charlottesville (housing issue is delaying the move). I will be checking out all of the arcades, trivia nights, etc. I bookmarked it, so I won't forget. :) Thanks! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:47, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
• @Ealdgyth: The "in defense of" is context, my line of thinking. Absolutely none of my behavior in that line of thinking was good or proper. Reprehensible might be a better description of my behavior. But the "in defense of" description was context, nothing more. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
• @Rockstone35: That is definitely understood. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Copied from NH's talk page by — Trey Maturin™ 09:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

• @S Marshall: Those are all doable. I'm open to any and all restrictions. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Copied from NH's talk page by — Trey Maturin™ 19:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Second-level replies copied from NH's talk page by — Trey Maturin™ 04:05, 26 August 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 wanted to say, conditions acknowledged and agree upon. Hopefully I do you all right. Thank you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Closure review: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. RfC

Until recently, the lead of the article on Robert F. Kennedy Jr. stated that Kennedy "has promoted anti-vaccine propaganda and health-related conspiracy theories", which during the RfC was altered to Kennedy being "known for promoting anti-vaccine propaganda, debunked claims about COVID-19 vaccines, and public health–related conspiracy theories". Some editors took issue with the terms "propaganda" and "conspiracy theories", and a RfC was started asking whether or not to keep or remove these terms. The RfC was closed by AirshipJungleman29, who concluded that there was no consensus for removing both terms, but that there was consensus for removing the term "propaganda". The polling does not back up the removal, or at least it does not in a manner that is clear to me. This has also been discussed by other users on the talk page. While RfC aren't closed by simple vote counting, no reasoning for this supposed consensus was given other than propaganda being a pejorative. However, to my knowledge, there is no Wikipedia rule that forbids the use of pejoratives, and the term "propaganda" is used by three out of four sources backing up that sentence. Additionally, "conspiracy theorist" is arguably also a pejorative, and the term stayed. I do not believe that there was consensus for the removal of the term, and possibly weak consensus to keep it, or no consensus overall. Cortador (talk) 11:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Cortador: but see also WP:POLLS. SN54129 11:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I did mention that a RfC isn't solved by simple vote counting. However, in absence of a clear poll (unanimous or near-unanimous polling is frequently used to assess consensus), other reasons need to be given to conclude a RfC (especially one to remove wording that is explicitly used by reliable sources), and that has, in my opinion, not happened here.

Also, the initial question was whether to remove the two terms ("Do we keep these terms or remove in this WP:BLP?"). The RfC then states that there is "is consensus against solution four (removing both of the terms)", and yet they were removed. Polling aside, it can't be both. Cortador (talk) 12:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

"health-related conspiracy theories" is still in the lead, so it wasn't removed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

The RfC question was whether to remove these terms, not whether to remove either, both, or none. Cortador (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

We're not shackled to RfC questions like this. It's good that the closer considered what people actually suggested. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

First, the review request is imho somewhat late. Based on article history, it seems that the RfC has consensus of the broader community, whether sympathetic to Kennedy or not, or at least I haven't seen much dispute about it.

Secondly, I think that closure is largely appropriate (I disagree with one point, which I will mention below), and its implementation is certainly within the reasonable interpretation of community consensus.

I understand that you simply counted the bolded parts to see which option gained most traction and concluded that the no change option was better. But this ignores one big nuance: people who !voted to keep the content as it was did not really oppose an alternative wording, such as misinformation, but simply wanted the general idea and tone to stay as it was: that RFK misinforms the public about the vaccines and that he is a conspiracy theorist. They did not insist on the term "propaganda", as opposed to "misinformation". So even though there was pretty a lot of support for the text to stay the same, there is definitely more support for text that changes the word "misinformation" to propaganda. So this was properly judged as consensus. This is also justified by many quoted resources that say RFK is conspiracist/skeptic/anti-vaccine, but relatively few of them say he is a propagandist.

Now, the thing I disagree with is the determination that "propagandist" is more contentious than being called a "misinformation spreader". The article's subject will definitely get pissed at either term and might even claim some Big Pharma plot to denigrate him on-wiki (if he ever cares), but the discussion did not find one was more contentious than the other, rather that the term has a different connotation. That he spreads vaccine disinfo is pretty much established, but it also states firmly he is peddling provingly false bullshit about them, like, all the time. Well, some indeed took issue with the term "propaganda", but seemed OK with misinformation in terms of contentiousness. But more others have found that the term is not accurate: it states that he peddles bullshit while promoting some cause, but does not make it clear it is false, and this is desirable here. The propaganda may be false (e.g. the photograph about a Bosniak murder in the Yugoslav war straight from 1879) or actually based on documented events (e.g. And you are lynching Negroes), but its defining features are that it is one-sided, deliberate, often cherry-picked and serves someone's purpose. Misinformation needn't be. Both are pejorative, but they apply to different cases, which may often overlap but that's not the finding of the community. The prominence of this argument is at least the same, if not larger than that of "propaganda" being a more pejorative term, so the closer stepped out of their bounds here.

On a personal note, I'd say that the nature of his activities in the antivax movement justifies the term "propagandist" as well, but these sources are a minority, which makes an even stronger case for changing the label to "misinformer".

TL;DR: I mostly endorse this closure as a proper reading of consensus and within closer's discretion, except for the "propaganda" label being too pejorative part, which I urge to overturn. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Botched NAC by non-registered user

Hi, ideally would like an admin to help reverse/undo this RM closure performed by a non-registered user, which I believe is not meant to happen. The template has also been botched. But it's my RM, so I'm hands off. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I just did it. See the edit summary. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

And in response the IP went on with copypasting what appears to be a speech by Muammar Gaddafi and ranting against the West. I can understand the rant, but it basically also means they take the event too closely to their heart and so cannot be impartial. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 06:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Revdeled the edit summary and dropped a warning on the IP's talkpage. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Closure review (LUGSTUBS2)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closure vacated

The discussion concerns a closure related to Lugnuts' automated creation of mass stubs and what to do with them. Jc37 closed the discussion with a short statement which said that the community in general urged to take some action but there [was] No Consensus that mass-draftification (mass-moving-out-of-article-space) is the correct solution for all of these (emphasis in original). A couple of days later, the closer clarified that they omitted other proposed solutions, such as listification, from the closure because there was no consensus for that, either. They added that every article should be processed individually. After a brief discussion on the closer's talk page, the user initiated a self-review here. Calculation of necessary consensus. Uninvolved votes were given more weight in the discussion, though the outcome did not change much, as, depending on your method of counting, 60-70% of users urged to overturn the outcome, and at least some of the arguments were strong enough for vacating. WP:CONSENSUS does not give a guideline for what to do when closure reviews end in no consensus, but given the stakes involved (1K+ articles and a discussion potentially having implications on interpreting policy), a "no consensus" outcome doesn't cut it, so there should be rough consensus to retain it if it is to stand. There were four issues raised in this discussion.

1. WP:INVOLVEDness. The OP and Levivich alleged that the closer is involved because of prior comments about the way AfDs should be addressed and their prior interactions with BilledMammal, who opened the RfC whose closure is challenged here. There was a fair bit of support for that notion, but not enough to call it consensus to overturn on this basis alone. That said, the optics appear not very good to several editors, including long-standing ones, and that should be a reason to refrain from closing.
2. Insufficient rationale. The discussion reached consensus that the close did not explain well why the no-consensus outcome for draftification is the proper one, and this was patently a discussion that needed more effort for the closer. The clarification changed the discussion dynamic a bit but since the opposes still were not satisfied (no change in !vote), I assume that they didn't change their minds. Even though some users said that the outcome was correct, in contentious and large discussions like this, the rationale is essential to understand the way the closer was thinking and evaluating the arguments when closing it. Stumbling upon the correct outcome is not good enough, and anyway a substantial portion of editors was unconvinced the summary was correct (some pointing to WP:LUGSTUBS for comparison).
3. Not addressing the RFC question. North8000 stated that the closure did not answer the question properly and implied that the user equated the mass-draftification proposal to whether the pages should be moved from article space. One user disagreed with that argument, and that was about it. Too little discussion occurred on this front.
4. RFC close kicking the can down the road, which was the essence of SnowFire's complaint, as it acknowledged the problem but did not indicate the way to address it. It is frustrating, but policy-wise totally appropriate conduct. Taking the California analogy by North8000, suppose 63% of a group wants to go to California, of which 20% want to go to LA, 15% to San Francisco, 11% to Sacramento, 9% to San Diego, 5% to Fresno and 3% to the Death Valley. Just because there is consensus to go to California doesn't mean that there is consensus to go to Los Angeles specifically, and in fact deciding for the whole group to go to LA would be rightly seen as a supervote of sorts. Another discussion should be held to see if the group can agree on going to that city, knowing that they will go to the state.

I did not take into account the alleged pattern of bad closes - editors who want to make this case and ask the administrators to do something with it should open a separate discussion.

There was insufficient discussion on whether a panel close is needed, though it might be advisable for an RFC this big.

In total, the community at large did not approve of the closure. There is consensus to vacate based on poor reasoning of the close. Even though the editors couldn't agree on whether jc37 was involved, some users rightly noted that outside perception of bias is reason enough to have second thoughts about closing.

The discussion is reopened and the vacated closure will be collapsed for reference. (non-admin closure) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 00:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

---

• Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC_on_draftifying_a_subset_of_mass-created_Cricketer_microstubs
• User_talk:Jc37#LUGSTUBS_2_Closure
  • Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Requests_for_comment/AfD_at_scale#Proposal_16 - the edits in question

So first, I don't think I'm involved in this at all. I don't believe I've participated in any of this.

But User:BilledMammal‎ seems to think that something I apparently tossed out as a potential idea for part of some other proposed RfC for people to talk about (the rfc of which apparently never happened) awhile back, causes me to be involved. I disagree, as I noted on my talk page. An rfc on drafts is not equal to an rfc on bot-assisted creation or on xfd.

I welcome other's thoughts on this.

Even if you don't think this causes me to be involved, but you think the rfc close should be overturned or re-opened, I welcome those thoughts too. I'm a believer in "many eyes", and "there's always another admin". But I also don't think that someone involved in a discussion should just be able to invent reasons to get a close they may not like, undone.

Anyway, I appreciate your (plural) insight. - jc37 07:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Interestingly, as I re-read that post (which, as I mentioned on my talk page that I didn't recall), it would seem to support deletion after a 30-day discussion - similar to an rfc. So, apparently I'm not against mass deletion in a 30 day or more forum. I dunno, I was "in the moment" reading all of that at the time. I don't recall much any of it now. And I mean that sincerely, not as some sort of "on the witness stand", dodge. I'd have to go through and re-read it all to figure out what I may have been thinking at the time. - jc37 07:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I suppose I should add: I only went to go close this due to it being listed at WP:CR - [87] - jc37 21:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) (comment from involved editor) Thank you for opening this, and for pinging me to it.

I see two issues with this close. First, Jc37 is WP:INVOLVED; they previously advanced the proposal that Group nom AfDs should be for no more than 4 very connected articles. A broad topic, like "math", or "climate change", or even "the Harry Potter franchise", is not considered "very connected" in this case. This proposal is in opposition to the one proposed in the RFC, which proposed draftifying many more than four articles on the broad topic of “Cricketers mass created by Lugnuts”.

They have since argued that they are not involved because this was not technically an AfD, but many editors both in support and opposition to the proposal directly compared it to one; I believe the discussion was too closely related to AfD's for this disctinction to matter.

Second, the close presents no justification (although I did ask the closer to provide one, if they were unwilling to overturn the close); it merely asserts that there was no consensus for the proposal, but there was a consensus to handle the articles individually. While consensus is not determined based on voting, when a closer closes against the majority position - in this case, approximately 60% of editors supported the proposal - they are expected to justify why the arguments against the proposal were stronger than the ones for the proposal. This isn't the first time recently we have seen this issue with a close by Jc37; in July they reverted their close of another discussion after a review at AN; AirshipJungleman29 made the comment Obviously overturn per above and ask the closer to review WP:CLOSE—"A good closer will transparently explain how the decision was reached." A two sentence, one line close for a 200kb+ discussion is simply not the expected standard. It appears to apply to this close as well. BilledMammal (talk) 07:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• As I was pinged by the above, my thoughts: I have no opinion on the discussion itself, but on the manner it was closed. A ~400,000 character discussion being closed with a summary of a single paragraph? Seriously, what the actual hell? A good close engages with all aspects of the discussion, and explains the closer's reasoning. This is not a good close, this is not even a mediocre close. If this is the expected standard of work on Wikipedia, then we have some very serious problems indeed. For that reason, Overturn and reclose (uninvolved)—this shoddy work cannot be allowed to stand, and jc37 needs to take a serious look at their suitability for closing discussions—this is now twice (EDIT: thrice, see FormalDude below) in less than a month. I have closed RfCs four times shorter with four times as much reasoning (Example). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
• Vacate (uninvolved) and allow someone else to reclose. Providing barely any explanation for controversial and long discussion closures would appear to be Jc37's modus operandi. Yesterday I had to ask them to expand their close of this RfC, which had 146 comments from 45 different editors, and barely a sentence long closing summary from them. I second AirshipJungleman29 in that I have no thoughts on the Village Pump RfC, other than that it deserves a much better closure from someone who is able to reasonably articulate how they reached their decision. ––FormalDude (talk) 13:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• As is not uncommon for a closer, what may seem obvious when they are writing may not always be obvious to the reader. I don't think Jc37 has quite realised that this is a them problem, not a Wikipedia problem, and that they should take steps to fix it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• (comment from involved editor) On a pure headcount basis, this discussion has similar support % to the first LUGSTUBS. I feel like any close that closes differently than that discussion did needs to address why this is different to the first discussion explicitly - whether that be weight of argument or some other factor. casualdejekyll 14:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  As someone who is not familiar with the topic area, could you please link the first LUBSTUBS? Loki (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  WP:LUGSTUBS - although I can see why you wouldn't expect that link to work, we don't usually link RfC's that way. BilledMammal (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  any close that closes differently than that discussion did needs to address why this is different to the first discussion explicitly - Why? AfDs don't connect to other AfDs. An RfC about an infobox doesn't have to say why it's different from other RfCs about infoboxes... That just seems like a way to synthetically raise the bar. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  These two do connect. That's my entire argument. casualdejekyll 00:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  Except they don't. This RfC was created by someone wanting to do the same as last time, but the reasoning is independent and many of the arguments were different. This RfC must be evaluated on its own merits, not the merits of a previous one that asked a different question about different articles. Thryduulf (talk) 19:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I apologize to the community for the bytes contained herein. Levivich (talk) 02:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

No, it asked the same question about a different subset (cricketers v. Olympians) of the same set of articles (database-sourced stubs mass-created by Lugnuts). Compare the wording of WP:LUGSTUBS and WP:LUGSTUBS2. If these two RFCs have different outcomes, one possible explanation is that there was something about the second subset of articles that was different than the first subset of articles, but I did not see many oppose voters argue that cricketer biographies were for some reason different from Olympian biographies. Levivich (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC) The questions were similar but not the same, the details of the proposals (particularly the selection criteria) were significantly different. I did not see many oppose voters argue that cricketer biographies were for some reason different from Olympian biographies. Multiple editors (on both sides) did include the outcomes to date of the Olympics articles in their rationales. These arguments clearly could not have been made previously. Combined these factors mean that the two discussions can only fairly be treated as the independent proposals they are, and the outcome of one cannot be used to imply anything about the other. Thryduulf (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC) It's odd to argue they're independent RFCs when WP:LUGSTUBS said "This proposal suggests a method for resolving this question, with a group of articles that can be used to test the proposed resolution" and WP:LUGSTUBS2 said "In March a proposal was made to draftify approximately 1000 articles on Olympians as a possible resolution to this. The proposal was successful and this proposal continues that process." Besides the selection criteria, what was different between the two RfC questions? I mean the whole point is to use the same process with different subsets of articles... Levivich (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC) If you can't see why a different selection criteria, different arguments and slightly different question make two different discussions then there is nothing I can do to help you understand. Thryduulf (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC) We're not talking about different discussions, we're talking about different RfC questions. You said LUGSTUBS2 "asked a different question about different articles" than LUGSTUBS, and I said same question, different articles, and you said no... and I'm asking besides the selection criteria, what is different about the two questions? You can answer by pointing out an example or two of something different between the two questions other than the selection criteria. Or just concede that it's the same questions both times, with two different sets of articles. Levivich (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC) Should the following biographical microstubs, which were mass-created by Lugnuts and cover non-medalling Olympians who competed between 1896 and 1912, be moved out of article space? Should the following 1,182 biographical microstubs, which were mass-created by Lugnuts and cover cricketers, be moved out of article space? Similar but different questions, different arguments, different selection criteria = different RFCs which is the explicit point I made, and which you seem to be disagreeing with me about for reasons that don't make any sense. Thryduulf (talk) 22:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC) There is no obligation, when yet another article is nominated for deletion based on WP:N, to talk about other AfDs based on notability in the closing statement. How convenient it would be if I could simply say "this other article I nominated was closed as delete; you must delete this other article unless you can satisfy my demand to compare the two, even though both discussions were long, complicated, and with a different cross-section of participants". But that's not how it works. If you want a new default, propose to change policy. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC) This was not an AFD, it's a CENT-listed Village Pump RFC, the second one in a series, explicitly designated as such. Levivich (talk) 01:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC) No it was not explicitly designated as such (it was asked in response to that previous one, but that's not the same thing), but even if it was there is no obligation on the closer to assess this RFC in the context of a previous RFC that asked a different (but similar) question about a different set of articles, with different selection criteria, about which different arguments were made by a different set of people. The first RFC did not create or change policy or guidlines, and did not set a binding precedent. Thryduulf (talk) 02:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC) In March a proposal was made to draftify approximately 1000 articles on Olympians as a possible resolution to this. The proposal was successful and this proposal continues that process. is the explicit designation as such. Levivich (talk) 02:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC) No, that's a preamble that serves as an explanation of why the question was asked. It neither designates nor binds anyone or anything. Thryduulf (talk) 02:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC) This was not an AFD, it's a CENT-listed Village Pump RFC, the second one in a series, explicitly designated as such - Analogy. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• This is precisely why Village Pump discussions are not a vote whose result generates a defacto policy based on the outcome. They're just a discussion, whose points and merits must be weighed by a closing admin independently. Steven Walling • talk 05:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, and they were *already weighed last time*. casualdejekyll 16:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• (comment from involved editor) I am not going to comment on the actual substance of the closure, other than giving more detail in a closure is (almost?) never a bad thing. I will state though that whatever it's merits, Jc37 comments on the RfC that didn't end up happening don't come close to making them involved in the mass draftifcation RFC. Thryduulf (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  True enough. If one writes too much, they can hear about it, and if too little, the same. I typically have no problem expanding on/clarifying a close explanation. - jc37 20:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• (comment from involved editor) I do believe this is the correct closure (of course I would), but I also think that more text and explanation in the closure would be appropriate (for example, the prior two closures of the prior discussion relating to this had massive close comments). Also, the fact that jc37 commented two years ago on a discussion distantly related absolutely does not make them an INVOLVED editor here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  FYI, eight months, not two years. And I wouldn't consider it distantly related; the cancellation of that RfC directly lead to WP:LUGSTUBS, and jc37's proposal would have prevented LUGSTUBS if there had been a consensus for it. BilledMammal (talk) 15:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  OK, eight months. I still think its silly to declare one involved for something like this, considering he didn't even remember it (So, I don't remember that at all. I'll go see if I can find what you're talking about.) BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  An editor is not involved as long as they don't remember their involvement? Levivich (talk) 16:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  Yes and no. The reason INVOLVED closes are a bad thing is that someone who is involved is not (or can appear not to be) neutral. If someone genuinely has no recollection of having participated in a related discussion previously they are not knowingly biased towards one outcome. Of course unintentional bias is always possible, but that's not really affected by whether someone remembers their previous activity or not. Another factor is that admins acting in good faith do try and avoid acting when involved, and if they can't recall participation in something that's a sign that it might not be as relevant to the discussion as you think it is. Thryduulf (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  Confirmation bias more than just possible. People are most biased about things they don't realize they're biased about. The suggestion that a person's recollection or self-assessment is a good indicator of their bias is just silly and well-refuted by the field of psychology. Levivich (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  Actually, that assertion is completely false. If you really want to use that quote from the past, then quote it: "AfDs for mass deletion of articles (more than X in a single nom) should have a 30 day time frame, similar to an RfC." - Which is what you did. It ran, what, a month and a half? So please stop miscontruing what was stated. - jc37 04:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  You also said These all work together. I interpreted it as that you wanted these Group nom AfDs to be run as longer AfD's, but it is ambiguous. Either way, you are WP:INVOLVED, with Levivich presenting a very strong case for this. I understand that you don't see yourself as genuinely involved - although I and others disagree - but WP:INVOLVED is also about the appearance of involvement, and I hope you can understand why you appear to be involved and I hope you are willing to revert your close on that basis. BilledMammal (talk) 05:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• (involved/supported) Overturn.
  • First, it's a sub-par closing statement, it doesn't summarize the discussion or the arguments, it doesn't weigh votes, it doesn't explain how the conclusion was arrived at. (See WP:ACD.) Poor closing statements by Jc37 have unfortunately become something of a pattern now, that we've previously seen at the WP:NOT closure (overturned) and more recently the PragerU closure mentioned by FD below (challenged), and I found another deletion-related short-closure from 2021, linked below.
  • Second, the closer is involved with the RFC proposer. Jc37's NOT closure (linked above) was challenged and reverted by BilledMammal (among others). See User talk:BilledMammal#WP:NOTDIRECTORY closure. Jc took BM to ANI for that, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1134#Reverting a close. When someone reverts your close, challenges your close, and/or you take them to ANI for it, and/or the close is overturned/reverted, you shouldn't then close, a month later, another RFC that same person started. Totally, hugely, involved. Jc shouldn't close any BM-started RFCs in the future.
  • Third, the closer is involved with the topic area. Going backwards:
    • Jan 2023: commented: "Maybe we need to take another look at how subjective GNG is, if we're going to continually see it merely being repeatedly used as code for WP:IDONTLIKEIT."
    • Dec 2022, 6 edits at WP:ACAS workshop, including proposing "Proposal 16", making a proposal that is essentially an alternate proposal to WP:LUGSTUBS/WP:LUGSTUBS2 (another method for handling mass creation/deletion) (this is the one mentioned in the OP).
    • A year ago, made 14 edits to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing/Workshop, the Arbcom workshop about the deletion case. In that 2022 deletion discussion, Jc wrote things like:
      • how references to essays should be weighed by a closer (did Jc do that in this close?)
      • ""How much is enough" shouldn't even be a discussion to have. And the idea that a topic needs to earn being a standalone article is ridiculous."
      • ironically, "It is, unfortunately, becoming more and more common for closers to just rely on commenters' assertions (and really, just "vote-count" bullet pointed comments), when deciding which way to close a discussion rather than actually assess the entire discussion and current policy."
      • Also ironically, arguing that AFDs are "buried in some back room in Wikipedia-space" and should be moved to more-visible locations like article talk pages
      • "We should avoid being impatient to delete."
      • The common complaint about lack-of-BEFORE: "I've seen more than a few nominations in which the nominator rather clearly didn't bother to do BEFORE ... I think we need better ways to try to establish whether due diligence was done before a nomination."
      • A possibly self-fulfilling prophecy: "the all-to-common steps: a.) An editor makes mass edits b.) The editor is asked to stop ... i.) the discussion is (not surprisingly) a messy trainwreck, so no closer determines there is a consensus j.) fait accompli."
      • Arguing that if mass-creation requires BRFA approval then "This should apply to mass tagging of afd/prod, as well."
      • And last but not least:

        I'm just going to note that I find it rather ridiculous the amount of time wasted on whether a piece of information "deserves its own article". Whether we separate information into separate pages or list it all into a single scrolling page, is merely a matter of presentation. What the blank does "notability" have to do with presentation? Zero. Notability is about inclusion of information in Wikipedia, not how that information is presented. I realise that some seem to feel that notability should include how information is presented, but in so doing, we're creating issues where none should exist. It all seems rather counterproductive.

