Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive365

Disruptive User

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

---

@Southasianhistorian8

Hi Wikipedia, this user has recently made a comment on another use @RegentsPark to make a compliant against me. As per https://w.wiki/BAz6.

RegentsPark Interactions:

This particular is off concern, as he has not made this on the Administrators Noticeboard. Furthermore, he has chosen a user who I believe is in conflict of interest due to ongoing issues with Sikh articles. It would be best for a user who has not had edits on either Sikh, India, Hindu based articles to intervene.

I think you should definitely investigate this, as tagging a user who already has an established relationship to obtain favouritism is highly concerning.

- https://w.wiki/BAyq - He says "Hi RegentsPark, I thought this ANI thread might be of interest to you since you warned this user in the past for such behaviour-[1]. It's clear that this user paid no heed to that warning since his edit history is dominated with gross attacks and condescending remarks"

- https://w.wiki/BAyt

- https://w.wiki/BAyu - This was back in December 2023

- https://w.wiki/BAyz - This was back in Jan 2021 and interactions go further back to December 2021

I think Wikipedia MUST Intervene at the highest level on this. Using other users to sanction actions against me is highly against its terms and conditions.

SouthAsianHistorian8 Draft Articles:

Most of SouthAsiansHistorian8 Edits and interactions are unfavourable on Sikh Wikipedia Pages which has led to past issues. Particularly he has an issue with my page Anti-Sikh sentiment in Canada. However, if you look into his edits he has been drafting up these articles which are strong indicators of this contentious issue he has:

- User:Southasianhistorian8/Sikh extremism in Canada (which is literally clear as day). Since my article he has been working on this again.

- User:Southasianhistorian8/Millitancy

- User:Southasianhistorian8/Attacks

- User:Southasianhistorian8/sandbox

SouthAsianHistorian8 Pages:

If you look through all his pages he's pretty much focused on Sikh related articles.

His Issue:

His use is claims that I use bias or supporting evidence which doesn't present the facts which is simply not true. He likes to keep throwing around links to Wikipedia rules and terms of service but actually doesn't even apply it in his editing on here.

World Sikh Organisation:

He claims I am "over zealous" in promoting them. The organisation itself has been involved in endless legal cases related to Sikh related racism and discrimination which I have made clear in Anti-Sikh sentiment in Canada. He argues that they aren't an legitimate organisation or source.

This individual also has been adding his whole section on the World Sikh Organisation regarding "Allegations of extremism". So what set him off was my response to his comment of a WSO Tweet on X on their version of events. https://w.wiki/BAzH

Transport for Canada:

He also says on his user talk "Here, you falsely claimed that Transport Canada made offensive lyrics about Sikhs, even though the source you provided had zero mentions of the word "Sikh"."

If you actually take a look at the article

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/transport-canada-offensive-email-no-fly-list-1.5389058 "Parody's lyrics include threats of violence against turban-wearing travellers" - So because it doesn't include the world Sikh according to him this doesn't come under Anti-Sikh Sentiment against Sikhs.

https://www.worldsikh.org/wso_writes_to_minister_garneau_about_racism_at_transport_canada

Just to note, this is just scratching the surface. I can provide a lot more to this. Further dives into his edit pretty much are self explanatory. Jattlife121 (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, just to note I have no issue with @RegentsPark. It's the conflict of interest and asking somebody who has an established relationship themselves due to their standing on Wikipedia to take action against me. Jattlife121 (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I have to say, this is a pretty immature and vindicate way of resolving content disputes. To those uninformed, Jattlife121 and I were involved in some disagreements on the page Anti Sikh sentiment in Canada, if you go through the history, you'll see I had concerns about the page resembling AI generated language, very extensive use of WP:SYNTH, and many instances of events/incidents being fabricated, and what appeared to be an overzealous defense of the World Sikh Organization. Jattlife121 became upset at that and left disparaging messages on my t/p. Fast forward to today, Jattlife added content trying to exonerate the WSO through a tweet from the WSO themselves-[1]. Since this was clearly a violation of WP rules, I asked an uninvolved admin, RegentsPark, if he could remind Jattlife121 of Wikipedia's rules and norms surronding proper sourcing since Jattlife clearly does not take me seriously-[2]. Instead of going through Wiki rules on what constitutes reliable sourcing, he launched into this diatribe to win a content dispute . Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

By the way, my post on RegentsPark t/p was not to get Jattlife121 in trouble, when I tried to engage with hm before on the t/p of Anti Sikh sentiment in Canada, Jattlife did not respond to my arguments and instead made 2 disparaging attacks against me on my t/p. My expectation was that RegentsPark would gently let Jattlife know that tweets are not acceptable sources on Wikipedia, and that would justify a revert of his edit, and that would be the end of that. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 19:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

As per Template:Cite tweet "Tweets are usually unacceptable as sources.

Tweets and other self-published material may be acceptable if the conditions specified at

WP:SPS

or

WP:TWITTER

are met. For further information, see the

Wikipedia:Verifiability

policy and the

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources

guideline."

As per SPS "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information

about themselves

, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are established experts in the field, so long as"

Thus, the tweet used is acceptable as presented by WSO themselves on behalf of the claim. I haven't said they are right or they are wrong. Only their response to the Parmar event at Maddison Square Garden.

Jattlife121 (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey Admin, https://w.wiki/BAzv It appears that @Southasianhistorian8 has removed my response to his comment. I find this quite odd. Jattlife121 (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

One can make the argument that the tweet is making claims about third parties (Bagri) and is self serving. So it's highly dubious that would count. Also, that policy (WP:TWITTER) seems to be for WP:BLP, not for organizations. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 19:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, I didn't remove your comment; that was a edit conflict. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 19:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

At a first look this seems to be an instance of an age-old problem on Wikipedia. POV-pushers, such as Jattlife121, accuse neutral editors of pushing the opposite POV. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to post the response again further up the chain

"::What I would say is mature is once again using a user who you already interact with in a conflict of interest to support you.  Stop tagging RegentsPark to speak on behalf of you. Why can't we leave to a neutral Wikipedia Admin.

What incidents have been fabricated as such - You still haven't given me a response to Transport Canada Email ?

Also note, you have been constantly working on WSO with the allegations/extremism whatever you want to call. I haven't even removed the text on what you have said but merely added what WSO themselves have responded to the incident with. How on earth is this "Over Jealous". Secondly, WSO are the only Sikh organisation involved involved in the legal disputes on Anti-Sikh Sentiments. How many more cases do you want ? Literally the press interview as spokesmen them such as CBC based on the anti-sikh events have taken place. You really are clutching at straws.

You can't accept the fact that they were included as an organisation on the page dispute the clear evidence of them being involved in these legal cases. That was only three I provided, there are many more on-top of that"

------------------------------

Secondly, to the point of their response to Bagri, it is an official statement rather than a claim by the organisation official X handle. I don't see the difference it makes on the page in their response to what Bagri had said (which I completely am against and think was terrible). If you've seen other pages, countless provide the response of an organisation. As such, you have put the text about Bagri so high up on the page, it eludes the idea that WSO themselves were involved in his speech. Jattlife121 (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

How does this individual get classed as Neutral Editor considering the evidence provided ? I provided the response of an organisation to a serious allegation and but apparently this is not allowed. @Phil Bridger If you kindly look at the evidence rather than at first glance, that would be appreciated. Jattlife121 (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

This is getting close to boomerang territory. Regardless of anything else, we have a wall of text, part of the argumentation is that a complaint was filed privately with an admin (perfectly acceptable), an uninvolved longtime-active user considers this complaint an attempt to silence opposing points of view, and the admin with the private complaint warns that the complaint was made inappropriately. I'm leaning toward closing this. Nyttend (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response @Nyttend. If we just start on the initial problem that has arisen because the other stuff will just be a merry go round.

SouthAsianHistorian8 doesn't accept a Tweet in which a statement made by World Sikh Organization refuting a paragraph he has put within the article. I think first of all, under Wikipedia is this allowed to be used as a reference to show their side of the view. Yes or No due to the seriousness of the statement included. My edit https://w.wiki/BAzH , in which he claims I am promoting the organisation (I have no prior edits on the WSO page since my time on Wikipedia). Is my sourced edit using WSO's tweet allowed. Yes or No ? Thank you ! Jattlife121 (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not really following much of this, between the unclear English, and the clear grudges. How about a couple of simple DIFFs that show who violated what policy, when. I also to struggle to see why Anti-Sikh sentiment in Canada even exists? When there isn't more obvious articles like Anti-Sikh sentiment in India. Is it simply misnamed? Could it be merged to Anti-Sikh sentiment (which probably shouldn't be redirected where it is) - similar to Anti-French sentiment? The article in question does seem to be more of an overly explicit list of things that aren't necessarily encyclopaedic. Sometimes I think we should have a blanket policy limiting people from editing political articles relating to their own nation ... Nfitz (talk) 03:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Nfitz Thanks for your response. Apologies if there was a lack of clarity, I was in a bit of a rush to respond due to there being constant edit conflicts for reason on this page. I respect your opinion whatever the outcome is, my personal belief is where this issue has just happened is I have responded to an edit with the response of an organisation -> this has been removed and escalated to an Admin -> I was accused of promoting the organisation.

  Whilst I admit this should not have been taken to the Admin board, I was unaware .This was based on an Admin who involved as a 3rd party who already has been involved with the user for 3 years. So I wanted a neutral opinion from this page. Next time I know now, I will make sure to speak directly to Admins who I am comfortable with instead of using Admin Noticeboard.

  Per the Wiki Page, Anti-Sikh Sentiment in Canada exists just as much as Islamophobia in Canada and Antisemitism in Canada exists as pages (all these pages should be deleted then right ?). There has been an murder against a Sikh by Neo Nazis in 1999, racism, leaflets, Sikh Temple attacks/Vandalism which I have used for justification on making this page.

  Due to the shear volume of information just from Canada itself, an Anti-Sikh Sentiment sole Wiki Page encompassing all instances in India, UK, Australia etc.. would make the article far too large. Please note, a sole Anti-Sikh Sentiment page on a summarised level is in the works.

  @Ratnahastin Whilst I am disappointed in the outcome of your response and it seems there is more-so an issue with this raised on Admin Noticeboard rather than discussing the edits on the page itself. I respect your opinion and happy to close whatever this case is, or if needed to answer any further questions.

  Thanks/Tack Jattlife121 (talk) 10:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support boomerang here. This report only raises concern about OP's own judgement abilities and lack of ability to edit neutrally. Ratnahastin (talk) 06:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

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

User vandalized "Emily in Paris"

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

---

It's now fixed, but this was blatant vandalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emily_in_Paris&diff=1245910294&oldid=1245901113

MisawaSakura (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Plutonical unblock request

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

---

This is copied over from User talk:Plutonical#Unblock Request 2, on behalf of Plutonical (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

I've had a lot of time to think about my actions during my block, and I've spent some of it making contributions on the Simple English Wikipedia. I think I'm ready to be constructive in mainspace. I probably should have included this when I first made the unblock request, but I'd like to tackle some of the backlog, especially the links section.

Courtesy links: simple:Special:Contributions/Plutonical and the original block thread. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Two years is a long time, and people can change. Given they were blocked for concerns around diving too fast into projectspace, I think an unblock with a topic ban from Wikipedia: space, appealable in six months is a good way forward. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Support for HouseBlaster's unblock/TBAN proposal. The contributions to simple Wikipedia look good, but six months without being in projectspace will give Plutonical a chance to show us some good edits in mainspace. @Plutonical: if the TBAN is enacted and you intend to appeal it in 6 months, you should be prepared to explain why you were indeffed and show an understanding of why your actions were wrong. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Support per above. Your contributions elsewhere show that there's a chance to be welcomed back. Weak support for TBAN on Project space. Ahri Boy (talk) 02:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support: 2 years is more than enough time. Simplewiki contributions look promising and show that they are interested in contributing constructively. I don't really think a a projectspace topic ban is necessary (as disruption anywhere is likely to lead to a re-block) but I won't specifically oppose it. C F A 💬 03:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support unblock with TBAN as outlined above. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
• Question. Isn't it possible to block from editing specific namespaces? (I haven't done many blocks in a long time.) If so, instead of topic-banning him from projectspace as a condition of the unblock, maybe we could just namespace-block him instead. Nyttend (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  It is possible to do so. I think framing it as a topic ban has the advantage of giving the community a say in lifting the restriction, but we can enforce the topic ban with a WP:PBLOCK. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  As HouseBlaster alludes to, blocking is just a tool that can be used to enforce an editing restriction. From a formal perspective, the community is always discussing if an editor should be restricted, aside from any implementation. isaacl (talk) 00:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

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

LDS Church-related topics TBAN - partial appeal by Rachel Helps (BYU)

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

---

I would like to appeal part of my topic ban on LDS Church-related topics, imposed on me on April 13, 2024 (see ANI discussion here). I would like permission to discuss LDS Church-related topics on non-article pages while maintaining the TBAN on articlespace.

Why I was banned

I have reviewed the ANI discussion in detail, and I understand my errors. While the ANI discussion started because of undisclosed COI editing from my personal account, the final decision was based on other issues other than from that specific COI issue. People in the discussion were concerned that I and the student editors under my supervision were not using NPOV in our editing of Mormon-related topics—specifically, that we were providing undue coverage for Book of Mormon topics and using sources that are part of a “walled garden” of Book of Mormon studies. Regarding COI specifically, editors said that I was not sufficiently disclosing all of my COIs, and that I was engaging in COI editing in an unsatisfactory way even when the COIs were disclosed.

In the spirit of cooperation, I will try to address both concerns. I am sorry for the damage my editing has done to Wikipedia and I would like to take steps to correct that damage.

Plans for work in non-article space

I would like to collaborate with other editors on-wiki to develop guidelines for editing pages about scriptures, especially the Book of Mormon. Previously, I have collaborated with other editors off-wiki, which has caused some suspicion of my off-wiki correspondence. This partial reduction of my topic ban would allow me to collaborate more transparently. I would also like to attempt to make positive contributions to discussions about Mormon studies to try to build community trust in my work on those topics. How we are changing The TBAN has shown me that I need to make specific changes in the way that my team edits Wikipedia pages. I have overhauled our editorial process in the following ways to try to address the stated concerns:

• I have prioritized student editing and committed to reviewing all significant edits by students on my team.
• I have created a protocol to put all new pages through articles for creation (AfC) rather than directly moving them to the mainspace.
• I have put COI - PAID talkpage banners on all of the pages we have edited and are editing substantially.
• I have described additional COIs on talk pages as necessary and have required students to do the same.
• I have adopted new and stricter procedures about the use of reliable sources.

I would also like to publicize some changes to editing priorities that I have made internally:

• We will no longer edit pages about living people who are currently BYU employees.
• I have secured assurances from my supervisors that I, as Wikipedian-in-residence, have the right to refuse any internal request because it may violate COI or because a subject is not notable.

Work on other subjects

Over the summer, my team has been improving pages outside of Mormon studies. Noah, a graduate student, worked on poetry pages. He created some small new pages for poetry books and the more considerable Poetry of Czesław Miłosz. Two of my other students focused on pages related to Louisa May Alcott (a collecting area of our archive). They rewrote the main Alcott page, made extensive revisions to seven of her book pages, and created one new book page.

Thank you for considering my appeal. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (LDS Church-related topics TBAN - partial appeal)

I would say this is way too premature an appeal, considering it's been less than six months. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello David Fuchs, is there a rule against appealing a ban less than six months after it was issued? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:STANDARD. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

That's a non-binding essay, not a rule. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty hard-core when it comes to COI editing. But, I'm also a believer in WP:NOTBURO. As far as I'm concerned, the primary criteria for lifting any kind of editing sanction is demonstrating an understanding of what led to the sanction and a convincing argument that it won't happen again. At least at first blush, it looks like we have that here. I'm not yet ready to offer an opinion one way or another on lifting the TBAN, but I would hope people would not make counting days on a calendar their primary means of evaluating the merits of this request. RoySmith (talk) 17:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

If this were a request for a full repeal of the TBAN I might have issue with the timing, but this editors seems to be making a good faith proposal that will allow them to demonstrate the grounding necessary for for a full appeal. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

This seems fine, and while hesitant, I will generally speaking support. Appropriate changes appear to have been made to prevent the originally-problematic behavior from happening in the future. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 18:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

The six months is supposed to indicate that the person understands what went wrong. This appeal addresses the issues which led to the TBAN, and makes a good case for a limited carve-out. Support this limited appeal. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I see an acknowledgement of doing damage to the encyclopedia, and a proposal to work differently moving forward. I don't see a proposal to fix the damage. Can you give some specific examples of pages that need fixing, to show how lifting the topic ban in this way will help you fix the damage? As it stands I'm inclined to say that that topic ban is doing exactly what is best for the encyclopedia by harnessing the energy and money of students and sponsors in creating content unrelated to their sponsoring agency. In other words, the system is working. But fixing the damage would be an inarguable improvement over the current state of affairs, so that's a more convincing reason to reconsider the topic ban. Is that something you're willing to do? If so, how, specifically? Indignant Flamingo (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to make several changes to how we have approached Book of Mormon pages. However, some of these ideas are not ones I would implement right away. I would first try to establish some consensus with other editors in the LDS editing space. That said, these are my current ideas:

• I would take a deletionist rather than a conservationist approach to pages about Book of Mormon people (i.e., rather than trying to "save" pages, merge or delete them).
• I would seek consensus for a style guide for the lead sections of people and books from the Book of Mormon (which could mention that Joseph Smith published the Book of Mormon).
• I would make changes to clarify any literary analysis that assumes an "in-universe" narrator comes from a faithful viewpoint.

• For example, on the Book of Omni page, instead of starting the Interpretation section with "According to authors Fatimah Salleh and Margaret Hemming, Omni wrote in order to maintain a record of the genealogical line," I would include an introduction of several sentences, and hatnote a new page I would create on "bracketing" as a scholarly approach to scripture:
• The introduction to the interpretation section on the Book of Omni page would say something like: "Members of the Latter Day Saint movement accept the Book of Mormon as divinely inspired scripture compiled by ancient prophets in the Americas [wording taken from Origin of the Book of Mormon]. Literary and social analysis of the Book of Mormon includes an assumption that the stated narrator is the actual narrator, even from scholars outside of the Latter Day Saint tradition, in order to participate in discussions about the meaning of the text." Then I could link to a separate page on bracketing within religious studies.
• The "bracketing" approach is used in Mormon studies as well as broader Christian studies. In How Jesus Became God, Bart Ehrman, a secular historian, argues that the historical Jesus was not seen as divine during Jesus’s lifetime. To make his book useful to both scholarly historians and Christians, Ehrman writes: "I do not take a stand on the theological question of Jesus’s divine status. I am instead interested in the historical development that led to the affirmation that he is God." Biblical criticism similarly defines a certain kind of Biblical analysis: using critical analysis "to understand and explain the Bible without appealing to the supernatural."
• This is how I believe that Wikipedia, like other scholarly and reference sources, should look at the Book of Mormon. However, because of the nature of the text of the Book of Mormon, dismissing a supernatural explanation for the book could result in dismissing the entire book of scripture. I acknowledge that the secular interpretation of the Book of Mormon is that it was written by Joseph Smith, possibly with a collaborator. However, I also believe that finding the intended meaning of the Book of Mormon requires a literary approach that considers the meaning of its narrative. Most Mormon and non-Mormon literary scholars who write on the Book of Mormon use this bracketing approach.
• Mark Thomas, in Digging in Cumorah, also tries for a bracketing approach, acknowledging that apologetic interests often interfere with the interpretation of scripture. He imagines how people of differing Christian faiths could agree on how to interpret the Book of Mormon without referencing Joseph Smith’s biography or archeological evidence: "they must find a way to talk about what the book actually says." Talking about what people think the Book of Mormon actually says is part of my motivation for summarizing Book of Mormon literary criticism on Wikipedia. Some interpretations of the Book of Mormon (using techniques of narrative or typological analysis) are different from the traditional interpretations of the Book of Mormon taught by general authorities. I believe that scriptural interpretation ought to be varied, and that reading how other people have interpreted a text can lead to interesting new ideas (of course, I am happy to summarize analysis that references Joseph Smith’s biography or archeological arguments when they are notable--but I only know of one source that does this). Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

My reading of what you've written above is that the damage, in this case, is that the intended meaning of the Book of Mormon and its constituent parts are not communicated clearly enough on Wikipedia. The correction you propose is to introduce new guidelines and text that emphasize exegesis in writing about the Book of Mormon (i.e. explaining the meaning of scripture) so that the intended meaning of the Book of Mormon is adequately conveyed to readers. To quote your response to another editor below, I've noticed that there isn't very much interpretation of scripture on pages about scriptures on Wikipedia. I think that should change. I can see how that might be intellectually enjoyable for you and consistent with your interests and employment. But I don't see how consuming other editors' time on a mission to shift our encyclopedia's policies and guidelines toward exegesis helps the encyclopedia. I oppose lifting the topic ban, and encourage you to keep working on the millions of other topics on offer here. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Am I understanding you correctly that you believe that summarizing exegesis (adequately sourced) is inappropriate for Wikipedia? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The fact that you need to develop new guidelines to support what you're trying to do suggests that what you're trying to do is not consistent with our current policies and guidelines. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I believe that we as a community should have a larger conversation about what kinds of content we want to include on Wikipedia pages, and I would like to be a part of that conversation. Maybe we don't want to summarize exegesis on pages about scriptures. But that shouldn't be decided by this conversation. And if we do decide that, we should make that information easy for other editors to understand, so they don't have to make the same mistakes I made. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support, limited to edit requests. I felt that this topic ban was a bit heavy-handed by prohibiting edit requests on talk pages. As I pointed out at User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU)#Topic ban, the whole reason the edit request template exists is for COI editors to use on talk pages, and it's nonsensical to ban its use by COI editors who have properly disclosed the COI. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  Anachronist The problem is that Rachel is apparently incapable of understanding why the financial situation she and the BYU editors are involved in makes proper adherence to our PAGs impossible. Victoriaearle ran into this issue on a completely-unrelated-to-LDS subject. I agree with Indignant Flamingo above—the restriction is working, and I absolutely don't want to end up here again when BYU editors inevitable start tilting the content back to conformance with their church, because they have a financial imperative to do it. There's no damn way around it, and they should be kept well clear. The proof that this cannot work is the entire editing patterns of Rachel and those in her employ. The old saying about insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result is apt. Especially when Rachel specifically says above I would like to collaborate with other editors on-wiki to develop guidelines for editing pages about scriptures, especially the Book of Mormon. Nope, I think our PAGs work fine, she's trying to essentially legislate her way into compliance rather than changing her actual behavior. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 12:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  Nope, I think our PAGs work fine, she's trying to essentially legislate her way into compliance rather than changing her actual behavior. Yes, that is my exact reaction, too. Grandpallama (talk) 14:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• As the proposer of the TBAN, I'm in between weak support and neutral, I think? I remember being pinged to this discussion by Victoriaearle, which I'm not really sure what to think about; I'm also guessing that the timing of the appeal is related to the upcoming start of the academic year, and if true I would have preferred that to be outright stated. Willing to be convinced either way. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
  • I am convinced more by the below comments than by Rachel's statements. I will not be supporting. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
• I was involved in various threads with Rachel's students over the summer, mostly content related but also to do with PAG: talk page thread here where one started by posting a COI & I reverted some of their edits (i.e, changing a section heading to one not reflected anywhere in scholarly lit I can find, and various citation changes). Rachel did not post in that discussion & my sense is that the student was receiving guidance off wiki - which is ok, of course, but disconcerting. Also becaue the student is paid & has a boss/supervisor, the words of the unpaid volunteer who pops up on the talk page hold less weight in my view. There's a bunch of discussion on Talk:Louisa May Alcott (and Rachel did pop up there). I have some concerns about the work being done on that page specifically to do with sourcing (very in the weeds, so I'll leave it out for the moment), but felt really icky putting well-meaning young people in an uncomfortable position (i.e. asking them to follow our policies, engage with the unpaid editor on talk, please engage in discussion of sources, etc.) so I disengaged. There is clean-up work to be done there, I've had to order books via ILL (because, well, I'm not employed by a library) and now have visitors, so will get back to it when my unpaid volunteer time allows. Not sure that I should add an opinion because I'm not at all in favor of paying young people, calling them "students", telling them how & what to edit, and when their "job" is finished asking for a relaxation of a topic ban. In other words, all of this gives me a very bad taste and I wish it weren't happening at all. Therefore, fwiw, oppose. Victoria (tk) 13:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

One concern is the apparent the copyvio on the library page, the library which Rachel Helps represents or works for. Yes, that page was tagged for copyvio in 2017, but from the very small interactions I had with her and paid students during the summer, it's clear there will clean-up that will need to be done by an unpaid volunteer. If there clean-up needed anywhere where Rachel Helps et. al. have edited, then that should have been the very first bullet point in the request - the request, which shouldn't even be considered until the proper time. However, I have to echo Levivich's comment. Victoria (tk) 23:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The copyright violation on the Harold B. Lee Library page occurred before my employment in the library. After the copyright violation was discovered, the page was deleted. I rewrote the page to remove the copyright violation, and so a page would exist. This was a conflict of interest. Other editors reviewed my work. I have no plans to make further edits to the library page (and my current TBAN applies to it). I am only asking to be allowed to participate in discussions on LDS-related topics, like to help with sourcing, develop best practices, or raise issues where there are errors. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• I'm genuinely perplexed by editors having a positive reaction to this request. The TBAN (which, per the closer, attracted significant participation and was heavily supported) exposed a giant mess, and it's strange to me that we would genuinely entertain reversing even a part of that decision so soon. There are some real red flags here.

• I would like to collaborate with other editors on-wiki to develop guidelines for editing pages about scriptures, especially the Book of Mormon. Uh, what? Why do we need, or should we be developing, special guidelines for editing such pages, and why would someone who was topic banned from a subject ever be an appropriate choice to build guidelines around the editing of that subject?
• Previously, I have collaborated with other editors off-wiki, which has caused some suspicion of my off-wiki correspondence. This partial reduction of my topic ban would allow me to collaborate more transparently. This brushes off as not very problematic or serious the very real concerns about inappropriate collaboration as "some suspicion", and it suggests that the TBAN is only preventing Rachel's "transparent" participation in editing the topic-banned subjects. That's not reassuring--that's incredibly worrisome.
• I would also like to attempt to make positive contributions to discussions about Mormon studies to try to build community trust in my work on those topics. This just seems unwise. Rachel should be editing other, unrelated topics in order to build community trust in general at this point.

