Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	0	5	5
TfD	0	0	0	11	11
MfD	0	0	0	3	3
FfD	0	0	0	7	7
RfD	0	0	0	24	24
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 1 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 2 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 1 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 0 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 19 sockpuppet investigations
• 10 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 1 Fully protected edit requests
• 0 Candidates for history merging
• 0 requests for RD1 redaction
• 25 elapsed requested moves
• 2 Pages at move review
• 10 requested closures
• 85 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 7 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (32 out of 8872 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin User talk:AlwaysPutsMeFirst 2024-11-24 01:25 2025-11-24 01:25 create DatGuy Yoav Gallant 2024-11-24 01:14 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Spore (2008 video game) 2024-11-23 18:48 2025-11-23 18:48 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Template:Like 2024-11-23 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2501 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Algeria 2024-11-23 17:07 2025-02-23 17:07 edit Persistent disruptive editing EdJohnston 2025 Indian Premier League 2024-11-23 07:51 2025-05-23 07:51 edit Persistent sockpuppetry: semi-protection expires tomorrow, and confirmed socks already found their way here Ymblanter Luca Allam 2024-11-23 07:41 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz User:CFA 2024-11-23 05:24 indefinite edit Page-move vandalism Reaper Eternal User talk:CFA 2024-11-23 05:16 2024-12-07 05:08 edit User talkpage under siege by LTA with any number of easily autoconfirmable sleepers Bishonen Human safari 2024-11-22 20:33 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case 2024 Kafr Kila clashes 2024-11-22 20:25 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Kushwaha 2024-11-22 20:14 indefinite edit Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Timeline of the Israel–Hamas war (17 October 2024 – present) 2024-11-22 20:03 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Karim Ahmad Khan 2024-11-22 19:47 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case ???-type Pokémon 2024-11-22 17:43 indefinite edit,move Blacklisted name, best to add some protection Anachronist Law & Order: Special Victims Unit season 6 2024-11-22 12:03 2024-12-22 12:03 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts UtherSRG Pam Bondi 2024-11-22 00:39 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Will log at AEL Ad Orientem State of Israel 2024-11-21 22:10 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter Hindko 2024-11-21 22:02 2025-05-21 22:02 edit Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of poorly sourced material. Yamaguchi先生 Oreshnik (missile) 2024-11-21 21:54 indefinite edit Community sanctions enforcement: per WP:RUSUKR Swatjester RS-26 Rubezh 2024-11-21 21:02 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Karbi people 2024-11-21 20:49 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case 1995 Palestinian prisoners' hunger strike 2024-11-21 19:17 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato International Criminal Court arrest warrants for Israeli figures 2024-11-21 15:51 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Fathoms Below Cleveland School of Cannabis 2024-11-21 03:38 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Anachronist Sandeep Lamichhane 2024-11-20 21:52 2025-11-20 21:52 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:BLPCT ToBeFree Draft:Vansh Sayani 2024-11-20 19:42 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Isabelle Belato Young SaceP 2024-11-20 13:52 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Pickersgill-Cunliffe Draft:RAGULVARMA PRABHU 2024-11-20 13:01 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD IFly.com 2024-11-20 05:46 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: Created repeatedly at IFly Pro, moved to new name after that was create-protected Anachronist 2028 United States presidential election 2024-11-20 05:21 2025-11-20 05:21 edit,move requested at WP:RfPP Dr vulpes Template:United States Secretaries of State 2024-11-20 02:34 indefinite edit,move This only has 89 transclusions, that's a bit low for template-protection now that we can ECP due to risk level which wasn't allowed in 2016 Pppery

Closure review (LUGSTUBS2)

• 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 - [1] - 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)

• 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 [2]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

Request restoration of some of my editing privileges

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 [3] 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.[4][5][6] 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[7][8][9] 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' [10] as "the (Indian) person defending this anti-Muslim material" [11]. 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 [12], 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" [13] 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)

Proposal to modify WP:GS/AA scope

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:

• Political, ethnic, and military 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)

• 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)

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 [14] and [15] and [16], 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)

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)

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)

Online News Act concern and discussion

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)#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)

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)

Please bear in mind this things before reviewing my article

Moved to User talk:CHeram citizen

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

Neutralhomer unblock request

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)
• 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)
• 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 [17]), 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)

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)
• @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)

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)

User DeFacto

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.[18] In some cases, he referred to my edits as nonsense which is evidence of personal attacks.[19] On one occasion, DeFacto has even undone my edits when I highlighted their clear WP:POV bias, dismissing it as personal attacks [20]. 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.[21] 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: [22]
• then added this to the article's talkpage: [23]
• I warned them about that previous one and they restored it and added this: [24]

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

• They then removed the warning notice saying this: [25]. -- 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)

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