    • In 2021, closed another discusion that proposed adding to WP:SNG "Mass creation of short or stub articles based on simple lists or database sources that would pass an SNG is strongly discouraged", also with a one-sentence close (it's really a pattern... funny, if that one closed differently, we might not be here two years later...)
    • In 2020, suggested "we just restrict "notability" rationales for deletion, to biography articles".

  It's not that there's anything wrong with expressing opinions about mass-creation/mass-deletion, or there's anything wrong with having prior closes challenged or even overturned, but if you've been expressing opinions for years (regardless of whether they are "pro" or "anti," "inclusionist" or "deletionist"), don't close a big pump RFC about it, especially with a too-short close, and don't close an RFC started by an editor who recently challenged another closure of yours, especially if you went to ANI over it, especially if the close was overturned. Jc should vote in, not close, RFCs about article creation/deletion. Levivich (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  I got as far as Maybe we need to take another look at how subjective GNG is, if we're going to continually see it merely being repeatedly used as code for WP:IDONTLIKEIT - So now someone is involved if they've, what, talked about notability? In a random AfD about a comic book island? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  For those who don't know, the 2020 AFD and 2021 SNG discussions I linked are part of the many deletion discussions (including the JPL-related threads which Jc also commented in but I didn't quote above) that led to the 2022 WP:ARBDEL (where Lugnuts was sitebanned, and Jc's participation is quoted above). ARBDEL launched WP:ACAS (also quoted above) and ACAS led to WP:LUGSTUBS and we're here about the closure of WP:LUGSTUBS2. So these aren't just JC's opinions about notability or deletion in general, this is Jc participating in ARBDEL, ACAS, and other discussions that are the direct precursors of LUGSTUBS; this isn't indirect involvement, it's direct involvement, for years. He's as involved as I am. Levivich (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm just guessing, but it sounds like your argument is similar to the one where people have suggested that a member of a wikiproject shouldn't close discussions on the topic of the wikiproject, or that people who block people shouldn't close discussions about blocking. Or even that people who have commented in RFCs about blocking, shouldn't block people.

I've been working in and around XfD policy, and discussions thereof, for a very long time. And really, around Wikipedia policy and guidelines a very long time.

And to say that I believe in the consensus model on Wikipedia, would be putting it very mildly.

Anyway, all that aside, I do think you're mischaracterizing (to be charitable) some of the above. But I don't think it's worth the time parsing all of your comments. I think I'll just say: You're welcome to your opinion", and move on. - jc37 20:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm saying (1) if an editor has a dispute with another editor that they escalate to ANI, they shouldn't close an RFC started by that other editor, (2) no one who participated in ARBDEL or ACAS should be closing LUGSTUBS RFCs, and (3) this close should be overturned per 1 and 2. Levivich (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

...plus the closing statement. Levivich (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• I think we need more comments from uninvolved editors on this review. casualdejekyll 17:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse this was a reasonable close and the closer was not involved. And yes, I did !vote oppose on the proposal. Which I'm sure invalidates my opinion in the eyes of the people attacking the close(r) here. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think your opinion would be less likely to be viewed as invalid if you explained why you think the close was reasonable and the closer was not involved. Kind of ironic that a lack of explanation is a main reason for why we're here in the first place. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  It was already explained above why the closer was not involved; if you didn't accept that explanation then you won't accept my restatement of it. And I see no point in spending my time going over an in-depth review of the reasonableness of the close because these discussions always go in favor of the deletionists (and if not, they just object to the close like they did here), but I'm still going to raise my voice in objection so they at least can't claim unanimity. But don't pretend that a lack of explanation is the main reason why we're here. There's no way that a 'no consensus' close of any length would have been accepted without a fight, and everyone here knows it. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  While I am not going to endorse the language used by Lepricavark (as I think it is too harsh), when I saw the close was not in favour of the proposal the first thing I did was to look at the closer's talk page for the objection. Thryduulf (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  It is possible for it to be true that both a closure of no consensus would always be controversial, and that Jc37's closure is problematic. An objection being expected does not automatically make it invalid. I myself have no skin in the game whatsoever regarding the RfC, yet I still find Jc37's close to be quite lacking. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  You are rebutting a point that no one has made. Sure, the close could be problematic, although I don't agree that it is. But there was zero chance of any 'no consensus' close being accepted. And once this close is vacated, there is very little chance of another admin wanting to face the wrath that will surely come after another 'no consensus' close. The deck is stacked in favor of one side of this debate primarily because they have shown themselves willing to overwhelm the other side and everyone in the middle. Perhaps my language is harsh, but in the current climate a good deal more harshness would be warranted. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  What I am seeing is a pile on by editors who benefit from this close. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  Speak for yourself; a lack of coherent explanation is the only reason I'm here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Vacate I am involved, but considering how contentious this was and is, any mere tinge of involvement is enough for me to suggest that self-vacating may be prudent here, and someone completely uninvolved should review and close in time. I'm not sure if it could be closed differently, but I haven't specifically reviewed on those merits. SportingFlyer T·C 22:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
• Close was not WP:INVOLVED. This was contested on the basis of involvement, and the evidence about involvedness is just thus far unconvincing. Not going to try to prove a negative, but I did reply to one of the walls of text above. [participated/opposed] -- Adding: but elaborate the closing statement please. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  This was contested on the basis of involvement - This was contested on two grounds. Involvement, which Levivich has presented extensive evidence for, and a patently inadequate close. BilledMammal (talk) 00:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Vacate <uninvolved>. Obviously we don't expect the closer to write a novel, but in a discussion of this nature, giving some indication of why you found no consensus is definitely necessary. What weight did you give the various !votes? What arguments were policy-based? What arguments weren't? It may well be that the outcome is correct (I haven't read the discussion thoroughly enough to have a firm opinion either way), but we can't really evaluate that until we have a better explanation of the closer's reasoning. I think that's a sufficient reason to vacate, so I'm not going to comment on the INVOLVED aspect at this time. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• (Uninvolved) Vacate as the closer provided no rationale whatsoever. Should a restriction on further closures by this editor be considered if this is indeed the second time their close has to be vacated at AN within a month? Charcoal feather (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• weak endorse and request the closer put more time into closing statements in the future. It's a reasonable outcome from the discussion. It doesn't provide the reasoning that got there. Sometimes you don't need that reasoning, sometimes you do. This should be an obvious "you do". At the least counting the !votes and summarizing the arguments is needed for a discussion this long and this close (in terms of numbers and policy). Hobit (talk) 02:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Hobit - One thing I’ve seen admins doing more and more is not writing any detail in their close. Just writing “Consensus to X”/“no consensus”. They say this is to prevent people challenging their close.

  I sympathise with your overburdened admins but this is absolutely the wrong way to go. I’m not even sure it works as intended since the close then get challenged for being insufficiently reasoned. But from a more deep point of view, if you can properly explain the consensus, then you may be wrong as to what the consensus actually was. FOARP (talk) 17:54, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  They say this is to prevent people challenging their close. This is particularily prevalent in move requests, where even some experienced closers advice newer closers to be extremely succinct in their close, in order to limit the opportunity of editors to identify flaws in their close and challenge it. To me, this seems to be contrary to what we want in a close; if a close does have a flaw don't we want that flaw to be identified and corrected?

  The goal in a close shouldn't be for the close to survive or deter a close challenge; the goal should be to correctly assess consensus, and if we have done so the close should naturally survive or deter a close challenge. BilledMammal (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  Looking throughout all the text I've provided here, does it look like I'm avoiding adding words? lol - sorry, but that all struck me funny : ) - jc37 18:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

• involved Vacate. A) This was a patently insufficient close for such a monster discussion. B) I wasn't really convinced by the original "involved" rationale, but after seeing Levivich's evidence, particularly Jc's bringing BilledMammal to ANI for his challenge to Jc's close just a month ago, I think that's actually just as strong an argument to vacate the close as (A) is. JoelleJay (talk) 02:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  Which isn't what happened. They decided to repeatedly revert the implementation of a close they didn't like and so I brought it to AN/I. And it was stated by others (not just me) that that was inappropriate. I presume they heard that and life goes on. I didn't bring it up, because I prefer to forget about such stuff and move on. It's when others won't stop or let things go where I may have to make a choice to disengage with them. But I haven't had that experience with BilledMammal. So there was no reason to think anything untoward of them. AGF aren't just a few letters we toss around. It's a way we operate at Wikipedia. And I will assume good faith about you or anyone until given evidence that I shouldn't. Are you suggesting that there is evidence that I shouldn't AGF of BilledMammal? - jc37 04:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  Small correction; I reverted once (twice, if you count the second revert that I self-reverted - either way, much less than "repeatedly") the implementation of the part of the close that went beyond the scope of the RfC and thus wasn't within your discretion as closer to implement. In retrospect, I should have just taken to AN, but at the time I felt that the close was so blatantly beyond scope that reverting the implementation was an appropriate action. BilledMammal (talk) 04:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  "repeatedly" is more than once, but, I'll still strike it, as perhaps unclear. And where I give you kudos, is that when I asked you to revert your second reversion, you did, and we continued talking. It was someone else's actions that exacerbated the situation which led to AN/I. - jc37 05:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• I don't have a view on whether the close should be vacated, but I do think the rationale should be expanded. The RfC was created to try and find a method to manage the huge number of articles involved without having to deal with them one by one, a close saying "consensus...But rather that these should be addressed on a case-by-case basis" is surely consensus against? CMD (talk) 12:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• Vacate - <uninvolved>. On the questions as to whether the closer was involved, Thryduulf makes good points, but states that the reason involved close is a bad thing is not just bias but perception of bias. Levivich is quite right about how that bias may not be conscious but may then be more pronounced, not less. Here I think we can clearly give the closer a pass in that there was no intentionality, but this was an unintentional involved close, and per Thryduulf, that is still a bad thing because of the bias or perception of it. Secondly, and more importantly, RfCs, and other such discussions on Wikipedia consume a lot of editor time, all given freely, to engage in a discussion and seek a consensus. The editor hours represented in that RfC are huge. Closure is a thankless task (please, everyone, thank your closers!) but it is also very important that a closure of a discussion of this magnitude is undertaken carefully, thoughtfully, reading all the arguments, and summarising as to how a decision is reached. This should be particularly important with a no consensus close, which otherwise would become the default whenever an issue is hard. The closer does owe it to the editors who have invested all that time. Yes, it makes closure harder and even more thankless, but that is the job. This closure is inadequate, and per casualdejekyll, any close really does need to explain why it has come to a different position from the LUGSTUBS close. Thus this should be vacated and revisited. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• Weak endorse - <uninvolved>. Thc close overall seems reasonable, so overturning it seems like a waste of time. The closing editor can learn from this exercise to be better prepared in the future. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Vacate and suggest that we establish a panel of 3 to close this to forestall any further debate over this RFC Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Spartaz, a panel is a good idea for this discussion and for future similar RfCs. This is just an inherently contentious topic. Valereee (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Idk, WP:LUGSTUBS was fine with one closer (and is an example of a good closing statement). It wasn't challenged, and it was the second close. It kind of provides a roadmap. Levivich (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@Levivich: The second close was challenged. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

It was? Oops, I guess I missed that. I take it though it survived the challenge... further evidence it was a good close? Levivich (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) FYI, the second close was challenged; Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive352#Close review for Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC on draftifying a subset of mass-created Olympian microstubs. However, the close was endorsed by the community (as opposed to the appeal being closed as "no consensus"), which I feel supports the belief that it was a good close. BilledMammal (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@Levivich: (edit conflict) See here. I do believe that a panel would probably have been a better option. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Crap and I even endorsed the second close. Lol, forgot all about that round. Levivich (talk) 16:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

It's amazing sometimes, the number of things we may comment at, and then forget about. - jc37 17:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with mandating a minimum number of editors to evaluate the consensus view of a discussion. It is of course fine if those performing the evaluation want to do so in a team. isaacl (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we need to mandate it, but the frequency with which such closes end up with long and sometimes multiple reviews means that if it's possible, it might help keep us from wasting a ton of multiple people's time. Valereee (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I think chances are good there'll still be one or more reviews requested, and thus the time expended will just be multiplied by more closers, with the added extra time required for closers to co-ordinate with each other. isaacl (talk) 18:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• Vacate - first off, I disagree with the suggestions that there is a WP:INVOLVED concern here. But the close is insufficient. There is no vote-tally presented, and no attempt to engage with the strength of the arguments. In my read, some of the oppose arguments are weak and must be discounted; one in particular are the "this is against policy" opposes (RFCs can change policy, and also it is something that we already did once). The "back-door to deletion" complaints also ring hollow; a high-profile discussion such as this one is not a "back-door" process in the sense of it happening without attention. Some of the support arguments are also weak, but I won't litigate that here. The discussion should be re-closed with a better closing statement. Walt Yoder (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
  • one in particular are the "this is against policy" opposes (RFCs can change policy, and also it is something that we already did once) - So by the same logic, if someone ran an RfC to say "in this particular group of articles, can we use original research and no published sources?" then all of the !votes saying "no per WP:NOR and WP:V" would be invalid, and we'd have to reargue the fundamental reasons that led to NOR and V becoming policy in the first place? RfCs can change policy, but this was not a proposal to change policy. It was a proposal to draftify articles. Whomever assesses consensus, per WP:CON, is supposed to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. i.e. weigh the strength of arguments according to established PAGs. In an extraordinary situation, the policy IAR can be invoked in order to further the spirit of our PAGs even when a proposal violates the letter of those rules. Otherwise, any proposal that isn't relying on IAR, and which is not attempting to change the policies/guidelines that have the broadest possible support, is subject to evaluation according to the arguments based in existing policy. Process is important. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

    WP:OR and WP:V are bad examples; as core policies there is an argument that they, like WP:NPOV, are not subject to consensus. Further, those are content policies, not procedural policies; as policy is descriptive, procedural policies can be changed by getting a consensus to use a different procedure in a forum with a sufficiently high WP:CONLEVEL.

    That is what occurred here; this RfC implicitly asked the question of whether it was also appropriate to use the Village Pump to propose draftifying articles, and the community has already answered that, in line with WP:NOTBURO, with a solid "Yes", at the highest possible CONLEVEL - a cent listed village pump discussion with over 100 participants.

    In general, I don't understand the objections to using the Village Pump for this. Does anyone actually believe it would have been better to propose this draftification at AfD, where it would have been less visible and thus closer to coming in the backdoor - or is the only reason blind obedience to bureaucracy? In other words, how does this argument conform to the spirit of WP:ATD-I? BilledMammal (talk) 06:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

    [checks to make sure] - yes, Wikipedia:Deletion policy is also a policy. Lawyering about the difference between content policies and "procedural policies", as though they don't enjoy the highest form of consensus, just seems empty.

    Does anyone actually believe it would have been better to propose this draftification at AfD No, because it's a misuse of draftspace. To be clear, there is no forum where proposing to go directly against policy would be more/less acceptable. To the extent you're trying to make an IAR argument, yes VPP is just fine. The objection is that you should instead follow the deletion policy for deletion, not that you should do exactly the same thing elsewhere. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• Closing statement is insufficient (involved). The close is supposed to summarise the consensus. What we got is a summary of the summary. More work should have gone into this, and still should. No comment on closer WP:involvement. Folly Mox (talk) 04:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
• Involved, not !voting. Just want to argue one point: if a close is insufficient, it's better to re-close than to expand the original rationale, because the process of thinking about and writing a rationale shapes the eventual outcome; it has less value when done post-hoc. Also, jc37's comment that If one writes too much, they can hear about it is IMO not the right mindset to have; I empathise because this place can be rough, but detailed rationales serve an important purpose, which goes far beyond giving people grounds to contest a close. DFlhb (talk) 10:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
• Vacate The close is fundamentally structurally in error and did not respond on the actual question of the RFC which was whether the articles should be moved out of article space. Instead the closer inferred that there was lack of a consensus for one particular way of doing that and incorrectly inferring that as being an answer to the actual question. Also for most of the other reasons cited this needs a new close. I would like to emphasize that such isn't and shouldn't be taken as a finding of wp:involved. I don't think that anything here in that area rises to that. At most there are indications of the closer having some opinions in this general area which is not an ideal situation either for the close itself of the even if just the optics of it but doesn't rise to the level of wp:involved. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  Well, the question explicitly was:

  • "Should the following 1,182 biographical microstubs, which were mass-created by Lugnuts and cover cricketers, be moved out of article space? "

  And the second sentence in the close was:

  • "However, there is No Consensus that mass-draftification (mass-moving-out-of-article-space) is the correct solution for all of these."