There are an infinite number of topics and subjects in the world, and there is no good argument here for why Rachel (or her students) specifically need to edit Mormon- or BYU-related topics. They should actively stay away from such topics, because there will always be at least the appearance of a conflict of interest, and it's not as if there is a dearth of other subjects needing attention. Indignant Flamingo has summed it up perfectly (As it stands I'm inclined to say that that topic ban is doing exactly what is best for the encyclopedia by harnessing the energy and money of students and sponsors in creating content unrelated to their sponsoring agency.), and I strongly oppose even a partial lifting of the TBAN. Grandpallama (talk) 14:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello Grandpallama. You are absolutely right, there are plenty of other topics that we can edit. If this appeal is denied, and even if it is granted, we will continue to edit pages outside of Mormon studies. Why would anyone want to to work with me to develop guidelines for editing Book of Mormon pages? I believe that even though I was topic banned, that I have developed expertise in both Book of Mormon studies and editing Wikipedia that could benefit both communities. These guidelines could benefit not just LDS editors, but editors of pages about scripture across Wikipedia. I've noticed that there isn't very much interpretation of scripture on pages about scriptures on Wikipedia. I think that should change, but that the best way to start that is to develop guidelines with community consensus. You say that I've brushed off "very real concerns about inappropriate collaboration". Can you tell me more about that? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Why would anyone want to to work with me to develop guidelines for editing Book of Mormon pages? That is not the question I asked. I asked why the community should want/trust someone topic banned from a subject to be developing editing guidelines around that same subject. Grandpallama (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

For developing guidelines, I think she is referring to things like WP:LDS, WP:LDSMOS, WP:NCLDS, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Latter_Day_Saint_movement/Temples, and WP:LDS/RS. Epachamo (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Epachamo, that is not what her responses to Indignant Flamingo suggest to me. The more she explains, the more signals I see that the TBAN should remain in place. Grandpallama (talk) 23:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support - As long as we meet any time requirement for appeal that might exist. Collaborating on the talk pages seems like a good starting point to build trust with the community. As far as being paid, there are LOTs of topics in the space that need working on that are not controversial, such as biographies of various women in mormonism, an area that is incredibly deficient, and one that Rachel Helps did a lot of good work on before her topic ban. As long as she steers clear of inappropriately introducing any controversial Mormon church narrative, I see a lot of good work that can be done in this space. Epachamo (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
• I have to oppose this appeal basically per Indignant Flamingo, David Fuchs, and GrandpaLlama. We already allow for coverage of what secondary independent sources say about scriptures - the problem I see in the various LDS topics is that there aren't enough non-LDS sources used. This may be because there aren't non-LDS sources covering parts of the topic area, but that doesn't mean we should treat this topic area any differently than we treat other topics - if there aren't independent secondary sources about a specific subject like a particular bit of text from the Book of Mormon, then we don't cover that bit of text. I'm afraid that this appeal doesn't give me the impression that Rachel understands this important policy. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• I am fine with reducing the amount of information my team previously added to Book of Mormon pages. However, the current policies and guidelines are unclear about who and what an independent secondary source about scripture is. Does a Book of Mormon with commentary written by an LDS person but published by Oxford University Press count as a secondary source? Are all sources about the Book of Mormon by a member non-independent? The topic of sourcing for religious pages (when an author's religion affects whether or not a source is independent or not) is also important for articles about the Bible and the Quran. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - it's way too soon to even think about it, and we as a community have spent way too much time on this issue already. My opinion on lifting the tban is "never" and I would be in favor of increasing sanctions if we can't get like at least a full year of not having to have volunteers spend time dealing with BYU's paid editors. No paid editor who's been doing this for 8 years should need this much help from volunteers to grasp the basics of Wikipedia (like how not to get tbanned, what the standard offer is, and what a good appeal looks like). Levivich (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per Levivich. An appeal from what was (as understatedly noted above) "a giant mess", only a few months after its imposition, strikes me as being tone deaf as to the intention behind it. The ecclesiological wall-of-text, AKA breach of the actual topic ban in the middle of an appeal against the topic ban, supports the view that this is neither the time nor the place, yet it occurred anyway. No sense of awareness, either self- or the attritional effect on the community's time and patience. SerialNumber54129 17:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose I distinctly remember that big WP:COI report on the the LDS group, that started so slowly. The idea once it was reported everything would be cushtie, which was made worse by their intransigence, later became particularly problematic in light off wiki canvassing. Not a chance. I have no confidence that predatory behaviour will change. scope_creep^Talk 18:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Other users can add information to that section. Especially when in control of college students, just seems like a terrible idea to let the fox back into the hen house. Lulfas (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support - Step one to dealing with a tban is to take on board criticisms. The primary issue people had with Rachel's edits was COI, and it looks like she's devoted a lot of energy to thoroughly documenting not just areas of COI but processes for documenting COI. It's also clear that she is trying to figure out best practices for editing LDS topics -- not just for herself but for anyone who wants to write about the subject. Some may feel the guidelines are sufficiently clear and anyone who says otherwise is just an incompetent POV-pusher, but from all the talking past each other here and elsewhere, it sounds like there are discussions to be had. Step two to dealing with a tban is demonstrating an ability to work in other areas without issue, which has indeed happened here. Now we have not an appeal to edit LDS articles again, but a cautious partial step to discuss LDS topics outside of mainspace in order to start building community trust. Who cares if it's "only" been five months? Some of the objections sound like "you wasted my time before, so I'm throwing away the key forever", which just feels like angry overkill. We typically just see that when someone has been sanctioned many times before or shows no interest in learning the proper way of doing things. I don't see either of those here. To the contrary, a partial appeal to a first-time sanction, combined with an interest in continued feedback about her approach to editing, strikes me as quite reasonable. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose No doubt this appeal is made with good intent, but this is about more than just an individual appellant. If sovereign states, political parties and corporations fund the elaboration of work here we are extremely cautious. A religious, private institution with no open accountability to a general population (unlike an instutution such as a public library) raises no less concern. In part it is also as much what might be done as what is not done; a Wikipedian in residence at the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs is far more likely to work on an article about Russia-UK relations than the Katyn massacre (or if they do, we know the viewpoint). That's a structural reality which cannot be avoided. I'm averse to the idea of the coordinated elaboration of articles from an institution which has a direct interest in the content of those articles. In this particular case, I see LDS BLP issues as far less sensitive than anything related to religous interpretation. It appears to me we are being presented with choices here - a proposal to work more on scriptual issues at the expense of others, but this is precisely the most contentious area of concern regarding the COI. One has to wonder; why the concern to edit LDS scriptual matters now given the cosmological scale of areas possible to edit elsewhere? Because of institutional location? That's the nub of the problem. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 03:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  Hi, I would actually be happy to avoid editing Book of Mormon pages in the future. I was under the impression that in order to make a successful appeal, I had to present a plan to make reparations for the damage I have done (it appears that assumption was incorrect). I would like to be judged based on my actual edits, not what edits I might make. If Wikipedia editors decide that the Conflict of Interest guidelines apply differently to Wikipedians-in-residence from private institutions, that's fine, but this is not the place for that discussion. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  My response began with "we are extremely cautious"; I did not elaborate a generalised opposition. My opposition is specific to this circumstance due to the consequences which have been discussed here and elsewhere in detail. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose at this stage. The conversation at User_talk:Rachel_Helps_(BYU)#Paid_editing_on_American_literature_articles and corresponding links on the Alcott page (courtesy @Victoriaearle: show that while Helps means well, she's still struggling with best practices around paid editing. Until that is fully resolved I don't think a return to LDS topics is helpful. Star Mississippi 13:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
  • It would be useful if someone could articulate, in no more than a sentence and without broad references to entire policy pages, what Rachel needs to be doing differently. In the last thread and this one, I see a range of opinions and interpretations of PAG as well as references to some very long, complicated exchanges where the desired upshot isn't plain. It seems like she's trying to satisfy people's expectations, but not succeeding. I can't tell if that's due to a misunderstanding or an attempt to satisfy the wrong (or conflicting) requests. BTW this is under Star Mississippi's post, but really directed at anyone who's opposing but not in the "never" camp (while I disagree with it, I at least understand the "never" perspective). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
    • Hi Rhododendrites in my limited experience it's an issue of clean up. Take a look at Harold B. Lee Library, (specifically the sourcing), Rachel's pasted in version here, created a year after she began editing here, which I asked about about up-page. As for student editing, surely Rachel is aware that when students edit there is always clean up to be done? Whose job is that? There are sourcing issues, citevar issues, Rachel's odd methods of communication. And finally, as you mention, the many very long threads. It all adds up to a time sink. Victoria (tk) 15:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
      • • But… this can’t be done because the editor is under a topic ban. This puts the editor in a catch-22. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
      • This isn't looking like it's going to succeed, but a response nonetheless. pasted in version - How else should someone move a draft into a page that already exists but was full of copyvio? specifically the sourcing - Yes, lots of primary sources there. It sounds like a big part of what Rachel wants to do is sort out expectations for sourcing on LDS topics not just for her but for other people interested in the topic. Do we really think that Rachel is less well equipped to do that compared to random new LDS editors? As for student editing A bit of an aside, but I think it's important to distinguish between student employees and the kind of student we usually get (editing Wikipedia as part of a class assignment). Expectations for the students and advisors/teachers are different in each case, so it's worth highlighting that here we're talking about student employees. Each paid editor should be held to the standards of policies on the subject, whether or not they're a student. If student employees' work is problematic, revert or sanction as needed. I don't see how tbanning Rachel could possibly help that situation, as it removes the possibility of her doing cleanup for others who aren't tbanned (even if we argue that Rachel managing student employees while under tban creates WP:MEAT trouble, it's clear there's great interest in editing Mormon topics at BYU. Do we want them winging it, or do we want them to have some guidance, even if that guidance has a lot of room for improvement?). Ultimately, the tban wasn't a proposal to stop paid editing at BYU; it was a proposal to prevent its most experienced user from helping paid editors. This particular appeal would allow for some of that help, and for sorting out the thorny existing questions about sourcing. If it doesn't succeed, Rachel cannot ask the community what they think about sourcing for these topics and thus can't provide good advice. Anyway, I see that this is unlikely at this point, but I might as well say my piece for when this inevitably comes back up down the road. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
        • Just to be clear: before Wiki ed was set up, Wadewitz and I were each separately editing here with students. So I'm familiar with that dynamic, having gone through it with hundreds of students. You asked about policies. Re sourcing, I mentioned the sourcing needed to be looked at on Louisa May Alcott (not an LDS subject, but she grew up in a transcendentalist family), meaning, in my mind, that sources from the early 1900s should be swapped. In this post Rachel says "Since you brought up sourcing at the Alcott page, Heidi reviewed some of the sources and found that there was some consensus that the Saxton biography focused unduly on the effect of Bronson's parenting on Alcott." Until Rachel mentioned it on her talk, I didn't see any discussion anywhere of that source and as I said earlier it's a content issue and very much in the weeds and needed robust discussion, but instead we get an edit summary that the source is biased. It's not; the author simply reaches a different conclusion and as a major bio the perspective should be mentioned instead of being removed throughout. And to be clear, consensus may have been reached somewhere but not on Wikipedia as far as I can see.
          As mentioned earlier it's difficult if the paid editor has to satisfy the employer - the student's employer is Rachel, presumably - and the random person on the talk page. In my view this is a misunderstanding of sourcing. And in fact for NPOV the source should be used. There's clean-up to done there, and I now have the books to do it, but I've been ill and don't like having to spend unpaid time doing the clean-up. I get that that sounds whiny, but it underscores the dynamic shift between paid editors and unpaid editors.
          As for the Harold B. Lee Library page - for the third time, why not ask in the very first bullet point of this request for some leeway to clean up articles? That page has a GA icon, but it's clearly far from GA. Also, this really really is a time sink. Victoria (tk) 15:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: They are a paid editor who has essentially shown that they cannot be trusted to comply with Wikipedia's strict COI policies. A topic ban is an appropriate measure to prevent disruption. Until they have shown a significant (at least 6 months' worth, in my opinion) amount of constructive contributions outside of their work as a paid editor (i.e. edits to unrelated topic areas, entirely on their own accord), it should remain in place. Concrete evidence, like constructive unpaid contributions, that show they understand how this type of editing is disruptive to the project should be required here. C F A 💬 03:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose after reading the previous discussion which led to the TBAN along with the responses here, I believe that the topic ban should remain in place. -- Mike 🗩 19:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. This appeal gives me no sense that you would follow the restrictions on paid editing. In particular there's no mention of edit requests, which would be the only proper way for you to touch mainspace in the topic area as long as you remain employed by BYU - you say We will no longer edit pages about living people who are currently BYU employees, and no, that is wrong. Irrespective of your topic ban, as long as you remain a paid employee of BYU, you will never edit any mainspace article related to the LDS church or BYU in any nontrivial fashion, and this is non-negotiable fact. It isn't something you can "appeal"; it is the standard of behavior you should have been adhering to previously, which got you topic-banned because you couldn't follow it. A hard promise to adhere to that as a red line ought to be the bare minimum before any appeal could be considered. Beyond that, previously, I have collaborated with other editors off-wiki, which has caused some suspicion of my off-wiki correspondence feels like an "I'm sorry you were offended" sort of comment. --Aquillion (talk) 04:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I would love to start making edit requests. I could give an example, but this would be a violation of my TBAN. I understand that my TBAN currently applies to "any mainspace articles related to the LDS church or BYU in any nontrivial fashion." You're right, I do think that accusations of canvassing against me were unjust, because I never asked other editors to vote a certain way in a discussion I was participating in. I did discuss Wikipedia topics in multiple off-wiki locations. That is allowed! Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, "I have prioritized student editing and committed to reviewing all significant edits by students on my team." none of the edits by students should be reviewed prior to publication, this editor clearly does not understand the issues the community has with their program. We want basically no supervision of these students, no direction, no control, and no pre-publication review. We want you to have almost nothing to do with them besides education, you may not direct their edits on wikipedia whatsoever. Employment is not an exception to meatpuppetry, you as their employer may not direct or restrict their activities on wikipedia in any way... You must interact with them respectfully as editors, not as students or employees and all discussions about actual edits to wikipedia between you and these students must be held on wikipedia not offsite unless there is a pressing reason not to (which it does not appear that there would be in this context). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  I read this more generously with regards reviewing edits after they were published so as to avoid encouraging/leaving messes if any. I agree with Horse Eye's Back expectations on impartiality of fellow paid student editors. I do have general concerns about this TBAN being partially lifted but haven’t decided yet. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  you're right, I don't understand. My students are not meatpuppets. WP:MEAT is about recruiting people to take your side in a debate. I have never asked a student to contribute to a debate with a specific for or against opinion in order to bolster one side. In fact, I've never asked another editor to do that (that would be canvassing). Like instructors on a Wikipedia assignment, I do assign my students pages to edit. I review student edits in their sandboxes and on live pages. After the exchange with Victoria, I have started to make written feedback to my students public on talk pages, like on Talk:The High King and Talk:Work: A Story of Experience. However, this ANI discussion is not about whether or not I should be allowed to interact with my student employees about the Wikipedia pages they work on. It is about if I should be allowed to participate in discussions on talk pages about LDS-related topics. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  I would cease assigning pages/edits and allow them to self direct. You can also not tell them what not to edit, if they wish to use their paid time to edit pages about Pizza and not topics related to the BYU library that is perfectly OK and they can not be redirected or disciplined in any way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  Well, they won't be paid... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  That wouldn't actually be a valid option policy and guideline wise, you can't financially coerce your fellow editors and we don't currently have any exceptions to that for situations like this... If Helps (or any other editor in such a situation) chose to financially coerce a fellow editor to achieve an editorial aim we would almost certainly permanently community ban them. I can't threaten to get you fired or get your pay withheld if you don't make my desired edits, Helps can't either. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• It's tricky. I'm an academic and have thought carefully about directing my students to do work on Wikipedia. At some point I may do so. But doing so on a religious topic where the students would be evaluated feels very problematic. Even absent the problems that have occurred in the past with this editor (which I have not looked at closely) I'd be very hesitant about such editing. I'm just uncomfortable with students being asked to write about a controversial topic and be evaluated for doing so. So oppose, mostly due to the spirit of COI, at least as things are currently formulated. Hobit (talk) 03:11, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Should we fully-protect ECP pages targeted by LTA Hamish Ross?

• User:TheGracefulSlick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User talk:TheGracefulSlick (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• History of the chair (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

These three pages are being constantly targeted by sockpuppet accounts of LTA Hamish Ross gaming the EC permission to attack these EC-protected pages. Hamish Ross is not your ordinary abuser, they rapidly randomly undo hundreds of edits from various IP addresses and new editors, including many constructive ones, thus racking up quite a lot of drama from those editors and potentially damaging newbie editors who receive those "Only warning" vandalism notices from this LTA. The fact that they revert both good and bad edits means that we can't just smash mass-rollback on all of these edits, thus making them an awfully difficult LTA to deal with.

Thus, it is my belief that the user and user-talk pages of TheGracefulSlick should be upgraded to indefinite full-protection, and the History of the chair page be upgraded to temporary full-protection.

User:TheGracefulSlick has been banned from editing since early 2019, hasn't made a single edit since early 2020, and has additionally abused multiple accounts as well, so I think there's very little harm to the user in fully-protecting their user and user-talk page here, as it is highly unlikely they intend to ever come back. In fact it might be beneficial for them as then they wouldn't be receiving the horde of "You have a new talk page message!" and "Your user page has been edited by another user" notifications that they get every time a HR sock attacks these pages. They may be logged-out, but are probably receiving all those email notifications about it.

I do realise FP'ing these pages may be going against the deny recognition principle, giving the LTA what they potentially want (i.e. the 'full protection'), but the intended goal here is to give the LTA less things to do by making them unable to edit the pages that they love to attack. I know some of you may be doubtful of the actual effectiveness of these actions, so let's take a look at a previous full-protection-due-to-LTA case, which ended up working really well – that is, the article Brianna Wu. The LTA who persistently vandalised that article with EC-gamed accounts would not only attack that page, but also a whole bunch of other ECP pages as well, e.g. Turning Red and the userpage of Drmies. Ever since the placement of indef FP on that article, the LTA stopped hitting those other pages as well. Considering the amount of trouble LTA/HR causes every day, I'd say, why not give it a try here? — AP 499D25 (talk) 06:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

To answer the question, no, we should not. We should treat them as we would every vandal (they're not special), WP:DENY and carry on. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

• I don't think you'll get a lot of people on board for full protection but admins might be open to extended confirmed protection. History of the chair is regularly the target of vandals and even though it has PC on it, most of the trolls are already auto-confirmed so their racist edits go right on through. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I actually put history of the chair under ecp for half a year some weeks ago. Lectonar (talk) 07:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• It's actually WP:LTA/HR doing all that vandalism with those AC-gamed accounts. I guess WP:PP is really a precisely and closely followed policy because I notice the full protection policy subsection doesn't mention unconstructive edits by EC-gamed accounts as a valid reason and that the Brianna Wu page was fully-protected under ARB/BLP (this may have been an extreme exception because arbitration enforcements aren't listed in FP subsection either). I was wondering if we could apply another exception like this to the pages targeted by LTA/HR though, especially the user and user talk pages of that banned account which I don't see a strong reason not to fully-protect both. — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Looking at Brianna Wu, that article has had no edits to expand the content since the protection. I would not call that a success at all. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The talk page of that article is also EC-protected indefinitely, keep that in mind. Which, by the way, has had quite a number of successful edit requests on it. — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes but they're all trivial and minor. There has been no content expansion to it. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

In theory it should be easily doable through edit requests. — AP 499D25 (talk) 08:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Theory and practice are different. Protection results in less editing and full protection results in almost no editing. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

There were no edits to expand the content even before the full protection. I don't think we're missing much, other than having to oversight every other edit. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah was going to say the same thing. The changes between now and full protection seem to be [3]. That was about 18 months. The changes for about 3.5 years before full protection when the article was ECP is [4]. I don't see what we've lost between the two. And besides the longer time under review, if anything I'd also expect more in the early part of that ECP period since she was still running for Congress then. (There did seem to be more earlier in 2019 relating with he second Congressional run hence why I stopped with that late 2019.) Yet IMO we've had about as much change in the 18 months of full protection as in the 3.5 years under ECP I showed. Of course changes always tend to depend on many factors including those which could be said to be almost random, so IMO a single example is fairly useless either way, but if you are going to look at it as an example, you need to at least compare before with after. Otherwise I might as well just chose some random article which is unprotected and still a stub after 10 years and say, look how bad unprotection is! Nil Einne (talk) 11:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Why is the page protected?

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

---

The page 13 (number) is protected. Why? It might be unnessecary protection for now.

2001:4456:CD1:C400:3084:D963:7867:2E5B (talk) 04:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The short answer is persistent vandalism. The edit history of that article is a bit of a mess. — Czello ^(music) 04:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

See [5]. If you want, you can ask for un-protection at WP:RPP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

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

User FMSky repeatedly removing the Dubious template without addressing the disputed parts

On Dustborn, user Poketape introduced a claim about the game's Sales. On the talk page, I provided a detailed explanation as to why I believe the claim has no relation to sales and placed the Dubious template linking to the talk page. User:FMSky removed the Dubious template with no edit summary or response on the talk page. I restored the template and pointed at the talk page. The user reverted again with zero explanation. I undid, pointing at WP:ES and Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute#Disputed_statement. The user reverted and provided a summary for the first time, though the summary does not address the issues raised on the talk page in any way (for one, no amount of pointing at the concurrent players count would tell us anything concrete about the game sales). Daisy Blue (talk) 06:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

What the wiki article says Eurogamer reported that the game appeared to have sold poorly, reaching a peak player count of only 83 concurrent players on Steam. What the linked source (1) says Dustborn's launch appears to have gone rather poorly, at least as far as Steam data is concerned. [...] since its launch, the game has only recorded a peak of 83 simultaneous players. Eurogamer is considered a reliable source. What is the issue? --FMSky (talk) 06:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The issues are raised on the talk page. Repeatedly undoing with no explanation or engagement on the talk page is not helpful. Daisy Blue (talk) 06:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I still don't understand what the issue is, even after reading your talk page post. The article says exactly, almost word for word, what the source says. Maybe someone else could explain it to me. Someone else has since added to the section https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dustborn&diff=prev&oldid=1244131093 maybe its now satisfactory for you --FMSky (talk) 06:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The most one could say based on the source is something to the effect of "Eurogamer reported that the game appeared to have launched poorly on Steam, reaching a peak player count of only 83 concurrent players on the platform", however, that still wouldn't address the fact that it's not a statement about sales. Looking at WP:VGLAYOUT, I see no appropriate section for a statement of that nature. Daisy Blue (talk) 06:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I have restored the template, maybe someone else could chime in on the discussion page --FMSky (talk) 06:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. That is my hope. Daisy Blue (talk) 06:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

poketapes edits are a problem. He is making statements beyond what the source states. The source being a statistic database of unknown reliability. This speaks to competency issues given he doesnt understand why this isnt allowed on Wikipedia after so many years and edits. It warrants a warning/discussion to help him understand why it is not allowed 115.189.88.238 (talk) 22:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

It may be worth looking into the edits of User:Poketape as well. No edit summaries, responsible for the edit that kickstarted the above, also quite obviously introducing original research. Daisy Blue (talk) 07:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Then leave a message on his talk page, this doesn't need admin intervention. While you're at it you can also read WP:GOODFAITH and WP:BATTLEGROUND --FMSky (talk) 07:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Where does you saying "Are you here to improve the article" fall under that? Daisy Blue (talk) 07:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Thats just asking a question while I'm struggling to understand your motivations --FMSky (talk) 08:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

That's not "just asking a question". — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is clearly an WP:ASPERSION in context - "I was just asking questions" is doubling-down on it. --Aquillion (talk) 03:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

My edits do not fall under original research, even though you say they "quite obviously" do. NOR does not apply to "routine calculations" and checking if a title is listed in a table falls under that. I made those edits to assuage your original concern that the Steam article I had posted did not cover other platforms. poketape (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, you used the post for FMSky to mention that someone should look into my edits, but did not inform me, per the rule above "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough." I notice that getting into fights with other users is routine with you. Despite you having only around 800 edits, a whopping 30% of them aren't made to the article space. As FMSky mentioned above, Wikipedia is not your battleground, and yet you repeatedly make it one. poketape (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

This edit by Poketape to another article combines the issues discussed in this section and on the talk page of Dustborn. At the minimum, I'm hoping for an administrator reply that would explain why that is not acceptable. The efforts of two registered users and one unregistered user have not been successful. Daisy Blue (talk) 10:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Here's what Poketape said previously: My edits do not fall under original research, even though you say they "quite obviously" do. NOR does not apply to "routine calculations" and checking if a title is listed in a table falls under that. see WP:CALC --FMSky (talk) 10:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I saw that being Poketape's explanation, however, I see no relation between that part and the edits at hand. Even if there were no original research, the reiterated lack of connection between the number of peak concurrent players and sales would still exist, making it also an issue of relevance (and MOS:RELTIME for the Draugen edit). I don't want to be in an edit war until one of us ends up in the corner of 3RR, so this needs a third-party intervention. Daisy Blue (talk) 11:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't really see the issue here since it's apparently the source that makes the claim rather than an editor? You can disagree with the source's conclusion but that still takes precedence over your own and it seems to be properly attributed. You say "The peak number of concurrent players says little to nothing about the sales." but I'm not really seeing an argument backing that statement beyond what seems to be your personal opinion on the matter.

You also say "Lastly, the figure does not reflect the numbers on Xbox, PlayStation, and Epic Games Store" which is a fair point but can be easily solved by properly mentioning that it only refers to the numbers on steam which is already something that was done, at least in the diff that introduced the change.

Overall, it seems like it's entirely a content dispute so I'm not sure what you expect from WP:AN. I mean, you could have gone for other dispute resolutions since the issue seems to have been barely discussed on the talk page, especially since you don't seem like a new editor. Yvan Part (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

We are talking mostly about three separate parts of content. For the first one that cites Eurogamer.pt, I've never argued that it's original research. It's Poketape pointing out the raw SteamDB concurrent players figures or a game's absence on top charts that relate to that. For the Eurogamer part, apart from how there's no common sense in connecting the peak concurrent players number to sales, the source does not say anything about sales either, so it's not my personal opinion. Daisy Blue (talk) 23:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

It is perfectly reasonable to connect concurrent player count to number of sales. While concurrent player count won't directly reveal sales, it can be used as an indicator of general sales performance. You keep stating things like "quite obviously original research" and "no common sense", but these aren't logical arguments, they're just your opinions that thus far nobody else has shared. I'd appreciate if you don't bludgeon users that disagree with you. poketape (talk) 00:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

User Zxcvbnm characterized you citing the charts as POV pushing and explained why. An unregistered user described it as original research and explained why. The same cannot be said for you continuing to undo with no edit summary or talk page activity. Daisy Blue (talk) 00:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I found that his statement did not clarify either way, as his full post was "Directly citing charts needs to have an actual purpose besides dunking on the game. It's not typical to mention that a game failed to chart, because most games fail to chart, though in the specific case of the Steam charts, it had an article devoted to it, showing that it did notably poorly. In contrast, a game can not be on the charts and still be successful, raising the question of why it is mentioned. Removing POV pushing is definitely improving the article." In the case of this game, an article was made and the other tables were provided to provide supporting material, which you had requested when you stated the article did not comment on other platforms.

I do not trust an unregistered user, as I mentioned in my edit summary it was suspicious that an unregistered user would make this edit out of the blue and is seemingly aware of Wikipedia rules like NOR, which was your argument. I noticed that in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 141#Talk:Michael Greger#Removal_of_sourced_content, a discussion you were also involved in, a user stated "As a point of administrivia, I am not convinced that Bluemousered (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Ciopenhauer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Ckrystalrose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Cschepker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Iloveinfo22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are separate people. If they are, then the arrival in short order of several limited-purpose "warriors for The Truth™" may indicate offsite solicitation, not uncommon when Wikipedia critiques evidentially unsupported but lucrative claims." I notice that you changed your username from Bloodyrose to Daisy Blue, when Ckrystalrose was one of the suspicious users, who only ever made one contribution, that exactly mimicked yours of removing a section of an article you disagreed with. poketape (talk) 00:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

That is a lot of mischaracterization in one comment. Firstly, me saying that paraphrasing a source has to stick to what it actually covers (Steam in that example) rather than making broad statements is not me requesting anything else, let alone original research.

Secondly, I've never had any other account on Wikipedia and I don't remember ever making edits without being logged in, unless I wouldn't know (definitely not to Dustborn). Either way, I'm open to any checkuser reviewing my whole history and checking it against anybody else. From there, I'm hoping for action against your derailing and baseless accusations. Daisy Blue (talk) 00:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

You are free to be upset but I am fully within my rights to question your history of getting involved in multiple Wikipedia fights and convenient edits by short-term/sporadic users. You are continually hypocritical. First you mention me in this post without notifying me. Then you state my edit history must be investigated yet complain when I investigate yours. The fact that you're calling for retaliation is quite offensive, so I respectfully ask that you behave yourself. poketape (talk) 06:09, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I made sure to revert your edit to Draugen, per Wikipedia:Counting and sorting are not original research. poketape (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

There is no counting or sorting in the edits. You cite the raw data or its lack without relying on articles that talk about it in the context of sales (or in any way). Daisy Blue (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

• I am not an admin, but I see nothing (in the original request) that requires admin intervention, as this is simply a content dispute and can be handled on the article talk page, or other dispute resolution boards. Poketape's accusations of sockpuppeting is a bit egregious, but the overall issue does not need admins to step in.Natg 19 (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  There was no reaction on the talk page of Dustborn until the WP:AN notification placed on FMSky's user talk page. Looking at FMSky's edits since then, they still rarely come with edit summaries, making it very difficult for anyone to engage in dispute resolution involving the user. Daisy Blue (talk) 05:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

FMSky has edited this very page to change the section title to not include their name. One time without any explanation. Daisy Blue (talk) 05:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Based on their talk page history, they also have been removing any sort of notifications or warnings that are ever put on their talk page for anything, which they are allowed to do, but it gives the impression of trying to pretend they aren't repeatedly being involved in disputes and inappropriate editing. The section name change edit you pointed out also gives that impression. Silverseren^C 23:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:SHOWN states, no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate. e.g., one more accurately describing the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, [...]

It's clearly inappropriate here, though. The focus of this discussion is on FMSky's conduct in refusing to discuss their edits and then engaging in WP:ASPERSIONs on talk, not on the original dispute. And generally speaking it's obviously inappropriate for an editor to decide, themselves, that an ANI discussion focused on their conduct is not actually about their conduct anymore - obviously nobody wants to be the focus of an ANI discussion, but in context it comes across as trying to avoid scrutiny. --Aquillion (talk) 03:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Thats your personal opinion, the guideline linked above clearly says something different. Either way, it has the original title now so it should be fine. The pile-on can continue --FMSky (talk) 04:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I concur that changing your name in this discussion title isn't appropriate. However, changing titles on your own talk page and/or removing notices is not nefarious behavior. No one has to keep comments on their own talk page. Silver seren, that's casting WP:ASPERSIONs as well.

As to the locus of this dispute, I don't see that this is "dubious". If you disagree, that's fine. You need to discuss this at the talk page rather than engaging in an edit war. Buffs (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Close review: X blocked in Brazil

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

---

I'd like for the community to review the close at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#(Closed) X blocked in Brazil, where multiple editors have raised objections. The !votes were split 14 support versus 13 oppose, and the closer cites WP:ITNSIGNIF in their close, quoting It is highly subjective whether an event is considered significant enough, and ultimately each event should be discussed on its own merits. The consensus among those discussing the event is all that is necessary to decide if an event is significant enough for posting. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Closer

Statement An attempt could have been made first to discuss my close with me one-on-one, but we are here, so let's proceeed. The two main criteria for my close were:

• WP:ITNSIGNIF

  It is highly subjective whether an event is considered significant enough, and ultimately each event should be discussed on its own merits. The consensus among those discussing the event is all that is necessary to decide if an event is significant enough for posting.

• WP:ITN/A

  If there is not consensus to post the item and the nomination has had suitable time to run (generally 24 hours), nominations can be closed.