  So yes, that question was directly answered. - jc37 17:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  There are a couple ways to look at this and under either the actual question was not evaluated. Taking it literally, the operative statement of the sentence was that there was no consensus for mass draftiication, and the "moving out of article space" is only a sidebar comment or, if "moving out of article space" is taken as the operative statement of the close, it was incorrectly derived as an inference from "no consensus to move to draft. To give an analogy, let say that the question is "shall we visit California?" And lots of people (50%) said "Let's visit Los Angeles" and 30% said "let's visit San Francisco" and 20% said "don't visit California". The close (and what you imply) in essence said "there was no consensus to visit LosAngelos and visiting Los Angeles is visiting California so therefor there is no consensus to visit California. Which is faulty. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  No. But to try to use your LA analogy - More like: Some people have decided that there is a lot of litter all over Los Angeles. But there's no agreement that everything called litter is litter, and also there was not only no agreement on the proposed solution to all of the "litter", but also no agreement on other counter-proposals either. So at this point, people will just handle the perceived "litter" situation through the normal processes. - Not the best analogy, but I was trying to shoehorn it into your analogy : ) - jc37 03:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  @User:Jc37: Smokey Joe and Folly Mox !voted for the articles to the userfied to Lugnuts (without being draftified first). I think this is what North8000 wants your closing statement to address. James500 (talk) 03:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  One of several alternate options/ideas which did not gain consensus. There's no purpose to list out all the different ideas which were tossed around. The discussion is there for anyone to read. And if they didn't have consensus, there's no real point. Besides, a "no consensus" result does not preclude further discussion on any of the proposals. - jc37 03:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  But your close stated there was a consensus that "these articles should be addressed", which suggests a majority were of the opinion that there was indeed an unacceptable amount of "litter". By my count (including non-!vote comments), at least 61% held this view and agreed the "litter" should be moved out of "LA" somehow. JoelleJay (talk) 04:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  Yes - People generally agreed that "something" should be done, but there was no consensus on the "how", or even that "moving" was the best solution, or even that each and every item was actually "litter" that needed to be addressed. - jc37 05:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  More specifically the close needs to DIRECTLY evaluate the result to the question "Should the following 1,182 biographical microstubs, which were mass-created by Lugnuts and cover cricketers, be moved out of article space?" rather than incorrectly inferring that the answer to the draftify question is the answer to this one. North8000 (talk) 13:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, I understand, you want a "up/down" result about that question. And you're being told that there was no "up/down" result on that question. The "result" of the discussion was no consensus on that. Continually asking for a result which doesn't exist will not make that wanted result to suddenly spotaneously exist. - jc37 05:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• Voluntarily vacate would be my advice. I don't think rewriting the closing statement is a good idea; that's just asking for justification. JC37, thank you for bringing this here yourself, but if you do actually have an opinion on how an issue should be resolved, and you close it as consensus for what you personally would prefer, and someone asks you to unclose because in their opinion you might have been subconsciously affected by that preference, just go ahead and unclose. Let someone who doesn't have a strong opinion on the issue close it. (I'm sort of uninvolved here, followed the discussion, asked some questions and made some comments, but I never voted because I've gotten to the point I have no idea how the issue should be resolved. I did vote support in the first RfC, though.) Valereee (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  The issue as I see is that JC37 doesn't have an opinion about how the issue should be resolved - if they did they wouldn't have been so puzzled about BilledMammal's claims of involvement. Also, I know you aren't suggesting otherwise, but someone who !voted (either way) in the first RFC should not be involved in closing this one. Thryduulf (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, just meant I was "sort of uninvolved" in this particular discussion. Valereee (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• Note - I added a clarification to (restatement of) the close [88]. It's essentially just restating what was said, but in a different way. In (re-)reading the above, I'm seeing a fair amount of confusion on "what the consensus was", and questions of: where is the listing of all the things that had consensus, ie what people agreed on. Well, the result was "no consensus", so there's not a list to make of what there was consensus of that they agreed upon. They didn't agree on the proposal, or on any alternate proposals. So anyway, please feel free to continue to discuss here. But I thought I should note that I added that. - jc37 18:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse. I have been watching this discussion for a number of days. I agree with the comments made by Jc37 in this thread, and I agree that a close that consists of a bald statement that "the community did not reach any agreement about such and such" is appropriate if that actually happened. I agree that there is no need to elaborate on that close if the lack of agreement is not so obsure that a person who read the whole discussion carefully would find the lack of agreement unreasonably difficult to detect without assistance from the closing statement. I therefore accept that the closing statement is adequate. I do not think that replacing Jc37 with another closer will produce a different outcome (and the outcome is not the outcome I personally wanted). I do not see any evidence that Jc37 is involved. The diffs and arguments that have been offered are not sufficient to prove that. For the avoidance of doubt, I participated in the RfC. James500 (talk) 04:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  Well, I think we could remove a bit of further doubt...you were so opposed to draftifying that you said "If they are moved into the draftspace they will probably not be expanded or improved, because I am probably the only person willing to expand and improve most of them in the near future, and I will not expand or improve them while they are in the draftspace." (emphasis in original). It read a little coercive to me. :D Valereee (talk) 11:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  Apart from the fact that you are quoting out of context:

  WP:DETCON says that "consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy". Consensus is not ascertained by the quality of the !voters on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of whether they have, or are perceived to have, an opinion about something.

  I think I should reiterate, notwithstanding that I should not have to, that I did not !vote for "no consensus", so I cannot be accused of being a "no consensus supporter", if such a thing exists. James500 (talk) 05:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• Vacate per Casualdejekyll. The fact that the shortcut for this rfc is LUGSTUBS(2) is proof enough that any closer's rationale must justify a separate outcome by strength of argument.Mach61 (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
  • You know anyone can make a shortcut for basically any reason, right? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:40, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

    Yes. I added that as a convenient rhetorical example of how the discussion was viewed by the vast majority of participants Mach61 (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• Vacate as not representing the close. While numbers were such that such a close could hypothetically have been reached—per NOTVOTE—that would in itself have required thorough distillation of the strengths/weaknesses of both sides' arguments, this level of detail would be reflected in a nuanced, probably lengthy but certainly solid, close. This will not do. I'm sure this is not the first of this editor's closes overturned here either; is there a pattern? SN54129 18:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
• Vacate and appoint a panel per Spartaz and Valereee, please.—S Marshall T/C 00:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - A panel of three administrators as closers, would be the best option. GoodDay (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• Keep it closed (comment from involved editor) - The reasoning for the close was sufficient. There were multiple issues with the proposal and I don't see a conflict of interest here.KatoKungLee (talk) 16:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  The close had nothing to do with the RFC being malformed. Mach61 (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• Keep closed per Thryduulf on the VPP page, "The Olympics draftification has not resulted in any objective improvement to the encyclopaedia and this is just more of the same." –Fredddie™ 02:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  While I stand by that opinion and note that it's lack of successful refutation is one reason why I think the closer arrived at the correct result, I don't understand how it speaks to whether the closer was involved or whether the close should be vacated for some other reason? 02:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC) Thryduulf (talk) 02:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  Oh I simply oppose everything the original nominator proposes on principle, which your words paraphrase more diplomatically than I ever could. –Fredddie™ 16:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for your honesty. Levivich (talk) 16:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• Vacate (involved) - Let me start out by saying that I would not have appealed this close and I greatly deplore the tendency now to appeal every single RFC close. In this case the closer self-appealed but I think this was in the (not unreasonable) expectation that the close would anyway be appealed. A panel close would probably be wise in this case in order to give some degree of finality to these closes. My objection to the close here is that the close was not well reasoned - finding consensus to do something is the situation where a closer should cut the Gordian knot and find some solution. Additionally, the level of consensus was similar to that of WP:LUGSTUBS so the closer should have at least indicated why this discussion should be closed differently. As in the review of the first LUGSTUBS close I don't really buy the argument that the closer was involved. FOARP (talk) 09:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think this was in the (not unreasonable) expectation that the close would anyway be appealed I wasn't planning to appeal over the WP:INVOLVED concerns; while I don't believe it was appropriate for Jc37 to close this discussion given their involvement in the topic area and I hoped that they would see that and revert the close, it also wasn't a concern that I would have brought here. However, if they had declined to explain their close - and based on their participation here they would have - I would have appealed on that ground. BilledMammal (talk) 10:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• Endore (Uninvolved): I do not think the closer was WP:INVOLVED and has now expanded their close which I think is a reasonable reading of consensus. Lightoil (talk) 05:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
• Vacate (involved). This was a weak, nonsensical, and insufficient closure - the whole point of such a mass RFC is precisely to "address" such a problem, not just acknowledge it. And blithely suggesting case-by-case analysis is just asking for discord - the whole point of the problem is that there are too many articles for AFD and bold redirections would likely start edit wars. Taking it to an RFC is the right and proper thing to do. Valid closes would be something like "Endorse draftification," "Partial endorse draftification under (circumstances)", "Take them all to AFD and deal with the giant backlog using the following procedure / limits", and "No, consensus is that these articles are actually fine." Saying that there's consensus there's a problem but not providing guidance on what to do about the problem is a non-close after such a long debate. For example, close mentioned listification, but if that was gonna be the close, you're going to have to be more specific about it: what if someone just keeps reverting a merge to a list? How should the lists be arranged? If a close really decided on that as a solution, it needs to say so: "Articles are to be merged to List of cricketers by [TOPIC]" or something. Suggest a panel close the next time this is closed. (Additionally, for the next closer, suggest that some of the rationales should be given little weight - specifically any vote that said it's against policy without further elaboration. Yeah, we know it's against policy, I'm very firmly against backdoors to deletion and surprise draftification of articles too, but the whole point is to discuss an exceptional case. Presumably bare "against policy" votes can be dealt with by an assurance that this doesn't establish precedent for non-Lugnuts creations.) SnowFire (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  There are reasons that these are (generally) time-limited.

  One benefit of a "No consensus" close is that it does not prevent continued or even new, discussion of the various topics. So (to continue to use the analogy from below), if you want a pony, then start a new discussion on the specific pony you want - the community couldn't decide (didn't have consensus) on this specific one.

  From your comments it sounds like you just want the closer to decide for you. And while that can be appropriate under certain circumstances, that's not always the case, and I didn't (and don't) think it was appropriate in this instance. You are of course welcome to your opinion. - jc37 05:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Jc37:: First of all, I disagree. There was sufficient consensus in that discussion to make a close. But I'm obviously involved so I won't belabor the point.

  Setting aside this particular debate and talking about any large RFC held on the Village Pump - in general, "No consensus" is a very poor close for these in general, for exactly the same reasons you describe as a benefit. We already had the long discussion, advertised on WP:CENT. It's time to make something of it. In a real court case, even an acquittal provides closure. It's okay to say "No, this proposal failed!" By saying "no consensus" and saying "start a new discussion", you're essentially saying that it's okay to, hypothetically, restart the exact same discussion in the same way that someone can renominate something for XfD that came up as no consensus, and everyone can copy-paste their votes over and wait for the new close. But that's ridiculous. We have a giant pile of consensus there already, with no reason to think that the situation has changed. The community just needs a result. That answer might be negative, and even a negative result is helpful. If you truly feel that the proposal isn't gonna happen, then reject it and say so, which if upheld, will at least guide what kind of proposal to be taken next, or if more proposals even make sense.

  You write "sounds like you just want the closer to decide for you." Closing such wide-ranging proposals is a big deal, yes! The whole point is that this is how the community addresses big problems and/or makes big changes, the kind of things that modify or suspend the usual policies. So yes, the eventual close should reflect what the community wants done and the best way to do it (or to say "nope, we're not doing it"), not just make a meaningless "no consensus". There's a reason why good closes are often rather long for such matters when the result isn't obvious. In general, if there's 25+ editors weighing in on a matter, you probably shouldn't make a "no consensus" close. SnowFire (talk) 07:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  Much of what you just said is flat-out contrary to policy. It doesn't matter how "big" a dicussion may be, or the number of participants. If there is no consensus to do something, then there is no consensus. Not: "Well since so many people commented, I'm going to pick a side" - that would be wrong and contrary to policy. As I said, there are times when it may be appropriate for a closer to select an outcome by pulling a needle out of the haystack. But that wasn't appropriate in this case - YMMv of course. - jc37 07:27, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  The stance you describe is the incorrect one here, although unfortunately one that has been sometimes shared by other poor closers to the cause of the community's grief and time-wasting before. Now, don't get me wrong, "no consensus" closes for most parts of Wikipedia, especially low-turnout discussions, are fine. But the kind of discussions posted on CENT are different. They're closer to things like "Proposal to change this policy" where either the change happens or it doesn't, and further can empower broad actions to be taken. The closer is expected not to merely summarize the conversation, but also to get to the heart of the matter and decide what, if anything, the proper response to the issue is. It's very specifically the mechanism the community has to deal with large problems. Denying resolution to this breaks WP:NOTBURO by encouraging endless discussion. If someone re-runs an XFD three months later after a no consensus close, that's no big deal, but I repeat: would you seriously not object if this entire discussion was repeated for the next three months? Take a look at, say, Wikipedia:Good Article proposal drive 2023. A good number have red x with "no consensus to implement" but everyone understands this means "rejected." There are no proposals with a close of "On hold, maybe this proposal will pass, there's consensus it describes a real problem!"

  As a side comment, the reason that we have to have a hypothetical discussion about "can closers close in general" is also a warning sign here. If your close had more teeth to it, I might be able to say something more substantive, but instead I'm stuck having to simply assert that closers need to close. But this is a sign of the close's weakness, not its strength, that there's so little to nitpick over it, since it just doesn't actually say anything. Again, if you want to reject the draftification proposal, then just reject it (although hopefully with more explanation than the patchy one given). Don't just make a non-close. SnowFire (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  "No consensus" doesn't have a minimum or maximum of participants. Just because a discussion has many participants doesn't mean we should suddenly throw policy out the window.

  Yes, there are times when a closer should "pick something", but, based upon the discussion, this was not one of those times. Closer discretion is not a free pass to supervote whenever one wants. No matter how many participants there are in a discussion. - jc37 17:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  One benefit of a "No consensus" close is that it does not prevent continued or even new, discussion of the various topics. But no consensus without explaining why there was no consensus does. BilledMammal (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  @SnowFire: Valid closes would be something like "Endorse draftification," "Partial endorse draftification under (circumstances)", "Take them all to AFD and deal with the giant backlog using the following procedure / limits", and "No, consensus is that these articles are actually fine." the problem is that there was no consensus for any of those options so any close declaring one of those as the outcome would be a supervote. There was consensus that the articles are not fine as is, but there was no consensus that a mass move of them out of mainspace (to draftspace or any other specific location) was the right solution, no consensus that mass listification or mass redirection was the right solution, nor a consensus that they should be taken to AfD en mass. Thryduulf (talk) 06:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Thryduulf:: If a closer agrees with you, then the close should be "the status quo is fine, proposal rejected". Which I would disagree with, but if that was found to be the result, the closer should own "Sorry, you're all on your own" if so. SnowFire (talk) 07:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - I just wanted to chime in to endorse what SnowFire about "Saying that there's consensus there's a problem but not providing guidance on what to do about the problem is a non-close after such a long debate". This site is addicted to just not doing anything about things that most people will acknowledge are a problem, but when it gets to the point of doing something about it so many just baulk at it for no better reason that any kind of action seeming extreme. Every single one of these LUGSTUBs would be likely deleted at AFD if brought there one-by-one but at the same time doing so is basically impossible and likely to be considered disruptive.
  A classic example is the airline destination lists I and a few other editors have been dealing with lately - we had an RFC on them that said "yeah, clear violations of WP:NOT" back in 2018 but when Beeblebrox tried to act on that consensus suddenly there was massive concern because that meant deleting all 400+ of them and Wikipedia just doesn't do thing like that. The result was the RFC was essentially just shelved - not negated, not cancelled, just put in the desk drawer and forgotten as too much of a problem. Fast forward five years, and we're on the 20th AFD in a row where deletion of these articles is almost universally endorsed.
  The closer in this case fully acknowledged that there was a consensus in favour of doing something in this case. They just baulked at doing what the majority of !voters endorsed: draftifying these articles that everyone knows don't belong on Wikipedia. Instead, the fact that there wasn't a super-majority in favour of draftification as the specific remedy, but only a majority, has been pulled out as a reason to default to the outcome that was only endorsed by a minority - doing nothing. Wikipedia is not a democracy, these discussions are not a vote per se - this applies also to the idea that a super-majority is required to do anything (which,incidentally, was also an idea disapproved at the last LUGSTUBS AN review). It's time to do something. FOARP (talk) 14:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  No. the closer has "balked" at saying there is a particular consensus, when there was not a particular consensus. And multiple people who want a particular action saying "I want it", doesn't change that.

  If it's time to "do something" then try proposing a different idea. Just because there wasn't agreement on "that particular pony", doesn't mean that, with further discussion, a ponythat there can be consensus for cannot be found.

  And I should note, there have been larger discussions than this that have gone back to the drawing board after a "no consensus" close (with closers different than me). So again, number of participants is immaterial.

  Also, think about all of the time (words, bytes) that people have spent in this close review, and think about if they had instead spent that time brainstorming new ideas.

  How you choose to spend your time as an editor is up to you... - jc37 17:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  Also, think about all of the time (words, bytes) that people have spent in this close review I agree; it's past time to close this close review. I've put in a request at WP:RFCL. BilledMammal (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion about No Consensus (LUGSTUBS2)

Split this discussion to a separate section. - jc37 06:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• weak endorse and request the closer put more time into closing statements in the future. It's a reasonable outcome from the discussion. It doesn't provide the reasoning that got there. Sometimes you don't need that reasoning, sometimes you do. This should be an obvious "you do". At the least counting the !votes and summarizing the arguments is needed for a discussion this long and this close (in terms of numbers and policy). Hobit (talk) 02:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  (This isn't so much about your specific comments (which I of course thank you for), you just provided a spot I could respond : )

  I've read all the comments here, and I keep re-reading my close. And I've re-read the past closes by Bradv and GRuban.

  And I'd be happy to clarify the close. But honestly, looking at the above, I'm not sure what people specifically actually want clarified.

  The numbers? No, I'm not going to do that. Consensus isn't a counting of heads, and saying that there were 60-some bolded votes that said this and 40-some bolded votes that said that, is wrong.

  Re-list all the arguments, essentially retyping out the entire discussion? No. The discussion is already there for people to read and it's a pretty lengthy one, at that.

  What's odd to me is this is an overall "No Consensus" close. So it's really isn't so much about what people agreed upon, but that they didn't agree, and never came to consensus to agree to do what was proposed. Even many who supported either did it weakly or with caveats.

  The part where I said there was "consensus" - that "something" should be done - was pervasive throughout. Very few liked the current situation, but they didn't like the proposed solution either. So, as a closer, I noted that, and suggested a way forward.

  I'm not sure what else there is to say.

  If you read GRuban's close, he states:

  • "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."

  To me, that seems like someone expecting to see WP:AN, and he even closed in support of the nom!

  Anyway, I'm not afraid of AN. The community is the community. We all act as an extension of the community. And here is where I get to hear what the community thinks. And I welcome feedback. I'm not perfect. No one is.

  But anyway, if someone still wants a "fuller close" that isn't just a whole lot of words added for the sake of adding words, I'm all ears. And happy to help. - jc37 04:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  • IMO, it should be possible to at least reconstruct the reasoning behind a close summary for contentious RfCs. This allows other editors to understand how particular arguments were interpreted and potentially to identify any specific issues. It lends some amount of falsifiability to the closer's judgment. JoelleJay (talk) 18:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
  • @Jc37: In general yes, the total counts should play a role. And they do, per WP:IAR and just the way we do things around here. Sometimes the numbers and the strength of argument are on opposite sides, that that can get tricky. And yes, as JoelleJay says right above, folks want to be clear on how the outcome was reached and, in some cases, have some faith they were heard. I'll toot my own horn and give you an example of a close that I'm pleased with. I could give you some that I've done that were bad too if you'd like. But Talk:Reform UK/Archive 2#RfC regarding article split is a closing statement that was quite detailed because things were so hot and because a NC outcome wasn't possible (that the status quo was wrong was about the only thing folks agreed on). I think it made those who wanted a different outcome see that they'd been heard but that the other outcome had both more support and was probably more reasonable. For a discussion where the outcome is clear, there is no need to put in so much time (that took me more than an hour, maybe a fair bit more). But for one that's close (in strength or argument or numbers) it helps be clear on how the decision was reached. Hobit (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

    Except that that is not what you did in even that close you show as an example. You do not "count bolded votes" and then list the head count. You give a rough idea, and that's because there were some clear splits in the discussion that you felt worth noting. Doing that (or not) depends a lot on the discussion. My statement of "there are too many to list", wasn't that much of a hyperbole. This was a classic - people wanted "something" done, but they did not agree that "this" something was the way to go. Hence "no consensus". Not agreeing is not agreeing. - jc37 17:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

    @Jc37:If you go back and re-read your close, there is no real sense of why you closed it the way you did. Was the count close? Were the strength of arguments close? Both? What were the basic arguments? What was the basic count? In a close discussion you should, IMO, summarize all that so that people can understand why you did what you did. I don't think you got to that point with this close, and it's pretty clear most people feel that way. Which is a shame because A) I think you got it right and B) I feel like you did all that in your head, you just neglected to share it with us. I don't know if you do math, but I teach proof-based math. And one of the things we try to get into the students' heads is that getting the right answer without showing your work has little value. You need to be able to explain to others how you got the answer. And that is, for certain, tricky. Finding the right level of detail is difficult for students. In this case, I think it's pretty clear your readers think you needed more detail. And, as in proofs, if your readers think more detail was needed, then, by definition, you needed more detail for that audience. Hobit (talk) 14:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

    I'm not sure how best to frame my response to this, but here goes. There are a couple parts to this, so please bear with me.

    Overall, the result was no consensus. Not: supported, not: opposed, but no consensus.

    And so your math analogy of "show your work for the proof", doesn't apply. Your goal is to explain the "how" of how a value was achieved. In a "no consensus" result no "value" was achieved.

    In math, even zero has a value, it's 1 less than 1, or it's 3 million less than 3 million, or whatever. It has a position on a number line, or on an x/y axis.

    But on wikipedia we aren't solving for x when we close a discussion. Indeed, typically (though not always - I'll get to that), we shouldn't be solving for x when we're a closer. That, in many cases, would be a super-vote.

    Those here who are asking for a more fuller explanation are essentially asking why the discussion was opposed. But I'm not saying that it was opposed. I'm saying there was no consensus.

    Do I understand the confusion? Sure. In XfD discussions, a "no consensus" result is (mostly) also an "opposed" result. See WP:NOCON?, which talks about status quos and such.

    But that's not what this is.

    What you seem to be asking for is Evidence of absence. And my response is: Read the discussion. Then you say: summarize the absence? Quantify something that isn't? Quantify something which does not exist? Please tell me how one does that without writing a book on philosophy.

    But let's set aside the issues with perceived confusion of the concept of "no consensus" for a minute.

    This discussion has another wrinkle to it. And it's that there was a consensus of "something". That "something" was not what was proposed, however.

    It's that there was a consensus that "something" should be done. So while there was no consensus on the proposed solution, and no consensus on alternate solutions, still there was consensus that "some solution" should happen

    And therein lies another problem. There are times that a closer can rely on "closer discretion" and pull a needle out of a haystack, and slap it on the counter and say "this is what we're going to do". But I didn't (and don't) think that was appropriate in this case. There really wasn't a strong enough argument for any of the suggested options, to do that.

    So where does that leave those who participated in the discussion, or even those who were watching the discussion with interest?

    (using yet another analogy lol) - They all got together and discussed whether they wanted the pony that BilledMammal was suggesting. They did not come to agreement about that pony. But the consensus was that they still want a pony. And here I am, apparently not explaining to everyone why they didn't get a pony. My answer: Because you didn't agree on what pony you wanted. But, they say, tell us how we didn't agree.

    Are you starting to see the issue here?