There are no requirements or guidelines on what must be posted. This is not like WP:AFD, where arguments that align with WP:P&Gs are weighted higher, e.g. meeting WP:GNG, WP:BLP violations, unneeded WP:CFORK, etc. For ITN, ITNSIGNIF explicitly admits that the positing criteria are highly subjective and that each event should be discussed on its own merits. The nominated article is presumed to already meet GNG and be reliably sourced, otherwise AfD is the proper forum to debate. There's no requirement that an event based off of a notable, sourced article must be posted. The decision to post is subject only to the consensus of the participants. In this case, a quorum existed with well over 20 participants, and its almost 5 days of discussion was beyond ITN/A's 24-hour guidance. The rate of new votes in the last 1–2 days before it was closed did not make it reasonable that a surge was still possible to form a late consensus to post. The community is free to add more objective criteria to ITNSIGNIF, but it does not exist to date.—Bagumba (talk) 09:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

In this case, I personally think posting would be a WP:SUPERVOTE. If any uninvolved admin feels strongly enough about this case, feel free to undo my close, and proceed to post it. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Going forward Despite what is written at Wikipedia:In the news/Administrator instructions § ITN/C and frequent ITN practice, I will not be closing any more noms based on "consensus will not form to post" reasoning. Ultimately, everybody wants their day in the sun and the belief that there is still a chance. This also makes it more inviting to non-regulars. I do encourage the community to make WP:ITNSIGNIF more objective, otherwise there still won't be a change to whether or not arguments used in this case ultimately result in a post, even if they remain open for the full 7 days. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 03:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

What I'm reading here is that you still intend to ignore how consensus is determined on Wikipedia when deciding whether to post something, you're just going to avoid using an archive template with a close message. It has been the community's standard since time immemorial that consensus is determined by application of policy, not by voting. This is a fundamental principle, and an in depth understanding of this principle is required before evaluating a discussion. ITN doesn't get to set its own rules about how Wikipedia works. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to rewrite WP:ITNSIGNIF. —Bagumba (talk) 03:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Done. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Freedom wasn't free. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Weighing ITN !votes There is a misconception regarding the extent to which ITN arguments can be given less weight. In other WP venues, there are dedicated P&Gs, e.g. WP:AFD refers to WP:Notability, WP:RM leverages WP:Article titles, WP:RFD turns to WP:Redirect, etc. Those P&G’s are weighed more than “I like it / I don’t like it”. ITN does not have the domain-specific equivalent to objectively decide whether to post or not.

Some have suggested—in a WP:VAGUEWAVE—applying core P&Gs like WP:RS, but that doesn’t specify when an ITN blurb should be posted. ITN candidates are generally verifiable by reliable sources. Many are also “all over the news”, as many !voted, and many news items are from countries as populous or larger than Brazil, another argument employed. Diito for touting it being a democracy. Those criteria have never mandated posting—witness many rejected US-based candidates. WP:ITNSIGNIF lists a few principles for deciding to post, but has the disclaimer:

These sorts of principles are useful in convincing others to support or oppose posting a story. None are solely sufficient to override consensus.

Ultimately, we are left to circle back to

It is highly subjective whether an event is considered significant enough ...

The ITN situation is far from ideal. Closers have limited avenues to discount !votes, lest they be berated for WP:SUPERVOTING. Make ITNSIGNIF more objective (some are saying to nuke it?) Outsiders are invited and essential to reform.—Bagumba (talk) 09:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

OR WP:OR was another policy mentioned to discount !votes. However, its page states:

This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.

Reliable sources won't explictly say, "This is notable for an ITN blurb".—Bagumba (talk) 06:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Non-participants

Formatting this as a reply to make it clear that this portion is my personal interpretation. While editors decide their !votes by analyzing the circumstances subjectively, the closer's quote confirms what should already be clear: discussions at ITN are still subject to Wikipedia's standards around consensus, meaning that the !votes should backed by P&G. Breaking down the !votes, I see:

Support rationales:

• It's considered prominent by reliable sources (Nsk92, RodRabelo7, Nice4What)
• It has significant ramifications or directly affects many people (PrecariousWorlds, Ad Orientem, Nfitz, DarkSide830, Slowking Man, The Kip)
• It's notable (Chaotic Enby, Happily888, Flipandflopped)
• No rationale or disagree with opposes (Kcmastrpc, Khuft, BD2412)
• It's newsworthy (BD2412)

Oppose rationales:

• The event was preventable but it was Musk's fault (Masem, AusLondoner, AbcMaxx, Skyshifter, A.WagnerC, Gödel2200)
• The event was preventable but it was Brazil's fault (Scu ba)
• Quality too low for the main page (Hungry403)
• Not worth posting because examples of similar things failed to be posted (PrinceofPunjab)
• It might become more common in the future (Black Kite)
• Not interesting or not worth posting (CFA, Midori No Sora)
• Wait until the investigation ends (31.44.224.222)

The way I see it, most of the supports argue that support from WP:RS, WP:IMPACT, or WP:GNG is sufficient reason to post. Nearly all of the opposers invoked some variation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and have no legitimate reason to object beyond personal preference. Other opposes use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:CRYSTAL. This close review is essentially deciding whether IDONTLIKEIT !votes can be used to cancel out policy-based !votes on Wikipedia in this fashion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn (uninvolved): I'll note that I intentionally avoid ITN because the one time I tried to nominate something, it was SNOW closed with the reason that "consensus will never develop", notwithstanding that most of the !votes in that discussion relied upon an argument that is expressly listed at ITN's arguments to avoid. So, while I'm uninvolved in this discussion, I'm glad to see that ITN is finally getting some outside scrutiny. That said, I disagree with @Bagumba's contention that [t]his is not like WP:AFD, where arguments that align with WP:P&Gs are weighted higher. ITN has a set of criteria, including, as noted previously, a list of common arguments to avoid. Notwithstanding that WP:ITNSIGNIF says that decisions on significance are highly subjective, there has to be a way to weigh between arguments, and indeed, there is: applying the other ITN criteria and our other policies and guidelines. It's ridiculous that one of our projects—which is empowered to post (or to not post) things to the main page—can operate on vibes alone. There were clearly strong arguments for posting here and they can't just be hand-waved away by saying "there are two sides with about equal numbers, and they disagree, so there must be no consensus". That's not how we evaluate consensus on the rest of Wikipedia and that's not how consensus should be evaluated at ITN. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  To add: I think criteria and a way to evaluate consensus based on argument is particularly important at ITN, which of all the aspects of the main page probably has the most likelihood of being biased toward the Global North. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Overturn (uninvolved) - "This is not like WP:AFD, where arguments that align with WP:P&Gs are weighted higher" - Yes it is. WP:CONSENSUS applies at ITN. Those oppose arguments were very weak and should have been down-weighted. After down weighing, there was consensus to post, per nom's analysis. Levivich (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

(ECx2)As usual Levivich has gotten straight to the point and provided a piece of evidence that all on its own means it has to be overturned. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Overturn Wow, I read through the actual discussion and those oppose reasonings are...incredibly bad. And made by several long-standing editors, which makes them even more disappointing. Since when was "it was an avoidable event, so it's not news" even an argument? The vast majority of the Oppose votes even in closing should have been tossed in the bin. Silverseren^C 16:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• (ECx2)Overturn, the closer appears to not have done the sort of job we would expect from a competent editor. Whether this is a one-off issue or a ban from closing should be considered is unclear. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn (uninvolved). The close can't be called a good one, as so many of the oppose !votes were completely disconnected from policies and guidelines and shouldn't have been counted. XOR'easter (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
• I generally agree with the closure. However, what this discussion demonstrates is that there is no real P&Gs governing ITN. There is article quality, but no clear criteria for posting, so it can just be based on project consensus. WaltCip has an essay WP:HOWITN which clarifies the ITN culture, but there are few "official rules" to this project. Natg 19 (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  ITNSIGNIF offers several factors beyond article quality that should be used to evaluate whether something is significant, including:

• The length and depth of coverage itself (are the articles long and go into great detail, or are the articles short and cursory?);
• The number of unique articles about the topic (does each major news source dedicate its own reporting staff to covering the story, or are they all simply reposting the same article?);
• The frequency of updates about the topic (is the article posted once and forgotten about, or is it continuously updated, and are new articles related to the topic appearing all the time?);
• The types of news sources reporting the story (is the topic being covered by major, national news organizations with a reputation for high-quality journalism?).

Additionally, ITNATA provides several arguments that should not be made at ITN. There are clearly ways to evaluate significance and obviously bad arguments (e.g., irrelevant ones) should be discounted. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd suggest changing ITNSIGNIF to make it clear that the community gives closers discretion to weigh !votes with these, or other factors. As written, I don't believe it exists. —Bagumba (talk) 02:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

If you don't understand that closers have that discretion across the board and are not vote counters you should refrain from closing... If you don't understand that you don't understand consenus which worries me as this is a consensus based project. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

"Consensus" is explicitly called for at ITNSIGNIF, and we have a whole policy on achieving and determining consensus. We can add a more explicit point on this into ITN's guidelines, but that doesn't mean admins currently have no leeway. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 21:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn: Not only were a lot of those Opposes garbage, there are some bad rationales here as well. No matter what bad habits are at play, we ought not need special policies to compel closers to weigh quality of arguments over headcount. We ought not need special guidelines to compel editors to advocate sensible rationales over irrelevancies. Nor ought we need reminders that ITN isn't somehow magically exempt from Wikipedia rules. (Nor ought it be surprising that, as in most other areas on Wikipedia, ITN's culture is heavily shaped by those who show up.) And ultimately, the close is not immunized against the community's ability to review it, gauge its worth, and reverse the decision if we find it wrong. Ravenswing 08:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  Why is it garbage to consider the reason for the block as integral to the significance of the story? AusLondonder (talk) 09:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  Colloquially "garbage" arguments are those which are not based on our policies or guidelines. What would be the policy or guidleine based argument behind considering the reason for the block as integral to the significance of the story? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  What policies or guidelines apply to assessing the significance of a story for ITN? AusLondonder (talk) 18:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  The main policies mentioned in the discussion and associated ones appear to be WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. In general WP:V and WP:BLP also apply, but don't appear to have been brought up by any of the involved parties. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  I understood WP:RS to be the foundation of many support votes. Then the other side of that coin would be WP:OR, which would be violated if editors are creating their own analysis of a subject independently of sources. Which they are. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse. ITN has no clear policies and guidelines, and the consensus of those participating in the discussion is the only yardstick by which a closing admin can operate. Years of precedent have established that there are no specific criteria that guarantee a posting. Coverage in all the major papers worldwide certainly isn't enough, otherwise major media stories such as Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination would have been listed. Similarly, assessments of "notability" by the usual Wikipedia standards don't guarantee a posting. This appeal is effectively just trying to say the view of those who supported the Brazil Twitter story are to hold more weight than those who opposed, but without any sort of rules-based justification other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. No reasonable admin interpretation of this discussion could have seen a consensus to post, and any other close would have been a WP:SUPERVOTE.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

How can a consenus be achieved outside of policy and guideline based arguments? If there is no clear policy or guideline then there can be no clear consensus and this is a consensus based project, not a precedent based one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

There are no policies and guidelines to draw on when making the decision about what's significant enough to post as a news story on the main page and what isn't. None of the sitewide rules bandied about above have any bearing on this because selecting blurbs in this fashion isn't something thay applies in article space. It's a unique process which happens to also have very few written rules. As such, unless you can prove obvious gaming, socking or vote stacking, it comes down to how many people support and how many oppose. When the counts are neck and neck like this we call it no consensus and it doesn't get posted. You can cry that this is not the Wikipedia way as much as you like, but we have nothing else to draw on. There are no policies and guidelines. Your opinion on this story isn't more valid than those who opposed the posting just because you say their views are "weak".  — Amakuru (talk) 22:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

If there are no policies and guidelines to draw on when making the decision then you aren't on wikipedia. Here everything falls under some collection of policy or guideline. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse per Amakuru. No basis to discount poor arguments in ITN discussions. Consensus in absence of controlling policy means reading the room. If we wanted to add a novel policy dealing with a new area we could not form a consensus because there'd be nothing to go by when weighing !votes due to a lack of an existing policy for that area... Or...—Alalch E. 15:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Its a novel argument but moot because if its on wikipedia then its under controlling policy, WP:NOT for example was cited by the strongest oppose arguments. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

ITN is not the encyclopedia proper. It is part of the main portal. A portal is a web thing, not an encyclopedia thing. It is not the encyclopedia. Wp:NOT doesn't apply to ITN. It's already NOT by virtue of its very existence. —Alalch E. 19:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

NOT appears to cover the entire encyclopedia, not just the encyclopedia proper (for example I don't think anyone would accept the argument that NOT doesn't cover talk pages) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn due to the number of extremely weak oppose votes. I'd have personally assigned near-zero weight to !votes in the vein of "this is just a tantrum from Musk/the Brazilian government". For better or worse, ITNSIGNIF gives wide leeway for blocking stories at ITN—but it's not a straitjacket that confines admins to only assigning equal weight to all participants. Consensus is not vote counting. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 21:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
• As currently set up, ITN/C is not fit for purpose. One problem is the low-grade but constant toxicity, sure. The moronic US vs UK feud that roughly 1/4 of the people won't let die (on either side) is another. But also, like scripture, policy can be made to support any side of any ITN/C discussion; which specific policies people quote in each discussion is primarily determined by whether they instinctively want that thing posted or not. Now that I think about it, kind of like AN/ANI. Now that I really think about it, kind of like Wikipedia in general. If someone wants to blow up ITN/C and start over (or AN/ANI. or Wikipedia), more power to them. But history suggests there's too much inertia to succeed, and in the meantime please don't imply Bagumba is a bad admin or has done a bad thing for doing what every other admin does, in one direction or another, on a page without a rational organization. Closing that as they did is not crazy. Leaving it open would not have been crazy. Closing it as "Posted" would not have been crazy. The dysfunction is in the page, not in the admins doing the best they can, and getting shit about it no matter which direction they close something. If I was to BOLDedly support any action, it would be focus less on relentlessly arguing that something that was a week old at the time should be on the (lol) "in the news" section. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  I think we should have a policy named "Featurability" which says: "Everything featured on the main page represents and is featured only because it is a legitimate achievement of Wikipedia editors such that enhances the image and public reception of Wikipedia." —Alalch E. 23:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  This would basically eliminate 95% of ITN and 95% of "newly created" DYKs. It would effectively abolish both of those and we'd have to replace them with something more useful and higher quality. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  DYK is featurable because creating a new article of a reasonable (or passable) quality in the span of seven days is a legitimate achievement of editors and the entertainment value of the hooks enhances the image and public reception of Wikipedia insofar it reaffirms the notion that Wikipedia is interesting and should be read (there are other "newness" criteria for DYK, but basically WP:DYKAIM is at least a good start in explaining why and how DYK is featurable content). I could excuse On this day too. I can't excuse ITN because it's extremely weird. Weird weird thing on the main page. —Alalch E. 00:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  Honestly, I think you might be on to something here. Removing ITN and adding a higher quality requirement for DYK (although the hook thing is cool, it can stay) would be a net improvement for the main page. Maybe not compared to a perfectly ideal not-a-news-ticker, but the current state of ITN is arguably too dysfunctional to be a net positive. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn per the weakness of the Oppose !votes in a consensus-building process. This should have been taken into account. Any suggestion that all points of view have equal weight is odd. Cheers, SerialNumber54129 00:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse clear case of no consensus. Also the event is now stale as older than the oldest ITN on the front page. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse the review standard suggested above and in various ways of 'quality subjectivity' is an unworkable non-starter, or an oxymoron. Indeed, the overturn argument seems in actuality a complaint against subjectivity, but subjectivity outside of articles is governed by no article content policies. (And there is no a priori reason for barring subjectivity from a community - not article - page, although there may well be, and probably are, better ways we could collectively do things). Nor can I credit the closer 'did not follow WP:ITN the right way' as it appears they did, at least within reason - so I conclude the problem is not the closer or what the closer did - change or discard ITN, if it needs it, as it appears it may. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse a subjective process will have subjective closes. Who cares? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
• If the time was a few days ago, I absolutely would have firmly voted overturn. What I see here is a form of mob mentality, where people without much of an idea simply follow the easiest belief of two sides without doing some research into the matter. But now it's too late. I guess someone close this entire thread since there's no point in this anymore? — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'd close it myself since the discussion has moved to Wikipedia talk:In the news#RFCBEFORE: removing significance criteria, but I don't know if it's appropriate for me to do so as the one who opened the discussion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn Levivich's argument sums it up well. These were some VERY weak opposes. They seem highly politically motivated as well. While this is pretty stale, it shouldn't be dismissed as anyone who politically opposes something can always gin up enough support in the short term to make a story go away long enough to get the same result they wanted. While this isn't a court, it's a miscarriage of justice (procedure). Buffs (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Participants

• I attempted to initiate a discussion on a closure regarding the ITN proposal Arrest of Pavel Durov and @Bagumba suggested I go take the matter somewhere else. I guess we're here now, on what I would consider to be a similarly hasty close.

  To be clear, I support overturning, and would ask the admin in question here to consider whether they're closing discussions without given them ample time to play out. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  What do you consider "ample time"? 5 days of back and forth discussion is pretty of time. The "maximum" time at ITN is typically 7 days before the nomination is rolled off and is archived. Natg 19 (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  I was particularly concerned over the closure of the ITN discussion I linked above, which was less than 48 hours after it was initially proposed. With regards to the Brazil discussion, there has been a drought of ITNs gaining consensus recently which meant the discussion could have easily been extended, especially since the close votes were not all that compelling. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I'm involved but FWIW here's my 2¢ . I wouldn't have closed it and I don't find the rational persuasive enough to justify an early close. Having said that, no consensus existed to post and I would concede that the likelihood of such a consensus developing was extremely low. That is a pretty common rational for closing a nomination early. And finally, at this point the nomination is so close to stale that I'm not sure what the point of this discussion is. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Could you clarify no consensus existed to post? This seems to be the main issue at hand here that is being discussed. Natg 19 (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

The raw votes were near evenly split with 27 in total. Even if you slightly devalue the opposes, as some have suggested, I don't think there is a clear consensus. To post this you would have to almost completely dismiss the opposes, which would be extremely controversial. FWIW, I supported the nomination and was not impressed by most of the opposing comments, but objectively there is not a clear consensus here. Had I been an uninvolved admin I would not have posted this based on the discussion at the time of closing and I think any admin who did would have been in for some sharp criticism. Would I have closed the discussion using Bagumba's rational? No. But to get to a consensus I think we would have needed a significant influx of comments with all, or nearly all breaking in favor of posting. Based on my rather long experience at ITN, that was not likely to happen. I appreciate that there is some disagreement here. But as of this comment the nomination will be archived in less than 24 hours. Sometimes in life things just don't work out the way we think they should and we have to pick and choose our battles. IMHO this is not a hill worth fighting over. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

"Slightly" devalue? What if you more than "slightly" devalue them, as I suggest? Levivich (talk) 18:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

As I stated above; "To post this you would have to almost completely dismiss the opposes, which would be extremely controversial." and "Had I been an uninvolved admin I would not have posted this based on the discussion at the time of closing and I think any admin who did would have been in for some sharp criticism." -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Why would it be extremely controversial? And even if it was, so what? What's wrong with completely discounting rationales along the lines of 'The event was preventable but it was Musk's fault'? WP:CONSENSUS says we discount votes that don't follow PAGs, how does that rationale track with anything at WP:ITNCRIT, and if it doesn't, why shouldn't it be discounted completely? Levivich (talk) 18:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

You don't see where simply dismissing approximately half the comments because you disagree with them would be controversial? Really? Calling ITNCRIT vague would be an understatement. There is no hard and fast criteria beyond article quality. Any admin who dismissed all of the opposes would almost certainly have been overturned on appeal and likely been served a nice trout for their supper. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what a closer is supposed to do; no, ITNCRIT has criteria besides quality; and no, they wouldn't be overturned, as evidenced by the guy who didn't discount the votes about to be overturned here. Levivich (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• Relist for further discussion (involved). I would agree that there was no consensus to post at the time of closure, but this was a continuing story and previous !voters may reconsider their opinions in light of the breadth of actual coverage this development received. @Thebiguglyalien:, I take issue with your characterization of my vote, which you lumped in under "No rationale or disagree with opposes". My rationale was: "The contention that the injury was self-inflicted does not change the newsworthiness of the result". Obviously, I am saying that the result was newsworthy, even if prefaced by a refutation of opinions to the contrary. BD2412 T 18:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  Noted. I didn't feel comfortable asserting that "newsworthiness" was associated with any one specific policy, so I described it as challenging the opposes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse (involved): NPOV doesn't need to be explicitly mentioned to be essential to the opposes faulting Musk. No consensus is an accurate summary of the discussion. RAN1 (talk) 19:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse, sort of I !voted to oppose this, but that's not really the point - the issue here is that there are effectively no policies that cover rationales at ITN/C (and no real guidelines either apart from WP:ITNCDONT and the ones at WT:ITN). Obviously, if someone gives a particularly terrible rationale ("Oppose: I don't like articles that begin with the letter W") then they can be discounted, and of course the article has to actually be in the news and of decent quality; but otherwise ITNC does tend to lean more towards a vote-count than most other WP discussions purely because of the lack of P&Gs. Black Kite (talk) 08:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse close (involved) Per WP:ITNSIGNIF editors are given wide scope to decide whether an event is significant enough to warrant posting at ITN on the mainpage: "It is highly subjective whether an event is considered significant enough, and ultimately each event should be discussed on its own merits." There has been quite a bit of unfair criticism here of the nature of the discussion, the discussion of the cause of the block (Musk's refusal to comply with the independent judiciary of Brazil) is highly relevant to the significance of the story. A block imposed by the executive for political reasons or censorship would clearly be more significant that a block imposed by a court as part of the normal legal process. The discussion at ITN was open for five days, which is a lengthy time. Per WP:ITN/A "If there is not consensus to post the item and the nomination has had suitable time to run (generally 24 hours), nominations can be closed." This item got five days. It was a textbook case of no consensus. If editors don't like the way ITN stories are chosen, then propose a change. That won't be achieved by overturning this good close. AusLondonder (talk) 08:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  A block imposed by the executive for political reasons or censorship would clearly be more significant that a block imposed by a court as part of the normal legal process. Why? If the Supreme Court upholds the TikTok ban, would that be less significant because it had to go through the courts rather than be unilaterally imposed by the executive? voorts (talk/contributions) 09:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  This is irrelevant to the close but my opinion was that a block imposed partly due to a failure to appoint a legal representative is distinct and less problematic, newsworthy and significant than a block imposed as an act of censorship by the government in a democracy. AusLondonder (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  Per WP:_________ [neither a policy or guideline] is generally not a very convincing argument... This sort of more or less baseless argument seems to strongly support the ITN reform arguments which have been made. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse close. I !voted "support" myself, and, while the "support" votes might have been more often backed by policy, ITN's evaluation of significance is explicitly described as being subjective in nature. It makes sense that in such a process, policy-based weighing of !votes isn't as necessary, as the question that is being asked is basically "do you think this is important enough to feature on the main page?" Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• Almost 5 days of discussion? It’s stale surely. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  Not really. The court order for block the blurb would be about happened on 30th August Brazilian investigation into Elon Musk. This is after all but the most recent entry about the helicopter crash. In fact per our articles, the block itself came into effect on 0310 UTC 31 August, while the helicopter disappeared at 415 UTC 31 August, meaning there was only about 1 hour between the block coming into effect and the helicopter crash. The discussion happened on the same day in ITNC Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#(Posted) 2024 Kamchatka Mil Mi-8 crash. The next ITN entry, the opening ceremony of the 2024 Summer Paralympics happened on the 28 August (although the closing ceremony will be posted within the next day or two I suspect). The next entry was on the 24 August 2024 Barsalogho attack and the oldest on the 23 August 2024 Solingen stabbing. Depending on what else happens and how long this discussion takes, it may be too late for the block I guess, although perhaps this discussion would be useful for future closers. Nil Einne (talk) 12:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• It's unclear to me why this was brought here; the OP could have asked Bagumba to have reopen it, or reopened it themselves, and the discussion would have just stayed there until it rolled off the ITN/C page. Which is what will happen if the "close" is overturned here. No ITN discussion actually needs to be closed, it is sometimes done if consensus is unlikely to develop to post (or more rarely, to pull) an item, simply to avoid beating a dead horse. Overturning this will have no practical effect as no admin who works at ITN is going to post something with 14 supports and 13 opposes, that would rightly be regarding as supervoting over a lack of consensus. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  no admin who works at ITN is going to post something with 14 supports and 13 opposes, that would rightly be regarding as supervoting over a lack of consensus. The 13 opposes were exceptionally weak. "This is Elon Musk's fault", which was 6 of the 13 opposes, has nothing to do with the significance or newsworthiness of the action of the Supreme Court of Brazil. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  Also, agree that OP should have taken this to Bagumba's talk page first and asked to overturn per the close review instructions, but since Bagumba has now responded here and said we should proceed, that's effectively moot. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• Pinging @Spencer, Stephen, and Masem:, admins who regularly participate at ITN, for their comments. Natg 19 (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  Also @Ad Orientem: and @Schwede66:. Natg 19 (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'm involved (in that !vote), so I shouldn't comment. Masem (t) 16:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  I would like an explanation though on your claim that an avoidable situation is one that doesn't count as news, Masem. Does this stance of yours apply universally? Anything avoidable can never count as news (at least in regards to ITN)? Silverseren^C 16:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  Because overall WP is not a newspaper, so just because something gets reported en masse by sources over a short period does not mean it is appropriate for us to cover in a wholly separate article, nor feature it at ITN. ITN is about showing quality encyclopedic articles that happen to be in the news, not forcing news onto the front page. And in this situation, the overall story is being blown out of proportion by the media, in terms of its encyclopedic value; it would be a far different story if the entire Internet was blocked by the Brazilian courts, which becomes a major free speech/censorship problem, but the situation as it is now is a slight inconvenience to Brazil users of Twitter/X, but doesn't block their free speech at all. Further by flooding the article with short term reactions rather than look to the larger, long-term picture, the article is not really a good encyclopedic article that should be featured. (This is an example of the problem with the excessive detail of current news against the nature of NOTNEWS/NEVENT which not only affects ITN but throughout WP.) Masem (t) 17:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  That would have been a much better argument to have actually made at ITN in the first place. Silverseren^C 17:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note that the discussion being reviewed has now been archived. Given that the main focus here is the misapplication of consensus at ITN and the general abuse of the discussion process, I believe that the archival only makes this discussion more relevant, as ITN's arbitrary time limit is often used to suppress criticisms as "stale" once a few days have passed. I don't want to be opening a new discussion here every time ITN does something like this (which happens at least once a week, this one simply wasn't hidden as well), so hopefully we can get more administrative input here? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps the next step is a discussion at WP:VPP on revamping the ITN guidelines to make them more objective. For example, significance can be defined, just as the term is defined for the purposes of SIGCOV. I don't think the discussion should be at WT:ITN given that part of the problem appears to be a LOCALCON as to how consensus is determined. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  Multiple discussions at WT:ITN over the last few years have tried to nail down more objective criteria without any luck. It is a sort of perennial concept that we could make them but there's never been consensus to implement them. VPP is not going to solve that. Masem (t) 01:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  It can't fail to nail worse than we have. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  I've started such discussions in May 2023 at VPP and March 2024 at the idea lab. Another major one was brought up by 331dot in August 2023, which led to a subsequent discussion about abolishing it brought up by InedibleHulk a few hours later. There have been a few other examples over the last few years, but I believe these are the most recent. A good portion of the names participating in each of these discussions are the same ITN regulars enforcing the local consensus. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  Well, I won't be doing anything like that again. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  Given that most of the past discussions were heavily attended by ITN regulars and a few others, and thus failed to reach any kind of consensus, it might be time to just pick a reform proposal or two (I like Remove the significance requirement entirely and include any article that is the subject of a recent news event from the March 2024 discussion) and put it to the community through an RfC with wide advertisement via T:CENT. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  So long as this wider community discussion includes the regulars, I have reason to believe such few will corrupt the many, again. We should all be barred. Not permanently, just this time. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  Usually when there are people whose repeated inability to understand Wikipedia's processes is such that it breaks the process, a CIR ban is the way to "bar" them. You're not one of those people, but ITN sees its fair share of them. For obvious reasons, I have not proposed such bans at ANI, but we're in a conundrum since our typical response is unavailable and we have to come up with something else. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  General incompetence in our niche is a serious-but-other problem (thanks for excluding me, though). All I suggest here is that all ITN regulars (better and worse) be barred from the reform proposal discussion voorts proposed (because we tend to badger and repeat). While that's (potentially) ongoing, I don't recommend dragging any AN/I gatekeepers into "the whole enchilada". InedibleHulk (talk) 03:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  Definitely. ANI would be counterproductive, which is why I'm lamenting our lack of tools to address this, possibly meaning we need to find a novel solution. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  I thought advertising an "outsiders only" RfC was the novel solution, so... InedibleHulk (talk) 03:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I apologize for being vague. I meant that it requires the additional step of figuring out if/how something like this could work instead of having a standard practice. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  It could be possible to have an RFC where ITN regular are strongly encouraged not to participate, but the RFC should point to the history of ITN and all previous attempts to derive improved criteria (so that regulars don't have to step in to talk about previously failed proposals), and once any ideas start to gel out of the input from other editors, regulars are still going to have to identify any potential problems with them. Without such, I could see what may seem like simple solutions called out (like putting more weight on the type of news coverage a story gets) that fails the purpose of ITN and NOTNEWS aspects, in addition to minimizing the quality contribution.

  It would probably be necessary to have an informal moderator who is uninvolved but aware of the ITN situation to make sure that regulars are not jumping into the discussion too soon. Masem (t) 03:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  I disagree with this. If there is going to be a community-wide re-evaluation of ITN (which is what was proposed), there is no need to gatekeep. Are we sure that the current "purposes" are correct, or that the current status quo interpretations are what the community wants? I see no issue with rewriting ITN completely if that is what is decided. Natg 19 (talk) 04:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  What Masem appears to be proposing is the opposite of gatekeeping... The proposal appears to be to open the gate which has been closed by the ITN regulars. To bust down the wall of the garden so to speak. To leave a space with neither gates or walls where everyone can contribute equally (something that is currently not possible with the level of casual ownership around ITN) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  Not that the past ITN discusses have been closed doors, just that when they take place on the ITN talk pages, its primarily participated by the ITN regulars that participate, and the few attempts at VPP or similar places also draw heavy involvement of regulars. If we're trying to look at this fresh, we would want a discussion where the regulars shut up and see what develops, and once some possible solutions form free of the regulars' input, then get involved in practical application issues (eg making sure that main page quality issues are addressed). Masem (t) 15:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps something akin to the "involved" and "uninvolved" sections used in some cases when consensus is being reviewed? I could see an RfC for "should ITN stop evaluating 'significance' and instead be used to feature articles that have been substantially updated with new information" or something similar (and maybe with more graceful/precise wording), where people who have actively participated in these significance disputes are considered "involved". It wouldn't solve the issue that several long-time editors here (including administrators) have demonstrated WP:CLUE issues about how policy works, but it would allow community consensus to be compared to local consensus. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  If anyone has demonstrated WP:CLUE issues it would appear to be yourself, given you believe our no original research, policy, which explicitly applies to articles, and "does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources" prevents discussion about what to post at ITN. AusLondonder (talk) 02:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  You're welcome to consider references to OR to be invoked alongside WP:FORUM (Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or new information). Or we could acknowledge that ITN tries to wikilawayer its way out of original research issues because they think they are reliable sources about "significance" when they are not. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  So referring to the literal first line of WP:OR and it's applicability is "Wikilawyering" now? Make it make sense. AusLondonder (talk) 02:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  As a regular myself, I would very much support such an RfC where the rest of the community can weigh in and give a fresh outside view, and where we get the opportunity to listen to them instead of being the ones talking. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• I really think what we need is a rebalance of power at ITN. On one hand, we have had some nominations closed before they have to be. I do believe it would perhaps be nice to codify a oppose:support ratio at which we close a nomination, as well as a minimum time threshold. I mean, do we NEED to be closing nominations within 24 hours unless they are clearly disruptive? SNOW obviously applies, but is SNOW closing a nomination at 7 opposes/1 support after 12 hours so much better than closing at 12 opposes/3 supports in 24 hours (random numbers, but you get the point). To me, anything but a clear consensus either way after 24 hours should stay open until there is one, or the item rolls off, especially given not all arguments are of the same strength, and many stories nominated at ITN are developing. Conversely, I think we should be empowering editors to make a call when a vote is near 50:50. While I think having clear consensus for posting should generally be required (maybe 2/3 of comments supporting on notability with quality issues resolved), in the case of the Twitter ban nomination (and call me biased here), I just think the support votes were much more compelling. I'll ask the question again: why does it matter the "who" or the "why" if we believe the "what" is noteworthy enough? Would we have not posted the Trojan War because it was largely spun out of marital reasons? Using motives and personalities to supersede actual results seems to me to be ignoring that you're surrounded by trees and thus must be in a forest. I've been told my arguments have not been the strongest at times. While it may generally be a judgement call, I do believe we miss the point of having admins if we don't empower them to call audibles when they believe it's fit. Just my 2 cents. And please, please, PLEASE, let's not bring up CREEP. It's invoked almost every other discussion on ITN processes it makes me think no one actually wants to try any real solutions. Thank you. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  At times, ITN is subject to new or infrequent editors that drop support !votes on popular topics (for example, the death of famous celebrities if they nominated for a blurb), which is not a metric we use for posting blurbs, making these !votes the type to be ignored in evaluating consensus. Further, only a small fraction of regulars typically look at the quality of the article before placing a !vote, and many support !votes are overly focused on the significance aspect; quality cannot be overlooked due to being featured on the main page. I'm all for allowing an ITNC discussion to keep going when there is no clear consensus to post either way until the topic is stale (typically, that means only closing discussions which become disruptive after the blurb has been posted), but we should not be judging closing discussions based on the number and distribution of !votes. Quality of arguments must still be evaluated. Masem (t) 03:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

• I used to frequent ITN but I now rarely go there at all, because it is too toxic and it's become about the personal preference of what editors there think is important or newsworthy and not what actually is newsworthy. Recent Deaths has worked very well since "significance" was removed as a criterion and I now think ITN should be closer if not exactly similar(removing or at least reducing "significance" as a criterion). 331dot (talk) 07:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  If significance is removed as a criterion, how instead do we know what is newsworthy? AusLondonder (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  As newsfolk know. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  Except, of course, WP is not a newspaper so going by journalism standards is not appropriate. Otherwise ITN would be filled with US and UK political topics every day. Masem (t) 11:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  If those were the only kinds of stories with Impact, Timeliness, Proximity, Prominence, Conflict, Human interest and/or Novelty, that'd be all the newspapers and websites ITN and Wikipedia pull from ever publish. It's clearly not the case. CBC News' top story tonight is just one example. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  Exactly the issue. ITN isn't perfect, but frankly I can't see what can be changed that won't simply make it far worse. Eliminating literally any significance requirement would be a disaster. AusLondonder (talk) 13:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'll re iterate that the larger problem of lax NOTNEWS adhence across the encyclopedia is a main driver of problems at ITN. It's meant to feature quality articles that happen to be in the news, not a means to feature news. It was created in the wake of 9/11 and the ability to highlight the community's ability to come together to create high quality summary of clearly significant news in a short period of time, and certainly other events since have been highlighted at ITN along those lines (COVID, Jan 6, Oct 7, etc),all events with clear long lasting significance within hours of them happening. Not all major news stories are along the same lines, as coverage is not the same as significance. — Masem (t) 13:19, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  WP:NOTNEWS applies to article content, not the project space, and so we could absolutely consider journalistic standards in crafting an improved significant criterion.

  Summarizing ITN as being a place to only "feature quality articles that happen to be in the news" forgets three of the four bullet points at WP:ITNPURPOSE. As I've said elsewhere and previously, Masem, I worry that your views on ITN aren't aligned with everyone else. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 14:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  They're aligned with mine. Everything shown on the main page is being featured, by definition. It's an axiom. Featured articles are worthy of being featured because doing so highlights editors' ability to create very good content, DYK items are worthy of being featured because the hooks promote the perception that Wikipedia contains many interesting facts, that its articles also have some entertainment value, and they are backed up by adequate, presentable content that was recently created or drastically expanded, highlighting editors' achievements in that respect (but this is more indirect, because readers generally do not know the DYK eligibility criteria). OTD items are worth featuring because "On this day" is a traditional element that counterbalances the lightheartedness of DYK and highlights the vast work of editors who had developed comprehensive coverage of historic events. Another block could more directly highlight new articles evidenced by the fact that the subjects are recent events, so as to impress the visitor with how quickly the community can come up with presentable content, reinforcing the idea that Wikipedia editors are competent and routined encyclopedia creators and that wikipedia's time-honored practices lead to immediately good results. Instead we have ITN, the weird old news panel. Old news and non-presentable articles on "significant events" are non-featurable. So why is Wikipedia featuring something not worthy of being featured? The idea was to feature articles on recent events that are worthy of being featured, highlighting something positive about Wikipedia. —Alalch E. 14:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'll quote here Vibber's first response to the question of "What is Wikipedia?": Wikipedia, as a sort of the idea of it, is to be very open to accepting contributions, to the point that a lot of material can be put together very quickly, and it can be updated immediately when events change. For instance, when something important happens in current events, we have an article on it right away. In a more traditional encyclopedia, it might be—you know—the next year they have a yearly update that has it; it's not really in a standard version for years and years yet. The ability to have an article right away is worth highlighting by featuring an item that is actually new. That helps promote the idea that Wikipedia is better than a traditional encyclopedia. But isn't better if the content isn't good. So the content must be good and the topic must be actual news for the purpose to be achieved. That is worth featuring on the main page. Looking at it like that, significance of the event and the pseudo news portal aspect is vastly less important. —Alalch E. 15:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  I must say, having a section called "In the News", then immediately pointing to things like NOTNEWS while multiple users and others bring up the staleness and dysfunction of ITN seems counterintuitive to me. So long as the section is called ITN, seems to me like getting nominations of events that are... in the news... is unavoidable. Connormah (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  Instead of having a "news ticker" where we debate the relevance of recent news, it would very much be an improvement to feature quality articles about recent events, regardless of their perceived significance. If someone can write a well-sourced, reasonably complete article about a recent event that doesn't fall into recentism, it very much should be featured, even if it is of minor importance in the grand scheme of things – and it would allow the reader to learn about recent events they might not have found about otherwise! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'm sure an editor could accomplish that, but their progress would swiftly be lost from people editing the article to add in every new headline that comes out. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  Some of those purposes cannot be always met because NOTNEWS applies to article content. Not every major story that media presents necessarily equates to having a WP article about it (standalone or not). As such, we cannot always serve the poibt of helping to direct readers to a news topic because it simply may be inappropriate for us to cover it. If we can meet them, great, but because ITN is still a main page feature, quality is as important, and again here, NOTNEWS and other p&g that fall from it expect that we write on news topics in an encyclopedic way, which requires thinking about the long term and not just dumping a bunch of information without thought into an article and call it good. And just like other main page sections, we also want to avoid systematic bias in featured items, which requires significance to be assessed subjectively. Masem (t) 15:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  Nah, Masem is 100% correct on this. If we were to post anything with decent coverage and an article that is okay quality wise, it would be the wild west, and honestly I would fear people would create fringe articles on purpose to create things that can easily get posted to the main page for clout or whatever. We'd have even more useless celebrity drama articles, articles about minor casualty events that may not carry any real impact, etc. And I think we already have a problem with radical article exclusivity across the site as it is. Any attempt to apply a RD-type criteria for the larger ITN would be a disaster. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  I strongly support removing the significance criteria. Let the reader and the sources decide what's significant and what's not, rather than Wikipedia editors endlessly arguing about it. No significance criteria has worked well for RD, it'll streamline ITN/C also. Levivich (talk) 18:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  FYI, started an RFCBEFORE discussion about it at Wikipedia talk:In the news#RFCBEFORE: removing significance criteria. Levivich (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  This should be advertised at VPP as well. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  Advertise an RFCBEFORE at VPP? Seems unusual to me but if you want to, no objection here. Levivich (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• Since I opened this discussion, Ad Orientem (admin), Alalch E., Amakuru (admin), AusLondonder, Bagumba (admin), Black Kite (admin), and Natg 19 have all expressed their belief that ITN is exempt from policy in favor of its own project page advice and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. I ask uninvolved administrators—or anyone else who has experience with this sort of thing–what the correct procedure is for dealing with this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  What a cynical misrepresentation of what I have said. What policy did I say ITN is exempt from? AusLondonder (talk) 18:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  Special:Diff/1244643131 you cited ITN advice pages to argue that editors should give their own novel analyses of a subject independently of reliable sources (against WP:OR) and that closers should give these !votes equal weight (against WP:CONSENSUS). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  That's quite a creative interpretation of my comment. You directly accused me and others of believing that "ITN is exempt from policy" - which is simply untrue. I cited WP:ITNSIGNIF, which for many years has offered guidance to editors about significance for ITN. This is no different to any other project. To call editorial judgement about what to include on ITN "original research" is simply ridiculous. Our WP:OR policy states that "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research." It explicitly states that "This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources" Yet you're now telling us that discussing what to include on ITN is original research? AusLondonder (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  It is if you're substituting your judgment as to what is significant for the judgment of RSes. Just like it's OR to substitute an editor's judgment of what's WP:DUE for the judgment of RSes. On article talk pages, when someone says "sure, all the sources cover it, but I don't think it's important enough to include," we rightly ignore those opinions as WP:OR. At ITN, when someone says the same thing, it apparently doesn't even get discounted when assessing consensus. This is how we ended up here. Levivich (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  I think we all know the only way this will be potentially resolved is through broader discussion about changing how ITN works by removing significance as a requirement. I've said my own view is that eliminating significance would be detrimental; others may agree or disagree. No doubt we'll soon be posting stories such as "Hawk Tuah girl throws first pitch" because objectively that was in the news. AusLondonder (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  Do we have that article? edit: we do... —Alalch E. 19:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, humans definitely aren't getting smarter... ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  Stuff like this is why trying to fix ITN without addressing the problem of lack of adherence to NOTNEWS across the project is the wrong approach. We have news articles with far too much detail, excessive commentary, and unnecessary splits, which is a symptom of multiple factors. Once we get editors to be more discerning of when to actually create articles on current events and write them in an encyclopedic manner from the start, then many of the issues that happen at ITN will resolve naturally (eg we can start on presuming a new current event article should be clearly notable and significant, and reduce that amount of discussion here) There are still going to be issues to resolve at ITN with that, but right now with far too many editors writing WP like a newspaper, those issues are hard to separate. Masem (t) 20:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  Once we get editors to be more discerning Ok you've been here for like 20 years, when do you expect this will happen? Levivich (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  Prior to ten years ago, it wasn't an issue. Since 2016 it's beconing worse and with several issues just this year (for similiar reasons that 2016 was a starting point) that's enlightened me to what the fundental problems are. While I plan to open a VPP discussion at some point on this NOTNEWS issues (and having to see that it wasn't just me that saw it) I want to make sure I establish the discussion with a suitable statement of the issues, which I have not crafted yet. Masem (t) 21:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  We need to see how it goes without the spurious significance "criterion" that drowns out other much more important considerations. It's better to codify "no viral and stupid crap" and use that as a criterion than to say "well, we have this criterion but you see, it's subjective". —Alalch E. 21:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Thebiguglyalien: you've accused me above of ignoring policy, yet so far nobody has mentioned any policy which the oppose votes at the Brazil discussion can be objectively said to have violated. You're indignant about something which can't be defined. You mention reliable sources and WP:OR above, which is all well and good, but those things only help with article writing and selecting which articles to keep and delete, they don't tell us anything about what's a suitable news story for ITN. Unless you're suggesting that all news stories that meet WP:GNG should be posted... But that would hardly work as the number of stories would be far too many for the template to handle. I have no particular love for the way ITN works currently, I think workshopping and forming consensus around some more clearcut guidelines would be terrific. But until that happens, we have nothing more we can go on. My endorse vote above is reflective purely on reality, not on my philosophical preferences.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  To this point, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:N, WP:NPOV, and WP:CONSENSUS have all been invoked. If the denizens of ITN don't want to be accused of making up their own criteria and inserting personal opinion into curation of content, then maybe the should stop doing those things. I'm not convinced by the argument that the ITN regulars aren't capable of governing themselves so they should just be allowed to keep screwing things up. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, all those policies have been brought up, but what on earth do they have to do with ITN? How do they inform the decision about what to post? If you can't answer that question, then all your argument amounts to is that your personal opinion about significant stories is more important than anyone else's. I'm not sure how that fits in with the consensus policy... Once again, I'd be happy to see improvements in the instructions going forward, I'm not a rigid denizen or ITN regular who insists on doing things the old way. But for the purposes of the Brazil / X story, those new yet-to-be-determined guidelines aren't in place yet so we're stuck with whatever people thought in the discussion.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  My argument is the same argument expressed by the shocked "overturn" !voters above. We follow reliable sources on Wikipedia. This is not a "yet-to-be-determined guideline". If anyone on ITN feels that the nature of their "work" makes them exempt the community's expectations, then they should be treated just like anyone else is treated when they think their area is exempt or that they wave around random projectspace pages as if they're enforceable. But it looks like community-level scrutiny might occur now, so that's really all I have to say on this until that process is seen out. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  Have you actually bothered to read any of the policies you keep throwing around? They're about content creation/articles in mainspace. For example, with WP:N: "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article" What about WP:OR? "This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources". You're pretty clearly misrepresenting policy. Is this deliberate or accidental? AusLondonder (talk) 02:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  Instead of replying to me with the same message in two different spots, you might read the reply I already left above. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not going to engage with you any further here about this because it's simply not constructive, and you're simply not going to acknowledge that the policies you have repeatedly cited such as WP:OR apply specifically to articles in mainspace and not discussion about what to feature on the mainpage.

  I'm glad an RfC will be started, hopefully this will settle the issue with wide participation. AusLondonder (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'm unimpressed by ITN/C too, but could you dial your holier than thou "T-ban them all" populism setting down to like a 6 please? Floquenbeam (talk) 19:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  Message received. Like I said above, I'm happy to leave it at this point while community scrutiny is taking place. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Please rename the correct season number

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

---

Greece's Next Top Model season 5 => Greece's Next Top Model season 3, Greece's Next Top Model season 6 => Greece's Next Top Model season 4, Greece's Next Top Model season 7 => Greece's Next Top Model season 5, according to the number of seasons given by the source, see [6]  Rafael Ronen  16:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Rafael Ronen, this is not a matter that requires an administrator. I would suggest starting a request move discussion, since it's reasonable to believe these moves would be controversial. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: I believe it is not controversial, the correct season number is given by the source, the creator of the past article wrote the wrong season number due to no source given due to Greece's Next Top Model connecting the season number with Next Top Model (Greek TV series)  Rafael Ronen  17:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Shrug. I see you've already requested the moves. Nothing more to do here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: I can delete at requested the moves if needed, I know a little English so I'm confused, sorry  Rafael Ronen  17:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Let the process play out there. The experienced volunteers will either action your requests or tell you what to do next. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: OK, thank you  Rafael Ronen  17:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Request early closure of RM for Springfield, Ohio, cat-eating hoax

I requested this RM on September 12 and I respectfully request that it be closed early, because it has clearly failed to achieve consensus, and subsequent developments relating to the topic have prompted me to withdraw my support for renaming it from "hoax" to "rumor". (I intend to submit a new RM relating to the "cat-eating" part of the title; modifying this part is broadly supported within the discussion of the current RM, but it has been drowned in controversy about "hoax" vs "rumor".) Carguychris (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 17:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! But there's still a RM template at the top of the article. Snafu? Carguychris (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

A bot will take care of it soon. NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 18:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@NightWolf1223 & @Carguychris: per WP:RMEC, an RM may not be withdrawn if any editor "has suggested any outcome besides not moving". Several editors supported a move in this discussion. Closing the RM and starting a new one to guide consensus is improper. I suggest reverting the close and closing the new discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

My pologies, I did not realize that was a condition. I will take care of that right now. NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 23:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I second voorts. Why close this early if editors were still in the process of reaching a consensus? It's obvious that with a topic like this, one that is currently controversial and a massive political talking point, there will be many editors talking about this and having different viewpoints on how to make this article Wikipedia-ready. Per previous discussions on the talk page, this RM was bound to happen anyways, so one editor shouldn't be able to close the RM they proposed, especially when so many others were engaged in active conversation under it. JungleEntity (talk) 16:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Please can someone undelete an article into a draft space, a lot more refs are now available

Hi all

I was involved in creating the article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Education Monitoring Report which was deleted for notability. I've found a large number of suitable refs recently and I'd like to revive the article. An admin kindly offered in the deletion discussion to undelete the article and put it in a draft, unfortunately they are no longer an admin. Could I please ask someone here to undelete it to User:John_Cummings/Articles/Global Education Monitoring Report so I can work on it?

Thanks :)

John Cummings (talk) 11:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Undeletions are requested at this page. 331dot (talk) 11:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Well and good for future reference, but I had a moment so I enacted. Primefac (talk) 12:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: courtesy ping as AfD closer. Daniel (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Just a general note, Liz does not respond to pings. Primefac (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)L

Color me embarrassed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Dear Primefac, Daniel and 331dot, thanks so much for your help :) John Cummings (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Revisiting § Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

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

---

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Extended confirmed protection policy, which rolled out the use of WP:ECP for non-ArbCom-mandated protection, required that Notification is to be posted in a subsection of AN for review, unless the topic is already authorized for 30/500 protection by the Arbitration Committee. The idea was that the community might want to form consensus on whether each individual use of ECP was the correct course of action.

Obviously, that does not happen anymore, nor do I think the community is interested in reviewing every case of autoconfirmed users edit warring. We continue to include a report at § Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection, which transcludes User:MusikBot/ECPMonitor/Report. Almost a decade later, I think it is time to remove this section from AN. AN is long enough already; we don't need additional clutter. Interested editors can watch User:MusikBot/ECPMonitor/Report directly.

Does anyone object to its removal? Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

No objection. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

No objection from me. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Removal is a good idea. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Good idea. Lectonar (talk) 07:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Probable sockpuppet User:Florentino floro

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

---

FrederickEvans According to the edits, this is most likely a blocked user. User:Florentino floro WikiBayer (talk) 11:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Quantum Volume persistent reverts

User:Cheer0000 has been persistently reverting changes on Quantum volume promoting a quantum computing system with a tie to cryptocurrency -- without providing any WP:SECONDARY sources or WP:RS. User had been warned once already with 3rr on the user's talk page. Other accounts have in the recent past also tried to add similar information. Michaelmalak (talk) 16:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I very sincerely apologize for MichaelMalak's ignorance. Dynex is a decentralized supercomputer, that is of course, orders of magnitude more powerful than any other quantum supercomputer, and its not even close. The difference is many exponents. I don't know why he's crying about crypto-currency. A quantum volume is a quantum volume, it doesn't matter. It is what it is. I don't know why he's crying about it Cheer0000 (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

NOTHERE'd and semi'd the article for two weeks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, I don't know if it's worth an SPI to check if Cheer0000 and DrMartin1970 are socks or just meat. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

 The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says: meat.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, they're certainly socking now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Content model change

Hello everyone, could someone please help me out by changing the content model for User:BaranBOT/RestrictionScan from text to JSON? Thanks in advance! – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Please tell me that having absolutely no clue what this all means doesn't mean I'm a "legacy admin". Floquenbeam (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm still trying to get used to this whole internet on computers thing. Canterbury Tail talk 19:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I know this isn't actually information you need (and so certainly not a big deal that you don't know it), but: The content model of a page is basically a flag to tell your web browser or other computers what kind of stuff to expect in that page. For most pages, such as articles, talk pages, etc., the content model is "wikitext", because the page is full of (presumably) human-readable text that uses wiki markup, like article prose or talk page discussions (e.g. this one). Changing the content model to JSON tells computers to expect the data within a page to be in the JSON format--this stands for "JavaScript Object Notation", and is basically a way to create structured data that is readable by computers without making it too impenetrable for humans. So, this change in content model just means you're telling computers "expect this page to contain data that a computer can read", and so it can be used by various tools, bots, etc. that are looking for it. Other examples of content models include "Javascript", which tells a computer "expect this page to contain Javascript code that a computer can execute". Admins can change the content model of pages using the Special:ChangeContentModel link. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Since this request is resolved, sorry for this extra comment. I was working on a tool and needed this page in JSON format. This tool helps check if there are any community or ARBCOM-imposed editing restrictions on users. If you use the MoreMenu gadget, you can add the following code to your Special:MyPage/common.js. This will add a new option named 'Editing restriction' to the user menu on any user's page, making it easy to check their editing restrictions.

mw.hook('moremenu.ready').add(function (config) {
    var username = mw.config.get('wgTitle');
    var encodedUsername = encodeURIComponent(username);
    var url = 'https://restrictionscan.toolforge.org/?search=' + encodedUsername;

    MoreMenu.addLink(
        'user',
        'Editing restrictions',
        url
    );
});

– DreamRimmer (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Just a technical correction: the content-type header in the HTTP response is what the browser uses to determine how to handle the content in the response. The MediaWiki content model is used by the MediaWiki software to determine how it should handle the content on that page (which can include returning it with the appropriate content-type header when serving the raw content to a browser). For example, when editing the page, it will launch a different editor for a page with the JSON content model than one with the wikitext content model. isaacl (talk) 22:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Just FYI, next time you need a JSON subpage, if you create the page with the title ending in .json it should automatically set the content model to json for you. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks xaosflux. I knew that .json pages have JSON content model by default and I'm using .json pages like User:BaranBOT/Task 1/Drives/2024-09 New Page Patrol/config.json; I just wanted one without the .json extension. – DreamRimmer (talk) 12:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, you can create it with the .json extension and then move it to a different name, which won't change the content model. isaacl (talk) 22:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• Also for future reference, you can use {{TPER|force=yes}} to request content model changes, and the special page that actually does this is Special:ChangeContentModel. SilverLocust 💬 02:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Possible involvement of Admin in ARBPIA area

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

---

I would like to request input from the community over a disagreement about what WP:INVOLVED means within context of User:Red-tailed hawk's activity both as an editor and admin in ARBPIA sanctioned areas. I have not done a deep assessment to what extent they are acting within ARBPIA as an editor versus an admin, but there are numerous examples listed by others in this diff. Others have argued that the percentage/number of edits would determine whether there is involvement or not.

Several people have expressed their concern, but nearly everyone opining is INVOLVED according to their self admissions (myself included), input from the community would be helpful.