    So anyway, over the years, I seem to recall people talking about writing up something explaining the complexities of a "No consensus" RfC close. But it usually doesn't happen because these kinds of discussions supposedly don't happen very often. So writing that out has been seen as not worth the time invested. But I dunno. If we do, perhaps we can save the community from future AN discussions like this one. - jc37 00:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

    Thank you for rewriting the initial close, it has mostly addressed my concerns above. Rereading through the rephrasing and the original, something which jumped out to me is that the second one felt more cohesive. Hobit noted that "there is no real sense of why you closed it the way you did" in the first close, and part of that sense may stem from the appearance of cohesiveness. The first close had a number of sentence fragments that move somewhat haphazardly between points ("But rather that these should be addressed on a case-by-case basis (some individually, some as a part of a sub-grouping). Too many various concerns to list. Listification was also proposed.") in a way that requires a familiarity with the entire discussion to parse the full meaning. This fragmentary writing stands in contrast to the rewritten close and especially with the longer explanations given here. CMD (talk) 06:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

    Thanks for the response. I still feel you're missing the point. Yes, you can prove something isn't there. In fact, in the classes I teach, that's what I mostly do. Probably the most significant proof is that there are problems no computer can solve. In this case, you could try to give a count and try to list the various options and make it clear why they didn't have consensus (both counts and arguments against). Saying "read the discussion" is the wrong way forward--part of the closer's job, IMO, when closing a big discussion is to summarize that discussion so people don't have to. But seriously think you for responding, it's much more clear to me why you choose to close the discussion they way you did. I don't agree, but I do understand. Hobit (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

    Hobit - What you seem to be talking about (from your math classes) is "proving" (determining) a value, which you believe to exist, but which does not currently have a proof. (List of unsolved problems in mathematics for example). So the difference is simple. You start with a value, and all you are trying to do is prove the value exists.

    To put that in Wiki discussion terms, essentially, that's you saying that there is this "value" called a "consensus", and to "prove" (determine) it, you build out a discussion (a proof of concept) which can produce such a value, in a way that others can reproduce your findings.

    That's not what a closer does. In this case (to continue the "value" frame of reference), a closer starts with an existing discussion, with no preconceived notion of "value" to determine, and merely assesses the dicussion - as it exists. And should there be a value to be found, the closer may discover it in the discussion. If there is not, then there is not. A discussion does not always produce a consensus. Sometimes (and here's another - not great - analogy), when a group of people mine for gold, it may be that there is no gold in the mine, even if some of the miners want there to be.

    And yes - you and I are well into philosophy now : ) - jc37 12:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

IMO on the actual question of the RFC (move out of article space) there was a consensus to do that. Why call that "that something should be done" instead of the actual question? And then IMO it was arguable/ possibly no consensus on which specific thing should be done to implement that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Actually as I see it there wasn't consensus that the "something" was "move them out of article space", certainly en mass. Thryduulf (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Well of course my "take" on the results is arguable/ a matter of opinion. But not arguable is that is that it was the RFC question and what people were responding to unless they specified otherwise. North8000 (talk) 00:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

The RfC question was Should the following 1,182 biographical microstubs, which were mass-created by Lugnuts and cover cricketers, be moved out of article space? and there was no consensus answer to that question. There was a consensus that something should be done with the articles, but no consensus that moving all of them out of article space (or anything else suggested) was that something. That is very different to there being a consensus to move the articles somewhere. Thryduulf (talk) 01:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Please read the close closely. It said that there was no consensus for mass draftification. And then parenthetically implied that such is equivalent to no consensus to move out of article space. It made no direct statement about moving out of article space nor gave any indication that it evaluated that question directly/ specifically.:

• In logic terms this is incorrectly saying that if there is no consensus for the subset (draftification) , that implies that there is no consensus for the superset (move out of article space).
• Per my previous analogy, If the question is "shall we visit California?" and 50% said "let's visit LA" and 30% said "let's visit San Francisco the close in essence said: "There was no consensus to visit Los Angelos (visit California)

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• As this should be vacated anyways, I see no particular reason to discuss what the outcome "should" have been, and think a panel close would be helpful. SportingFlyer T·C 10:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

To note that I collapsed this section and was reverted by jc37 Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

The revert seems odd to me? SportingFlyer T·C 22:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. Very self serving if you ask me, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Why? Thryduulf (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Moving an endorse vote to its own subsection also seems odd to me. Levivich (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Threads are split out to their own sub-section all the time. I left their initial comments in place for clarity of the thread. Nothing more. - jc37 05:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Jc, in five years and thirty thousand edits, I've never before seen someone move a vote out of chrono order into its own subsection and respond to it. If it happens all the time, I missed it. Levivich (talk) 05:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, first of all, we don't "vote" here. Second, if you look, Hobit's initial bolded comments are still where they placed them. I merely copied them when moving the thread, in order to maintain context. And finally, as I said, it is not uncommon for discussion threads to be split out to their own sections. Sometimes threads are even moved to talk pages for further discussion. I'm sorry to hear that you've apparently never seen anything but enboldened straw polls. - jc37 05:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

You're right, it was copied not moved. Sorry, my mistake. Levivich (talk) 17:17, 24 August 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 is WP:AN, the place to discuss a close, even a nac close, but, I think I'll just leave a post-closure note:

I think my favorite line was: "...a "no consensus" outcome doesn't cut it, so there should be rough consensus to retain it..." - So essentially, that there should be consensus for no consensus. I have too admit, reading that struck me funny.

Whatever others may think of the quality of the close (positive or negative), they definitely deserve kudos for being willing to read through all this. Thanks for taking the time to give this all a read through. And of course, thanks to everyone who took the time to comment. It was interesting. - jc37 00:36, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Pattern of not justifying closes

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

---

In this discussion, four RfC's were raised as having been closed by jc37 with inadequate justifications:

1. Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC on draftifying a subset of mass-created Cricketer microstubs
2. Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Minor alteration to WP:NOTDIRECTORY
3. Talk:PragerU#RfC: should the article have a sentence covering PragerU's profit off their anti-LGBT video?
4. Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 73#Adding one new thing to the current SNG text

The first two were overturned here for that reason.

I went and looked at every RfC close listed at Wikipedia:Closure requests that was closed by jc37 since 2020. While some of these appeared appropriate, either due to sufficient explanation or due to consensus being sufficiently clear that an explanation was not needed, many of them fail to explain why the discussion was closed in the manner that it was; no summary of the numerical preferences of editors was provided, no summary of the arguments, and no assessment of the relative strengths of each argument as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy and guidelines.

Reading the discussion above, jc37 doesn't appear to believe it is necessary to provide such an explanation, and perhaps it wasn't in the past but the current standards of the community, as seen through the recent close reviews, is that it is.

jc37, would you be willing to commit to providing a more detailed close, explaining why you came to conclusion that you came to, for future closes that are not obviously "consensus for" or "consensus against"? From my brief review of some of the discussions listed below your assessment of consensus usually appears to be reasonable, but there is an expectation from the community that such a justification of the result is provided, and beyond that there is significant benefit in providing that - it helps guide future discussions, the process can result in you realizing your current assessment is incorrect, and the process can help other editors identify flaws in your close.

In the end, the purpose is to get the right result, and the process of explaining the close helps towards it.

List of all closes by jc37 listed at Wikipedia:Closure requests since 2020

Discussion Close Talk:Austria–North Macedonia relations#Request for Comment No Consensus to add to the article. The main concern by opposers seems to be the lack of references directly associating this info with the page topic. - jc37 12:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC) Talk:Argentina national football team results (2020–present)#RFC:Format of Table No Consensus to switch from template to table, unless the table is edited to include all the info presented in the template. (I'm aware that someone in the meantime has boldly switched the page to the table format. I will revert to the previous version.) Aesthetics/"it looks better" had no weight in this close. Though WP:ACCESS#Color should be kept in mind. I also read over the various linked-to discussions, but this discussion is more recent and had broader participation. - jc37 13:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC) Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 179#RfC on limiting minor edits No Consensus - Option B is Opposed; Option A had slightly more support than Option 0, but not enough to say that this has consensus for implementation. Several people wished for a better interface for this, such as better filters or a pop-up description - no prejudice against starting a follow-up rfc for broader discussion of that. - jc37 16:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC) Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 137#Abraham accords Opposed - The general feeling appears to be that this article is not the appropriate place for this info, as there is a difference between the person, and the office/position held by the person. - jc37 17:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC) Talk:Pahonia#RFC: Pahonia The result if the discussion is - Option A With modifications as per Pofka. - And yes, I read it all, including the DRN and other discussion pages. And yes, threaded discussion receives as much (or as little) weight as all other comments, whether they are after a bullet point or in a subsection. WP:CON, as always. Now I'm going to say this several times, as it apparently needs to be said - Discuss the content, not the contributor Discuss the content, not the contributor Discuss the content, not the contributor Ok with that done... Please feel free to implement this close in a collegial, collaborative, and civil manner. And please consider this fair warning - If edit warring or other types of disruptive editing starts appearing, please don't be surprised if sanctions (such as blocking) start happening at this point. We are all here to collaboratively produce an encyclopedia. And with that, I hope you all have a great day. Happy editing. - jc37 16:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC) Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 136#"Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist." Consensus to add something about "misogynistic" comments/actions - with references per WP:BLP of course - but only if not in the same sentence. Or in other words, following the references, keep info about racist comments and misogynistic comments, separate. - jc37 17:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC) Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 183#RFC: Pending-changes protection of Today's featured article If I merely do an accounting, auto-semi-protection would be the result. But that is not what a closer is to do. And the policy argument from WP:PROTECT carries a lot of weight. So with that in mind, and based upon the discussion below, while I think there is consensus below from the community that they would like to try auto-semi-protection on an article while it is TFA, there are also some policy-based valid concerns. So considering how this has been handled to this point, moving forward, this can be resolved with a 30-day trial of auto-semi-protection, just like the initial implementation of PC was (to start whenever implementation is ready). (I realize this may be seen as "kicking the can down the road", but the WP:PROTECT policy rests heavily on a fundamental pillar of Wikipedia, and modifying the application of that, even locally, as noted in the discussion below, is not to be lightly done. And closers are required to take existing policies/guidelines/longstanding common practice, into account when closing.) - jc37 02:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC) Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 73#Adding one new thing to the current SNG text No consensus to add proposed text - jc37 02:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 79#Lists of Repertoire/Compositions on Wikipedia As a few have mentioned below, this is (charitably) an "oddly" formed RfC. But that said, taking it as it is: There first seems to Binary question of whether WP:TNT should come into play here, as noted by the RfC creator. This is apparently reflected in Option 1. This was Opposed by the discussion. And on the converse, Option 3, taken to its extreme, was Opposed as well Reading through the discussion and the "criteria" subsections (reminder: a consensual discussion is not about counting bulleted "votes"), the consensus for inclusion criteria would seem to fall somewhere between option 2 and 3, but there is No Consensus (yet) where that dividing line should be. As some noted in the discussion, this can apparently vary due to various things for each article. There was also a suggestion that for some of these, use of the categorisation system might be more appropriate. I might suggest a followup discussion to see if a consensus on usage/criteria can be found. - jc37 13:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC) Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2022 archive#RfC: 'Titles and Styles' sections Ok, so I've read over this, and the previous RfC (and even the one started and stopped at the WikiProject). The discussions would seem to boil down to a few things, so to try to take each: a.) Multiple sections (or not) - No Consensus. b.) bullets/table, descriptive text, or both as needed - Bullets by themselves was Opposed, in particular in the more complicated situations. And descriptive text by itself, was also Opposed, due to possible confusion as well. However, Both as needed, has Consensus - in particular the discussion noted that descriptive text better explains some of the more complicated situations, while bulleted text (or a table) can be clearer to the reader to support what is being said in the descriptive text. - jc37 14:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC) Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Archive 54#RFC, 24 September 2022 Ok, so for most closes, I don't worry too much if my admin hat is necessarily on or not. But due to this article being under Discretionary sanctions (DS), I'll confirm, that I'm wearing my admin hat, but also that I'm not adding any additional DS. Though I am deferring to the existing notice in the DS banner in this close. I also read several discussions and followup proposals/RFCs concerning this. (And archived several on this page.) The result of the discussion is Remove the text - the consensus of the discussion is that it does not provide enough context on its own. And none of the various proposed clarifying text/context had consensus. This text is therefore considered "challenged" as per the DS banner at the top of this talk page (The bolded section starting with "Consensus required..."). So per that, do not re-add this text without clear consensus on this talk page, and without adding the clarifying text/context as deemed necessary by this (and/or future) consensus. I will implement this close by removing the text myself. - jc37 15:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC) Template talk:Quantities of bits#RFC: Column name/position/content for binary computing units No Consensus to change header - There was consensus for better clarity over the issues of standards, and industry usage, but not as to what replacement header(s) should be (if any). Feel free to add a sub-note (as was suggested in the discussion) to the column headers as appropriate. For example linking to: https://www.jedec.org/standards-documents/dictionary/terms/mega-m-prefix-units-semiconductor-storage-capacity (which apparently uses the phrase "common usage") - or whatever other internal or external reference is deemed appropriate, per normal editorial discretion. - jc37 16:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years/Archive 15#RFC: Should a Collage of Images be added to all YEAR IN... pages? To start with, I did also read Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years/Archive 14#collage discussions. I think it's fair to say that several were concerned about what they seemed to see as a false dichotomy of a Binary choice of keep or remove, when they felt other options were available. The RfC creator noted that a "keep" allowed for those other options. The thing is, that's not the question posed by this RfC. It's: "Should 'X' be added to all 'Z' pages?" (and as it's a binary question - its reverse). The result of that question is No consensus to add or to not add to all pages. As to whether collages can be added to a particular page, that falls under normal editorial discretion and WP:BRD, as normal. Perhaps this will provide the opportunity to reframe the discussion to find consensus, such as possibly discussing the "other options" that several were interested in discussing. No prejudice against such a follow-up discussion, of course. - jc37 17:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC) Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 194#RfC: Showing a gadget menu to logged-out users Implementing was Opposed. And No Consensus on "some other way" to provide "dark mode" to IPs. - jc37 17:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC) Talk:War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 23#RfC on killings of suspected collaborators There is Consensus to add (much of) the information, but overall, the actual text of option 2 was Opposed for various reasons, including needing to be more neutral in tone. (The text of the section about Volodymyr Struk, in particular, was opposed.) Kudos to Gitz for trying to find a way forward in the discussion, but from the discussion and survey comments, it would appear that starting over with new text would apparently be the next step/way to move forward. So no prejudice, of course, against a follow-up discussion in order to try to hammer out new text. - jc37 06:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 396#RfC: 9to5Google.com reliability? Ok, so when reading through it all and not counting "votes", the result sits somewhere near to Option 2. Even some of those who supported Option #1 noted that not everything on the site should be considered neutrally reliable. And even those supporting Option 3 saw value in some of what the site provided. There were several policy shortcuts tossed around concerning the site. But mostly the divergence of the commenters appeared to be concerned about how much of an opinion site, the site should be considered to be, and whether that disqualified it, as compared to other such sites which are considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. And to quote WP:RS#Overview: "Source reliability falls on a spectrum: No source is 'always reliable' or 'always unreliable' for everything. However, some sources provide stronger or weaker support for a given statement. Editors must use their judgment to draw the line between usable and inappropriate sources for each statement." One concern that I did not see refuted in the discussion was concerning WP:RS#Sponsored content. I checked the site itself, and it states: "9to5 sites use industry-standard Adsense ads, and offer sponsored posts to companies interested in reaching our readership through long-form articles rather than banners. Sponsored posts are always clearly marked as such, represent the views of their sponsors, and improve the site experience for readers by allowing us to remove some traditional banner ads." - I'll leave it to others to determine if they follow that policy. But if they do, then that presumably follows the policy at WP:RS#Sponsored content: "Reliable publications clearly indicate sponsored articles in the byline or with a disclaimer at the top of the article. Sources that do not clearly distinguish staff-written articles from sponsored content are also questionable." So anyway, to sum up - following policy, and the discussion, the result is: Option #2. - jc37 07:55, 3 February 2023 (UTC) Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 85#RfC: Removing F10. Useless non-media files Result - Deprecated in favour of WP:PROD usage. If it turns out that PROD isn't handling things as hoped, feel free to revisit this discussion in the future. - jc37 05:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC) I commented out the F10 section. Someone is welcome to please archive as appropriate. - jc37 05:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC) Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RfC about exceptions to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and commanders/leaders in Template:Infobox military conflict No Consensus to do anything. I see that a few editors added comments recently, but this still has not emerged from the no consensus stage. This has been going on awhile, and closure has been asked for at least twice at the WP:CR page, so at this point, maybe everyone can take what they've learned so far, and if wanted, start a new discussion. - jc37 11:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC) Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump/Archive 10#RfC No consensus - If it helps as a way forward, A and C appeared to have the most support, for varying reasons. - jc37 21:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 31#RfC: Should episode article titles default to the broadcaster's official title? No consensus to overturn current policy - While posting notices to other discussion pages may be helpful to neutrally advertise a discussion, per WP:CANVASS, that doesn't necessarily mean, of itself, that this local discussion may overturn policy. This very scenario is listed as an example at Wikipedia:Consensus#Levels of consensus. Low turnout + local consensus = No consensus to overturn current policy. - jc37 22:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC) Talk:PragerU#RfC: should the article have a sentence covering PragerU's profit off their anti-LGBT video? There is No Consensus to add the text to the article. And even after relisting, option D did not gain consensus either. - jc37 04:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC) - Edit, adding clarification: When assessing the entire discussion, there was no consensus that having anything on the page was appropriate. And overall, option C had the most support (including all comments, not just embolded ones). While there was no consensus for any of the current text options, there is no prejudice against discussions of other possible configurations of text (several were proposed in the discussion). I apologize for not being clearer initially. - jc37 05:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC) Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Minor alteration to WP:NOTDIRECTORY No consensus on initial proposal. There is a consensus to remove the sentence about DAB pages, but no consensus on what to replace it with (if anything). - jc37 03:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC) - Striking the latter part of the close to allow for further discussion. - jc37 23:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC on draftifying a subset of mass-created Cricketer microstubs In reading over the discussion, there was Consensus that these should be addressed. However, there is No Consensus that mass-draftification (mass-moving-out-of-article-space) is the correct solution for all of these. But rather that these should be addressed on a case-by-case basis (some individually, some as a part of a sub-grouping). Too many various concerns to list. Listification was also proposed. As the primary focus of this nomination was the question of moving the pages en-masse, there is no prejudice against listification (or any other typical editorial process), at editorial discretion, following the typical process (whether that be pre-discussing, WP:BRD, etc.), on a case-by-case basis, to address these. - jc37 04:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC) - Edit: Just to clarify, the result of the discussion is that - "There is No Consensus that mass-draftification (mass-moving-out-of-article-space) is the correct solution for all of these." There were many concerns, and several proposed solutions other than mass-draftifying, but none of those had consensus either. What did have overall consensus, was that "something" should be done (but no consensus on what was proposed). And so, there is "no prejudice" against further discussion, or handling these on a case-by-case basis (at normal editorial disccretion, following the typical process(es), etc). Perhaps restating the close in this way is (hopefully) clearer.

BilledMammal (talk) 11:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Interesting.

I have to say, my initial impression when I read the above? WP:STICK.

What I said in the discussion about AGF and you was true. But someone doesn't do what you have without having some bone to pick. I'm not sure what it is, and I haven't as yet looked through your edit history to see what could be sparking this. I'd rather not take the time to try to figure out whatever is motivating you in this. (I have a lot of pages on my watchlist due to past discussions, and I see that you also just questioned a close by TonyBallioni‎. I don't know if questioning closes that you don't like is a pattern with you either - as I said, I haven't looked.)

So anyway, instead, I'll just talk about me : )

First - I believe very solidly in the interdependence of WP:BOLD and WP:CON. And along with that, I think it's fairly safe to say that I'm rather well-versed in Wikipedia policy and process. And have contributed to it throughout various parts of Wikipedia.

And I'm also happy to help.

And I do think that clarifying a close is a way-of-life on Wikipedia, and has been for as long as I remember.

I also know that when it's a discussion with many participants, if there are those who don't like the close, you may hear from them. I noted this to another closer, and his response is at the top of my talk page.

I'm also aware that some people will choose to not close certain discussions. Whether for seeming wiki-political reasons, or whatever.

I don't concern myself with attempting to play political games on Wikipedia. I just follow policy and process.

And so, for example, if there is a discussion that's been open a month and a half or longer, I don't have a problem going to help out and close a discussion.

And if they've been open awhile, that not-uncommonly means no one else wanted to close, for whatever the reasons.

So am I surprised when those who didn't get the result they wanted question the close? No.

And I have no problem with clarifying the close. As I did in this most recent case, and as I did when opening the thread above.

What I won't do is violate policy and "count votes".

And yes, I am aware that there are those who prefer a certain outcome will want the closer to count votes if they think that it will support what they want. And the reverse is true. If they want a result that counting votes will not support then they will question the closer on that count.

Do I think that's true of everyone asking for clarification? no, of course not. But after years of closing discussions, I have seen repeated examples of this. So it would be dishonest to suggest that I'm not aware that such gamesmanship goes on.

Anyway, back to the above. 2 things. First, I don't see it listed showing how long those discussions were open, though I do see it noted that they were listed at WP:CR, which isn't typically done with discussions getting prompt closes.

Second, I'll offer this as a way forward: BilledMammal - If you think that the wider community consensus has changed and that a closer should count votes and should present counted votes or percentages, or note "majorities", because they should be used by the closer in determining the close. Then open an RfC at the WP:VP, and let's find out what the broader community actually thinks. But unless/until Wikipedia policy is changed, I am not going to violate policy unless there is a valid WP:IAR reason to do so. - jc37 13:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

But someone doesn't do what you have without having some bone to pick. No bone to pick. I am just concerned, because it is very uncommon for editors to have RfC's closes overturned, but in the past two months two of your closes have been overturned for the same reason - insufficient justification. I don't think this is a problem that can't be fixed as it is just a matter of being willing to explain your thought process behind the close, and I am hoping you will be willing to commit to doing so - particularly since, as I said, your assessment of consensus usually appears to be reasonable.

I see that you also just questioned a close by TonyBallioni‎. I don't know if questioning closes that you don't like is a pattern with you either - as I said, I haven't looked. I question some closes, though only a small fraction of the discussions I am involved in. I questioned that one because it surprised me; while the !vote count was roughly equal, the strength of argument appeared to me to be quite one-sided. I don't plan to take that one any further than a discussion with the closer, however.

To respond to the rest, no one is asking you to assess consensus solely based on counting !votes. What is being asked if for you to provide an explanation of your close; explain your assessment of quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy, and explain how that lead you to your close. Sometimes that may necessitate explaining the vote count, if only to lead into why you found against the majority, but not always. BilledMammal (talk) 14:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Actually, the one above was "vacated" pretty much for the reasons I gave in the close. I said that there was no consensus for "the pony" you presented, but that there was a concensus that a "pony" was wanted. And so in the discussion above that was re-affirmed - that a "pony" was wanted. And now that that's been determined to be the case, all that remains is to see how the next person who closes, addresses that. Will they decide to go for your pony, some other pony, or re-affirm that no one agreed upon a specific pony? Or something else? No idea. I guess we'll see.

But to suggest that I have not been willing to clarify any close just is untrue. Even your examples above discredit that assertion. What you seem to be saying is that you want me to clarify a close in a certain way. Your statement: "Sometimes that may necessitate explaining the vote count..." - is not something I am going to do. And I'm telling you that I'm going to stay following the policy on consensus until Wikipedia policy states otherwise. As I said above: "I am not going to violate policy unless there is a valid WP:IAR reason to do so." So until you have community-wide support of your assertion, that's all it is, an assertion.

But here, think about it this way. Let's say I did what you suggest. What is my defense when the next editor asked me why I counted heads to explain the close. Do I say "well BilledMammal suggested that that's the thing to do"? Right, that'll fly really well. I'll stick to policy.

In the meantime, I would encourage you to find someone you trust to talk with about how a "No Consensus" close varies both in result and in "status quo" based upon venue and type. I'm looking at the discussion at TonyBallioni‎'s talk page, and also how you've characterized things on this page, and I'm wondering if that's an issue. I see from your talk page that you tend to work with Requested Moves. A "No consensus" result from an RM can be quite different than one from an RfC or an XfD. Anyway, just a suggestion.

Regardless, I wish you well. - jc37 21:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Actually, the one above was "vacated" pretty much for the reasons I gave in the close. I think you may have overlooked the closing consensus, which said The discussion reached consensus that the close did not explain well why the no-consensus outcome for draftification is the proper one, and this was patently a discussion that needed more effort for the closer.

Your statement: "Sometimes that may necessitate explaining the vote count..." - is not something I am going to do. Sometimes, consensus does come down to the vote count; for example, if editors disagree about which policy is controlling in a given instance and a reasonable argument is made for each, then consensus does come down to which side has the greatest support amongst the community.

In general though, if you don't want to mention vote count, then don't - personally I find it useful to do so if I am going to make a close that is against the majority, because it gives me an opening to explain why the arguments on the side of the minority were stronger than the arguments on the side of the majority, but reasonable minds can differ. What I am asking here, and what editors like AirshipJungleman29 and FormalDude asked for in the discussion above, was for you to provide some sort of explanation; to explain which arguments were strong and which arguments were weak, and how they collectively lead you to the consensus (or lack thereof) that you found. BilledMammal (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

There seems to be a disconnect of some sort here, and I'm genuinely curious about what's causing it. Jc37, in your closure you said there is No Consensus that mass-draftification (mass-moving-out-of-article-space) is the correct solution for all of these. What we're trying to figure out is why you think there's no consensus. You say you didn't just count the votes, which is good (WP:NOTAVOTE, etc.). But if you didn't count the votes, what did you do instead? I assume you must have considered "the quality of the arguments given...as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy". If that's right, what did you find? Were both sides' arguments equally strong, or were some of them fallacious, contrary to policy, "based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact", or otherwise problematic? I know you didn't just flip a three-sided coin, so what did go into your conclusion that there wasn't a consensus? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

First kudos on the coin reference, you made me laugh : )

Well, as I noted in the initial close there wasn't merely "two sides". There were more than a few options suggested, including listification, etc. "too many various concerns to list", I think I said, or some such. With the many disparate concerns, and disparate options, and none of them generating a "consensus", the result was "no consensus". There was no pony to be had. There wasn't much policy-wise to implicitly give "added weight" to, per se. For example, that certain example articles were concerning was noted by some, but addressing those individual examples could be handled on a case by case basis through Wikipedia's standard processes, so there was not "cause" for me to "push" discretion in that direction. (And similarly for those who were suggesting that some sort of IAR solution might be appropriate in this case.) But I attempted to make clear that the close did not prevent addressing such concerns, at editorial discretion, per the typical processes. As I keep saying, there was no "there" there. Hence "no consensus". So if everyone wants a pony, as it seems, then do some brainstorming and try again. This close did not prevent that. - jc37 23:36, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

OK, that's helpful. So, as I said earlier I don't have a firm opinion on what the right closure is here, but I were trying to distill your sentiments into a close, here's what I would write:

RfCs are closed on the basis of consensus rather than by a simple vote count, and assessing consensus requires examining "the quality of the arguments...as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy". In some discussions, that's an easy task because one side's arguments are at odds with established policy, are logically fallacious, provide no reasoning, etc. But that wasn't the case here. No policy or guideline clearly endorses or prohibits this sort of proposal, and while I had to discount a few poorly reasoned !votes, most editors on both sides gave carefully considered, policy-compliant explanations for their positions. When this happens, closers are expected to "close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy". In this case, while the supporters do have a slight numerical majority, it's by a narrow enough margin that, in my view, no consensus to implement the mass draftification can be extracted from the discussion. That said, editors on all sides agree that there's a problem here, and other efforts to address the problem, whether through smaller subsets, individual AfDs, and/or listification, may be received more favorably.

Now I think (and I think BilledMammal would probably agree too) that if you had closed the discussion like this, you would probably still have been haled to AN (that's basically inevitable for this sort of RfC), but the end result would have been "endorse; well within closer discretion" rather than what we saw above. Obviously it's not the only way to write a closure, but hopefully it's useful in explaining what some editors are looking for these days. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

A lot of that is merely re-statement of policy, which - I'll admit I'm presuming here - which I presume that participants in a discussion are aware of.

Besides that, the examples I provided above were merely for illustrative purposes ("for example"s), so to place them like that would seem to me to be a sort of sampling bias.

That said, I don't have a huge issue with restating policy - I've done so quite a bit on this page. lol

And I have written closes like that, when I thought - from reading the discussion - that policy was being missed or misunderstood, or that I thought something specific should be clarified from the outset. But I typically only do that when it seems necessary. And - even with all the bytes of text above, I'm still not convinced that that was necessary to the discussion. However it does seem to be illustrating that there seems to be confusion about closing and the results thereof.

Which suggests to me that perhaps taking a look at current policy text also could very well be at issue. If, as you seem to assert, RfC closes are regularly questioned, then perhaps we need to see if we can do something in text to address that. We have a lot of great closers on Wikipedia, but I don't think that everyone would appeciate having to discuss/rebuild the wheel the ways in which we did above, every time they close something. It reminds me a bit of the initial discussions of process, and philosphies thereof. It's times like this that I think Wikipedia still misses the voices of people like SlimVirgin or DGG. Discussing things like McNamara fallacy, and so on. People who may not have always agreed, but who were working in good faith towards building this Wikipedia project. - jc37 05:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I think BilledMammal would probably agree too Partially; I'm not sure the result would have been endorse, because I don't think a 60:40 ratio is only a slight numerical majority, but no one would have been objecting on the grounds that the close was insufficiently justified. BilledMammal (talk) 09:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

• This reflects an openly-discussed tendency amongst closing admins of just not explaining the close so as to avoid giving any material to be challenged. I do not think jc37 can be blamed in particular for this since the practise has been endorsed by a number of admins of long standing. However, it is wrong because it ultimately is intended to hide potential wrong-doing, and the practise itself should be deprecated. FOARP (talk) 08:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
• I'm not sure if our regular close-quibblers appreciate just how much time and effort it can take to assess the consensus of lengthy discussions. The initial close can be anywhere from a whole morning to several days of discussion amongst a panel. Then you have to sign up for an unspecified amount of time spent responding to questions and challenges afterwards – sometimes weeks or months afterwards. If somebody wants to save time by writing a brief summary for a close they think is self-evident, then give them the benefit of the doubt. What's important is that they're able to back it up when and if challenged. We don't have so many experienced closers hanging around that we can insist they provide an essay up front, just in case. – Joe (talk) 09:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  Especially when writing an essay is often just as likely to be challenged as a short close. As multiple people have commented here, there was basically no chance that a close that wasn't in favour of the proposal was going to stand unchallenged, and given that the discussion did not reach that conclusion that closure would be challenged too. Thryduulf (talk) 06:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  That's reasonable; jc37, are you willing to commit to at least explaining your close after someone has questioned the close on your talk page? BilledMammal (talk) 09:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  lol - I've already affirmed that above, and many times in the past. "Clarification is a way of life on Wikipedia". - jc37 09:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  That doesn't seem to resolve it, because you speak about affirming that many times in the past - assumedly, including from before when this close was made - and yet you didn't do that for this close. BilledMammal (talk) 09:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  I did and have, but in my opinion, you just don't like the responses. And that's fine. No one is ansking you to agree with the responses. - jc37 09:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  It wasn't that I disliked the responses; it was that I, and the broader community, felt that your responses failed to explain your close. And that is why we still have an issue here; you seem to have an opinion that differs from the opinion of the community on what constitutes suitable justification. BilledMammal (talk) 09:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  Broader community? I think you'd be hard pressed to call these threads a consensus of the "broader community".

  That aside, the close above has been vacated, for various reasons. As I'm no longer the closer for that - to be blunt - not my problem. One of the interesting things about being uninvolved is really not caring much about the topic at hand.

  And finally, you seem to like the word "justfication", rather than clarification. There's a connotation there like someone needs to justify their actions rather than merely clarifying their words. There's an undertone here that sounds a touch close to casting aspersions

  And I look at the discussion that your having with TonyBalloni and see definite issues with your understanding of policy. I haven't as yet looked at your contribs to see if there's a history of this, but perhaps someone should. I don't know yet. I'm still on the fence about that.

  But whatever, I think we'll bring this around to your comments of "broader community" - I think you've expressed your position well enough - quite a few times. I don't think I or anyone else needs to read it repeated again and again and again. Responding to your assertions/aspersions has become repetitive. And is starting to feel like a textbook case of WP:BLUDGEON.

  I said above that I'm happy to clarify, as always. And that I'm going to follow policy, rather than your unsupported assertions. And that's what I am gong to do. Question asked and answered.

  I suggested above that this was feeling like WP:STICK. At this point, I suggest that you drop the stick and find something positive to edit. Wikipedia's a big place. Enjoy. - jc37 10:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  Broader community? I think you'd be hard pressed to call these threads a consensus of the "broader community". What would you call two consensuses at AN, if not "the broader community"?

  And finally, you seem to like the word "justfication", rather than clarification. Justification; "the action of showing something to be right or reasonable." Closers are expected to attempt show that their close is reasonable, if they are challenged on it. BilledMammal (talk) 10:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  @BilledMammal@Jc37 - I don't see any need to get personal about this. I simply don't think that avoiding writing down your reasons for closing something the way you did - regardless of whether you had fully worked it out in your head or not - is conduct that fully meets the need for accountability. However, I really don't blame Jc37 much for that because this is generally-endorsed conduct amongst Admins. I also get what @Joe Roe said above about closers having limited time. I disagree with @Thryduulf on the point that explained closes are as likely to be challenged as unexplained closes - lack of explanation is itself often the reason for the challenge - but even if it is true, a challenge to a properly-explained close is far more likely to be resolved quickly and in the closer's favour. FOARP (talk) 11:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  My point was twofold (and this was poorly expressed). Firstly summarily explained closures are as likely to be challenged as closures that are explained in great detail are. Secondly, any close to this discussion would have been challenged - by one a handful of those supporting it (while the vast majority of supporters would happily accept a close that accurately represented consensus, regardless of what that was, I am not convinced this is true of 100% of them) if the close was not in favour of the proposal (because they firmly believe that any other outcome is incorrect), and by those opposed if the close was in favour (because that doesn't represent the outcome of the discussion). Thryduulf (talk) 13:01, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

• I have half a mind to close this sub-thread. It mostly reads as BilledMammal WP:HOUNDING jc37. BilledMammal asked jc37 if they affirmed that they will explain themselves when asked to do so, jc37 unambiguously confirmed that will do so. That should have been the end of it. Can anyone (outside of BilledMammal and jc37, from whom I believe we've heard enough at this point) find any reason to keep this open any longer? --Jayron32 18:15, 30 August 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.

Officialmbc

Persistent addition of user-generated/failed verification sourced material to article Herbert Sobel. I have explained several times the need for inline citations (WP:CITE) using reliable sources (WP:RS) that can be verified (WP:VERIFY) but user has cited precedent of other pages with unsourced information as justification. User has reverted edits using a user-generated source (and one that fails verification for the Croix de Guerre medal) without acknowledging these policies. Rift (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia files that cannot be deleted

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T244567
Resolved

A software change is deployed now as part of the new software version 1.41.0-wmf.24. Please try to delete the files. Thanks. Der Umherirrende 21:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

It seems to have worked, Umherirrender: I think I've deleted them all. Thanks for your work on this! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Should the category itself (and {{file deletion warning}}) be deleted as obsolete then? If GeoffreyT2000 agrees then they can be G7-ed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Neither the template nor the category I created 3 years ago should IMO be deleted. Any future file deletion errors and Phabricator tasks could then require future usages of the template. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 05:01, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I've rejected the deletion request for this reason - given that it's been an one-off issue a {{Possibly empty category}} classification is better in this case. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023

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

Administrator changes

• Pppery
• Theleekycauldron

• Dwheeler
• G.A.S
• Royalbroil
• Ssd

CheckUser changes

Bradv

Oversighter changes

Bradv

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, TFAs will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
• A discussion at WP:VPP about revision deletion and oversight for dead names found that [s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.

Technical news

• Special:Contributions now shows the user's local edit count and the account's creation date. (T324166)

Arbitration

• The SmallCat dispute case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating in XfD have been reminded to be careful about forming local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.

Miscellaneous

• Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Deletion/unlinking norms

I have a long-running difference of opinion with Liz, a hardworking admin who I very much respect. Since I've brought up the issue several times with no resolution. I'd like to hear other admins' perspctives on what the norms and expectations are for unlinking after a deletion.

I've prodded a large number of articles for settlements and communities that never actually existed, many of which were railroad sidings mislabeled in various government databases. To maintain accuracy, they need to be removed entirely from all lists and articles that mention them rather than simply delinked. My opinion is that this should be done by an admin as part of the deletion/delinking process; Liz tells me that this is a big ask that would add greatly to her workload and has even suggested in the past that the editor who nominated for deletion should do the work.

A recent example is Weir River, Manitoba, a railroad siding in Manitoba which I prodded because it is not, and never was, a community. After Liz deleted and de-linked the leftover redlinks, there were multiple articles [89][90][91] that still listed it as a community/settlement. I raised the issue on her talk page (permalink); she replied that she was trained to simply unlink the articles using Twinkle and implied that tracking down these mentions would be too much work.

I'm not looking for sanctions or anything like that, I just want to hear from other admins. Is it normal to just unlink using the automated tool, even when you know that it will leave behind erroneous mentions, or is it fair to ask an admin to do the extra work of removing these mentions entirely? –dlthewave ☎ 16:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. Seems like a case like that might involve a fair amount of work to do properly. Weir River, Manitoba isn't a settlement, but presumably it is a river? So, you wouldn't necessarily be safe using an automated tool to just remove any links, you'd need to go manually to all articles linking there, find the mention, read what it says, establish whether it's just listing a settlement or actually talking about the river, and then consider whether or not to adjust the article. That is a fairly big task if there are a lot of inbound links - it's clear that it needs doing, but if it's established that the deleting admin needs to be the one to do it, one might be tempted just to leave PRODs like that for someone else to deal with. I can vibe with the idea of saying 'do the legwork yourself before PRODding', since admin tools aren't required. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Non-admin comment: I report spamlinks a fair bit to the blacklist. I see it as my job to go round and remove those links from articles – something that can't be done automatically as they can be buried in false citations or sometimes being incorrectly used in good faith as a real citation. It takes a lot of legwork to remove some of these links... legwork that, as the reporter of the spamlink, I think of as my job because it's asking a lot of a busy admins whose time is better used blocking the spammers and blacklisting the links – the bit I can't do.

I'm afraid there's no alternative to this: an admin can do the 'easy' bit of pressing the big red button, but as editors it is our responsibility to clean up after our nominations if any non-admin editorial work is required. Otherwise, it will just not get done. — Trey Maturin™ 16:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to doing it myself for unambiguous PRODs, lessening the workload for others. The only difficulty I see would be at AfD discussions where an editor might potentially find some WP:HEY sources to establish notability. It doesn't quite seem appropriate to go around removing all mentions of a topic before the AfD is closed (it's likely to be reverted anyway) and I wouldn't be able to access the "What links here" list afterwards. I would also mention that AfD noms don't know that they're supposed to do this and the deletion instructions do put this on admins, so we might need to do some rewriting to clarify. An extreme example would be List of places in Arizona (A) which had dozens of delinked entries that nobody had cleaned up until I went through and nuked anything that wasn't linked. –dlthewave ☎ 17:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

There is, of course, no problem with going around and unlinking stuff after the PROD/AfD has concluded. Special:WhatLinksHere works on deleted pages – go to the article that was deleted and it's there in the sidebar. It's a slog to do it, but if we're happy for others to do it, we should be willing to do it ourselves, especially as it doesn't require any admin tools. — Trey Maturin™ 17:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Trey, good to know that What Links Here works with deleted pages. –dlthewave ☎ 16:22, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

The article for the river itself is Weir River (Manitoba). Very little links to it, either. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:22, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Had this conversation many times when I did more list maintenance years ago. :) For regular articles, context is important. Deletion doesn't necessarily mean that a subject shouldn't get even the briefest of mention elsewhere, so there are many cases when it wouldn't be appropriate to remove. But sometimes it would be, and that'll usually be obvious from the reasons for deletion. If it was deleted as a hoax, as promotional, or a subject that's likely to be promoted (YouTubers, executives, etc.), it merits a closer look. If it's unclear, just delink.

For lists, it's different. We do have some lists that are exhaustive, but we have a ton of lists that are supposed to be just notable examples (WP:CSC). Most of the time, it'll be more appropriate to remove an item from a list rather than delink it. I'd rather err on the side of removal in this case.

Why can't someone else do it? Well, because incoming links are easier to find than unlinked text. If someone else wanted to go through the links, delinking them makes it impossible to use "what links here". And blacktext doesn't jump out as much as redtext does. In other words, I consider delinking something that should be removed a net negative action because it makes it harder for others to do the rest of the job.

In sum, the choice should be between looking at the links to see if removal is appropriate or leaving the redlinks alone so someone else can look at them properly. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that simply using an automated tool to delink everything isn't a good solution. Many years ago, I did a few hundred AfDs on non-notable experimental weapons, and most of the deleted articles were delinked, leaving behind no-context blacktext in dozens of lists, navigation templates, see-also sections, etc. for things that may not even actually exist beyond the mind of one overzealous editor. ansh.666 18:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Although I understand the pressure to get through the backlog, it seems like folks are being given a pass for relying on automated tools in a way that would be completely unacceptable in any other context. We're responsible for our edits even when using Twinkle. –dlthewave ☎ 17:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

A suggestion for admins dealing with PRODs: rather than unlinking with Twinkle, use User:Evad37/Xunlink.js. It works exactly the same way as the XFDcloser unlinker, including by letting you choose whether to remove list entries (example). Give it a try! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

For a possible point of comparison – when it comes to page moves, the norm is that RM closers (rather than nominators) are responsible for retargeting wikilinks that end up pointing to the wrong page (per WP:RMCI#Cleaning up after the move). This situation isn't perfectly analogous to delinking (the wikilinks are just being edited rather than removed, which makes it somewhat easier to undo), but it's similar enough that I thought it might help to mention. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

• I guess I should weigh in since my name was brought up. I'll just say that when I was starting out as an admin back in 2015, a senior editor (meaning years more experience than I had) came to my User talk page to tell me that I should never leave red links behind when a main space article was deleted. They were very insistent about doing this and I assumed that it was a common practice that I didn't know about because it was only done by admins and I was a new admin. This unlinking happens automatically with XFDcloser when AFDs are closed as Delete so this unlinking is primarily an issue with PRODs and Speedy deletion but it is less of an issue with CSDs because they are commonly very new articles without links on other articles.