If this is the incorrect venue, please recommend a more proper venue. I have alerted RTH on their talk page about this discussion. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I've had some involvement in the ARBPIA area, but haven't really actively participated in a while. I think creating articles, voting in RMs, participating in talk page discussions, etc. (all listed at that diff), makes someone involved. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I haven't looked into the specific concerns here, and am in no way challenging them. But I want to note my view that participating in widely advertised discussions - AfDs, RMs, RfCs - does not necessarily make someone involved, because in theory a lot of participation there is evaluating evidence others have provided, rather than being based on your own views and experience. Of course a lot of participants in meta discussions are there because they have experience in the subject that does make them involved. Understanding whether someone is capital-I Involved really comes down to the substance of their participation, not the numbers, namespaces, or venues. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Starting an RM, in contrast, would be based on your own views and experience? Levivich (talk) 23:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that involved really comes down to the substance of their participation, so I just took a look at RTH's 25 edits to the "Israel-Hamas war" article as an example, and here are some edits I saw, with additions and deletions shown:

• "Palestinian militant"
• "violence against Israeli civilians have also been reported occurred"
• "Islamist militant groups Hezbollah and Al-Quds Brigades"
• "United States government announced it is supporting Israel by moving will move an aircraft carrier"
• "large-scale invasion and offensive against Israel"; "Hamas offensive attack"
• removing the "Misinformation" section
• "some analysts" removed as "weasel" for "an intelligence failure for the ages"; "some analysts" added for "Israel's 9/11 moment"

I'm not saying these edits violate policy, but they are substantive edits that meaningfully change the content. I haven't checked the 40+ talk page edits. This is just one article. Levivich (talk) 23:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Starting an RM would depend on the RM. In that case, it's borderline. Your other examples, and one more I found on the talk page, are clearer: commenting below momentarily. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think those examples prove anything, other than that RTH makes good copy edits. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I also think RTH is correct that the Misinformation section was a COATRACK in the making. That said, I think a valid Misinformation section could be written that provides a broad overview of the role of misinformation, rather than a tick-tock approach that provides random examples. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Those are not copy edits. Levivich (talk) 23:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• "Palestinian militant" introduces Palestinians for the first time in that paragraph to clarify that it was Palestinian militants infiltrating into Israel.
• Here's the full sentence Numerous cases of violence against Israeli civilians have also been reportedoccurred since the beginning of the Hamas offensive, including a massacre at a music festival in Re'im that killed at least 260. Violence did occur and there was a massacre at a music festival; they weren't merely "reported".
• "Islamist militant groups Hezbollah and Al-Quds Brigades" Hezbollah and Al-Quds are Islamist militant groups and are described as such by our articles on them; this is something our readers should know.
• Full sentence: The United States government announced it iswill supporting Israel by movingmove an aircraft carrier, warships, and military jets to the eastern Mediterranean and providingwill provide Israel with additional military equipment and ammunition. "Supporting Israel" did not need to be stated because that was obvious from the sentence's content; the U.S. didn't send a warship and re-arm Israel to oppose them.
• ""large-scale invasion and offensive against Israel"; "Hamas offensive attack" Both of these are true statements. The Hamas incursion into Israel was definitionally an invasion. Attack is more simple language than "offensive"
• "Some analysts": The first example properly attributed an idea to its author. The second example rephrased the very clunky "This conflict has also been called by analysts" to "Some analysts have described this war as". Neither is perfect, but the second is better.

voorts (talk/contributions) 00:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

They're not copy edits because copyediting is fixing grammar/typos/readability without changing the meaning, whereas these edits are, as Vanamonde says below, substantive edits that meaningfully alter POV. Whether they're good or bad edits is not the point (I think some are good), and discussing the merits of the edits is a distraction. Levivich (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing which of those examples meaningfully alter the article's POV in context. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll reply on your talk page. Levivich (talk) 01:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Link to disscusson for future record [7] LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 09:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Here's a permanent link: Special:PermanentLink/1242930605#From AN. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

RE the merits of the edits is a distraction. I think intent matters. Even if each of those edits altered the articles' POVs, they don't alter them in an ideologically consistent way: some edits could be construed as pro-Israel, some as pro-Palestinian. That further leads me to believe that these were intended to be clean up edits for grammar/style (sorry for using the phrase "copy editing" interchangeably), rather than stealthy insertions of non-neutral material. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED is clear: editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. Involvement is about participation in particular disputes—concrete things where users are in disagreement—not about having written an article or two within the context a broad topic area or having participated substantially in a small number of article talk pages in the area. In discussions that I have participated, I have not acted as an administrator—I am not, for example, going around and closing RMs, nor XfDs, nor RfCs in which I have participated. And I will continue to not act as an administrator in those sorts of discussions where I have participated in the capacity as an ordinary editor, just as (for example) GorillaWarfare has done in the context of WP:GENSEX. But I am deeply skeptical of the notion that my relatively limited editing in the area has somehow made me involved in literally every dispute that might relate somehow to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, as appears to be suggested by Voorts above. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I should have been more careful with how I phrased my comment. Initially, I don't know how many edits you've made in the area or whether your edits in this area are disproportionate to the edits you make in other areas such that it could lead to an inference that you have a vested interest in the area, so I can't opine on that. And, to clarify, I don't think that your contributions (of which there are only examples listed) makes you involved in literally every dispute that might relate somehow to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. I think that it might make you involved in some disputes in the area; for example, if you tend to take a particular view in discussions on the topic, you would be involved to the extent that that view affects how you might perceive a conflict or how others might perceive your participation. I think it's more nuanced than just saying "you are involved writ large". voorts (talk/contributions) 23:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 2) I don't believe that involvement in some part of ARBPIA necessarily makes someone involved in all of it: in that respect, RTH, I agree. Some of the examples Levivich gives above, though, and this one from your talk, are substantive content edits about the current military conflict, all of which are substantial alterations to article POV (not necessarily bad ones, but that's not the point). I don't see how you can argue you are unvinvolved with respect to the war of 23-24. And blanking the discussion on your talk page is permissible but not a good look. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  With respect to the last point, I had not realized that the link Shushugah had posted above was a live link to a section rather than a permalink. I've restored the comments as such. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'd also agree that there are certain aspects of the war that I'd be involved with, namely the parts where I've participated as a content editor. But I don't think I'd be a wp:involved closer if I were to take on the Nuseirat rescue operation merge request or the Al-Tabaeen school attack move request that are presently at WP:RFCLOSE, for example, because I haven't been involved in those sorts of disputes. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  There is a limit to how much you can subdivide a topic. Being involved with isolated pages is one thing; making substantive content edits to pages central to the war is another. I would advise against closing either of those discussions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe this discussion has gone too far at this point, but, given that actions are forward-looking rather than punitive, and nobody's really suggested any particular action in particular, would RTH or the community really object if RTH simply promised to take more notice of the perceived separation needed between admin actions and involved editor conduct in the future? It seems at this point, a simple good faith assurance from an administrator in good standing to simply tread a little more carefully ought to be sufficient. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The "involved" guidelines were written long ago when there was no official concept of topic areas. Now we have 33 topic areas officially designated as contentious. The recognition of these topic areas as well-defined units comes not only from the overlapping of article contents but also from the fact that editors within the topic area tend to align themselves into factions that persist from article to article. Regarding the ARBPIA area (which should be considered as only one example of many), it may not be obvious to outsiders that there are deep connections between articles. For example, Zionist land purchases in the 1930s might seem far removed from Hamas' attack on Israel last year, but in fact they are intimately related. In my view, involvement as an editor in part of a contentious topic makes an administrator involved in that contentious topic. I'm also not convinced by an argument that edits in the topic area were innocuous, unless they are merely clerical (fixing a citation template for example). It isn't necessary to reverse a meaning in order to generate a dispute; changes in emphasis and word choice can do it too and that is common. Voting in RMs and RfCs is prima facie involvement in a dispute. In summary, I believe that administrators should not perform both edits and administrative tasks in the same contentious topic. Zero^talk 03:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like a sensible guideline to follow. Does this sound doable, Red-tailed hawk? With "involvement" issues, I've found it best to be overly cautious or these questions keep being rasied again and again. Best to nip it in the bud than to have to revisit this question. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: That administrators should not perform both edits and administrative tasks in the same contentious topic sounds nice to one's ear, but I think it would concretely fail as a rule because several CTOP areas are extremely broad:

If someone writes a biography about a living Norwegian musical artist once, I don't think that should prohibit them from enforcing the CTOP that is biographies of living persons in the context of a totally unrelated biography about a librarian from Kalamazoo. Nor do I think that adding information to the article on Russian chess Grandmaster Ian Nepomniachtchi about his 2013 victory over Russian chess grandmaster Peter Svidler in the Russian Chess superfinal would or ought forever bar an administrator from enforcing the CTOP of Eastern Europe and the Balkans, even though it is an edit that would be in the scope of the extremely broad Eastern Europe topic area. Nor do I think that an editor who has once added content regarding former chess world champion Vishwanathan Anand's 1992 chess olympiad performance on Team India should forever be barred from closing discussions that relate to municipalities in Afghanistan, even though both are within the India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan contentious topics area.

I don't think any reasonable individual would see the sort of editing described above as somehow being involved in the dispute when it comes to the corresponding edit in the topic area. Zero's proposal is an idea, but I think that it's an overbroad one. And frankly it's one that I routinely see rejected when people make closure challenges—it would be a new rule. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 13:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I am hoping to bring the wording of the involved rule up to date to match the spirit of it. I don't claim to have the perfect way of doing that. You are correct that some CTs are unreasonably broad and that is a good point. ARBPIA is not one of them, though. Regulars in ARBPIA can tell within one or two edits what POV a new editor has and how they will act in other ARBPIA articles. The topic does not consist of a lot of sub-topics with only a nominal connection. Zero^talk 13:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to the argument that Contentious Topics can be overly broad when they involve either large country/populations (including BLP). I am not proposing a blanket change/clarification on how all contentious topics are handled, but ARBPIA specifically which has the strictest sanctions including 500/30 rule. Furthermore, if this was about Palestinian chess participants while possibly part of ARBPIA, it would be grey area. The example articles and actions here are firmly within ARBPIA scope. On other hand, in your analogy, if someone was tenaciously editing Chess related articles to promote a national angle, it could be raised here but I would rather focus on ARBPIA than other hypothetical areas. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with "administrators should not perform both edits and administrative tasks in the same contentious topic". But I sometimes wonder whether an admin who will later spend time at AE on cases related to a specific topic area might benefit from having spent some time as an "involved" editor in the topic area before detaching and becoming uninvolved to perform admin tasks. This is probably not practical in the real world, and I guess the 'benefit' might not end up being a benefit. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

At my RFA I was asked two days into the process, Please explain how you plan to approach disputes related to the Scientific skepticism topic area as an administrator, including whether or when you would recuse and any exceptions to a recusal. I responded I'd approach them much like I try to approach any dispute, neutrally and with a level head. I wouldn't recuse from the topic area, although I'm clearly INVOLVED with many of the active editors in the topic, so don't expect any admin action from me dealing with them. I went on to sail through RFA with little drama^jokes!. My answer didn't raise any eyebrows or objections, despite having been a party to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing, having invoked the BLP allowance from 3RRNO, and having been involved with several disputes in the overlapping CTOPS of WP:ARBPS, WP:ARBCOVID, and WP:ARBBLP.

I'm not going to weigh in on this particular case because I really shouldn't have any say on what administrators are allowed to administer the topic area, but I did want to address this particular reading of INVOLVED, and how it played out in a discussion with over 300 editors. WP:INVOLVED refers to current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. Regular editing that does not involve disputes and prior involvements [that] are minor or obvious edits that do not show bias as called out by voorts do not, to me, cause a widespread INVOLVEment in a topic area. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• I don't think regular editing in a topic area automatically makes an admin involved for the entire topic, but in contentious topics, it might. An admin who regularly edits around radio stations, likely not involved w/re: adminning at radio station articles they didn't create or haven't heavily edited. At ARBPIA, very possibly yes. And even at radio stations, if other regular editors or uninvolved editors are telling you you're too involved to be an admin, I'd say listen carefully. Valereee (talk) 12:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  What if their involvement in the topic area was minor enough that over seven months of working ARBPIA at AE went by without any of the regular editors thinking to raise concerns about involvement? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  Conflict of interest (or the appearance of it) should be a matter of self-policing not a question of it's OK if nobody notices. And when people do notice, then that should definitely be the case. Selfstudier (talk) 13:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  First, you gotta stop using "the regulars" as if it's an actual discrete group. Second, it's not like editors remember everyone else who edits in a topic area they are active in. There are thousands of editors who have edited this topic area, and most editors aren't online all the time or watching all the articles the way some editors do. Third, just because we see a problem doesn't mean we always bring it up. I haven't brought up all the problems I see with admins in this topic area, for example. Doesn't mean I don't think they exist. A lack of complaint is not indicative of a lack of problem. Levivich (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  I was quoting the use of regulars by Valereee (if other regular editors or uninvolved editors are telling you you're too involved to be an admin) when responding to their point. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  "other regular editors" is not the same as "the regular editors". The article "the" suggests a discrete and monolithic group, especially in the context of an AE referral against "the regulars" with aspersions at ARCA by referring admins (not "the referring admins") such as "the regulars in the topic area have worked together to create a hostile battleground ... the impact of the regulars" and so forth. Editors with experience in a topic area do not constitute a monolothic group and should not be "othered" in this way, time for this habit to end. Levivich (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  I think you should assume you've become involved once other editors are saying you're involved. It's not perfect -- as Levivich says, the absence of expressed concerns doesn't mean the absence of unvoiced concerns -- but if others are saying so, you should probably listen. And if you're reluctant to decide you're involved and become an editor in that area, that may be another data point. Valereee (talk) 15:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  I think you should assume you've become involved once other editors are saying you're involved. My own thinking leans in this direction. The perception of others is important to take into account, so that everyone feels that the process is fair. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  The text WP:INVOLVED mentions disputes as a scope, because those are well defined, whereas for the vast majority of Wikipedia, "topics" do not have a well defined scope — with the exceptions of the ~30 ArbCom Sanctioned Contentious Topics. A clear definition of scope would help us avoid more thorny and content specific questions raised by RTH for example whether a hostage rescues is somehow separate from the Israel-Hamas war or if the creation of Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip does not make them an involved admin in both the current war and more generally in all Arab-Israeli Conflict related articles when requesting clarification at ARCA.

  All of which is to say, I believe all of their edits — if in editorial capacity were reasonable conduct wise, but with regards to WP:ADMINCONDUCT they raise the appearance of impropriety. The text or WP:INVOLVED is not directly written for admins, but it's referenced in WP:ADMINCONDUCT. The focus shouldn't merely be on closure decisions of RM discussions, but also on how they conduct themselves as an uninvolved admin on wider reaching policies of ARBPIA topics. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• We should remember that "involved" is not just about what admins are capable of being level-headed about. It's also about community perception of their objectivity. Appearances matter and we should keep our house squeaky clean. I'm mostly concerned about the case (which doesn't necessarily apply to Red-tailed hawk) where an editor demonstrates a personal POV in a contentious topic, even in a corner of it, and later becomes an admin and seeks to police the topic. It should not be enough to argue that the admin hadn't interacted with some particular editor or wasn't involved in some particular dispute. Allowing too much choice will even invite some editors to take this career path in order to best influence the topic. Zero^talk 13:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  Also there's an actual shooting war going on right now. I think wp:involved applies to simultaneously editing and adminning about the same ongoing war, even if it wasn't a ctop area. For ctops, even more so. Levivich (talk) 13:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  I disagree with it, but the community recently did not find convincing arguments that an editor who had expressed a POV in a contentious topic was involved with that topic - some editors who are arguing here that Red-Tailed Hawk is involved actually argued against that close appeal.

  With that said, if there is evidence that RTH is partisan then I would support them recusing themselves. So far, I have not seen any such evidence, although it is possible that I overlooked it. BilledMammal (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'm one of the editors who endorsed that close. Because expressing a pov on your userpage doesn't make you involved in a topic area. Making substantive edits in the topic area does. Also, because it's OK for an involved editor to close a clear (3:1) RfC. Userspace content vs editing articles is apples and oranges. Closing RFCs vs adminning in CT areas is also apples and oranges. Levivich (talk) 14:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  No, people disagreed that the quote you objected to on a user page rendered somebody involved. Not that, as here, repeated content edits in a topic area, discussions in the topic area, starting articles in the topic area, makes somebody involved. As far as I can see, you took an incredibly expansive reading of INVOLVED there, but an incredibly narrow one here. nableezy - 14:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  My view is that partisanship, where an editor demonstrates a personal POV in a contentious topic, is what is required to become involved across a broad topic area.

  I see no reasonable justification for carving out an exception for personal POV’s demonstrated in user space, and I am applying this equally to both RTH and that closer. If editors have evidence that RTH is partisan, then I believe they should recuse. BilledMammal (talk) 14:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  I would tend to agree with BilledMammal that demonstrating a personal POV would make an editor involved, as, even on a user page, it does still intersect the topic area, in the same way you can make CTOP edits on primarily non-CTOP pages. However, I don't see it as a necessary condition to be involved, and I do also believe that editors making many non-trivial edits are also involved even if the edits don't necessarily demonstrate a specific POV. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  I do also believe that editors making many non-trivial edits are also involved even if the edits don't necessarily demonstrate a specific POV.

  I agree with this, although I don’t think it applies to either the case of RTH or that closer, both of whom have made relatively few edits in the topic area. Of course, if the community disagrees I will adjust my expectations of closers and admins going forward. BilledMammal (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  People disagreed that the quote you objected to showed a personal POV in a contentious topic. That does not render moot what WP:INVOLVED actually says, and it does not make it so your attempt at waving away the views you disagree with as hypocritical is substantiated in the slightest. "Partisan" does not appear once in Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved_admins. What it actually says is Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute, qualified by One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits that do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator involved. The former is demonstrated by showing editing in disputes on the topic that are not related to the latter. nableezy - 14:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• I'm concerned that some of my colleagues are construing a topic area too broadly, and others, "dispute" too narrowly. Some of our CTOPs are enormous: involvement in one part of a CTOP cannot reasonably be construed to mean involvement in all of it. I said as much at my RFA eight years ago [8], and I stand by that. At the same time, substantially editing an article unquestionably makes you INVOLVED with it. You don't need to be party to an editing dispute. Most of my content work isn't contentious; nonetheless, I am INVOLVED with respect to pages I've made major edits on, and where they fall within a coherent topic, in the topic as well. The question here is simply whether RTH's edits can be construed as minor (fixing grammar or formatting, for instance) or maintenance-related (reverting vandalism or unsourced content). I don't believe it can. And given a half-dozen examples related to the Israel–Hamas war, I don't believe anyone can reasonably argue those are isolated examples any more. The apparent POV of the edits does not matter. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  So from your POV, RTH is INVOLVED with the Israel-Hamas war but not, say, Zionist land purchases in the 1930s to name an example from upthread? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  [Disclaimer: RTH and I are personal friends and wrote a GA together. I also said, in supporting his RfA, that we "have disagreed in almost every discussion we've both participated in". Make of that what you will.]

  Topic-area-level involvement is a tricky thing. ArbCom has never clearly endorsed such a concept—there was some language in RexxS that some have read that way, but also a number of cases, including Arbitration enforcement and GiantSnowman, where, even in sanctioning or criticizing an administrator, the Committee failed to find a broad issue with them adminning in a content area they edit. And yet some level of proximity feels inappropriate and occasionally has landed admins in hot water. What I found in my time as an admin was that the most important variable is degree of engagement. Mere copy-edits don't preclude an admin from using admin powers even regarding the page they copy-edited. On the other end of the spectrum, being a major player in RfCs etc. might disqualify an admin from an entire topic, although I don't think an entire topic area (caveat on that later). For instance, I was involved in many discussions about trans people's names and pronouns, so didn't admin about that at all (excluding obviously bad-faith conduct). But GENSEX is a large topic area, and I never had a problem with adminning elsewhere in it, besides of course cases where I was more directly involved. Compare and contrast with my participation in say, AMPOL or RUSUKR, where I've created or improved a few articles, but not been involved much in higher-level decisionmaking. In those, I steered clear of the specific articles I worked on and closely-related ones, or users I'd come into conflict with, and that was enough. (And of course one can play devil's advocate here and say no I should have been stricter, but I'm speaking descriptively about an approach that objectively worked to keep me out of trouble, and I'm not an admin anymore so y'all can't desysop me even if you want to. :P )

  Now, as several have pointed out, everything in the PIA topic area, especially during the ongoing war, is very closely related, in a way that differs from, say, GENSEX, where there's quite a bit of distance between RuPaul's Drag Race and the Seneca Falls Convention. There's very few things in PIA that don't tie in to the current war. It's not true in the opposite direction: I don't think a lot of edits to conflict-related parts of hummus, Bar Refaeli, and You Don't Mess with the Zohan would necessarily disqualify someone from adminning ARBPIA; but being involved in consensus-building about the current war does seem a lot closer to involvement with the entire conflict, at least for such time as the war is so central to the overall conflict. So this feels less like the dubious concept of topic-area-level involvement, and more like single-topic-level involvement, where that topic happens to, at this moment in time, extend to basically the whole topic area. Again, not just because of participating at all, but because of participating in those meta-level processes.

  This does get to, as Zero gets at, the matter that WP:INVOLVED is pretty old and out-of-date. Among other things, it technically doesn't have an exemption for "any reasonable editor" + potentially controversial admin, only the other way around, even though it's often cited that way; it barely discusses applicability to non-admins (and probably shouldn't even be in WP:ADMIN anymore); it doesn't address the different way "involved" is used in close appeals, including by ArbCom; and there's been a semantic drift from "involved but exempt" (the policy's approach) to "exempt so not involved" (how it's often phrased). More profoundly, it does not address the conflict between "any reasonable administrator" and administrative discretion; can an involved admin no-warn-indef someone who vandalizes an article they wrote, even if they normally would warn, just because some admins would do so? Even more fundamentally, does the policy reward admins for not engaging with the actual work of building an encyclopedia, encouraging the existence of a class of admins with high social capital but low content proficiency? Now there's a question.

  -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 17:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  Even more fundamentally, does the policy reward admins for not engaging with the actual work of building an encyclopedia, encouraging the existence of a class of admins with high social capital but low content proficiency? Now there's a question. I feel confident to answer this question "no". There is a huge amount of content to edit and there is a huge amount of admin work that is to be done. Also, as someone who thinks the general rule is that every admin should have serious content writing experience, I would dispute the idea that keeping our encyclopedia free of vandalism is not the actual work of building the encyclopedia. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, but interests tend to overlap between content and conduct. For instance, I follow news about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict intently. I lived in Israel for two months as a teen. I've tried really hard to understand perspectives on both sides of the conflict, even at one point simultaneously dating a Zionist and a pro-Palestinian hardliner. (I mean that's not why I dated them, but it did prove useful for learning two very different perspectives.) I think I definitely would have something offer to the topic area as an editor. But as an admin I knew that I had a choice, at least as a matter of drama avoidance if not of policy: Edit in this area, or admin in it. So I picked the latter. Maybe that's how it has to be. I didn't pose the above question rhetorically, and I think your answer is reasonable. But it does seem unfortunate that people who are knowledgeable about a subject often have to pick either contributing to the encyclopedia's content (better phrasing?) or making sure the topic area doesn't get overrun with bad actors. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 18:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  @BK49: I have not yet seen evidence that RTH was INVOLVED with respect to "Zionist land purchases in the 1930s", and I would not hold that his edits with respect to the current war would necessarily make him so INVOLVED. Ultimately, only RTH is able to judge where his personal opinions are strong enough that he shouldn't be adminning. This is my view of his on-wiki contributions. Tamzin, I don't believe the perverse incentive you describe exists; there is just so much one can do as an admin. I've made substantive content edits in a very wide range of subjects. I don't struggle to find admin actions I can take. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  I think the community (and if it were to come to it, ArbCom) can also absolutely weigh in on whether or not someone is INVOLVED. We may not be able to see into someone's mind to know whether their personal opinions are strong enough that he shouldn't be adminning but we can judge their actions and say, whatever their own internal monlogue, that we believe them INVOLVED. So in that sense I think this thread is useful to RTH (and others) and I would hope RTH takes the feedback offered here seriously with future actions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Barkeep49 I phrased that badly; actions on-wiki can certainly make someone INVOLVED regardless of their opinions. However, there are articles where I stay away from using the tools despite my lack of on-wiki involvement, because I know I cannot be dispassionate there: it is the latter category to which I was referring, when I said only RTH can speak to that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  Dear admins. If everytime policy comes up, we get these huge discussions by experts who cannot quite agree on how to read them, how are mere peons like myself expected to go ahead editing serenely, when the policies one tries to respect prove so subjective? Nishidani (talk) 20:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  That's the rub, yeah. It also applies to admins, who have to decide how to read and enforce those policies. That's one of the reasons I've come to this noticeboard a number of times with concerns about my own involvement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  I've often admired your scrupulousness, even though I sometimes feel threatened by it. But the issue is that there is a natural disparity between admins and editors. The former judge the latter, but not (thankfully) the peonry the former. Precisely for this reason, the rigours of policy-adherence, however interpreted, placed on the generality of editors should be even, if slightly, more exacting for admins. One could write a short sociological tract on how these minor, if important and indiespensable, differences of 'class' play out interactively. But not here. Nishidani (talk) 21:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  I agree (see also my User:Barkeep49/Elite), but isn't INVOLVED an example of a more exacting standard for admins? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  Well, surely Barkeep, a standard can never be exacting if there is quite some leeway in its application? Aren't many arguments here alluding to Hewart's dictum that a semblance of judicial bias saps the authority of judgments. Latitudinarian defenses here don't appear to consider this important. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 09:47, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  I mentioned this below, but my opinion is that the question ought to be "does the topic area have an underlying dispute?" The AP2 and ARBPIA topic areas are ones that mostly consist of a single big dispute - one side vs. another side. There might be a few articles that fall under there which aren't part of those disputes (eg. AP2 areas that don't touch on left-right or party politics at all) but for the most part, there's one core dispute and if you're INVOLVED for that you're going to be INVOLVED for most discussions that could fall in that topic area. Others, like GENSEX, consist of a few interlocking disputes - weighing in on trans issues makes you INVOLVED for that entire dispute, but it doesn't necessarily mean you can't serve as an admin for stuff about the act of sex, say, or gender-equality, which are more tangential. And then there's a few, like BLP, which aren't really about a specific topic-wide dispute at all, where this wouldn't apply and it isn't really possible to be involved in the entire area as a result. --Aquillion (talk) 07:22, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

So, is there an action or something that is under dispute here? What is the remedy or desired outcome here? Arkon (talk) 23:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

The question I raised is whether RTH is involved. If so, he would not be able to act in an admin capacity (closing discussions, blocking users and any other non-controversial admin tasks) when editing in said areas of ARBPIA (or subtopics) which the community is figuring out. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Normally when we seek to hold admins accountable, we need some sort of complaint about their conduct. It's hard to determine whether someone is INVOVLED or misusing the tools when there's nothing on the table to evaluate. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

RTH has commented as an uninvolved admin in a number of ARBPIA AE reports, including some I've filed, and one he closed and referred to arbcom (not unilaterally). Those are the specific admin actions at issue here. Levivich (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• As part of my support for RTH's RfA just eight months ago, I made the following comment: "I've not landed here completely without reservation and I hope the candidate in their future mop work takes on board what I see as a number of constructive comments. I'd opine that at this point a reluctance to wield the mop in the arena of US geo/politcs broadly defined might be appropriate." Rather than being bogged down in definitions of involved, is there so great a shortage of admins that RTH making a good faith offer to agree not to undertake mop work in the topic area would have dramatic effect? Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  Involved/uninvolved issue aside, AE is chronically understaffed in all topic areas. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  So not a "dramatic effect" if one less in one topic area, yes? Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 08:22, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  This kind of sounds like the opposite of what SFR is arguing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  I think the involved issue should be decided without taking into account admin attendance at AE. That said, it will have a significant effect on staffing at AE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'm fully aware that your diligence has led to an unenviable situation of overwork. That is clearly unfair. But I also think that even increasing the number of admins present, if their job to include following articles closely, is no solution, rather to the contrary. A casual click on two of the 100 articles I listed (a small sample of those created after Oct 7, reveals an edit count varying from 150 to 15,000 (Israel Hamas war)depending on the article. The temptation is to focus on editing by familiar names, a score of editors, on a baker's dozen of articles, and ignore the contributions of several hundred who have edited without notable problems arising. If that is the working rule, it creates a circular feedback loop that will confirm the hypothesis that the area is 'dominated' by regulars who have a battleground mentality. As I said, the sheer volume of editors in well over a hundred articles created and developed over this period argues statistically against the theory that the IP area is governed by a handful of warring regulars. The place works relatively straightforwardly without minute capillary monitoring, which in any case is not what we need from admins. If there is an impasse, or stubborn misbehaviour, yes, by all means. Historically, admins stay quiet, look on and only intervene when disputes become intractable and parties resort to ANI/AE. In 18 years I have gained absolute trust in admins, a good many, I never see in the IP area except when reports are arbitrated. Nishidani (talk) 12:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'm pretty sure if RTH comments "above the line" in the regular editor section instead of "below the line" in the uninvolved admin section, AE will not be significantly impacted. For example, I filed 5 AE reports, RTH only commented in 1 of them, and it was the one he closed as refer to arbcom; the others were processed fine without his involvement. If RTH had commented "above the line" on that one, the only thing that would have changed is maybe we wouldn't have that ARCA that's open now (which I obviously don't think is helpful). Based on those 5 reports as a sample size, and I'll add Nishidani's as a 6th (where RTH gave credence to an obvious sock's obviously bad report, which lasted until the obvious sock was blocked as a compromised account), I would argue that moving RTH to "above the line" for ARBPIA (or at least for the war) would improve AE not harm it. Levivich (talk) 13:24, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  If RTH hadn't commented as an uninvolved admin you'd still have had 3 other uninvolved admin agreeing to refer to arbcom. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  Further evidence that RTH commenting above the line would not have made a significant difference.

  Personally I'm not so sure we'd still be at ARCA, but even if we were, it wouldn't have been the same ARCA filing (someone else would have had to write it and maybe would have written it differently, maybe with different parties, maybe with different issues, and maybe even with some evidence) or made at the same time (without RTH, maybe you would have finished your review of the diffs and posted your thoughts on them, who knows what might have happened).

  Also not for nothing but you know what the other 3 admin all have in common? Recent significant conflict with me. That may not make them wp:involved but I don't think they're quite "uninvolved admin," either. Levivich (talk) 16:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  What stopped me from finishing my review of the diffs - the part of which I'd done and already indicated I found trouble with - was this comment which suggested to me there was no way to keep that report focused on האופה. I'm also sorry to hear that your thinking that because I disagree with your definition of tagteaming, while agreeing that at least some of the conduct in the diffs you provide violate conduct expectations, and not for nothing agreeing that RTH needs to think differently about INVOLVED, is a signficant conflict with you because it would not have registered as such with me. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  The reason there was no way to keep the report focused on the reported editor was because some of the reviewing admins kept talking about other editors who weren't named in the report (that diff you linked was made in response to such comments). Up until that happened in my fifth report, everything was fine (we had no problems in the first four). The "significant conflict" between us I was referring to was the arbcom case last year. Levivich (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, I think it's obviously a violation of WP:INVOLVED. Full disclosure, I have had conflict with Red-Tailed Hawk on this subject in the past - they previously closed several WP:RSN discussions on sources with a clear bias in terms of left-right politics and AP2 in particular, despite having previously been fairly active in those areas themselves and having reasonably discernible perspectives about both it and its sourcing; and disagreed when I suggested to them that they were INVOLVED. My opinion here is the same as it was then - we have a thousand admins, and Wikipedia covers a vast array of topics; there is no need for them to administrate topic areas where they've expressed opinions in the past, which inevitably creates at least the appearance of a conflict of interest. Many topic areas (GENSEX, AP2, and of course ARBPIA) are themselves large unwieldy ongoing disputes; serious involvement, at least to the point where an broad opinion can be discerned, constitutes involvement in that underlying dispute in a way that should generally bar admins from acting there. There are a few WP:CTOPS that aren't really disputes in the conventional sense and where this wouldn't apply (BLP, most obviously, isn't a singular dispute), and a few that can be broken down into multiple distinct disputes (expressing an opinion on the trans dispute shouldn't make someone WP:INVOLVED for unrelated articles about sexual activity), but those are exceptions - for most topic areas, there is one core, identifiable, underlying dispute, and once you've expressed a discernible opinion on that dispute you're WP:INVOLVED for the whole topic area. Certainly the expertise of someone who has edited the topic area extensively can be useful - but they can provide that as an ordinary editor, and leave the final decisions to someone with an intact appearance of neutrality. --Aquillion (talk) 07:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
• For such a long discussion, I'm not seeing a consensus for any particular course of action other than possibly having a broader discussion of what the involved admin policy means in CTOP areas, which, if we need to do that, would seem to indicate that RTH is not "involved" in the currently understood sense of the term. I am about as hawkish (no pun intended) as a person can be as regards INVOVED admin actions, and I'd be the first in line calling it out if there was a "smoking gun" here, but there is not. This is basically a long-winded way of saying I think people have talked enough; I wish they'd stop. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  If you're not seeing any consensus in this discussion, I'd ask you to look again:

  • 11 editors said yes wp:involved: me, Shushuga, Vanamonde93, voorts, Zero0000, Sean.hoyland, Nableezy, Tamzin, Aquillion, RAN1, and starship.paint
  • 5 editors are a "maybe" or "probably": Liz (who thought Zero's suggestion was sensible), valereee ("very possibly yes"), Chaotic Enby ("editors making many non-trivial edits are also involved"), Goldsztajn (asked whether, definition of involved aside, RTH would "agree not to undertake mop work in the topic area"), and Barkeep49 ("RTH needs to think differently about INVOLVED")
  • 3 editors said not involved: RTH, SFR, and BilledMammal
  • 4 editors commented on the issue but without opining one way or the other: you, Nishidani, Arkon, and Novem Linguae

  Apologies if I've mischaracterized or miscategorized anybody, but it seems like pretty clear consensus to me that yes, RTH is wp:involved, with only 3 editors saying no vs. 11-16 saying yes. I think all that's left to determine is what the scope is of the wp:involved topic area: (1) ARBPIA, (2) the current war, or (3) something else. (My vote is first choice 1, second choice 2.) Levivich (talk) 21:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  What I actually said was I'm not seeing a consensus for any particular course of action. So, you are responding to a point I wasn't making. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  What you actually said was more than that: I'm not seeing a consensus for any particular course of action other than possibly having a broader discussion of what the involved admin policy means in CTOP areas, which, if we need to do that, would seem to indicate that RTH is not "involved" in the currently understood sense of the term. And I responded by saying no, there is consensus--clear and overwhelming consensus (a 4:1 or 5:1 ratio)--that he's involved in the currently-understood sense of the term. As for particular course of action, we all know what the particular course of action is when an admin is wp:involved: not acting as an admin in the involved area. Levivich (talk) 23:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  I clarified above that I think this is a nuanced issue so I should not be in the yes involved camp. I'm not opining on whether RTH is or is not involved at this point, but I did find the specific diffs that we discussed above and at my talk page to be unpersuasive. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:58, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  Just for the record, I withheld my private opinion, which I gained after just two exchanges with Red-tailed hawk when he questioned me in the Icebear report against me. I thought he had made up his mind already that I had a serious civility problem, at the very outset of the case. But this is just the way I read between the lines, and is highly subjective. Because of that, and the fact that I am completely incompetent in opining on policy issues, I have refrained from 'voting' in this thread, and remain technically neutral for that reason.Nishidani (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  For such a long discussion I'm impressed with how clearly reached the consensus is without any proposals or bold faced voting. If RTH acknowledges the feedback and says "I will consider myself INVOLVED in <insert one of Levivich's scopes> in the future" I bet this thread would be promptly closed by someone. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:57, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Involvement is with disputes. That does not mean real life disputes - it means disputes on-wiki. There is no policy or guideline basis to force an editor to declare themselves involved with respect to an entire topic area - and in fact, multiple recent discussions should show that there is no community desire for this sort of "admin action topic ban" to take place. I have seen no evidence that RTH has acted as an administrator during a dispute/discussion which they commented on as a regular user or were involved in a non-administrator capacity. The mere fact that RTH has edited in the topic area does not mean they are involved with respect to administrator actions/discussions that do not involve articles they've edited or a content dispute they have opined on.