When Dlthewave brought up the issue on my talk page, I said that I delete so many articles every day, I can not investigate every link to an article that I deleted, I already spend way too much time on the project. HOWEVER, if there is a consensus that we should leave red links, of course, I would change my behavior and not hit the "unlink" button on Twinkle. Secondly, if this is a concern only with a certain type of article (like PRODS about Manitoba places), that would be easy to accommodate. I think what prompted this discussion here is that I am not the only admin who handles PRODS and I'm fairly certain this unlinking is done by other admins besides me so this isn't just an issue of my behavior but of whether or not links to deleted articles should be unlinked. But whatever the project wants, I will do. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Liz, this would be a concern for any article that's being deleted because the subject doesn't exist at all, whether it's a hoax, error or otherwise. I see it most commonly with geostubs. I would note that the AfD closer tools doesn't seem to recognize lists that are formatted as a table, for example List of places in Arizona (A) collected a large number of erroneous unlinked entries over the years presumably because it's not a standard bulleted list. –dlthewave ☎ 16:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy to help early next week.

This is a special case -Via Rail has 50+ flag stops marked by signposts in the Manitoba wilderness for canoeists and hikers to flag down the Hudson's Bay train. Someone went and created a railroad station article for each even though there was no station. Then a town article was created for each even though there was no town. In many cases, the signpost is in a bog.

I did a long analysis of every one of these 100+ articles

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Silcox station

Dlthewave has been working through these.

I worked the spam blacklist for several years. As a non-admin, I always cleaned up the links. As an admin, I asked the reporting person to clean them up. We didn't have enough admins then. We have many fewer now. I'd rather have Liz closing AfDs than doing non-admin clean up.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Here's the current list of red links as I understand it:

• Wilde, Manitoba
  • Special:WhatLinksHere/Wilde, Manitoba
• Amery, Manitoba
  • Special:WhatLinksHere/Amery, Manitoba
• Weir River, Manitoba
  • Special:WhatLinksHere/Weir River, Manitoba
• Lawledge, Manitoba
  • Special:WhatLinksHere/Lawledge, Manitoba
• Thibaudeau, Manitoba
  • Special:WhatLinksHere/Thibaudeau, Manitoba
• Herchmer
  • Special:WhatLinksHere/Herchmer
• Kellett, Manitoba
  • Special:WhatLinksHere/Kellett, Manitoba
• Back, Manitoba
  • Special:WhatLinksHere/Back, Manitoba
• M'Clintock, Manitoba
  • Special:WhatLinksHere/M'Clintock, Manitoba
• Belcher, Manitoba
  • Special:WhatLinksHere/Belcher, Manitoba
• Cromarty, Manitoba
  • Special:WhatLinksHere/Cromarty, Manitoba
• Chesnaye, Manitoba
  • Special:WhatLinksHere/Chesnaye, Manitoba
• Digges, Manitoba
  • Special:WhatLinksHere/Digges, Manitoba
• Silcox, Manitoba
  • Special:WhatLinksHere/Silcox, Manitoba

I found no links from these deleted pages to any articles in article space. Most were to links in Wikipedia or User space. There are 2 templates to deal with:

• Template:Manitoba rail network
• Template:Winnipeg–Churchill train routemap

@Dlthewave and @Liz: am I missing something? I don't perceive much if anything to clean up.

Do I need to clean up red links outside article space and template space? Seems like a waste of time.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I see other PRODs out there for flagstops elsewhere in Canada:

• Melgund, Thunder Bay District, Ontario
  • Special:WhatLinksHere/Melgund, Thunder Bay District, Ontario
• Alcona, Ontario
  • Special:WhatLinksHere/Alcona, Ontario
• Girdwood, Ontario
  • Special:WhatLinksHere/Girdwood, Ontario
• Hale, Ontario
  • Special:WhatLinksHere/Hale, Ontario
• Horsey, Ontario
  • Special:WhatLinksHere/Horsey, Ontario
• Staunton, Ontario
  • Special:WhatLinksHere/Staunton, Ontario
• Postans, Ontario
  • Special:WhatLinksHere/Postans, Ontario
• Pelican, Ontario
  • Special:WhatLinksHere/Pelican, Ontario
• Boon, Ontario
  • Special:WhatLinksHere/Boon, Ontario

Some other pages have been deleted:

*Pellatt, Pelican, Umbach, Gidley

• • Special:WhatLinksHere/Pellatt, Pelican, Umbach, Gidley

*KeeMan

• • Special:WhatLinksHere/KeeMan
• Halcrow, Manitoba
  • Special:WhatLinksHere/Halcrow, Manitoba
• Charlebois, Manitoba
  • Special:WhatLinksHere/Charlebois, Manitoba
• Tidal, Manitoba
  • Special:WhatLinksHere/Tidal, Manitoba

They have many articles linked to them but I think that's because of several templates:

• Template:Kenora District
• Template:Algoma District
• Template:Thunder Bay District

Are there any others?

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:17, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

A. B., I cleaned up everything I could find for the most recent Manitoba deletions, and I know you and I both have eyes on the next set of PRODs. I was asking a broader, general question about who normally handles these since I've been cleaning up geostubs for years and this often seems to be overlooked by both noms and admins. –dlthewave ☎ 16:27, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I think fixing templates like the ones I listed quickly fixes dozens of red links with one edit.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

if there is a consensus that we should leave red links I think the consensus is likely that, upon deletion, incoming links should be analyzed and either delinked or removed. My sense is that typically does fall to the person deleting the article, but I don't think that's codified anywhere. Granted, not everyone does, but it seems like a not fully completed. Forced to choose between doing nothing and blind delinking without considering context, I guess I'd choose doing nothing, but is there really such a backlog of articles to delete that it's important to maximize quantity? I don't have that knowledge. It does seem like a task that could be separated, since there's nothing about delinking/removing linked text that requires admin tools, but it'd be good to have a mechanism for that. What about a daily report on recently deleted articles that still have incoming links. Now that I think about it, that would probably be useful regardless, since it's not like you're the only one using the Twinkle unlink feature upon deletion. Pinging JPxG, who I know already has at least one bot scraping deletion information -- how hard would this be? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Note to myself to look at this in a bit. jp×g 15:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, both the PROD policy and AfD admin instructions currently mention delinking as part of the deletion process for admins, but there's no reason this couldn't be a separate non-admin process. I think there also needs to be more awareness that hoax/fictitious topics need to be removed entirely, not just delinked, unlike non-notable topics where it might be appropriate to leave certain mentions in place. This requires a close reading of the deletion discussion/rationale which in the case of a PROD may not always be available to a non-admin. For example if I can only see "expired PROD" as the reason for deletion, I wouldn't know whether a phrase like "...located X miles from the hamlet of Y" needs to be delinked because Hamlet Y is non-notable or removed entirely because Hamlet Y doesn't exist at all. –dlthewave ☎ 16:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I just struck Pellatt, Pelican, Umbach, Gidley and KeeMan from the list above. We never had these articles; they were red-links in Template:Kenora District that I mistakenly deleted thinking they were recently deleted articles. I have restored them; these are Ontario local services boards that serve actual areas and we should have articles. I verified they exist.^[92][93][94] I'm busy on other stuff; hopefully someone will see the red links and create stubs for them.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:36, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• There is no need for a special bot to compile lists of deleted articles, we have the handy Deletion log that is accessible at any time of the day and is up-to-date.

The message I'm getting is a big "it depends". Since AFDs are delinked naturally by XCDcloser and articles deleted through CSD deletion rarely have links on other articles, are we really just talking about PRODs? Because lately, we've had very small levels of PROD'd articles daily due to editors now actively patrolling upcoming Prodded articles and removing them from the list. If you are really just concerned about PRODs, that's a small group of articles to check on, if you are concerned about deletions in general, well, several thousand pages and files are deleted daily and I'm just not sure how to scale up this kind of scrutiny on leftover links.

Finally, as I stated, I'm just one admin but apparently, I'm the admin that Dlthewave has discussed this situation with the most. If you are talking about system-wide changes for all admins, I think this discussion needs to be moved to a policy talk page or the Village Pump as I don't see the admins I know who do a lot of deletions participating in this discussion. This has to be a change where the word gets out and while I think this discussion has been effective in raising the question, more effort will be necessary to codify any change, implement any change and inform our pool of active admins on how they should be handling article deletions in the future. And depending on the consensus point-of-view, it might involve changes to programming the XFDcloser tool at the same time. Is anyone interested in taking this on as a project? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Dlthewave,@Liz - for your future reference:

I think I've got all the current red links deleted. However, be aware of the following:

• I remove a red link and "town" name from the appropriate template.
  • The template immediately reflects my change.
• I go to the deleted page and re-run 'what links here'.
  • The 'what links here' page still shows links to all the 50+ other towns on the template.

It takes perhaps a half-hour for the MediaWiki database to catch up in some way; at that point, when I re-run the 'what links here' search again, none of the other cities from the template appear (unless they also had another wikilink embedded in the body of the article.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's reasonable to ask a deleting admin to visit every backlink and give it individual attention. Unfortunately I think that's too much work. Just my two cents. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Change to the Checkuser team

Following a request to the Committee, the CheckUser permission of ferret (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been restored.

For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

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

FYI the AIV/TB2 bot appears to have taken the day off

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.

---

Not sure who handles the techy stuff there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

The AIV bot is maintained by @JamesR, who has only 6 edits this year, all in April, and only one edit in 2022. Not sure he is still active but maybe someone who knows him better should email him? - Who is John Galt? ✉ 14:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

In general, if you want to complain about a bot (including for inaction, or for a period of inactivity), and the bot's user page doesn't give alternative instructions, the first place to go is the bot account's talk page (if this is a redirect, then the redirect target). If the bot's talk page isn't a redirect to its operater's talk page, this is the second place. A bot operater can check out these pages without leaving any trace visible to other users - or get email notifications for changes on these pages. Animal lover |666| 15:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

One is User:HBC AIV helperbot5, what's the TB2 one? Secretlondon (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

It's back and happy now. Secretlondon (talk) 07:35, 1 September 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.

Declared shared use

This comment about "transferring rights" to an account makes it look a lot like there are three individuals who used, or planned to use, the account User:Claudia Romina Fernández De Santacruz. I'm not sure where to report it, so I'm doing so here. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

That account hasn't been used since March 2021. Am I missing something? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 23:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, Bri, where did you even find this? --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 08:20, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The breadcrumbs seem to lead to Miss Universe Australia 2023 via User talk:TOBIAS2009. I have notified that user of this thread. FWIW, the Claudia Romina Fernández De Santacruz account has made 7 contributions, and holds no advanced permissions on this project. They have made a few more contribs on eswiki, but none since 2021. The TOBIAS2009 account has made a couple of hundreds of contribs to this project, and also holds no advanced permissions here, but they are very active at eswiki. All of their contribs at eswiki post-date the final contribution of Claudia Romina Fernández De Santacruz. I am guessing that 'transferring rights' statement is some kind of poorly worded (mistranslated?) declaration that the accounts are connected (which is recommended for valid alt accounts at WP:SOCK). Absent any evidence that these accounts are being abused, I don't see that any action is needed here. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Request for your attention at vandalism by user : truebotbhil

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.

---

respected sir , There is a user @Truebotbhil, he has placed bot in his name and caused a serious vandalism related a sensitive page:-( Tadvi Bhil) , he is making multiple edits and deleting facts with references .He has not have any conversation on talkpage but he is doing vandalism. I request you to look forward towards this. 116.75.183.176 (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

• I'm unsure what's going on here, but Truebotbhil is misusing maintenance tags and suchlike, though they're quite right that there's a lot of unsourced material. I've done a major copyedit on it so that it's actually understandable English now and has the right tags, and will keep an eye on it. Black Kite (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
• I've blocked User3355‎ and Samuel0Avery‎, who are almost certainly the OP-IP here, as socks, and I've blocked Truebotbhil indefinitely for disruption.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

• And I've stuck a month's semi on it in case any of them are tempted to start anything again. Black Kite (talk) 21:33, 1 September 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.

Edits in Article: Vistara about fleet

Greetings! I have added an update to the Vistara airline's fleet as it received their new delivery of the 787 aircraft and a user @Jetstreamer proceeded to revert it multiple times even though citations were added. Later I added one more reliable citation for the confidence of the information reliability, another user @LeoFrank reverted the edits and placed multiple warning on my talk page which are a misuse of warnings which can be found here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AThewikizoomer&diff=1173553821&oldid=1173019903.

Literally the airline on their X.com page have posted the update and I added that too, yet the above user reverted. Also their warnings and the text seemed like attacks rather than a polite discussion if you can see like how they did on my talk page.

I understand that their involvement in improving and protecting airline pages from vandalism or any disruptive edits but reverting an edit multiple times even though reliable citations show the update clearly amount to harassment. Requesting administrator to review the situation and prevent/warn the users related to reverting the edits MULTIPLE times even though the edits are constructive. Thewikizoomer (talk) 08:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Also note that I added every tail number of the aircraft and added citations to that too on their respective talk pages, The user @LeoFrank calling that the edits were without original research feels like an attack and disrespectful. Thewikizoomer (talk) 08:32, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

• Simply, your sources weren't good enough previously (i.e. a source saying a fourth plane was delivered, a flight tracker for another plane, and the Boeing order book - this is WP:SYNTH). I'd say they're just about OK now, but Twitter is a primary source and the others are plane enthusiast sites. I'd definitely refrain from calling other people's edits "vandalism" when they clearly aren't. Black Kite (talk) 08:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  My first citation may not have been reliable which I realized later and added more reliable citations (the airline's post on x.com) and then @LeoFrank removed that too. That's the issue. Thewikizoomer (talk) 08:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  Ok, It's not "vandalism", I now understand. Thewikizoomer (talk) 08:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

It is quite clear that this user does not have skills in citing sources. They could have approached me at my talk regarding the matter, but they rather chose to start a discussion here and, even worse, calling my or LeoFrank's edits vandalism. I strongly suggest this user to carefully read WP:V if they intend to continue contributing to this project. I won't comment further on this matter.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

The OP opened a retaliatory SPI against these two users at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LeoFrank, which I have now closed. Spicy (talk) 17:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

CCI opened, autopatrolled revoked for admin

I believe I need to inform the community that I have revoked Autopatrolled from User:Pbsouthwood due to close paraphrasing copyright issues highlighted as part of a contributor copyright investigation request. I've opened an investigation into their edits at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20230831 (dated due to real name), which hasn't been filled out with their edits yet. It will be a lengthy one, as Pbsouthwood has over 100k edits to mainspace. A lot of the content will be rather complicated and will involve searching through books and journals for violations. I don't want people to jump on it right away after it's been filled out though-- throwing ourselves at CCIs like this one is unproductive in the long run and will inspire burnout. We need to figure out a way to make the process more productive, less stressful, and more sustainable. I do not think a block is warranted in this situation due to only two previous notices and that some of the violations here involve technical material that is difficult to sufficiently reword. But for the given reasons I do think and autopatrolled revoke is warranted. Otherwise, I'm not completely sure what, if anything, should be done further, so I am giving this to the community. Thank you Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

(Non-anyone of importance comment) Thanks for this Moneytrees; I'd just like to emphasise that there is no reason whatsoever to consider desysopping at this stage. This is purely a content issue and, as we all know, content work doesn't need the tools. Everyone calm down, people. SN54129 22:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

{{Non-anyone of importance comment}} should be a bluelink... casualdejekyll 00:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Checking in here to recognise that this is happening and to state for the record that I have never intended copyright infringement and while I have always had the opinion that my contributions have avoided infringement by not repeating creative material, it is possible that I have occasionally missed the mark as the mark is so poorly defined. It is a characteristic of the fields in which I do most of my work that technical terminology and listings of fact or data will often happen, which are things that as I have been led to understand, are not copyrightable. On the rare occasions where someone has complained that my paraphrasing has been too close in a specific instance, I have generally discussed and rewritten, but there have been occasions where the complaints have been apparently unfounded on demonstrable fact and apparently consisted of the opinion of persons with no apparent expertise in the fields of copyright or technical writing, which I have been unable to deal with to their satisfaction because they have not expressed the problem in an actionable format. Revoking autopatrolled seems a reasonable and responsible response by Moneytrees under the circumstances of an open investigation, and I thank them for the personal notification on my talk page. While it is likely that there will be instances found where someone will hold the personal opinion that copyright may have been infringed I hold the hope and reasonable expectation that the situation will be judged based on actual legal requirements by editors who have a sufficient understanding of those requirements. Wikipedian expectations that exceed legal requirements can be managed by any one of us by simply editing the disputed material until they are happy with the results. I am available to answer reasonable and relevant questions, and hope this does not waste too much of everyone's time. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Sadly, the above post doesn't really match reality. An edit from two days ago[95]

• "SANParks is the designated management authority of the MPA, and is responsible for the administrative, monitoring and educational activities and coastal law enforcement. The Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment Marine Resources Management is responsible for issuing fishing permits, allocating fishing quotas and law enforcement. Scientific services from SANParks and DFFE are responsible for conducting research and monitoring. In principle, the South African Police Service, City of Cape Town law enforcement, environmental officers, and fisheries authorities (DFFE) either collaborate with SANParks or independently operate along the coast to ensure law enforcement and compliance."

Source[96]:

• "South African National Parks (SANParks) is the designated management authority of the TMNP MPA. However, the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) Marine Resources Management, is responsible for issuing fishing permits, allocating fishing quotas and law enforcement, while SANParks (TMNP) undertakes the administrative and coastal law enforcement, monitoring and educational activities. Scientific services from SANParks and DFFE conduct research and monitoring. In addition, the South African Police Service, City of Cape Town law enforcement, environmental officers, and fisheries authorities (DFFE) either collaborate with SANParks or independently operate along the coast to ensure law enforcement and compliance"

Contrary to what is said above, I do believe this should be cause for a desysop, as it is rather hard to trust someone to uphold our policies when they violate them this blatantly and then try to minimize it (and apparently only care about legal rules, not the Wikipedia copyvio rules). Fram (talk) 07:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Fram, can you rewrite that paragraph in a way that does not violate Wikipedia's rules, or is it impossible to describe what SANParks is without violating the rules, in which case the entire paragraph should just be removed? wbm1058 (talk) 12:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Better probably to remove the whole article, as it contains numerous copyvios and examples of close paraphrasing, and just rewriting one section doesn't help much (and it has been almost completely written by Pbsouthwood). Another example is e.g.

• "Threatened and protected species supported within the MPA include white sharks, abalone, African penguins and several over-exploited line fish species, such as red steenbras."

Source[97]:

• "Threatened and protected species supported within the MPA include white sharks, abalone, African penguins and several over-exploited line fish species, such as poenskop and red steenbras."

Many of the sources are not or not easily available to me, so I can't check them for further copyvios. Better to let the CCI do its work than correct minimal bits here and there. Fram (talk) 12:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Why not summarize those paragraphs by saying something like Responsibility for the MPA is shared by South African National Parks (SANParks) and the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE), with additional x support from the South African Police Service, City of Cape Town? I didn't check the technical correctness of this statement, but the general idea — summarize at 20,000 feet and skip the minutiae about which stakeholder provides which niche administrative service — seems clear to me. /wiae /tlk 13:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I presume that is a question directed at Pbsouthwood? I have no idea why they didn't do this. Fram (talk) 13:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I tend to find this is one way Wikipedia tends to shoot itself in the foot. Close paraphrasing of factual works tends to not be subject to copyright in the US. IMO, in a situation like this, we are probably at the "Merger doctrine" point where any attempts to express the facts differently enough to not look like what Wikipedia considers close paraphrasing would lose information. As a note, South African copyright law does allow for the copyright of governmental works and most certainly has a notion of "fair dealing" which is similar to fair use in the US and allows for reproduction in newspapers, magazines, etc. Basic takeaway: I agree that text is in violation of our standards wrt close paraphrasing. I don't agree those should be our standards. They are far too restrictive and an active detriment to the improvement of Wikipedia. Not only because it makes it harder to write factual articles, but because we have a cadre of users who tend to try to drive off editors who violate those standards rather than work with them to improve. And yes, this is a very difficult line to walk and sometimes requires a skillset very few people have. Hobit (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Fair use at the very least requires that one openly and permanently acknowledges that someone else's text is used, not copying text without indicating that it is copied. Fram (talk) 12:53, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Isn't that what the citation at the end of the content does... acknowledge whose text you "used"? wbm1058 (talk) 13:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

That would not indicate that the text is copied. ~UN6892 ^t_c 13:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Threatened and protected species supported within the MPA include white sharks, abalone, African penguins and several over-exploited line fish species, such as poenskop and red steenbras.

— MPA Forum

It's impossible to state that fact without closely paraphrasing it, so our only option is to quote the source? Not quite the same as quoting the Gettysburg Address, but, whatever. wbm1058 (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

"The Protected Area offers support for many protected and threatened species, including fish like white sharks and red steenbras, but also snails (abalone) and birds (Africa penguins)". Not really impossible... Fram (talk) 13:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

"but"? Are they primarily concerned with fish conservation, and secondarily concerned with snails and birds? That's what your version implies, but that wasn't my takeaway from the original. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Then replace it with "and". Really... Fram (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

So it is impossible for Wikipedia to list the threatened and protected species supported within the MPA, because the list of species is a copyrighted fact? wbm1058 (talk) 13:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

• Looking at this situation, my thinking tends to align with Hobit and SN54129. I don't believe that this represents the sort of "black and white" violations and failure of good faith or competence that Fram seems to have assigned to it. I don't see the need to desysop here, I have no evidence that Pbsouthwood has misused their admin tools or anything like that.--Jayron32 13:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
• I do think that this was a black-and-white copyvio, but I also don't think we're close to needing to consider a desysop. I am hopeful Pbsouthwood will respond well to the feedback given here. I do think they need to step beyond "expectations that exceed legal requirements can be managed by any one of us by simply editing the disputed material". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Still from Table Mountain National Park Marine Protected Area:

"MPAs can be beneficial for biodiversity conservation and fisheries management. The primary function of MPAs is biodiversity and heritage conservation, but these objectives are not always incompatible with resource use activities, even fishing, if the extractive activities are sustainable and have a low ecological impact. This requires good planning, design and governance, which follow from effective management."

vs.