That all said, it is no surprise that this discussion was started. The user who started this discussion did so quite quickly after they commented on the current ARC/A request that RTH made with referral of long-term issues with editors in this topic area from AE. About half of the editors on the "yes involved" camp are "coincidentally" those being suggested as parties for the likely arbitration case to result from that request. To take such a drastic action based on a consensus of users who are definitely involved in this issue as they are being suggested as parties to an arbitration case that RTH arguably initiated... that's not only a wild abuse of process but is only encouraging those users to continue weaponizing noticeboards for their own benefit.

This is a contentious topic for a reason. There is no wider community consensus that an administrator should be barred from a whole topic area just because they have made non-trivial edits on some parts of that topic area. Unless evidence is provided that RTH has actually violated INVOLVED by operating administratively in a dispute they are actually involved in, this should be closed with no action whatsoever. And even if that evidence is presented, the proper place for that, in my opinion, is arbitration - where the actions of administrators can be evaluated along with other users. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

About half of the editors on the "yes involved" camp are "coincidentally" those being suggested as parties for the likely arbitration case to result from that request. That's false. Only one editor in the "yes camp" is being suggested as a party for the likely arbitration (Nableezy). Conversely, two editors in the "no camp" are being suggested as a party (BM and SFR). There are very few (five) named editors who have been suggested as parties. (BTW, you are just as involved in this topic area as I am. If you and I get a vote, then so does everyone else who's involved in the topic area.) Levivich (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez my motivation to create this thread is absolutely motivated by the ARCA case; however I had even raised my reservations long prior, which Goldsztajn alluded to here as well in this thread and in their RfA 8 months ago. I cannot enclose wikidiffs due to (unrelated) revdeletions, but you can find our concerns here.

RTH has a strong world view expressed through their edits and discussions on Wikipedia in American Politics and Palestine-Israel related articles. As an editor, their American conservative positions can provide a valuable and unique perspective, but it's an inappropriate use of their admin tool belts in the exact same areas, and their unwillingness to listen to feedback of multiple good-standing editors/admins who say they are WP:INVOLVED, is why we have this longer thread here.

From the 90+ comments I've seen so far, without any formal proposals, there is no strong consensus to consider the entirety of ARBPIA itself a single dispute/sub-topic, however there is strong consensus here that RTH is WP:INVOLVED with Israel-Hamas war dispute and has acted both as admin and editor in this capacity. RTH offered to close several RM discussions in same area of Israel-Hamas war, which would be explicitly inappropriate going forward. I am hoping we can close this thread amicably, without going to Arbitration review. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

You conveniently ignore yourself and Nableezy as suggested parties. I have nothing further to say to you about this other than trying to ignore the disruption by yourself and others that has been brought up during that request doesn’t make this witch hunt any more legitimate. In fact, this sort of comment makes even clearer that this request is simply weaponizing policies to remove someone you disagree with from being able to administrate. If you don’t have actual evidence of RTH misusing administrator tools, you may wish to “quit while you’re ahead” here and not sign your name to blatantly false information like this. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 10:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

A conflict of interest doesn't require misuse of admin tools, the appearance of conflict is sufficient. Selfstudier (talk) 10:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

• Involvement is with disputes. That does not mean real life disputes - it means disputes on-wiki. This is untrue. WP:INVOLVED simply says "disputes"; furthermore, the rest of the first paragraph makes it clear that "disputes" is meant to be interpreted broadly, saying This is because involved administrators may be, or appear to be, incapable of making objective decisions in disputes to which they have been a party or about which they have strong feelings - someone who clearly has strong feelings about eg. the Arab-Israeli conflict or AP2 is WP:INVOLVED in those disputes and cannot act as an administrator in them. And, indeed, it goes on to say Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute (emphasis mine.) What does "disputes on topics" mean in this context, if not to say that eg. someone whose edits reveal strong feelings on the dispute underlying the topic area has involved themselves for that entire topic area? --Aquillion (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

• Based on the evidence provided so far, I don't think RTH has edited extensively enough in the topic area to be considered involved in everything related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. I do think there's evidence that he is involved with Israel–Hamas war and closely related articles. In general, I think that contentious topic areas were identified and delimited by either ArbCom or the community to encompass broad areas in which disruptive editors were editing disruptively. The extant contentious topic areas have lasted because there are still disruptive actors. It is valuable to the community to be able to topic ban disruptive users from these broad areas. I don't think it is sensible to use these categories—ones built specifically to counter disruption—to limit the participation of non-disruptive admins. I'd feel different about the very narrow topic areas (I'm remembering the Shakespeare authorship question topic area). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
• WP:INVOLVED is about winning disputes through use of the adminstator toolkit. Simply editing in a subject area, even a contentious one, does not constitute involvement in a dispute. I am not an administrator, but I assist with edit-a-thons where I employ some of the tools to help others (mainly through uncontroversial page moves) and feel a ban on this would be an overreach. Moreover, just because you don't edit in controversial areas does not mean that you have no opinion. While I tend to agree with the sugestion that you should consider yourself involved if people say you are, I note that ArbCom has explicitly rejected this argument in the past. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  A problem with the 'you should consider yourself involved if people say you are' test is that it is premised on the notion that the people doing the considering pass the 'reasonable person' test. This is true in Levivich's case, but in contentious areas, the evidence (and there is a lot) strongly suggests that this is very often not the case. If we had advanced AI bots with admin rights that carried out both content editing (including enforcing content policy compliance) and admin tasks in the PIA topic area, I would expect a substantial number of editors would consider it both involved and either pro-Palestine or pro-Israel rather than pro-Wikipedia. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  As an admin being told I was involved by multiple editors, I'd be looking at whether the folks telling me I'm involved are all on one 'side' of the argument, or am I being told that by both sides/by uninvolved editors? If everyone telling me I'm involved is on the side of a dispute I just found consensus against, I'm putting less weight on it. Still a data point, but I'd be looking for input from uninvolved editors, probably here at AN. Valereee (talk) 12:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  I don’t know about that, if we assume that everybody here is selfish then the people who you’re siding with are also selfish in wanting to maintain an admin on that side. But as far as I know, nobody is objecting to RTH's content here, it isn’t an issue of do his edits reflect a partisan motivation that could translate into enforcement actions. It’s just that there are edits that show they are involved in the topic area. Once upon a time BilledMammal would close ARBPIA related moves, for example Talk:Carmel (Israeli settlement)#Requested move 14 March 2023. Now nobody would believe at this point that BilledMammal does not have strongly held views on the Arab-Israeli conflict, but even then they had previously been involved in editing the topic. And I objected to the close on that basis. Or when KlayCax closed an RFC at Talk:Israel, and closed it in the way I had voted for, I also objected due to their past involvement (here and the surrounding edits). You either edit in a topic or you administer that topic, not both. Full stop. nableezy - 13:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Valereee The data point has a bias created by RTH himself in drawing up a list, suggesting problematical behaviour, where only 4 of those named could be identified with a pro-Israeli POV. he created the sidedness, and it is in noway anomalous that many of those haplessly named among the majority replied suggesting he was involved.Nishidani (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  Valereee, then how about the converse? If I were an admin being told I was uninvolved by multiple editors, I'd be looking at whether the folks telling me I'm uninvolved are all on one 'side' of the argument, or are they also admins also administrating the topic and already in agreement with? starship.paint (RUN) 00:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

  Re: If I were an admin being told I was uninvolved by multiple editors, I'd be looking at whether the folks telling me I'm uninvolved are all on one 'side' of the argument, yes. Re: or are they also admins also administrating the topic and already in agreement with, sorry, not following? Valereee (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Valereee: [9] [10] starship.paint (RUN) 13:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, must not have enough coffee onboard yet. I'm still unclear on what you're asking me. Valereee (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

  Right Valereee, so one of the most controversial actions RTH took in this matter was initiating the reference of several editors in the ARBPIA topic to ArbCom at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Palestine-Israel_articles_(AE_referral). SFR agreed with RTH's 'refer ARBPIA editors to ArbCom' direction and by his own admission SFR already felt that way before. So if you're taking involved editors' opinions with a pinch of salt, wouldn't this scenario also lead to some caution? starship.paint (RUN) 02:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  I may simply be too stupid to understand this question, but it seems like you're saying

  1. RTH said it should go to arbcom
  2. SFR agreed
  3. Therefore SFR was implicitly saying RTH wasn't too involved to take it to arbcom
  4. But since SFR had already agreed that's where it should go, RTH might not want to take this as a data point?

  If that's what you're asking, I don't think the simple fact someone agrees with you about an action, regardless of whether they agreed with you before or after you suggested that action, has anything to do with whether you're too involved to take that action yourself. Is that even close to what you were getting at? Valereee (talk) 11:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  No, Valereee, I wasn’t referring to anything implicit. There was an explicit reply to you by SFR above: What if their involvement in the topic area was minor enough that over seven months of working ARBPIA at AE went by without any of the regular editors thinking to raise concerns about involvement? Does this affect RTH's involvement? No. Then again, whether involved editors are claiming RTH's involvement similarly does not affect RTH's involvement. It's just about weighing the opinions. Nevertheless, I would like to apologise for having confused you (and possibly confusing you yet again). starship.paint (RUN) 13:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

• INVOLVED is acting as an editor and admin in the same area to the extent that one cannot be sure they are acting neutrally when taking an admin action. RTH's edits regarding the Israel-Hamas war are significant enough that he should not be acting as an uninvolved administrator in that topic. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
• First, I can't I spent part of my night reading through this long discussion. Aside from the section right below these comments (RM comments), what I sense from this discussion is I believe that User:Red-tailed hawk needs to be conscious of the concerns raised in this discussion and to be thoughtful of their actions knowing that a variety of editors have raised concerns about some of his actions. But I don't see any proposals being made to take any particular action and it looks like this discussion has lost its momentum.
  A bigger consensus is that there needs to be an update in the wording or our understanding of INVOLVED to provide better guidance with today's make up of Contentious Topic areas that didn't exist when INVOLVED was codified. That is a larger discussion that needs to happen on a policy talk page. That's what I see. Liz ^{Read! Talk!}
• There's another problem with INVOLVED which is that an involved close is usually overturned, whereas "I think this close was wrong" is usually endorsed. This makes INVOLVED one of those irregular verbs:

  I made an obvious and uncontroversial close after some trivial edits in a tangentially related article.

  You sailed a bit to close to INVOLVED there and should be more careful in future.

  He made a blatantly abusive INVOLVED close and ought to be reverted, desysopped and cbanned.

• It would be wise to hold an RFC on VPP, advertised on CENT, that seeks to clarify INVOLVED enough to de-weaponise it.—S Marshall T/C 20:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

RM comments

I went through Red-tailed hawk's edits at Talk:Israel–Hamas war. They fall into 3 categories: RM comments, archiving, and minor content questions and suggestions. A few of the RM comments jump out at me as not minor or obvious (per WP:INVOLVED).

1. 00:41, 1 November 2023
2. 02:46, 1 November 2023
3. 18:06, 4 February 2024
4. 18:08, 4 February 2024

These diffs show involvement in the disputes over the war's name. I also note that 02:46, 1 November 2023 is a reply to Levivich, which may make the AE close and ARCA request untimely. RAN1 (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• Yup, that’s INVOLVED in ARBPIA. (Disclaimer: I am also INVOLVED). starship.paint (RUN) 00:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposals

I hoped this discussion would be closed without need for proposals but for sake of explicitness enclosed some below. When voting, please determine whether you consider yourself involved or not, for the sake of closer reviewing this discussion.

Pinging past participants

Pinging folks who participated in above discussion: @LakesideMiners, CoffeeCrumbs, Zero0000, Sean.hoyland, Novem Linguae, BilledMammal, Chaotic Enby, Barkeep49, Tamzin, Nishidani, Aquillion, Arkon, Goldsztajn, Just Step Sideways, Berchanhimez, Firefangledfeathers, Hawkeye7, Pawnkingthree, S Marshall, Red-tailed hawk, Liz, ScottishFinnishRadish, Valereee, Selfstudier, RAN1, Starship.paint, Levivich, Voorts, and Vanamonde93: ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I do not think this board has the ability to find consensus for proposal 2 and proposal 3 would be merely advisory. This feels like a mal-formed process and so I stand by the comments I made above - which state my opinion this - without devolving into bolded voting in an unfair way (where's proposal 4: Red-Tail hawk is not involved?). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 Outright Opposing Proposal 1 would be the way to say he is not involved. The same way other editors have endorsed a proposal and opined that it should be more or less strict. As to whether this is a legitimate discussion, the closer can see the remaining comments by 30 people and weigh the proposals accordingly. I do not expect the results to contradict each other much. If a proposal/question raised is missing that couldn't be addressed by supporting/opposing a proposal, those would be best added as new proposals then. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

You haven't addressed the fact that this WP:LOCALCON can not do all the things you want it to do and I'm glad we agree that this is completely unnecessary to a closer finding (or not finding) consensus for closure because what a waste of the thoughts and time of the number of editors you've pinged if those comments wouldn't matter for consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm willing to close this, but will wait a few days to see if Shushugah's new proposals go anywhere. - Compassionate727 at Wikipedia:Closure requests#Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Possible involvement of Admin in ARBPIA area. I see Proposal #2 as "RTH is WP:INVOLVED in WP:ARBPIA", whereas Proposal #1 is "RTH is WP:INVOLVED in Israel-Hamas war." I don't think either pose a WP:LOCALCON problem. As written, Proposal #2 somewhat suggests "anyone WP:INVOLVED in any part of WP:ARBPIA is WP:INVOLVED in all of WP:ARBPIA." I still don't see why that's a WP:LOCALCON problem, but if it is, it doesn't need to be decided in order to decide the scope of RTH's WP:INVOLVEment, if any. Levivich (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

What Levivich said. My first proposal is hyper-specific to RTH in the most narrow sense, whereas yes the second proposal would have wider reaching ramifications for other editors editing in ARBPIA area, RTH specifically as well, since this is a line he argued. I would like to avoid spending/wasting more of the community's time, repeatedly coming back here because we never addressed the broader question of whether ARBPIA is a singular topic or not.

Sure, an updated wording of WP:INVOLVED would help clarify that, but right now we have genuine confusion from editors who narrowly and broadly interpret the existing wording and previous applications in practice, so asking this question for ARBPIA is not about creating an improper local consensus. But if this is something the closer disagrees, they will take this into consideration and inform us whatever other venue there is. There's been helpful discussion here about other CTOPs, which I do not think went to waste as it helps inform the parameters here. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Proposal 2 is explicitly a general statement about INVOLVEMENT rather than a specific judgement about RTH. One of those falls with-in the scope of this board (conduct of an editor) and one of those does not (take your pick of contentious topics being ArbCom's and INVOLVEMENT being a policy that would need to be discussed in appropriate policy forum). So if the intent was to give people two bites at the "RTH is INVOLVED" apple, the proposal doesn't do it very well in my opinion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think AN(I) can declare an admin involved, but this thread would have some use if RTH would say if after reading the views expressed here if he considers himself involved or not. And if not and other feel otherwise I think the only recourse available is ArbCom. nableezy - 15:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the community can absolutely form consensus about an administrator's conduct and as a conduct board this board could absolutely come to consensus that RTH is/isn't INVOLVED. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure, a consensus can be, and IMO has been, formed. But any teeth for an admin conduct issue is in one place, and it isnt with the community. nableezy - 16:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

If an admin took an admin action in an area after there is documented community consensus asking them not to, I don't expect them to remain an admin very long. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

+1 Valereee (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I fully agree with Barkeep on this. BilledMammal (talk) 06:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• Per BK49 above, I believe Proposals 2 is out of scope for this discussion, and 3 can have no material impact on any actual revision of the policy. As such I don't think we should be spending time on them. More generally, I strongly dislike the notion of determining the scope of involvement a priori: it's a sure-fire way to increase dramatics and wikilawyering, when the whole purpose of a CTOP designation is to reduce that. There does appear to be clear consensus about RTH's involvement here, which is, in my view, the process working as it should; the community telling an administrator that their contributions to an area are substantive enough to make them involved. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think we can have a perfect red-line definition of involvement, but I am concerned that some people seem to feel that the word "dispute" on WP:INVOLVED refers solely to disputes over wiki content and not to real-world disputes; that, at least, is a relatively straightforward question and obtaining an answer to it would settle most of the underlying issues here while avoiding problems in the future where eg. admins whose edits show clear, strong opinions on specific real-world disputes feel that they can still act as admins in areas where those disputes are the focus. This board isn't necessarily the place to answer that question, but I do think that we should answer it. --Aquillion (talk) 19:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  I agree the use of the word "dispute" is sub-optimal - indeed I don't think it should be used at all, because involvement can occur even in completely uncontentious areas. But this noticeboard cannot amend the wording, and a proposal that the wording should be amended does nothing to amend it, so we should be spending time on it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Proposal 1

Proposal 1: Admin User:Red-tailed hawk is involved in the sub-topic of Israel-Hamas war which includes broadly events from 7 October 2023 to present. This would mean RTH should not close discussions, enforce ARBPIA sanctions or otherwise act as an admin. He would continue to be welcome to participate as an editor, as he already does.

• Support (I am obviously involved here) ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support (involved) - Creating, moving, editing, etc. an article about Israel's invasion of Gaza; 40+ comments on Talk:Israel-Hamas war, incluing multiple content disputes, voting in RMs and for an RM moratorium; being a top author of articles about the war; having articles about the war be among RTH's top-edited articles/talk pages ... all of this is unequivocally involved at least in the topic area of "Israel-Hamas war". Levivich (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support (involved) per Levivich, and the Requested Move comments are enough to establish involvement already. starship.paint (RUN) 12:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support (involved) per Levivich. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Define it more clearly. Suggest we decide he's involved until the sooner of (a) a week after the end of hostilities or (b) two calendar years have elapsed.—S Marshall T/C 13:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support (uninvolved), per my comments above. RTH has made substantive edits to a wide swath of pages about the Israel-Hamas war, and is therefore INVOLVED with respect to that war. I explicitly am not saying this makes him involved on all of ARBPIA. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support (involved due to previous conflict with RTH over an analogous issue; see my comment above.) Some contentious topics are fairly singular disputes with clearly-defined sides, such that someone whose edits seem to align with one side or the other is involved for the entire topic area. See my comments above. --Aquillion (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support RTH should not be taking admin actions in the ARBPIA area. (t · c) buidhe 21:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support (uninvolved) as with buidhe. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. I reviewed the comments above and they are all minor, therefore, RTH is not involved and may act as admin in this area. Andre🚐 06:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support (as another involved admin) for the reasons I have stated on this page. Zero^talk 06:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. This I believe should be decided by Arbcom. On the merits: RedTailedHawk made some very good, even piddling edits and no negative implication should be made from any of them. Clearly he felt that the current INVOLVED rules did not cover his opining and editing and they did not. However, if this is indeed properly decided here, I support the view that he is involved because I believe that administrators editing in the topic area should not act in the topic area as administrators. That is my opinion and the opinion of others here. I am not sure that our opinions matter, that the consensus here matters, but if it does, he should not be taking admin actions in the topic area going forward. However, this does not reflect upon, nor should it impact in any way whatsoever, his actions in this topic area as an administrator. If he took some action as an administrator in this area it should not be retroactively revoked. He was following the rules. But in a contentious topic area, administrators should be careful to show no involvement in any sense of the word. I hope that this logic and concern is applied evenly and fairly going forward. I don't expect it to be, but I can hope. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC) Striking out my comments. On further consideration, I believe that since this should be determined by arbcom, my opinion on this here doesn't matter and neither does anyone else's. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Per WP:INVOLVED: "One important caveat is that an administrator ... whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits that do not show bias is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area" (first emphasis added). I do not believe that RTH has shown bias in this topic area. @RAN1 states that RTH's edits "fall into 3 categories: RM comments, archiving, and minor content questions and suggestions", but only presents evidence regarding category 1. The RM discussions cited above appear to be neutral and good faith applications of WP:AT. Regarding category 3, I do not believe that the evidence regarding RTH's edits that have been presented by others in this discussion show bias for the reasons stated above and on my talk page. I am not sure that ArbCom has sole jurisdiction to declare an admin involved; only ArbCom can desysop (for now) or sanction an admin, but a declaration that an admin is involved isn't a sanction. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  @voorts: Commenting on requested moves to "Hamas–Israel war" or "Israel–Gaza war" is anything but neutral. RAN1 (talk) 20:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  You raise some good points. I happen to agree with the edits RedTailedHawk made. What I'm saying is that we need neutral, unbiased admins in this topic area. But yes, maybe restricting RTH is going overboard. Maybe. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  Aside from voting in RMs and such, there is no way that creating new articles or making 40+ talk page comments is "minor or obvious". Levivich (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  The critical point of that sentence is the minor or obvious, not the bias. If showing bias was our standard, everyone could declare themselves uninvolved everywhere, because all our edits are supposed to not show bias. Obviously someone who does consistently show bias should be considered involved, but an editor who consistently shows bias in an area is unlikely to become or remain an admin. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support per Levivich. If this isn't involved, nothing is. Buffs (talk) 16:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support (involved) Leaving aside the question of an admin, if an ordinary editor was editing like that and then tried to close discussions, that would be a no-no. Why? Because conflict of interest. Selfstudier (talk) 12:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support per V93 and Lev. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose any pre-emptive declarations of involvement that are not based on an actual administrator action that was purportedly taken in violation of involvement. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  This isn't pre-emptive, this is based on actual administrator action that was actually taken: commenting as an uninvolved admin at multiple AE threads, closing an AE thread (with a referral to arbcom), and listing himself as "uninvolved admin" at the ARCA referral. One minor but concrete outcome of a finding of involvement is that RTH would be moved from the "uninvolved admin" list to the "involved editor" list at the ARCA filing; one more significant outcome is that RTH would no longer be able to comment as an uninvolved admin at future AE filings in the topic area (the scope of "the topic area" would depend on the scope of the involvement). Levivich (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  AE is for conduct issues, not content issues. Unless RTH has been involved in a conduct dispute with an editor in an administrative capacity, their opinions on the content do not make them involved in conduct disputes like that. Merely making edits related to a topic area does not mean an administrator is automatically involved with respect to conduct unrelated to those edits in the topic area. Had RTH protected a page, blocked an editor, etc. related to their edits, then yes, that would obviously be involved. Had RTH closed a discussion related to content that they have edited, that would be involved. But commenting merely on the conduct of editors unrelated to content they've edited is not something that requires the administrator to have made no edits in the topic area as a whole. I have seen no evidence whatsoever that RTH is involved with the conduct dispute at AE that they participated in and closed that resulted in this discussion. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 20:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Proposal 2

Proposal 2: WP:PIA unlike other Contentious Topics refers primarily to ONE dispute. The Israel-Hamas war is not a separate dispute from 1917 Balfour declaration, 1948 Nakhba or annexation of East Jerusalem. This contrasts with WP:BLP which can refer to numerous unrelated disputes. This would retain the usual exceptions specified in WP:INVOLVED e.g reverting obvious vandalism etc..

• Support (I consider myself involved as well) ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support (involved) - As many have pointed out, there is no part of Israel-Hamas war that isn't part of WP:ARBPIA. I mean, it's a war between the two sides in that conflict. It's shaping up to be the biggest war between those two sides probably since 1947-1949. There is so much overlap between the current war and the ongoing conflict that it's impossible to separate the two. This isn't necessarily true for all CTOPs, but it is true for this one. Levivich (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support (involved) per Levivich. The current war is one culmination of the past events. starship.paint (RUN) 12:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support (involved). This is much closer to a one-dimensional dispute than other CTOPs, with editors and sources often being described as "pro-Israeli" or "pro-Palestinian", and an editor being WP:INVOLVED on one aspect of the dispute can reasonably be believed to be on the same "side" on other aspects of it. Of course, I'm not saying that one-dimensional partisanship is universal, but the appearance of bias can already be enough to make someone too involved for a closure or administrative decision. There isn't anything equivalent for (most) other CTOPs – you wouldn't divide the editors into, say, "pro-BLP" and "anti-BLP". Although out of the scope of this discussion, it could be interesting to consider which other CTOPs might fall under a similar situation. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• There are other contentious topics that refer to ONE hypertoxic dispute. The Falun Gong. Race and intelligence.—S Marshall T/C 13:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  no opinion on this dispute but Armenia-Azerbaijan is another example of a largely single-axis CTOP ... sawyer * he/they * talk 23:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. I think that the idea here is worth considering, but I don't think that we can actually define how policy as a whole is interpreted here; to the extent that this applies just to this one specific case, people can express it in their rationales above. Beyond that, I'm not sure I agree that PIA is unique in this regard, as the wording implies; I think several CTOPs are fundimentially about one underlying dispute (eg. AP2, PIA), and several others are bigger than that but do contain a number of clearly-defined disputes, such that someone who is involved in one of those disputes should stay out of at least that one (eg. GENSEX). Ones like BLP where there are no underlying disputes are more rare. --Aquillion (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support Chaotic Enby said it better than I was going to. (t · c) buidhe 21:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support (uninvolved) It might be that the exact language here could be tweaked (FWIW the proposal does not say "unlike *all* other", but perhaps could have been better written as "unlike many other"), but the intent to recognise a clearly observable phenomenon - regular participants' viewpoints across all Israel-Palestine topics are generally quite consistent - is valid. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Arbcom, and not editors, should determine this. Andre🚐 06:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support. ARBPIA covers the collection of articles about a single long-running dispute. This is historical fact. It is also confirmed by the editing patterns of participants. No administrator who takes part as an editor in a dispute over one aspect of ARBPIA (which includes things like voting in RMs) should perform administrative roles in other aspect of ARBPIA. Zero^talk 06:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. This should be decided by Arbcom. However, if it can be decided here, I lean in favor of support for the reasons others have stated above. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC) Striking out comment to be consistent, since arbcom should determine. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose PIA defines an "area of conflict", i.e., "[a.] the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted ("primary articles"), and [b.] edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace ('related content')", whereas BLP defines a topic area: "All living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles are designated as a contentious topic." Both topic areas are to be broadly construed. This drawing of an analogy between the two CTOPs and attempting to define their scope in terms of disputes is more confusing than helpful. Additionally, as CTOPs are designated by ArbCom through its decisions, only ArbCom can amend the scope or definition of a CTOP. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  "broadly interpreted" is a troublesome phrase, but there's no way this isn't part of it. Buffs (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support per Levivich (uninvolved) Buffs (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support (involved) The topic area is one big interrelated area, editing a part of it is like editing all of it. That's why we have "broadly interpreted".Selfstudier (talk) 12:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Multiple editors have stated above that this proposal is out of scope for this noticeboard. This would amend policy, which requires a central policy venue and an advertised discussion. But I guess we're !voting anyway, so I'm noting that I oppose, principally to ensure we don't declare a pseudo-consensus that leads to subsequent drama. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  I assume the policy that this proposal would amend is the WP:INVOLVED part of WP:ADMIN, but I don't understand what part of WP:INVOLVED would be amended by this proposal? More broadly, why is this discussion not the right discussion to determine the scope of an admin's involvement (if any)? Levivich (talk) 15:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  I don't know where we would put this in the text of the policy, and I don't particularly care. INVOLVED as written is completely independent of the CTOP designations, and is only concerned with the area and nature of an admin's edits. This proposal is saying that in one specific area of the encyclopedia, the scope of an admin's involvement is determined a priori. That is a substantive change to policy, one which many community members may be interested in. This is a noticeboard intended to handle behavioral issues (which many community members avoid, with reason), and this proposal is embedded deep inside a discussion of one admin's conduct. It is not an appropriate venue. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  But what if you interpret this question not to be asking a question about all admins' involvement, but to ask a question about this admin's involvement? Because I agree this can't change WP:INVOLVED, but I disagree that it's trying to make any change to WP:INVOLVED, I think it's just trying to determine the scope of involvement for one particular editor. Levivich (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  I don't see how that's the question being asked, so this is a bit academic. But FWIW I'm still weakly opposed. I don't like defining the scope of involvement based on the nature of the CTOP rather than the nature of the admin's edits, and single dispute or not, there's a difference in degree between, say, the second Intifada and the geographic distribution of the Palestine sunbird. I also don't like treating any given CTOP with a degree of exceptionalism: we have many other narrow CTOPs. We should examine an admin's behavior as it arises. I've said my piece as to where RTH's edits show involvement; if that involvement is wider, then that should be documented first. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  I hear you, but Palestine sunbird isn't part of ARBPIA anyway. I respect your right to disagree on the scope of the involvement, but I think there is a big difference between deciding that any admin who is involved in any part of ARBPIA is involved in all of ARBPIA (which would be out of scope for this discussion), and deciding that this particular admin is involved in all of ARBPIA because their involvement in Israel-Hamas War == involvement in all of ARBPIA (which I think is in scope for this discussion). As to the latter, editors can of course disagree, but I don't think it violates global consensus in any way. Levivich (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  Just for clarity, absent a specific dispute, I wouldn't consider a page without the Arbpia/CT notices as part of the conflict. So the sunbirds are safe for now. Selfstudier (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  The notices are an administrative matter that we don't always handle well. I'm not saying the page as a whole is ARBPIA, but a section which contains the sentence "The expansion of Jewish settlements in Israel over the last century played a significant role in the spread of the Palestine sunbird throughout the region, with cultivated tropical plants becoming more common in urban gardening." is absolutely covered by the CTOP. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  OMG, save the sunbirds! You are right but still, there is no active dispute there or someone would add the notices (a "partial"). Selfstudier (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  None of God's creatures are spared. Levivich (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  The ambiguous interpretations of Proposal 2 is unfortunate and my fault. I summarize the two different ways it can be construed.

  1. Based on RTH's specific editing activities, he is not only involved with Israel-Hamas war but ARBPIA topic broadly.
  2. Anyone who is involved anywhere in ARBPIA is involved broadly in the entire topic area, including the POV pushing sunbirds.

  The first interpretation would naturally be relevant to discuss here. In order to answer it, we would require a specific examination of RTH's edits (his explanation that Re'im festival massacre is unrelated to Israel-Hamas War) is one of my specific concerns with his attempt to wiki-lawyer and carve multiple topic areas even within the period between Oct 7 to present, let alone anything happening Gaza since 2006 or Palestine since 1948.

  Whereas the second interpretation would broader ramifications for all admin activity in ARBPIA and would be out of scope here as wise editors points out above.

  I am generally inclined to suggest dropping proposal #2 either way, because there's a proposal to change WP:INVOLVED which is detached from the personal circumstances here and solicits feedback from broader array of CTOP we have, including other comparable CTOP areas like Armenia/Azerbaijan, Falun Gong and other less comparable areas i.e GENSEX, MOS, American politics. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  So we move to 4 instead, that it? Selfstudier (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  Proposal 1 and 4 both are relevant questions here. I do not understand precisely the exact meaning of proposal 4, but someone else asked for clarification already. Proposals 2/3 can be ignored. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose as the proposal is incorrect, as pointed out by S Marshall. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - this proposal amounts to "I think the most important thing is someone's POV on this one part of the conflict and want to remove someone who disagrees with me on that to make it easier to push my POV". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  • I was asked to clarify this so I am. I'm not accusing the proposal of being in bad faith, but that is what the effect of the proposal will be. Attempting to distill contentious topics to be even "primarily" about one dispute, when the entire premise is that they are broadly construed, amounts to an attempt to "condense" the contentious topic to be about "one thing". There is POV pushing surrounding the current Gaza conflict between Israel and Hamas from multiple sides. That does not mean that an administrator who has an opinion on, say, the 1948 Palestine war is involved with respect to the current conflict. There are many people who may have opinions or made substantial edits in historical articles related to this conflict that should not "automatically" be considered involved with respect to current conflicts. And vice versa - someone having an opinion on or having made substantial edits to the current conflict (ex: to the pager explosions) now, does not mean they are involved with respect to historical articles regarding the conflict.
    That is the opinion I was expressing with my !vote here - not that any one person is acting in bad faith. I don't think opening this for discussion is bad faith - but it is a very slippery slope to attempt to pre-emptively declare someone involved with respect to an entire broadly construed topic area when their edits have been constrained to current events (and overall, have been relatively minor/insignificant). The effect of allowing such determinations of "everything is related" flies in the face of broadly construed as a whole, which involves the community coming to a consensus (either of administrators or uninvolved users) as to whether a specific article, edit, or information should be considered related. While all of the listed "examples" are broadly related, that does not mean that someone editing in one is automatically involved with the others.
    Involvement is related to specific disputes, and in very specific cases may be extended to a broader area (such as declaring someone to have made such poor judgement with respect to a topic that other articles/disputes within that topic that they should be considered involved for future edits). Those, however, are editor-specific issues, not a topic wide issue, and editors without any problems editing should not be considered to be involved on current issues just because, for example, they added or expanded the history section on a historical article that falls under the same contentious topic. That's why involvement is on a dispute-by-dispute basis barring any cross-dispute disruption. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 20:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
• No comment on whether RTH is INVOLVED, but PIA isn't the only topic area that has this characteristic. I would have thought BLP is the odd one out, with most contentious topics areas having more in common with PIA than BLP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Proposal 3

Proposal 3: Reform definition of WP:INVOLVED Get involved (pun intended): Wikipedia talk:Administrators § Proposal to update WP: INVOLVE language ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC) Oppose really not the time/place. Buffs (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - no evidence it's insufficient now has been presented. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose not in scope. Andre🚐 23:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Proposal 4

Proposal 4: User:Red-tailed hawk's edits on some pages on IWW do is not render him WP:INVOLVED broadly across the entire content area of ARPIA.

• Support: This proposal made SEVEN DAYS LATER: It's gross overreaction to declare that merely because an editor has made edits on specific talkspaces and namespaces inside Contentious Topic Areas, they have formally involved themselves broadly across the entire CTA. I've looked at many of the linked edits above and I have found nothing in RTH's work which reveals or demonstrates consistent bias so disqualifying themself. Further, not providing this proposal demonstrates an implicit failure of AGF against RTH. BusterD (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  It was Barkeep49's suggestion an uninvolved proposal should appear. I agreed and created one, however inexactly. BusterD (talk) 11:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  To be exact, Barkeep49 at 14:39, 9 September 2024 (in response to Shushugah's mass ping at 12:37, 9 September 2024, intended to draw literally INVOLVED editors) says This feels like a mal-formed process and so I stand by the comments I made above - which state my opinion this - without devolving into bolded voting in an unfair way (where's proposal 4: Red-Tail hawk is not involved?). This is before almost anyone had asserted an outcome in this polling. Now we're a week along, we have three affirmative proposals 1) RTH is involved comprehensively, 2) RHT is involved to some extent, and 3) we should change the rules to INVOLVED (which is phrased as sarcasm). Several editors have expressed disagreement, but the proposals themselves don't really allow much disagreement. That's a malformed way to divide the discussion. The pinged people have !voted so NOW it is a simple matter to say the !votes are in agreement. Now I'm interested in how someone proposes to act on this kangaroo broadbrushing? Didn't really get the numbers you hoped, did you? BusterD (talk) 12:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  BusterD: "failure of AGF...many other AGF errors here..."

  Also BusterD: "how someone proposes to act on this kangaroo broadbrushing? Didn't really get the numbers you hoped, did you?"

  Thanks for your contributions to this discussion... Levivich (talk) 13:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  You're quite welcome. Your many informed contributions to this discussion certainly help us understand your positions more precisely. BusterD (talk) 23:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - creating the article about the Israeli invasion of Gaza, having multiple articles be among their top-edited pages in multiple namespace categories (mainspace and talkspace, including the main war article being their #3 all-time most-edited talk page), being #1 author or in the top ten on multiple of the most high profile pages in the topic area (including #1 at Kfar Aza massacre, #6 at Re'im festival massacre), making 40+ edits to the main war article talk page (Talk:Israel-Hamas war), voting multiple times on one of the most high-profile and contentious issues in the entire topic area (what to name the war), voting on an RM moratorium... if these sorts of edits don't make a person WP:INVOLVED, then no edits would make a person WP:INVOLVED. Downplaying the extent of the involvement demonstrates an implicit failure of AGF against the multiple editors (including other admins) raising these concerns. It's also unnecessarily bureaucratic and a little pointy: we don't need a "not involved" option because if the "involved" options don't have consensus, then "not involved" would be the outcome. Levivich (talk) 14:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Request for clarification. Does this mean he is uninvolved at all ARBPIA? Or just that he is not involved in all of ARBPIA, but may be involved at some? That is, would this proposal passing negate the result of Proposal 1? Valereee (talk) 15:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  My thought upon first reading this is that this would not create a presumption that I am WP:INVOLVED from the whole conflict (i.e. from before the First World War until today) in a way greater than the scope of proposal 1. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Levivich spells it out. It's hard for someone to be more involved than this and still have a breadth of involvement elsewhere in WP. Buffs (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Levivich and because the topic area is really quite intertwined, the events have the past have culminated in the events of today, and various countries remain tied to the conflict, for example, Egypt with Gaza / Syria with Golan Heights / Lebanon's Hezbollah / Yemen's Houthis / Iran / Islamic Resistance in Iraq. starship.paint (RUN) 14:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose on the sole grounds that Arbcom should make this determination. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose any and all pre-emptive declarations of involvement that are not based on an actual administrator action that was purportedly taken in violation of involvement. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support I agree with BusterD. These edits are minor, and minor is clearly mentioned in the policy. Andre🚐 23:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. I find this an odd proposal, in that I had assumed one would support a finding of non-involvement by opposing Proposal 1; as things stand this could result in consensus for two mutually exclusive options. Regardless; RTH made substantive content edits to a number of pages about the Israel's present war, and is unambiguously involved with respect to that war. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments on proposals

I created this section to allow the proposals themselves to be discussed outside of bolded assertion. Like many other AGF errors here, I'm sure failing to do this was an honest mistake. BusterD (talk) 12:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I have created Proposals 1-3 and saw you created Proposal 4. Thank you for creating this section. The community is giving feedback in Proposal 1, and a number of people have commented in Proposal 2, but a number of admins also mentioned Proposal 2 is in wrong venue, so while the feedback is useful, it is not actionable. Proposal 3 is more an advertisement for a broader policy change. For the closer, I imagine reviewing outcomes of Proposals 1 and 4 is most concrete, along with any other conclusions from larger discussion. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your collegial response to my feedback. BusterD (talk) 23:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Paulina Holzier

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

---

Perhaps an administrator could take a look at User talk:Paulina Holzier#Managing a conflict of interest and Draft:James Holzier. Perhaps there's no conflict of interest here per se, but there seem to be other problems per WP:NOT and maybe even WP:HOAX that might require more eyes looking at her. The current draft might somehow be related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Holzier back in 2004, which seems to be what's being alluded to here in this user talk page post. I'll also note that this comment on the user's Commons user talk page also makes me wonder whether this is someone who's more WP:NOTHERE than WP:HERE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Update: This user has just been indefinitely blocked by Cullen328. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps someone smarter than me will have a more insightful assessment but this this looks to me like a Breaching experiment combined with a hoax combined with good old fashioned trolling. I have indefinitely blocked Paulina Holzier as not here to build an encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 08:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I admit that I got taken in by this editor at WP:AFCHD and spent more time refuting their bullshit than I should have. WP:AGF is a behavioral guideline, after all. Cullen328 (talk) 08:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Stealthy date/year change vandalism by 2601:46:87F:26A0:0:0:0:0/64

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

---

2601:46:87F:26A0:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)

Hi, I am coming from another wiki where the above /64 range was found engaging in stealthy year/date change vandalism, with those edits disguised with the innocuous edit summary case fix (via WP:JWB). It looks like the same issue is occurring here as well, and I have managed to revert an obvious one so far. I am posting on this noticeboard hoping that someone will be available to take a closer look. Chenzw  Talk  15:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Chenzw. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Hoaxes in Draft Space by IP editors

A large number of draft pages have been created within the past month by shifting IP addresses. Approximately 18 of these drafts have been nominated for deletion at Miscellany for Deletion as hoaxes. Some of them have unverified links to the biographies of living persons. I have @voted to Delete some of them as hoaxes and BLP violations, and to keep some of them. The content issue is that drafts are in draft space that will not pass AFC review, but none of them have been submitted. They should be declined or rejected when submitted, and, if accepted, they should be taken to AFD. That is the way Wikipedia works. But there is also a conduct issue. A person or group of persons are editing anonymously from shifting IP addresses and writing things that are not true. Here is the list of the drafts that, in my opinion, contain BLP violations or hoaxes. These are 12 out of the total 18 drafts that have been nominated for deletion. All of them appear to be by IP editors:

• Draft:List of animated television series of 2029
• Draft:Untitled Wild Kratts film
• Draft:Mark Koetsier
• Draft:Kevin Asbury
• Draft:Nelvana Studios
• Draft:Foster (2025 film)
• Draft:Santa's Magic Crystal
• Draft:Trolls 4
• Draft:Frenzy Animation]
• Draft:Bad Fairies
• Draft:Anubis (film)
• Draft:Sheepish (film)

One editor wrote: If the user has a history of hoaxing, take it to WP:AN and propose that they be blocked for disruption. It doesn't look like one editor. It may be one or two or three humans from multiple IP addresses. Am I required to notify all of the IP addresses? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about notifying the IPs. I've seen this fairly frequently while patrolling CSD when they're tagged as hoaxes. I err on the side of deletion. Although not all of these kinds of drafts are created by IPs from Finland, most of them have, and when it's worth doing (they have a fairly lengthy supply of them), I block single IPs and ranges. Frankly, although I know I can't change the overly-lenient Wikipedia culture, it would be way better for everyone if IPs couldn't create drafts. As long as policy permits them to do so, we will have more work cleaning up after the messes and with no accountability when there's socking involved.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

IP address 89.243.60.161

Vandalism bot just reverted an anti-Semitic edit by this IP to Theophilus Freeman. I spot checked and three of their five edits are similarly unhinged and/or horrifically racist. jengod (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

This IP account has been blocked. I'll look into their edits to see if revision deletion is called for. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

TY.

Resolved

jengod (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Technics SL-1200 Slow Edit Warring

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

---

Djrichie t has been adding overly detailed pictures and descriptions to the Technics SL-1200 page. Multiple reversions have happened over a long period of time. I feel that this user is trying to promote their own personal business rather than add encyclopedic content, but they continue to undo my removal of their edits. I would appreciate some more eyes on this so that we can figure out how to move forward. hbent (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I am not promoting my own personal business. That claim is fully disputed. I am the copyright owner of the specific part mentioned, which I have provided citations including UK government website link to my intellectual property. It must be said that there are a number of jealous people on Wikipedia who have constantly tried to vandalise my contributions regarding this. There is no need to undo any of my contributions whatsoever as the basis is factual. Djrichie t (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Djrichie t:, you are editing with a conflict of interest when you do this, as you own the copyright to the parts. While you may not intend to promote your interests, it is generally advised that editors with a conflict of interest request edits using the talk page. Furthermore, calling the revisions of your edits vandalism is not helpful and is not the case.

Could this be discussed on talk page of the article first? That is usually the first step of dispute resolution. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I would disagree that there is a conflict of interest if the contribution has valid citations. You cannot get more valid than a UK Government link. So your claim is void. Djrichie t (talk) 23:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked Djrichie for thumbing their nose at our policies and for continuing to edit-war at the article today.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

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

"Twitter under Elon Musk" edit notice

I have just added a comment at Talk:Twitter under Elon Musk and I was greeted by the edit notice Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:Twitter under Elon Musk. Yes, I get that there have been several move requests and that it is a controversial discussion, but does it need to be so big and disruptive? Can someone make it a bit less flashy? Cambalachero (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Pinging InfiniteNexus for input as they created the edit notice. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

The usual answer to the question "can someone do something?" is "who do you expect to do anything if not you?" If you don't have the technical skills needed can you at least suggest something better? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I understood that editnotices can only be edited by admins, that's why I ask here Cambalachero (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I now see (it was pretty obvious in fact) that edit notices can only be edited by admins, template editors, or page movers. In such a niche area that only applies to one or two articles I would still do most of the work myself, only asking an admin or page mover to perform the final move. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

As Cambalachero said, edit notices cannot be edited by most users: "This is the page notice for Talk:Twitter under Elon Musk. This editnotice can only be created or edited by administrators, template editors, and page movers."

The only recommendation that I can make is that the third line of the system message says "To request a change be made to the page, please submit an edit request, ensure you include a description of your requested change and the reason for the change" which did not occur. However, had it been done at Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:Twitter under Elon Musk, then it might have been missed as Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:Twitter is the primary edit notice that the other one transcludes to. (In any case, this discussion seems to have become the edit request by default.) --Super Goku V (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

(non-admin page mover) I can do it if there's consensus, although it could be good to put an alert at the relevant pages (Talk:Twitter, Talk:Twitter under Elon Musk and Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Talk:Twitter) to get a wider consensus on what's the best way to write the editnotice. (Edit: Relevant alerts have been sent) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

The consensus is on the result of the move discussions, that the edit notice informs about, and which I'm not discussing. Making a big and disruptive edit notice a bit more discrete, without changing its purpose, should be a simple thing and not require big discussions. As said, I would have done it myself if it wasn't for the detail that editnotices can only be edited by certain users. Cambalachero (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

What makes it disruptive? Also for the record were you supportive or opposed to that consensus? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

The consensus is on the result of the move discussions, that the edit notice informs about, and which I'm not discussing.

I understand, I was talking about getting consensus for changing the editnotice styling. A much more minor thing, but I preferred to make sure that there wasn't any opposition to it before going ahead, as there might have been support for the current styling. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

If anything, the notice isn't big enough considering the volume of move requests. Cortador (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

The flashiness of the editnotice was due to the various RMs (we're currently at 10) that had been repeatedly opened and closed without consensus for a move, which at that point was becoming disruptive, tiring, and repetitive (WP:DEADHORSE). Hopefully, if the proposed moratorium for future move requests passes, it will ensure stability and allow the editnotice to be more subdued. (Speaking of which, that discussion needs a close; if anyone here would like to volunteer, they are welcome to do so — there's a posting at WP:CR.) Editors are free to discuss the style of the editnotice on Talk:Twitter, or edit the embedded FAQ page directly. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, as this discussion was said above to have become the edit request by default and I've sent a notice on the relevant pages to participate here, it makes sense that the discussion on the style of the editnotice could continue here rather than move again. Although, if it's preferable to continue the discussion on Talk:Twitter, I am not categorically opposed to it either. I'm not sure the embedded FAQ page was even a point of contention, the issue is really about the font size on the editnotice itself. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't know about this notice but there have been concerns raised in the past that people tend to ignore notices. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Banner blindness? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Bbb23 using privileges for misconduct

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

---

If he had checked the edit history of MY personal sandbox, he would know it's fictional, plus, it doesn:t matter if it's a hoax, that's why it's a personal sandbox, i'm not gonna upload it ZZenyx (talk) 22:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Please review WP:FAKEARTICLE. Creating hoax articles, even in your personal sandbox, is not allowed. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

They are also eligible for speedy deletion under criterion G3. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I never knew that may move to HHO instead ZZenyx (talk) 22:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

What is HHO? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I think they might mean HHW, Hypothetical Hurricanes Wiki. I linked them there, since it seemed like that's what they wanted to write about. -- asilvering (talk) 23:11, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

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

• Blocked User is creating more hoax content and making malicious edits. In one article, he changed "three" to "almost four" for no reason. He's clearly not here and I've sent him on his way.--v/r - TP 15:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

1RR and current events articles

This is a bit of a perennial discussion, but I'm not sure if it's been discussed, at least recently, in a centralized location, and I'd like to solicit admins' views on how 1RR is supposed to work on a current events article.

I recently made an edit to a high-profile current events article. That edit was a revert. I later went to make another edit to correct some incorrect information, and it occurred to me that changing what someone else just wrote would be a second revert, and I would be violating 1RR.

What am I supposed to do? Wait until tomorrow to make any further edits to the article? Limit myself to only adding new information and not changing any existing information? Make edit requests for the rest of the day? Just keep editing until someone complains about my crossing 1RR and asks me to self-revert (and hope I don't catch a no-warning block)?

These questions also apply to non-current-events articles, but with current-events articles, the articles become outdated and incorrect rather quickly as new sources are constantly being published (which is not the case for non-current-events articles).

So what is the best practice here? How do I edit a current events article without crossing 1RR? Levivich (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

If editing anything would touch the same text that was included in a revert (even if fixing/addressing new issues) I would consider that a partial revert. Better to discuss on talk page, so that it doesn’t escalate or feel like a tit-for-tat. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

Resolved

Backlog Wikipedia:Requests for page protection Moxy🍁 15:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

It's been cleared.--v/r - TP 16:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Perfect....thank you all.Moxy🍁 16:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Personal attacks by IP

This IP 199.119.233.223 (who is almost certainly the blocked editor Kelownatopdog) has engaged in a number of personal attacks in his edit summaries, see here [11] and [12]. This is clearly a case of not being here to build an encyclopedia. Thank you for your time. --A.S. Brown (talk) 00:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I blocked for a year given the previous block record and likely block evasion. Ymblanter (talk) 06:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Ymblanter! --A.S. Brown (talk) 04:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

YM Gud

I have improved the Women in the Bangladesh Army article, and I have added information from here, I have copied the all news from this link, please see the article. YM Gud (talk) 05:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

While I appreciate your efforts to contribute, you cannot simply copy content from news articles into Wikipedia. That is a violation of copyright - see Wikipedia:Copyrights for details on our policy. All contributions need to be written in your own words. I have removed the content and deleted the revisions. Please do not re-copy them, and please do not copy content from news articles into Wikipedia again. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I have added information about hijab and underwear policy in the Women in the Bangladesh Army article, please see the article, the article has also been improved better from before. YM Gud (talk) 06:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I've indeffed the YM Gud for pagemove vandalism and clearly not being here to improve WP. Nthep (talk) 06:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

They are back, as Yunus MIAH (talk · contribs). See this. --bonadea contributions talk 09:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Now in the sock drawer. Nthep (talk) 09:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

If any admin at commons is seeing this, please delete this image too. Ratnahastin (talk) 09:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Move request on a significant current event is WP:SNOW-ing

Could an admin help? Thank you: Talk:2024 Israeli ground operation in Lebanon#Requested move 30 September 2024. starship.paint (RUN) 13:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Moved by Filelakeshoe - thank you. Will archive this. starship.paint (RUN) 22:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

RfC closure review request at Talk:United_States_and_state-sponsored_terrorism#RfC_for_United_States_and_state-sponsored_terrorism#Syria

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

---

Talk:United_States_and_state-sponsored_terrorism#RfC_for_United_States_and_state-sponsored_terrorism#Syria (Discussion with closer)

Closer: Serial Number 54129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Notified: diff

Reasoning: This is a request to review the RfC close at United States and state-sponsored terrorism, to determine whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly and closed RfC with wrong procedural close. There were five editors in this discussion, two editors thought this was not a RFC, then User: Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) reworded question to make it intelligible and grammatical. Two editors thought editorial synthesis of published material implied a new conclusion. One editor did not express its opinion clearly. Obviously, no consensus was achieved at this RfC. However, the closing comments were: "A summary of the conclusions reached follows. Procedural close for RfC that is not an RfC: N and RFC apply." I tried to discuss this with the closer, but there is no respond in 5 days. Kof2102966 (talk) 11:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Closer

Non-participants

• Speedy endorse: Kof2102966, Robert McClenon has offered to talk this through with you and provide advice on resolving this dispute. You should take him up on his offer and stop trying to go forward with this procedurally flawed RfC. There are other ways of resolving disputes on Wikipedia, and Robert is well-versed in them. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: From my perspective, the original RfC attempt was flawed and Giraffedata was trying to salvage it for you. (Also, why do you think there is a significant difference between a 'no consensus' outcome and a 'procedural close' outcome?) --Super Goku V (talk) 19:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse: Epic fail at keeping "the RfC statement (and heading) neutrally worded and short". TarnishedPath^talk 03:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Participants

• Endorse - The closer was right in closing the RFC as malformed. The RFC was rewritten twice after posting, and any substantive close would have involved the closer comparing statements to versions of the RFC. The original version of the RFC was a statement. The Original Poster than rewrote it as an ungrammatical question. Another editor then reworked it to be a grammatical question. The RFC was inherently flawed, which is one of the reasons it had no useful answers. The Original Poster has two options, to leave it alone and unanswered, or to develop a new RFC that asks a question, and leave it unchanged for 30 days to get real answers. Closing the RFC as malformed was the right action. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse This was not an RFC. There was no proposal and the text under the RFC heading was a verbose argument, not even trying to be neutral. This was pointed out to the editor by multiple others. The close as "not an RfC" is appropriate. Cambial — foliar❧ 05:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

@Kof2102966: you don't need a closure review. You just need to discuss at the talk page and develop a new, better RfC question. The experienced users there, including RMC and WAID, can probably help you craft a neutral opening question. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry that @Kof2102966: felt it necessary to waste everyone's time with this 'report'. Noting that they haven't edited since, so this was by way of being a WP:GRENADE (albeit one in the guise of a damp squib), which states that When you make a report on a noticeboard, you're expected to stick around. The admins' noticeboards aren't places where you can fire and forget; they're places where you have to discuss what the problem you're having that's escalated so quickly you had to bring it there is about. Perhaps an admin could leave them a message as to expectations. Which do not generally include, when one has been effectively editing for only six weeks, to spend most of one's time on the talk page of a contentious topic, pushing something ideological, lots of bin Ladin and misunderstandings of original research, POV commentary and editing, as well as having to be warned by Cambial Yellowing for personal attacks—which was responded to with some belligerence—and now tying multiple editors up not only on the talk page, but at Dispute Resolution (a failure "at the start" noted the moderator), and now here. They have already been advised to read WP:BOOMERANG; they have chosen, unfortunately, not to follow that advice. So now I suspect we are in the realms of WP:CIR or WP:RGW or both, and neither of which is conducive to collaborative consensus building in an already-difficult topic. SerialNumber54129 14:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Helper201

User:Helper201 has engaged in disruptive editing on articles of political parties, and engaging in edit wars. Has been notified very recently to stop. here is an example of his removal of information 🤓 WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 🤓 17:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

You need to provide some more evidence. The example you gave was of this editor removing unsourced information, and, at a quick look, which is all I am prepared to do given your lack of evidence here, other edits seem similar. I can not find anything which is not a content issue that should be discussed on the talk page of the relevant article. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

here he removed several ideologies from an infobox for "not political ideologies" (including Anti Zionism and Islamic democracy, which ARE ideologies or political beliefs. here it is again, same article i linked initially. and here it is AGAIN. He mostly just removes infobox information that he thinks aren't ideologies, even though they overwhelming consensus for YEARS is that they should be at least included in that section of the infobox. He removes swaths of information with vague summaries that seem to imply his personal opinion and/or what looks good format-wise. 🤓 WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 🤓 18:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

off-topic

You know, WeaponizingArchitecture, it's hard for me to pay attention to your argument when your signature is so obnoxious and it feels like it is "screaming" at the rest of us. It doesn't make me well disposed to listen to whatever point you are trying to make. Could you tone the signature down so it is just your username and a link to your talk page, like the standard editor signature? This is not a situation where bigger and louder is better. Thank you for considering the suggestion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC) why are you being so condescending about my signature 🤓 WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 🤓 11:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC) The 🤓🤓🤓 emojis appear like they are directed at whoever's reading your signature. I recommend removing them to avoid any misunderstandings. Ca talk to me! 13:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC) ok fair but barging into an AN discussion to complain about my signature is incredibly rude 🤓 WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 🤓 15:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

WeaponizingArchitecture, those are examples of what I was talking about in my last post: content issues that should be discussed on the talk pages of the relevant articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Community Wishlist: Please check out these groups of wishes

Hello Admins,

Community Tech has grouped some related wishes we received in the past 2 months at the Community Wishlist into problem areas (which we call focus areas).