"MPAs have become widely regarded as beneficial for biodiversity conservation and fisheries management. While the primary focus of MPAs is biodiversity and heritage conservation, its objectives are not necessarily incompatible with fishing and other resource use activities, provided these activities are sustainable and have a low ecological impact. Following the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) guidelines, MPAs should demonstrate sound planning, design, and good governance (Day et al., 2019). Thus, a vital determinant of a MPAs success is effective management."

This isn't even text about this specific MPA, but general background, where just enough has been done to fool automatic copyvio tools. But I guess this is "fair use" and "impossible to write in your own words" as well. I wonder why so many editors make any effort to actually "write" articles when they can simply follow these examples instead. Fram (talk) 13:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

You've made your point. --Jayron32 13:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Not sufficiently to sway you apparently. You support Hobits comments, which boil down to "bad policy, no need to follow it, and bad editors who enforce it", or literally "we have a cadre of users who tend to try to drive off editors who violate those standards rather than work with them to improve." From the talk page archives, I see that User:Diannaa has for years tried to help Pbsouthwood, but that e.g. in May 2023 we had User talk:Pbsouthwood/Archive 25#Copyright problem on Marine construction, where it was apparently impossible for Pbsouthwood to find their own copyvios, and which ended in the page being partially rewritten by another editor and all old revisions, right from the creation by Pbsouthwood, being revdelled[98]. It doesn't look as if this changed anything at all in their approach. So now more editors will spend a lot of time cleaning up their mess, without any indication that the problem won't simply continue. Fram (talk) 14:13, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I understand your point perfectly well. I just don't agree with it. Repeating it won't change that. --Jayron32 14:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

My point is that "their mess" is something we have chosen to define as a mess. There is no legal issue here. It's easily inside of fair use (or "fair dealing" as I think a similar principle is defined in SA), probably fine by the Merger Doctrine, and generally not a problem other than we have chosen to make it so. I agree with being conservative wrt fair use. I don't think we should be this conservative. We certainly should acknowledge that rewriting this stuff to be clear, correct, and in the form Wikipedia wants is quite difficult. It's one reason I don't contribute a lot on our content side--I worry too much about being (likely correctly) accused of things like this. I think we've just created another editor who will probably make the same choice. Maybe more than one. Hobit (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

If we're "voting" here, I'm leaning with Hobit and Jayron32. Not that I'm a lawyer. I checked out a book from my local library once to learn more about copyright, but my mind glazed over at how complicated it all is, and how subjective, and how lawyers argue points similarly as we are to try to settle on or move that fuzzy line that divides copyright violation from !copyright violation. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

No one is voting, no idea where you get that, and changes to policy are usually not decided suddenly to protect a fellow admin, but at VPP or somewhere similar. Many of our policies go beyond what is legally required, the legal angle seems to be a red herring raised by Pbsouthwood and picked up by his defenders as if that is somehow relevant. Your nitpicking about the "impossible" rewrite above doesn't give the impression that you are open to reasonable discussion about this though. Fram (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The thing is, there's two discussions to be had here; which are fairly orthogonal. The first is "What is to be done with this text". Rewriting it to be compliant with policy is quite reasonable. The second is "What is to be done with Pbsouthwood", which, despite your absolutely uncalled for WP:ASPERSIONS in this discussion, can still be "nothing". If you feel differently, feel free to express that, but you can express that without casting aspersions against people who think differently than you do. Different is not evil; and merely because you disagree with someone doesn't mean you have to insinuate that they think like they do for the "wrong reasons", like "protecting a fellow admin". You can just state your position, dispassionately, once, and let other people think differently than you. I'm fine with you expressing that Pbsouthwood should be sanctioned. It is not ok that you insinuate that people who think that they shouldn't be sanctioned must be doing so because it's some kind of "admins protecting admins" kind of bullshit. You can stop that right now. --Jayron32 16:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I have no issue with people disagreeing that any sanction is needed. I have an issue with people writing all kind of nonsense to protect fellow admins, like how it is "impossible" to rewrite this or that sentence in a policy-compliant manner. If people feel that the issues don't rise to sanctionable levels, fine, that's a difference of opinion, and I haven't argued against that (just stated my position once). But I won't stop pointing out the nonsense, strawmen or far-fetched angles some people write to support their opinion. Fram (talk) 16:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I notice that you have no issue with, no, even agree with Hobit, when they state "we have a cadre of users who tend to try to drive off editors who violate those standards rather than work with them to improve.". Apparently it is perfectly allright to not just "insinuate" but outright state that apparently the CCI people have as their actual aim driving off these editors, and not upholding our policies and improving affected articles? If you want people to take your "you can stop that right now" stance serious, perhaps first apply your standards to the people you agree with before trying to intimidate someone you disagree with? Fram (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Cool story, bro. --Jayron32 17:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Fram, I do think you have a good point here. I was certainly talking about you (though not just you) and perhaps I shouldn't have been (or maybe I should have been more transparent). I do think you drive off good editors. I don't think you do it to harm Wikipedia--quite the opposite. I think you have a really high bar for this stuff. And I think that has driven off editors in the past. And I feel I'm seeing it again. I fully believe you are doing it to improve Wikipedia, I just think you're actually causing more harm than good. I don't think that's a personal attack--I'm not questioning your good faith. But I do think that A) our policies are too strict, certainly more strict than needed B) we tend to take people to the woodshed rather than helping them improve C) A & B hurt us more than it helps us by driving away good (or potentially good) editors. I believe the percent of native English speakers who could successfully rephrase the above while A) not changing the meaning and B) not being "too close" is very small. Maybe 5%, maybe 20%. And I think limiting Wikipedia editors to that percent isn't ideal. Finally, I'm not an admin and this isn't a case of me defending someone because they are an admin. It's because, like you, I see something I view as harmful to the encyclopedia playing out again and I think it needs to stop. We just disagree what that something harmful *is*. Hobit (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I have to sympathize with Fram's position that it is, at a minimum, not a good look when an admin is noted as potentially in violation of policy, and multiple other admins show up to say, eh, maybe that policy isn't so important to begin with, or really, how could they have avoided violating the policy? Both of which are fairly silly things to say and I think would be laughed out of the room if said by a non-admin in defense of a non-admin. Consider: "Sure, this user has violated 3RR, but what were they supposed to do? Not revert the edit?" Or, "Maybe BLP is a bad policy. The edits calling a living person a 'creep' are not defamatory as a matter of U.S. law." Et cetera. We dismiss arguments like these all the time at AN(/I).

All that said, I'm not saying sanctions are necessarily needed for Pbsouthwood. But I don't think the idea should be so bluntly dismissed, as it has been here, and I definitely don't think Fram should be chastised for giving an entire three examples. If sanctions are to be considered, I think the main question is WP:ADMINACCT. Pbsouthwood's dismissive response to experienced copyright clerk Sennecaster at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2023 May 30 strikes me as significantly suboptimal for any user, let alone an admin. The related aforementioned response to Diannaa, our most experienced copyright admin, is also not great. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Dunno if sanctions are needed or not, at the CCI there are things that might fall under WP:LIMITED rather than copyvio but also things that look like not-short copypastes that probably aren't OK. The sanction I'd consider would be a topic ban on content creation (i.e on adding text to articles, perhaps also to drafts) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

To the general point, I do think close paraphrasing is a tough policy area, because, unlike straight-up copyvio, it's a lot easier to stumble into accidentally. Particularly for short passages, it's just one of those things that I accept most users do occasionally. I'm sure every experienced editor does it to some degree by accident, if only because of the law of large numbers. (If you heard someone close-paraphrased 1 in 1,000 sentences, that wouldn't sound like that big a deal, but that's 1 every 10 to 20 articles.) I've dinged people for close paraphrasing at DYK or GAN, experienced users who I'm confident have no systematic issues with close paraphrasing, but just made a mistake. This is all distinct from outright copyvio, where people do it because they either have a fundamental (often unfixable) misunderstanding of how copyright works, are willfully violating policy (nice way to get barnstars without doing the work), or lack the competence to make sure they're not copying word for word.

So to me it's less about whether someone close-paraphrases, since there's not a lot of editors for whom the answer is "never", and more about how much they do it, how they respond when they're called on it, and whether they learn from that feedback. With the most experienced user I've called on close paraphrasing, it was a single sentence and they responded with simply "{{done|Rephrased}}" and that was that. That was a non-admin; I'd expect an admin, called out for a considerably larger amount of close paraphrasing, to do as well or better than that, not worse. Even AGFing that this was accidental, I know that if I found out I'd accidentally close-paraphrased multiple paragraphs [admin link; -4kB], it would make me completely reconsider my approach to article-writing. This is why I am unimpressed with Pbsouthwood's responses in May. But I will reserve judgment for now. My main point is we shouldn't foreclose discussion of the topic. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Part of why I didn't fully process Marine construction was because of how some of the responses were. I symphasize with having your work scrutinized like that, and how awful it must feel, but I still was discouraged from attempting cleanup when my explanation of LIMITED and how I was testing it was basically ignored. I hope it was said out of stress, and that this isn't a pattern, and I personally don't need anything more than an apology. I also want to note discussion under the CCI itself, in the information section of the case. discussion not pertaining to the case that might be better at this AN thread should go there, so we can keep notes about cleanup for other volunteers easy to find. Sennecaster (Chat) 19:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

• The examples given by Fram go beyond close paraphrasing and, in my opinion, are red line copyright violations. It also appears they are recent and numerous, since multiple recent examples have been given. It is good that the person in question is responding here, but it is not good that they are only giving half apologies such as While it is likely that there will be instances found where someone will hold the personal opinion that copyright may have been infringed I hold the hope and reasonable expectation that the situation will be judged based on actual legal requirements by editors who have a sufficient understanding of those requirements. A full apology that shows they understand exactly what they did wrong and that this will not be repeated is the minimum required here. Do folks realize how much work a CCI is? It is one of the most labor intensive processes on Wikipedia. Subjecting one's fellow editors to this kind of cleanup work is an awful thing to do to them. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  Y'all might want to check with WMF Legal about whether these are "red line" or "black and white" or any other color of copyright violations, or licensing violations, or any kind of violation, before this goes any further. The answer may surprise you. Levivich (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  • <ec with Levivich who I think asked the same thing with less words...> Question, do you believe there is a legal issue here or a Wikipedia policy issue? You say these are redline copyright violations. Do you mean legal ones? If so, could you address fair use and perhaps the Merger Doctrine? I'm not seeing anything that makes me think there is an actual legal issue here (IANAL). And if it's only a Wikipedia issue, doesn't that hint at the notion we might be too strict and the CCI here might be work we are just making for ourselves? Hobit (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

    (Replying to both of you.) What we have here, supported by recent diffs, seems to boil down to copy pasting from copyrighted sources without the use of quotations. Is this an activity that's ever been acceptable around here? –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

    I'm not seeing cut-and-paste issues, I'm seeing close phrasing issues. They are quite different. But maybe I'm missing something? Hobit (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

    +1. --JBL (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

    Same here. Levivich (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

    The examples above with SANParks are identical save for conjunctions in between identical text. That is a cut-and-paste issue. Beyond that, I'm amazed that editors are defending such clear plagiarism and refusal to account for it or amend their behavior one iota, instead going for wikilawyering defenses. (That's not a good look for any editor, it's an incredibly poor one from an admin. If they somehow after 120000 edits can't figure this out, it's a basic competence issue.) Frankly WBM, Hobit, Jayron et al if you cannot look at that paragraph and figure out how to rephrase it, you should not be editing Wikipedia content, either. And if you want to start a discussion about allowing blatant plagiarism, VPP is thataway. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

    If I write, "The inner planets are Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars," am I plagiarizing? Lots of people have written that sentence before me. Is there anything wrong with me writing that sentence in an article?

    There's a difference between copyvio, license vio, WP policy vio, and plagiarism. There's a difference between "plagiarizing" a sentence and plagiarizing a whole page. There's a difference between plagiarizing fiction and "plagiarizing" nonfiction.

    When Pb and others ask, "what is the creative expression?" or "how would you rewrite that to avoid close paraphrasing but not lose meaning?", they are asking the right questions.

    Those of you who think you can't write a sentence if the same sentence is written in a source... are misinformed. Don't take my word for it, ask WMF Legal or some other lawyer. Levivich (talk) 21:41, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

    This is clearly not an issue of "I can't write a single simple sentence any other way". It's a repeating pattern of large passages being fundamentally the same. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

    Lev, everything in your first two paragraphs is completely true, and completely irrelevant. Your example is covered by WP:LIMITED. I'm quite confident that Moneytrees, Diannaa, and Sennecaster are all familiar with that de facto policy. Pbsouthwood is not here because he copied a single sentence of objective facts. He is here because he, among other things, closely paraphrased over four kilobytes of copyrighted material at Marine construction. David is right: If someone doesn't know how to paraphrase multiple paragraphs of text without using very similar verbiage, they should not be editing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

    I would be very interested to hear Diannaa's thoughts. The way she described the issue in 2019 was Like a case I reported to you a couple years ago, the bot is picking up technical material that is difficult or impossible to summarise or paraphrase. Apparently Marine construction was more problematic -- but one problematic example plus a lot of instances that satisfy WP:LIMITED would amount to one problematic example. --JBL (talk) 23:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

    Hi Hobit all, to be clear I would say there's a mix of both here, most of the more obvious copy and pastes have been revision deleted. Here's a series of edits to Marine construction that were flagged as issues; click "iThenticate report" to see the overlap highlighted in them (iirc there's some more blatant pastes in Pb's earlier edits but don't quote me on it) For what it's worth, close paraphrasing is still considered a copyright violation/plagiarism (wiki speak wise at least), if not a harder to avoid example of one. Personally I don't think it's worth getting into the whole "legal issue" angle or which stripe of the rainbow a copyvio is. There'll be some cases that there are limited ways something can be said-- plain facts are not copyrightable (ex. "So and so is an x y z who went to B University and graduated with a C in D...", "so and so is a village in X, Y and has Z population count...", "X Y Z are listed as endangered/ at risk" etc") and that's ok and that's not what I opened the investigation on. Honestly if that was it I would have happily declined it because that means less work for me and less contentious discussions. I think there is simultaneously more and less nuance to this situation than what is immediately apparent.

    I won't comment on the further admin element here, as the person who in effect is expected to deal with difficult cases like this I'm more interested in preventing issues going forward and what can be done to cleanup issues. When the CCI is filled out, one of the issues here will be accessing the sources used-- if we could run some mass Turnitin job once the article listing is filled out, that could be helpful. If there was also something that would recommend quick rewordings that would be helpful. Hopefully this case can be used as something to make CCI less of a timesink in the future. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

    Thank you, that certainly is more of an issue (larger if nothing else) than the examples given previously. I think revoking autopatrolled makes good sense if this type of thing was common. I still don't see a case for a desysop and I'm not at all sure there is a legal issue here. But it is outside of Wikipedia's standards for this and this example is outside of what I consider acceptable. Hobit (talk) 21:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

• These COPYVIOs seem incredibly blatant and numerous. I don't see how they're defensible, especially not without a very explicit and contrite statement of action of fixing them all. The responses above are bizarre and seem to be coming from admins? I presume the response here to a massive CCI being opened would be different if the person responsible wasn't an established editor/admin? Copyright violations are one of the more major violations to make on Wikipedia and deserve more than a minor slap on the wrist and mildly shook finger. At minimum, I think a content creation/editing restriction is needed for a massive copyvio issue like this, at the very least until the person responsible has helped complete the entire CCI. Silverseren^C 22:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  +1. I'm actually baffled here, that text has been copied pretty much verbatim from a Copyrighted source (as shown above by Fram) and people are here saying it's not even necessarily close paraphrasing. There's one extra word added or something, that's closer than just paraphrasing! Like Tamzin I wouldn't necessarily say an automatic desysop is warranted, and I'm sure the editor in question is a good and committed Wikipedian but for heaven's sake this is still apparently a serious issue, and one which is going to be costly to deal with.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  people are here saying it's not even necessarily close paraphrasing I don't think this is true (?) -- WP:LIMITED points to a section of Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, after all. --JBL (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, seriously, are other editors really just copy-pasting whole paragraphs with maybe some light rearranging and calling it good? So that means I don't actually have to spend 2 hours agonizing over how to write five sentences that adequately distill a full page of technical concepts while avoiding all phrasing, conceptual ordering, points of emphasis, etc. that remotely resemble the source content? JoelleJay (talk) 23:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I am back editing under a new account. Sorry if my (literal) insanity caused anyone to worry about me. As someone who is active in CCI, these are unambiguous copyright violations. The whole "there is no way to reword without close paraphrasing" doesn't hold up for a number of reasons. If your inserted text is as long as the sourced material, it probably is a copyright violation. In 2020, I was told this edit of mine was a copyvio even though Earwig said it wasn't. I reworded the text, but I am still not fully happy with my edit. An administrator adding closely paraphrased content to articles IS a cause for concern. If the close paraphrasing continues, we might have to take this to ARMCOM. Scorpions1325 (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Cleanup

Alright, like Moneytrees has said more eloquently than me on the case itself and above, this is going to be a pain in the ass to assess either way. Let's see if there's any way we can make this easier for people. Money suggested a TurnItIn dump; how would we best facilitate that? Can someone help supply accessible sources, especially if they're paywalled? Anyt ideas to make this CCI easier, would be highly appreciated. Sennecaster (Chat) 12:41, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

If someone can make a list of the sources I can see what I've got access to. This is probably best done at the CCI page, though. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 00:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

An iThenticate/Turnitin dump would certainly identify a lot of the issues but considering the volume of offline sources used (I cleaned the Marine construction article and had to use dubious sources to obtain the relevant book), it will probably miss a bit. In my opinion the lightly sourced content is pretty noticeable.

Thankfully a lot of these are on the IA (for however long that lasts) or... other sources, though an occasional trip to REX may be necessary. Honestly, the content can be rewritten but it's incredibly frustrating as a non-expert. Perhaps we could mark articles to be rewritten by others, etc.

I recently opened phab:T345087, which may be of interest. – Isochrone (T) 09:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

• The CCI has now been filled out and isn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be-- a substantial amount of the articles listed are non-copyrightable lists. I'll try to remove those all before we any sort of mass job is run. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:09, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

2023 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: announcement

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional editors to the Checkuser and Oversight teams. The arbitrators overseeing this will be Cabayi and Wugapodes. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will assist in the vetting process. This year's timeline is as follows:

• 4 September to 16 September: Candidates may self-nominate by contacting the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-en-cwikimedia.org.
• 17 September to 21 September: The Arbitration Committee and Functionaries will vet the candidates.
• 21 September to 24 September: The committee will notify candidates going forward for community consultation and create the candidate subpages containing the submitted nomination statements.
• 25 September to 4 October: Nomination statements will be published and the candidates are invited to answer questions publicly. The community is invited and encouraged to participate.
• By 15 October: Appointments will be announced.

For the Arbitration Committee, Cabayi (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § 2023 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: announcement

Range block

User:Venezia Friulano is (so far) the last confirmed sock of User:JamesOredan, a permanently blocked user who basically violated every rule of wikipedia (vandalism, agenda pushing, insulting other users, edit warring, introducing wrong infos on purpose etc. etc.) and has never stopped to do so thanks to his infinite network of socks (see here for those catched: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/JamesOredan/Archive) and also many IP addresses. Now there are other IPs and accounts (both old and new) that evidently appear to be Venezia. Basically this permanently blocked user never really stopped editing and poisoning wikipedia: a sock gets blocked and he just creates another one the next day, and proceeds as nothing happened.

I have reported three IPs the other day, but now I may have other two accounts to report, one old and one brand-new. I'll never surrender to this network of socks but it's getting frustrating and I need help. Since it's draining lots of energies to report one by one each case and since the level of disruption has been so high and so persistent I believe a significant range block is needed. Can it be done?Barjimoa (talk) 04:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

login Access delete

Admin request please my login access delete AShiv1212 (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

If you are referring to your account, it is not possible to delete an account. If you don't wish to use it, just stop using it. 331dot (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Extra Eyes Requested on AIV

A racist troll has been running amok tonight. I have already blocked several of their IPs and revdeled a large number of edits. Unfortunately, I doubt they are finished, and I don't currently have time to go through all of their edits. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:16, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

P.S. I think I've now zapped all of their edits that I could find. But they may not be finished and I have to get some sleep. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:26, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm keeping a tab open and an eye on it for at least a while. - Aoidh (talk) 04:43, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I have just blocked several more of their IPs and revdeled all their edits. I'm guessing they are using some kind of proxy. I also note they seem to be making the same edits, typically one of two, on their target pages. Maybe someone familiar with an edit filter could have a look. See the message on the bottom of my talk page for the most recent three IPs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:04, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

If you want to email me the diffs I can take a look into a filter. (I can't see the content as it's revdelled.) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

How to discover the Greatest Name of God

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 am being disabled from creating/editing an entry with this title as it seems to be blacklisted. This is an article I wish to publish based on documented research in to verifiable religious text, concerning the discovery of the Name of God hidden in religious text. Can you explain why this not allowed at this time.

Thanks Steve SRDay (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

What's the exact title of the article you are trying to create? RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

How to discover the Greatest Name of God SRDay (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:OR, then start a blog or something outside of wikipedia. Also make sure you keep a local copy of anything you've submitted at your sandbox and Draft:The Most Great Secret as there's a good chance those will be deleted at any time. Nil Einne (talk) 21:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Note:User:SRDay/sandbox. - jc37 20:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Yikes. I posted a notice about original research on their talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Everyone knows it's Momus. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I commented on the sandbox. Lovely essay, but no. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I always wonder how people end up thinking that Wikipedia would ever be willing to publish stuff like that. Have they read a Wikipedia page before? Do they not notice how none of our other articles are even remotely similar to what they are proposing be written? I've never understood that.. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:24, 6 September 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.

Proposal to change venue for new community-authorized general sanctions from WP:AN to WP:VPR

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to change the venue for new community-authorized general sanctions. Johnuniq (talk) 04:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Promoting website

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

---

A user seems promoting his web by adding its links as ref, his username is similar to web name. See his contribution [99] Tesla car owner (talk) 12:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I've left a level-3 warning for spam. Should be indeffed if they continue, but I try to leave open a sliver of AGF for the possibility someone just really likes a specific website. And the usernames both have "sports", but I don't see a WP:U violation. For future reference, this is the kind of situation you can handle by issuing warnings yourself, or, if you feel no further warnings are needed (or none at all for egregious cases), reporting to WP:AIV. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@Tesla car owner: To add on to what Tamzin said, please read the notice at the top of this page: It is rarely appropriate for inexperienced users to open new threads here. Additionally, please regard this notice as well: When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. There's little point in notifying them at this point since an admin has taken action now though. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:21, 6 September 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.

A User by the Name @ Suthasianhistorian8 is Vandalizing Sikh History pages

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.

---

He has Edited Countless Sikh religion related pages and Have added negative Views with no Valid support.Please look into it. 117.242.32.37 (talk) 16:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Please attempt to start discussion with the user first, and explaining why do you think that their edits are wrong (What do Wikipedia's policies and guidelines say?). Additionally, you must inform the other party using {{subst:AN-notice}} for future reference. NotAGenious (talk) 17:05, 6 September 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.

Sharing the link to the Mental Health Resource Center

Dear administrators,

I work in the Community Resilience & Sustainability team of the Wikimedia Foundation. I am writing to you today to let you know about the Mental Health Resource Center in case you find this resource useful. This is a new group of pages on Meta-wiki aimed at supporting the mental wellbeing of users in our community. This project is the result of the work of a Human Rights intern at the Wikimedia Foundation, who wrote a Diff blog post about it.

While we previously provided helpline contact information for people who are in an active crisis or near-crisis, the team’s goal is to provide additional resources to offer mental health and wellbeing information in a number of languages, covering a wide range of topics. Our hope is not only to help people who are in crisis, but help prevent crises.

As with the Helpline information page, the Foundation’s Trust and Safety team is tasked with maintaining the pages. They will do a quarterly review of the content, which will include reviewing any recommended changes left on the talk page. Because this is a page they send to people who are in crisis, for liability reasons they do have to review substantial changes. However, they very much hope for recommendations and ideas and especially notes of problems.

The Resource Center contains the helplines, a glossary of mental health terms, and resources divided by category with supported languages listed next to each resource.  There is also a table available if community members wish to view the resources sorted by language. The hope is this resource expands over time to cover more languages and cultures. Currently, translations into several languages are underway.

Thank you for all you do. I hope this is a resource that will be useful for people who are in distress. -JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Change to the Functionary team

Following a request to the Committee, the CheckUser and Oversight permissions of RickinBaltimore (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) have been restored.

For the Arbitration Committee, Primefac (talk) 08:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

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

AIV is pretty clogged up

 Courtesy link: WP:AIV

There's quite a few reports that have been there for a while. Any admin willing to check it out? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 08:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

It wouldn't get clogged up if people would only report obvious vandals and spammers. Anything that takes more than about 90 seconds to evaluate belongs at ANI or SPI or somewhere else. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

🤦‍♂️ -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

What HJ Mitchell said. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 9 of the WikiProject Tropical Cyclones case ("MarioProtIV topic ban") is rescinded.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones

Proposal to modify WP:GS/AA scope

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.

---

After some discussion at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan, there seems to be a consensus among myself and several admins who've enforced those sanctions (implemented in January) that they are de jure too broad and, in how they are de facto enforced, ambiguous as to scope.

• De jure too broad: GS/AA is the only extendedconfirmed restriction (out of 4 in effect + 1 repealed) that applies to an entire country or region. That is to say, there are sanctions for the Arab-Israeli conflict but not all aspects of Israeli and Arab life, for the Russo-Ukrainian War but not all aspects of Russian and Ukrainian life, etc. The fact that GS/AA applies to, say, the guy who played Chris-R in The Room or arguably even Kim Kardashian is unprecedented and unparalleled. On an admin level, this mostly hasn't mattered, because admins have declined to enforce these sanctions on non-conflict-related pages. But an ECR also applies to non-admins, particularly in its exemption from Wikipedia:Edit warring, which makes it ambiguous whether 3RR violations are in fact violations. (Consider someone who makes 4 reverts of an IP's valid copy-edit to Armenia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2023.)
• De facto ambiguous: As noted, admins have effectively treated this as a sanction for conflicts in the region. However, that is ill-defined. Some users have thought the sanctions only apply if both Armenia and Azerbaijan are involved. And what about matters, such as the Armenian genocide, that are primarily associated with another state? Furthermore, much of the misconduct plays out on articles about ethnic groups' past ties to particular settlements or regions.

Note also that the entire AA area is under ArbCom sanctions, so admins already have discretionary authority here. This is just a question of when that authority should be imposed by default.

Based on discussion with topic-area admins Courcelles, Rosguill, Firefangledfeathers, El_C, Callanecc, and Daniel Case, I propose the following reframing of the sanctions:^{ed. 20:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)}

• Political, ethnic, and military conflicts Politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both—broadly construed and explicitly including the Armenian genocide—are placed under an extended confirmed restriction.
• In the rest of the Armenia–Azerbaijan topic area, the community endorses administrators making liberal use of extended confirmed protection as an arbitration enforcement action.

The one objection voiced in preliminary discussion, by Rosguill, was about the history of ethnic land claims. I think that this falls solidly under the "ethnic conflicts ... broadly construed", but if that's a hang-up for people, we could that to the "explicitly including" bit. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I would write it down as politics (not political conflicts), history (added), ethnic relations (not ethnic conflicts), and conflicts (of any kind) of or involving (for example Azerbaijan–Turkey relations)...—Alalch E. 19:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

"History" was discussed in the preliminary discussion. The problem is, what's history? Or, rather, what isn't? Dan Janjigian appearing in The Room is a historical event (happened before quite a few of our editors were born), but I don't think is what you intend. I think Politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts would address your concerns, and am fine with that with basically equal preference to what I said above. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you may be right about "history" after all.—Alalch E. 19:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm concerned that new editors will misunderstand the new wording as only narrowly affecting the ongoing NK conflict if we adopt the propose wording, and I think the inclusion of history would aid in their understanding. Then again, the status quo is that many (most?) new editors in the area simply ignore GS/AA or otherwise fail to understand it until they are blocked for repeated violations past warnings, so I'm not opposed to the rewording more generally. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts ... broadly construed should be enough, but perhaps inserting something like "past or present" – eg broadly construed, past or present, and explicitly including the Armenian genocide – would save the occasional back-and-forth. NebY (talk) 09:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• As an idea, maybe confine it to the Armenian and Azerbaijani nations, people and ethnicities? As written, the sanction includes the geography and the languages. My view would be that the early history of Zoroastrianism, Alexander the Great's early conquests, and the Armenian tongues and alphabets shouldn't be in scope and aren't what the drafters intended.—S Marshall T/C 11:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Can I suggest as the community considers these changes, that it also consider whether to match the contentious topics procedure and whether designate that AE can be used for enforcement per contentious topic procedure. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Great idea. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Barkeep49, Tamzin has suggested creating a subproposal for this. I thought about doing so and then realized I'm not sure what benefits this would bring. Since any GS/AA topic, especially so if we adopt this narrowing proposal, would fall under the broader WP:ARBAA, I reason that AE is available already. Are there other potential benefits? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

No but that leads me to ask: what's the point of the GS if it's already covered under ARBAA? Barkeep49 (talk) 02:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

The GS is really just here to frame the extended-confirmed restriction. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

• I support Tamzin's proposal. The tweaks help match the topic with its current interpretation by admins, and there's reason to be cautious about over-broadness. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Isn't involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both – the same as involving Armenia, or Azerbaijan –? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

It is. The idea was just to be explicit about it, since apparently some users have been confused. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:ANDOR is probably a good link to review. Izno (talk) 02:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Restored from archive; !votes appreciated

I've restored this thread from the archive. I've also modified the proposal above to account for the feedback regarding "Political, military, and ethnic conflicts". As to Barkeep49's suggestion, if he or someone else would like to open a subthread to propose putting GS/AA under WP:AE jurisdiction, they're welcome to, but otherwise I think we should focus on the core proposal here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• Closing admin, please note support by Firefangledfeathers above. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support, as I trust the judgement of the enforcing administrators: if they believe it is needed, I think the adjustment should be made. Also, as a general principle blanket protection should be used in as narrow an area as is reasonable. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support the narrowing and the wording proposed by Tamzin. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
• I'd really like for this to not get archived a second time without action. @HistoryofIran, Nythar, Levivich, Kansas Bear, Hemiauchenia, Magnatyrannus, Khirurg, LouisAragon, AirshipJungleman29, Demetrios1993, The Night Watch, LilianaUwU, Abrvagl, LaundryPizza03, Olympian, Guerillero, ProcrastinatingReader, Lol1VNIO, BilledMammal, Red-tailed hawk, Oaktree b, Aza24, Ermenrich, EvergreenFir, Buffs, Semsûrî, InvadingInvader, SilentResident, and TonyBallioni: This is everyone who made a boldfaced comment in the previous discussion and is able to comment here, plus the closer. Do any of you have thoughts on this proposal?
  One person who won't be able to comment here, tragically, is Nosebagbear (Z''L), so I'll copy what he said then, a characteristically wise comment that foresaw the exact problem we've run into:

  I am reticent to support an automatic major restriction on such a scale as the entire (amended as of 2013) AA2 scope. I'm aware, of course, of the gaming risk, but I don't think we'd ever endorse such an action were there (say) a dispute nexus between the US and UK. I would support this restriction on the conflict between the two countries (broadly construed, by all means), but opppose a restriction on the individual countries and their topics.

  -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support. I opposed the previous proposal because the scope was too broad, per the statistics I presented. While I haven't run the statistics for this narrower scope, I believe that narrowing the scope generally would be beneficial. BilledMammal (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support I'm fine with the proposal. Oaktree b (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support This narrower proposal is much better than the last one. I am ever so slightly concerned about the endorsement of "liberal use" of ECP because that has a small potential of sparking an increase of frivolous protection requests in the A-A topic area, but I don't think that most pages that are applied protection will be outside of political, military or ethnic conflicts. The Night Watch (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support. ECP is a beyond necessary tool when dealing with the most contentious topics. I trust that admins will do the right thing. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support per Nosebagbear. firefly ( t · c ) 20:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support. It's a reasonable idea of making the ECP restriction more narrow, because no other contentious topic area is this broad AFAIK. Otherwise, I'll echo Nosebagbear's statement: restrictions on the conflicts, not the countries as a whole. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
• I support the reframing proposed by Tamzin. Demetrios1993 (talk) 02:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support – much proved as necessary by now. Thanks to Tamzin for taking the initiative here. – Aza24 (talk) 04:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support the narrower application, this will be more effective and clear, focusing on the core of the contentious A-A topic area. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 05:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support Last time I specifically objected to the overbreadth of the proposal. I agree that ECP is needed only for topics directly related to conflicts in Armenia and Azerbaijan, as opposed to, say, the Sevan trout (a fish found only in Armenia). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  But you know that trouts are VERY contentious on Wikipedia, right? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  • *trouts LilianaUwU for even mentioning it* ;-) Buffs (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Just making sure I understand this correctly. The proposal is to go from "A community discussion at the administrators' noticeboard has placed all pages with content related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted, under the extended confirmed restriction" to "Politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both—broadly construed and explicitly including the Armenian genocide—are placed under an extended confirmed restriction."? --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, though there's the added bullet point about "liberal use" of ECP elsewhere in the AA topic area. I assume we'll keep the info about the community decision and as-of date in a later sentence. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

• Comment The problem with these disputes pertaining to Central Asia and the regions surrounding Iran is that they do frequently creep into matters that may not, at first glance, seem to strictly relate to the direct locii of those respective disputes. On this particular topic, I vaguely remember seeing a thread at ANI relating to the article Caucasus Albania, and I'm sure that anything relating to Iranian, Georgian, etc. cultural history within the geographical confines of what is currently Azerbaijan has the potential of flaring up into conflict. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 21:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. I would argue that it is largely due to the Historical revisionism/Historical negationism#Azerbaijan in Azerbaijan [100]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah it feels like only yesterday I was reverting some ridiculous genre warrior who felt called to assert that every successful individual and polity over the last thousand years in Asia was the product of a single linguistic group (turns out Semsûrî beat me to the ones on my watchlist), but none of those articles are covered by the current broader scope in any case: Xianbei, Rouran Khaganate, Ghengis Khan, Saladin, etc. Folly Mox (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support proposal is sound. Buffs (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Move to close

Nearing archival once more. Could somebody please close this? Happy to make any necessary changes to the GS/AA page myself. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I will do so presently, but I note that according to policy: If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable. You don't need to wait for a closure to enact the results of a discussion where consensus is this strong. --Jayron32 13:10, 8 September 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.

LucenseLugo

Hello. I highly suspect LucenseLugo of being a sockpuppet do to his previous interactions with Venezia Friulano. I tried to open an investigation, but for some reason (it’s probably my fault) it didn’t work and format well. I don’t really want to try it again, but if anyone here wants to try it themselves then feel free to do so.

Here are these interactions for those interested:

Interactions in question

Section: map (again) - During the Iberian Union, Portugal and its colonial territories belonged to the Spanish Habsburg Monarchy (Felipe II, Felipe III, Felipe IV), so I don't find any problem stating that they were territories of the Hispanic Monarchy at that time. - But more important: It is curious how for the Spanish Empire some want to use a "maximum extension map" instead of an anachronous one despite the fact that the Portuguese Empire, the British Empire or the French colonial Empire (among many others) clearly use anachronous maps. Very strange, for sure. Venezia Friulano (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE TompaDompa (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC) Woah, you are very right here. I have checked your point and it's true. All of the big European empires have an anachronous map (in my opinion, as it should be) but the anachronous map for the Spanish Empire is object of dispute for some users? Huh, that seems a little bit sketchy. All articles should be treated equally and anachronous maps show the real historical extent of empires. Anyways, as it is right now, it shouldn't bother anyone. I have written what was part of Portugal because of the Iberian Union, so there are no claims that Spain used to have Cape Verde, Angola or Mozambique. LucenseLugo (talk) 15:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC) Section: area What I denounce is that there are veteran users with a lot of free time (aka TompaDompa) who have shielded articles to avoid being edited by other users, which goes against the essence of Wikipedia.Of course the List of the Largest Empires article is stable and old, but because it's an article that can only be edited by TompaDompa. There have been many attempts to edit the article by other users with alternative measurement sources (for the Spanish Empire and for many other Empires), but in this article his only fetish source Taagepera (1997) prevails, unilaterally deleting all those alternative sources that he doesn't like. The article is in fact an article almost just for Taagapera's views, its just surreal. I even thought that Taagepera could be a relative of his, due to the insane obsession with this specific author, eliminating almost everyone else in the academy.This user is already well known, I am just one of many who have denounced his abuse of power. I'm not writing anything new on Wikipedia Venezia Friulano (talk) 12:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE TompaDompa (talk) 18:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC) I completely agree with you. It seems there are certain users who think they have more rights for spending their entire free time on Wikipedia, no sorry but that is reserved for administrators, we are all users and we should be treated equally.But for some, they want to keep their edits prevailing and the ones who dare to change anything face instant reversion or even reports to admins just for having a different vision. It's not fair, we all should be treated equally. LucenseLugo (talk) 14:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

This user has also been very disruptive, as you can see on the history of his Talk Page *because he removes any content stating he is any, way, shape or form wrong*. He mainly does (Spanish) nationalist editing, and this was the Spanish empire article, so this might just be two people with the same opinion. However it is interesting to note that a very notorious cercle of socks are active for a very long time on that article. This is all now, do of it what you will. Have a great day ! Reman Empire (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Return of Disruptive IP editor

This is my second report on the IP editor likes to follow me around and revert my edits. So far as I can tell, this editor uses this IP account solely for this purpose.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/104.226.30.18

When I filed a previous ANI against this editor, @Lourdes told me to return to ANI should it happen again, and it has. Please see the former ANI notice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1136#Disruptive_IP_editor

Also see their latest message on my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Just_Another_Cringy_Username#Sue_Grafton/Kinsey_Millhone Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I have been editing here for more than a decade, mostly uneventfully, as an IP. My edits conform to policy. I edit mostly while commuting, so my IP address changes regularly, even during a songwriting session. Cringy's previous complaint against me went unseen by me, because he violated ANI rules by deliberately failing to notify me of it. It should count for nothing. Cringy has a peculiar antipathy toward various notable writers, disproproportionately women, and tries to minimize content related to them, as though he were the reincarnation of Quorty, who I also tangled with. Stingy is trying to bully me by running to the noticeboard whenever I disagreed with him. This is not acceptable conduct. Vivian. 104.226.30.18 (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

If you're that dedicated of an editor, why have you never registered properly? I can't help but notice that your IP only seems to surface long enough to revert a BOLD edit on my part. Your mention of Quorty also sounds similar to the IP who harassed me in this incident[101]. Wouldn't happen to know anything about that, would you? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for 3mo. Lourdes 06:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Lourdes What is your rationale for this block? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 01:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

[102][103] Lourdes 04:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@Lourdes Thanks for your attention to this matter. As I was reading over my talk page, I stumbled on a potential clue to the identity of the disruptive editor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Just_Another_Cringy_Username#Sue_Grafton/Kinsey_Millhone

Notice how the first comment is signed w/ a proper WP username (RSLitman) and the offending IP jumps in for the next one. I'm not saying it's impossible that another editor wished to join the discussion; however, IMO this supports my theory that RSLitman uses these IP's and probably others as socks for their more disruptive activities. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. If you have evidence backing this up, please take it to SPI. Otherwise, it's not appropriate on any other forum to interpret it such as this. Thank you and happy editing. Lourdes 04:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

USS YMS-111

Your search does not find this minesweeper. This page: https://www.navalcovermuseum.org/wiki/YMS_111 shows that is did. Michael Pedi (talk) 08:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

That vessel is listed at List of mine warfare vessels of the United States Navy, Michael Pedi, but you can see from the red links there that there aren't articles for most of the individual ships. However, this noticeboard isn't an appropriate venue to discuss this issue (see the notice about its purpose at the top of the page). If you have questions about Wikipedia, please consider asking them at Wikipedia:Teahouse. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Help required with range block

I recently warned 2001:1C04:4310:2800:B445:6544:EA7C:BC03 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) multiple times for adding unsourced population estimates (or changing sourced ones without a new source) at diaspora group articles. This behaviour is now continuing from 2001:1C04:4310:2800:58F:4990:6E84:549B (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Earlier disruption was coming from 2001:1C04:4310:2800:498D:E55:16B5:5944 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I'm not experienced in calculated range blocks and I know this is a challenge with IPv6 addresses, so can someone advise? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: As a general rule of thumb, if the first four parts stay the same, it's usually a 64. In this case, I can confirm that 2001:1C04:4310:2800::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) is the correct range. It seems non-shared and static since late last year. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, zzuuzz. I think I'd confused myself by including an erroneous address when I first tried to do the calculation, which gave me a very wide range. This new one checks out. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:17, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

How much for approve an draft article needed?

Hello, after creation my article i can't (due to my work and intermediate english level) extend my article. dose it current contents are enough for submission processes? i'm sorry i'm totally new to Wikipedia community and i don't know where ask it. 5.234.37.150 (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Please ask at the Teahouse or Help Desk. This is not an administrator issue, so it can be discussed in either of those locations. 331dot (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

You may feel more comfortable editing the version of Wikipedia that is in a language with which you are more familiar. There is nothing special about the English Wikipedia, it is not the "premier" Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

The article has been submitted for review, so you just have to be patient. M.Bitton (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism on Superpowers

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.

---

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_superpower In this arcticle users keep removing Brazil as a potential superpower, while Brazil is a potential superpower Morisfoint (talk) 06:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

That's not vandalism, Morisfoint. Vandalism has a specific and precise meaning on Wikipedia, and these edits do not qualify. The content that was removed was entirely unreferenced. In order to add content calling Brazil a potential superpower, it is mandatory to provide references to high quality reliable independent sources that describe Brazil that way. Instead of making accusations of vandalism, I suggest that instead you start discussing specific academic level reliable independent sources at Talk: Potential superpower. Cullen328 (talk) 07:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Really, Morisfoint, I recommend digesting this. -- Hoary (talk) 07:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Morisfoint sockblocked by Bbb23. Bishonen | tålk 16:14, 10 September 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.