The focus areas look to:

• Help content reviewers more efficiently manage their repetitive tasks
• Make it easier for patrollers and other editors to prioritize tasks
• Help newer contributors understand the status and rationale behind a moderation decision.

We intend to share these areas with the Moderator Tools Team for their consideration.

You are invited to review and give feedback or support by voting. –– STei (WMF) (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Transgender issues in Southeast Asia

Would an admin who feels competent to deal with the topic listed please contact me privately via email? I can't say I always know when I'm out of my league, but I sometimes do. Thanks! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Review of page protection request

Is there a formal procedure or place to go to have a review of a protection request? Moxy🍁 03:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't know about protection requests specificially, but Wikipedia:Administrative action review is a general place for reviews. Ca ^{talk to me!} 04:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

That is not appropriate for a decline of a request of protection. @Moxy: The rationale for the decline is sound but I'll watch Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections for a while. Johnuniq (talk) 07:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Perfect thank you. Moxy🍁 19:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Trout @Moxy: There is an ongoing discussion over editing the MOS trivia guideline and good faith editors who are making edits for concision and clarity. Moxy swooped in, reverted one of those edits, accused others of violating 1RR and 3RR without evidence, was told that this discussion is ongoing and productive, and has now sought page protection and is forum shopping to stop editing to the page. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Backlog at MediaWiki talk:Bad image list

Per the instructions at the top of that page, MediaWiki talk:Bad image list has an unanswered request from 10 days ago and my request has been sitting for a week. Thanks, Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 00:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Thev instructions on that page say to mark the requests with a {{edit fully-protected}} tag. I just did that with both unresponded requests. I doubt many administrators keep a close eye on that page; the tag categorizes the page in a much more viewed category. Animal lover |666| 07:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Everything there has been taken care of now. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Changes to the CheckUser team, September 2024

Following a request to the Arbitration Committee, the CheckUser permissions of Izno are restored. In addition, the Committee belatedly acknowledges the resignation of Spicy from the CheckUser team and thanks them for their service.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Changes to the CheckUser team, September 2024

The words "mistress" and "affair"

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

---

On Wikipedia, mistress and affair are defined exclusively in the modern pejorative sense. These words did not always automatically carry the connotation of infidelity or someone being a third party.

Up until about 60 years ago, mistress was commonly used as a synonym for longtime lover (it's since been replaced with "partner" or what have you) and affair was synonymous for romance between an unmarried couple (now we call it a "relationship").

There are folks of a certain age who still talk this way. I also know a lady who refers to her best friend as "My girlfriend" and younger people who hear it think she's queer. As Bill Maher said on The View recently, words migrate.

Anyway, the respective Wiki pages must be edited by a skilled writer so past understandings of these words are acknowledged. Who's up to the task? Yours6700 (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

This is absolutely not a matter for WP:AN. This should be discussed on the talk pages of the respective articles. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, if you feel the need to make changes, be bold and do it. Asking others to make edits for you almost never works. We're all volunteers here. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

This is not the place to right great wrongs. It feels like you have issues with evolving language and you should learn to work with others equally, whether they be 14, 47, and 74, and like the English language, we evolve too. Nate • (chatter) 23:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Unprotection

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

---

Hello administrators,
I wanted to move a newly accepted article Jishnu Raghavan (actor) to Jishnu Raghavan and subsequently to Jishnu (actor). However, I noticed that Jishnu Raghavan is admin protected. Welp, after taking a look at the past move logs (including today's userfication) and the relevant AFD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jishnu (Actor), I'm not focused on the article's past issues or its creation by SPA (although I suspect the recent creator may also be one), but considering potential conflicts of interest or paid editing, we usually recommend AFC process, and so, I see no opposition to unprotect. Additionally, if the article is SIMILAR to the previously deleted one via AFD, it can be speedily deleted and a sockpuppet investigation initiated. Your opinion matters too. Cheers! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@SafariScribe: the article is quite similar, yes, and the account that created it, Nayab Shareyar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has been globally locked for "lock evasion". So it's almost certainly a recreation by a sock. Given this, do you want the article to be deleted, or would you like to take responsibility for it and make sure it's in a good state? Elli (talk | contribs) 16:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

It's just another recreation by another sock now globally locked for block evasion.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Elli, delete it then. I have many works to do, but may look at it or request the material when writing articles. Cheers! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@SafariScribe: Done. Thanks for bringing this up, and for your work at AfC in general :) Elli (talk | contribs) 16:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

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

ACERFC 2024 closure

Would be good for a closer type or two to wander over to WP:ACERFC2024 Soon. I think consensus on each item is pretty clear (perhaps excepting proposals 3/3a, which are the ones that most need knowing the close of course), but people like their purple boxes posted by people who haven't participated.

(I'll go add something at WP:Closure requests too, but this board draws a few more.) Izno (talk) 07:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• I closed the obvious ones. starship.paint (RUN) 10:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
• Maddy from Celeste closed the rest. starship.paint (RUN) 02:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Hernandofuente

User Hernandofuente has a history of adding unsourced content to pages and not following the manual of styles of Wikipedia. They fail to engage in consensus building as they never respond in their talk page.

The most recent additions of unsourced content to BLP's were: [13][14].

The country of Brazil uses the DMY format and the user changed the date format from DMY to MDY on multiple Brazilian tv program pages, ignoring the fact that the template Use dmy dates indicates what date format should be used. These are some of the edits they made: [15][16][17].

Their lack of interest in the messages on their talk page has prompted me to open this discussion. Is this a case of no interest in working collaboratively? Telenovelafan215 (talk) 19:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I left a warning at their talk. Ping me in a new message at their talk with a problematic diff if issues continue. In the future, this kind of report belongs at WP:ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 01:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Arbcom elections

In about six weeks, arbcom election season will really get underway with the opening of the self-nomination period. See the related discussion at WT:AC#Concern about participation. Speaking entirely as a individual member of the community, I encourage people to start thinking about running. By the time the official announcements come out, it's already kind of late to be thinking about it, so the purpose of this is just to get people primed.

Looking at the last few elections, we've had less than vigorous fields, resulting in most candidates getting elected. I don't have anything bad to say about any of the people who got elected, but as a general rule, when you're running elections where most candidates get elected, that's not healthy. So hopefully we'll have a larger field this year, with more vigorous competition, and can attract some new and enthusiastic candidates. RoySmith (talk) 22:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, if there is someone you'd like to see run, or if you want to know someone else's plans before making your own decision, I encourage you to get in touch with them now! For more information about the work involved with serving on the committee, see the arbitrator experiences page. isaacl (talk) 22:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

A few non-admins would buck the committee up, whoever else was on it. SerialNumber54129 13:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Historically, non-admin candidacies have always failed at WP:ACE, but it's not a requirement and I agree that a fully engaged and thoughtful non-admin would be a more useful addition to the committee than somebody who has a mop but doesn't actively participate. So, yes, I encourage anybody who is interested to run. RoySmith (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

See User:Thryduulf/Arbcom election stats#Non-admin candidates since 2014 for how non-admin candidates have fared in recent elections. In that time period there has always been at least one admin candidate who wasn't elected that got a greater % support than the highest placed non-admin candidate. Thryduulf (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

True, good research that. People are regularly blinded by authority; our elections have no reason to be exempt. I'm increasingly minded to let AI pick our admins; it would certainly resolve a lot of the issues RfA is regularly accused of possessing. Perhaps a little too Dark Judges for community taste, though... SerialNumber54129 20:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey I recognize one of the names on that list. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

If you have someone in mind, please do let them know! isaacl (talk) 02:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion about responding to threats of harm

Since this noticeboard is about matters of general administrator interest, I think Wikipedia talk:Responding to threats of harm#Why does it say "contact another admin"? qualifies. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Dispute between User:Symphony Regalia and User:Xslyq

Although not violating 3RR, Symphony Regalia has been actively trying to censor Assassin's Creed Shadows in a manner that is controversial.

1. Ignore existing discussions and attempt to delete large amounts of text without any discussion. 2. removed the reminder from the user talk page and marked it as a Minor edit 3. Ignore the compromises that have been reached and insist that they are controversial 4. Because of the previous point, I initiated the RfC and informed Symphony Regalia. 5. Still trying to remove text in an actively ongoing RfC. Xslyq (talk) 19:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

This is a frivolous posting that is retaliation over me reporting the user's edit warring[18] on AN3 (note: user was warned by multiple people). User registered in 2017, and then made their first edit a week ago to strong-arm poorly sourced nationalist POVs/WP:FRINGE in the Assassin's Creed Shadows article, using a website that denies the Nanking Massacre.

Pretty clear WP:NOTHERE IMO, so proposing a WP:BOOMERANG. Symphony Regalia (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

You have not denied any of the accusations.Xslyq (talk) 19:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• You both are problematic. @Sirocco745: too for their false accusations on the talk page. I suggest you two voluntarily commit to a WP:0RR because I'm happy to block you both. @Symphony Regalia: There is no rule that says your preferred version gets to stay active until the discussion is over. @Xslyq: Quit warring.--v/r - TP 19:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  Sure, I will WP:0RR for Assassin's Creed Shadows from now on..Xslyq (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, my bad. I think I'll distance myself from controversial articles in general and stick to copyedits for now, and I'll stick to the 0RR. Also @Symphony Regalia, I'm sorry for simply attacking you. I didn't try to keep things civil and was more concerned with proving a perceived point than actually trying to reach a reasonable solution, which was out of character for me. I knew better but didn't do better, and for that, I'm sorry. Sirocco745 (talk) 05:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  No worries. I appreciate the apology. Symphony Regalia (talk) 10:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

This is a content dispute that should be, and is being, resolved on the article talk page. Why has it been brought here? The article content will be decided by the RFC, so it doesn't matter what version we display currently. User talk pages are an exception to the general rule and are (for most purposes including this one) owned by the user concerned, so point two is a nothingburger. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Oddly enough, an IP user (62.34.248.94) who has never edited anything seems to have referenced the noticeboard discussion in Reverting.This is coupled with the coincidence of geographical location and Familiarity with French sources,.Especially considering that Symphony Regalia has been Blocked indefinitely on the Japanese Wikipedia for Sockpuppet behavior.Xslyq (talk) 08:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

You've already been rebuked over this false implication and your contentious behavior by another editor[19].

Given that the game is from Ubisoft, it's not really special that french IPs edit it. Also if you read the japanese block discussion it wasn't on technical grounds but on behaviour and the behaviour of the IP isn't exactly the same as Regalias. Just because 2 editors revert your contentious edit, doesn't mean there's puppetry involved.

Symphony Regalia (talk) 10:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

There is no doubt that you did engage in Sockpuppet behavior before. I hope any decision will take this discussion and the Japanese Wikipedia's RfC into consideration.Xslyq (talk) 11:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

For someone who made their first edit a week ago[20], you are oddly familiar with the intracities of Japanese wikipedia, SpecialAuth, and so on. If there is a sock here it is likely you.

I did not. A CheckUser was performed and the sock puppet allegations were not substantiated because they aren't true. I was blocked based on a comment request[21] where only 3 people gave input, but I believe that to be for reasons of offending Japanese sensibilities. On Japanese Wikipedia I have had a target on my back for a while for attempting to bring the Nanking Massacre article in line with the English counterpart

None of this is relevant as I haven't edited on Japanese Wikipedia in a while. Symphony Regalia (talk) 11:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

You are permanently banned so of course you cannot edit Japanese Wikipedia with this account.This is the page that records your Sockpuppet behavior, which is the reason for your ban.

Xslyq (talk) 12:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Your account was added to the Sockpuppeter on August 31, 2024, so what does it mean that I haven't edited on Japanese Wikipedia in a while?Xslyq (talk) 12:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

This is false. It was not the reason for my block, which is why the CheckUser did not block. As mentioned above, I was blocked based on very vague RfC where only 3 editors gave input[22], with clear political considerations at play (Nanking Massacre article involvement).

You are demonstrating unusual behavior even beyond being a clear WP:SPA.

• Your first edit was a week ago, and yet you are also demonstrating knowledge of things like SpecialAuth, RfCs, archived discussions on separate wikis, and so on. Why?
• Why are you intimately familiar with how Japanese Wikipedia works?

Symphony Regalia (talk) 13:30, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Your account was added to the Sockpuppeter on August 31, 2024 and I have no intention of tangling with your misconduct on the Japanese Wikipedia, as I have been informed that the actions of the Japanese Wikipedia have no effect on the English Wikipedia.

1.This is not true, my first edit was at 19:47, 1 December 2021.

2.Because there is a magic page where you can see the global account, and I know some Japanese.Xslyq (talk) 15:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, WP:SPA is an essay.It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. WP:SPA is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.I don't think WP:SPA alone is grounds for any sanctions on the account.Xslyq (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

but I believe that to be for reasons of offending Japanese sensibilities.

Do not make negative comments based on ethnicity. Northern Moonlight 04:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Given that Xslyqs edits show clear SPA behaviour I'd say a page block from Assassin's Creed Shadows could become necessary. As for Symphony Regalia: Since basically all of their edits, since the TBAN from WP:GENSEX at AE (which they called harassment), have been about the topic of Assassin's Creed Shadows and Yasuke (which currently has an open arbitration case request). It's likely that another TBAN could be coming their direction, as their behaviour is sometimes disruptive (See WP:ARC). Nobody (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

The panel has my full support. Frankly the ArbCom case couldn't have come soon enough. Yasuke and Assassin's Creed Shadows have undergone an abusrd amount of vandalism and blatant WP:SPA-type behavior (Xslyps is a good example) from the Gamergate crowd since the release of the trailer for said video game[23].

They certainly both need CT designation and perhaps EC protection. My recommendation to the panel is in the case request, but I do think a CT desgination for culture war targets based on perceived DEI is appropriate. Symphony Regalia (talk) 10:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Symphony Regalia's behavior is inappropriate for a controversial topic. Not only the recent editorial behavior, but also mentioned repeatedly in the RfC consensus in Japanese Wikipedia. Symphony Regalia should also at least follow 0RR too.Xslyq (talk) 11:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Xslyq while this is not the first time that the Japanese discussion is brought up here, what happened on jawiki stays on jawiki, especially if there is no conclusive device information to tie the accounts together. You are welcome to bring up new sock puppet allegations that happened on enwiki at WP:SPI if any. Otherwise, don't bring this up again or repeatedly. It does not look good on you. – robertsky (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure. As a way of cooling off, I won't be editing Assassin's Creed Shadows main page indefinitely. If that's okay, I'm now looking to continue the discussion on the talk page.Still think 0RR should be applied to Symphony Regalia as well.Xslyq (talk) 13:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Possible Closure

Is this dispute within the scope of the recently opened ArbCom case? If so, should this thread be closed, with instructions to the parties to submit evidence to ArbCom? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Pardon me for asking, but if this case were taken to ArbCom, would my involvement in such be required due to me being a part of the original discussion/argument on Assassin's Creed Shadows where this all started? If so, to what capacity would I be involved? I just finished reading up on how ArbCom works and what it's meant for, and if I'm being completely honest, I'm pretty scared of being a "main character" in such. I have no real idea what to expect. Sirocco745 (talk) 05:15, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

You're not a party right now, so your involvement isn't required. However, if someone does submit evidence about you there's always a chance you could be added. Participation mostly consists of submitting evidence on the evidence page, whether it's about yourself or other editors. Pinguinn 🐧 09:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Closure Review: Benevolent Dictator

About a week ago, this RFC was closed by voorts as no consensus. However, as I brought up on their talk page, I think there actually is a consensus. Voorts themselves says in the close that the exclude side had far more supporters and that some of their arguments were not answered by the side for inclusion.

Voorts' closure seems to suggest that just because both sides made policy-based arguments, that means those arguments are equivalent, when in fact one set of arguments was more convincing to the actual participants (as proven by the count of supporters). Loki (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why I wrote that one side far outnumbered the other; this was a 6 – 4 discussion (excluding one yes !vote from an editor whose only edit to Wikipedia was to participate in that discussion). As I suggested on my talk page, I recommend trying to reach a compromise, for example, by including historical figures whom reliable historians refer to as benevolent dictators. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'll also note that there was an RfC on this same issue in January 2023. Reaching a compromise would prevent this page from going through upheaval every year. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  Another note: @Robert McClenon said pretty much the same thing to Loki about one and a half hours ago. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Background

There was a previous RFC started in October 2022 and closed in January 2023: [24]. The closure was against including examples. In July 2024, a request was made at DRN for dispute resolution. I observed that part of the problem was that some editors had disagreed with the RFC, and had ignored the RFC rather than either complying with it or requesting a review of its closure. Since moderated discussion was unlikely to result in a compromise, I said that I would prepare a new RFC. I said that it should probably be reviewed at WP:AN so that no editor could claim that there was anything wrong with the RFC. That may be one of the reasons for this challenge. I said that any editor who then ignored the second RFC would be editing disruptively and could be sanctioned. After some work on the RFC, Loki submitted the RFC on 17 July, and voorts closed it on 13 September. My involvement is that I drafted the RFC. I was neutral, and was acting as a mediator, but consider myself an involved editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Previously Involved Editors

• Endorse as I wrote in closing a DRN request concerning this RFC: [25]. If I had been closing the RFC, I would have found No Consensus, and would have advised that the inclusion of any specific person and the specific historian be discussed on the article talk page, Talk:Benevolent dictatorship. That is the advice that I will give to both of the parties to the dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Previously Uninvolved Editors

• Endorse: There was clearly no consensus here, even if all arguments were weighted equally. 6–4 is not consensus for anything. And per WP:ONUS, consensus for inclusion needs to be achieved. There is pratically no difference between "no consensus for inclusion" and a general "no consensus" because both result in no inclusion. I'm not sure what the point of this review is. C F A 💬 22:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
• Uninvolved endorse of close. There is no consensus in that discussion and this isn't a situation where a firm consensus is likely since the matter itself is subjective. Star Mississippi 22:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

• Uninvolved endorse. 6-4 is not a consensus. It's a nocon. Assuming there weren't irregularities or obvious policy wins here, which is a discretionary matter. Or, basically, per Star Mississippi and CFA Andre🚐 22:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse. I would have closed that as "no consensus" too.—S Marshall T/C 17:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse not a vote count. (t · c) buidhe 03:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse, probably No Consensus is correct although I would have looked closely considering two of the four "Yes" votes were conditional. As a personal view I would have also removed that example section, it's not good. Black Kite (talk) 09:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Edit request that's been open for a while

Hello, can someone implement the request at Template talk:Collapse top? It's been open for a while, and I think Izno's on a wikibreak/is busy rn to implement it. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 10:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Izno has been active over the last few days, and was so this morning. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I worked through a whole bunch of edit requests yesterday, let a man sleep and/or ignore one that someone else can definitely do since it's a TE protected template. heh Izno (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Isn't sleeping valid grounds for a desysop? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Sweet release. Izno (talk) 18:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

User talk:Exchangegaloshes

Can an administrator please block the username Exchangegaloshes? They are vandalizing different users talk pages, and adding an inappropriate file. HotDogsforDays (talk) 04:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Latest sock blocked, article and your talkpage protected. Acroterion (talk) 04:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Previous accounts

I edited Wikipedia previously under the username User:Otolemur crassicaudatus and User:NGC 2736. I don't use those accounts now. Can I get rollback rights? Under my current account, I have made only 200+ edits. CometVolcano (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I suppose in theory we'd want some kind of evidence that those were your accounts. But in practice, it's just rollback, so sure, I'll do it. Hang on a sec. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

What evidence do you want? You can check my editing pattern. And I edited National Masturbation Day under both User:NGC 2736 and current username. BTW, if you check my edit history under new account, it is obvious it is an experienced editor, not novice. --CometVolcano (talk) 21:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I have forgot the passwords of those accounts. Is there any way by which I can recover them? --CometVolcano (talk) 13:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

If you have email attached to each, you may reset your password. Otherwise, it takes contacting the WMF Trust and Safety team, which is not a guarantee. IznoPublic (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't have email attached to them. --CometVolcano (talk) 20:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

How can I contact the WMF Trust and Safety team? --CometVolcano (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Trust and Safety. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

ca(_AT_)wikimedia.org is that an email ID? Should I send an email to them? --CometVolcano (talk) 15:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Email sent. Is it possible to merge the contributions of the previous accounts to my current account? CometVolcano (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

CometVolcano, it's not technically possible to merge accounts. At best, you can post a Redirect on your old account(s) to point to your current one. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Final Request for Revision – Resolving the Contradiction in the Accounting Article

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

---

hello.

I hope you're doing well. I am reaching out to you once again, with a final request regarding the initial sentence in the "Accounting" article on Wikipedia. After reflecting on our previous conversations and reexamining the article, I believe there is a significant contradiction in how the definition of accounting is currently presented, which I’d like to discuss in more detail.

The article, as it stands, introduces "accounting" in its most general sense without any mention of "analysis" in the opening definition. This omission is particularly concerning because later in the same article, when discussing management accounting, it explicitly mentions that management accounting involves analysis. This creates an inherent contradiction: how can one specialized branch of accounting (i.e., management accounting) include analysis while the broader field of accounting, which encompasses all subfields, does not?

This suggests that accounting as a whole is merely about recording transactions, which is a gross oversimplification of the profession. The field of accounting, in reality, is much broader. Accounting not only involves recording financial information but also interpreting, analyzing, and presenting it in ways that assist decision-making for businesses, individuals, and governments alike. To exclude any mention of analysis in the opening definition of the entire field is misleading and diminishes the full scope of what accounting truly entails.

What is even more contradictory is that analysis plays a critical role in all aspects of accounting, not just in management accounting. Financial accounting, for example, requires rigorous analysis to prepare accurate financial statements, interpret company performance, and ensure compliance with standards. Similarly, audit and tax accounting are also grounded in analytical processes that go far beyond simple bookkeeping. In fact, without analysis, accounting information would be of little use to stakeholders, as raw data alone does not inform strategic decisions.

Given that the article later discusses analysis in the context of management accounting, I believe it is essential to reflect this in the broader definition of accounting as well. Not only would this resolve the contradiction, but it would also provide readers with a more accurate and complete understanding of the field from the outset.

I propose a slight but meaningful revision to the opening sentence, which could say something like: "Accounting is the process of recording, analyzing, and reporting financial information." This small addition acknowledges that accounting is not limited to recording transactions but also involves the critical step of analyzing financial data to provide meaningful insights.

I genuinely believe this revision will enhance the accuracy and clarity of the article, and I kindly ask you to reconsider my suggestion. Thank you for your dedication to ensuring that Wikipedia provides high-quality and informative content, and I hope we can collaborate to resolve this issue for the benefit of all readers. Wikinegarr (talk) 10:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• @Wikinegarr: - isn't "analysis" covered by "processing"? Also, we have to follow the reliable sources. starship.paint (RUN) 11:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  no processing is not covering that, also i added its sources in the article but a user deleted it. Wikinegarr (talk) 11:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• This seems to be a content issue, which you should discuss at Talk:Accounting. Indeed, there is ongoing discussion about this issue at Talk:Accounting#Lead sentence which you are already participating in. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• This is in reference to the same stuff as #Deletion without reason a few sections up. Also, this is obviously AI-generated and not remotely in Wikinegarr's usual writing style. MrOllie (talk) 11:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  it's not AI. Wikinegarr (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Request

Hi.I have not enough time time to currently contribute on Wikipedia due to high level of painful stress, I was priviously more active on english Wikipedia, but I like to take a long wikibreak for 2 weeks , so, If admins are remove my privileges except extended confirmed user and also please extended confirmed protection add at on my usertalkpage for 2 week is my humble request to Wikipedia Volunteers.Happy editing --- Bhairava7 • (@píng mє-tαlk mє) 05:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I've removed your privileges as you requested, but I don't see the need to protect your Talk page. Just put a {{wikibreak}} notice on your Talk page so editors posting will know you're not around.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2024).

Administrator changes

• Asilvering
• Significa liberdade

• Good Olfactory
• Hesperian
• I JethroBT
• TommyBoy
• Woody

CheckUser changes

• Barkeep49
• Izno

• Doug Weller
• Spicy

Guideline and policy news

• Administrator elections are a proposed new process for selecting administrators, offering an alternative to requests for adminship (RfA). The first trial election will take place in October 2024, with candidate sign-up from October 8 to 14, a discussion phase from October 22 to 24, and SecurePoll voting from October 25 to 31. For questions or to help out, please visit the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections.
• Following a discussion, the speedy deletion reason "File pages without a corresponding file" has been moved from criterion G8 to F2. This does not change what can be speedily deleted.
• A request for comment is open to discuss whether there is a consensus to have an administrator recall process.

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Historical elections has been closed.
• An arbitration case regarding Backlash to diversity and inclusion has been opened.
• Editors are invited to nominate themselves to serve on the 2024 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission until 23:59 October 8, 2024 (UTC).

Miscellaneous

• If you are interested in stopping spammers, please put MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist on your watchlist, and help out when you can.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Dicklyon JWB ban appeal

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

---

A year ago, in September 2023, I was indefinitely banned from using AWB/JWB or other semi-automated editing tools, due to my not-careful-enough fast edits that resulted in some errors; see WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1139#Dicklyon and semi-automated edits.  I think it's time to appeal that for reconsideration, in the spirit of the WP:Standard offer, and I'm told that this is the place to ask, even though it's a community issue, not an admin issue.  I have also waited for more than 6 months after the kerfuffle with User:GoodDay that resulted in a string of four short blocks on me, including two for personal attacks on him (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive360#Dicklyon temporarily blocked for incivility).  I've kept my nose clean since then (as far as I can find, nobody has brought me up at AN or ANI in the last year, as they had done a few times the year before).

I will also notify WP:Requests for permissions/AutoWikiBrowser of this discussion.

From the experience a year ago, I learned to appreciate much more deeply that an error rate of 1 in 100 is not nearly good enough when thousands of edits are involved, and I regret that I slipped into that region in some of my too-fast batches of JWB edits.  I will strive for zero errors in the future, by inspecting the context of everything in the diff more carefully, to ensure that my replace patterns are not unintentionally changing things in ref titles, filenames, category names, commons categories, template names, and other such places where "fixes" often do more harm than good.

In the last 6 months, I've done a ton of good work, about 13,000 edits (all manually), including moving about 500 articles (usually to fix over-capitalization), plus much of the corresponding post-move cleanup.  This work has been done without raising much controversy, with civil discussions in RMs when there's any pushback (with the exception of some personal attacks against me from two editors who didn't like my changes and proposed changes on some military gear articles).

I've also added nearly 100 new photos via Commons this year; see User:Dicklyon#2024. And stubbed in a few handfuls of new articles, such as Tassajara Creek, Oleshnya (river), Squalicum Creek, Johnstons Bay, Tioga Crest, Elizabeth Macarthur Bay, Robert L. White (engineer), Carl Kassner, Earl Schubert, Mynavi Corporation, and Tripper navigation system. So it's not like I'm doing gnoming exclusively.

In addition to what I counted in my move log, and in addition to lots of single-article "Requested Move" discussions that I started that succeeded, I also caused hundreds of other pages to be moved through gaining consensus at multi-RM discussions in the last 6 months or so.  Here are the ones I find, with how many moves resulted (total looks like about 380, not counting the 400 or so NFL Draft pages that were moved from an RFC that closed in Feb.); working backwards in time:

• 38 at Talk:2167/2168 Changchun–Mudanjiang through train
• 13 at Talk:Bolognese school
• 7 at Talk:2023 USL Championship playoffs
• 3 at Talk:All-purpose lightweight individual carrying equipment
• 19 at Talk:MLS Cup playoffs
• 12 at Talk:PBA Best Player of the Conference award
• 4 at Talk:UFL championship game
• 18 at Talk:NAIA ice hockey championship
• 3 at Talk:Cretan school
• 69 at Talk:NHL entry draft
• 10 at Talk:Timeline of the Yemeni crisis (2011–present)
• 63 at Talk:CFL draft
• 33 at Talk:2024 NWSL expansion draft
• 14 at Talk:1991 NHL dispersal and expansion drafts
• 12 at Talk:AAF quarterback draft
• 13 at Talk:MLS supplemental draft
• 10 at Talk:NHL supplemental draft
• 15 at Talk:1992 PBA All-Filipino Conference finals
• 10 at Talk:USFL draft

I've gotten over 100 thanks over that time period, too (nearly 200 over the last year), which makes me think I'm doing something right.  I've also been able to reduce over-capitalization on many thousands of articles via a couple of template edit requests, e.g. at Template talk:Infobox Canadian Football League biography and Template talk:Infobox NFL biography.

The trouble with all these style-fixing moves is that it's very hard to keep up with the post-move cleanup, e.g. of links to the redirects at the old over-capitalized titles.  In the case of the NFL Draft, I was able to get a bot operator to program a bot that's now completed, having edited 1000 files per day for over a month, to fix those, (see User:BsoykaBot's contribs).  That's a good solution at that scale, but for probably all of the others there's not enough to justify the work to make a bot and get approval for it, and there's too much work to do manually (by me or any other editors), and only AWB/JWB provides a way to make effective progress on the cleanup.  It cuts the time per edit by about an order of magnitude (when being careful), I estimate.

What I intend to start on with JWB is fixing links to miscapitalized redirects that have dozens to hundreds of incoming links.  I've compiled partial lists of things to work on at User:Dicklyon/Under-capitalized and User:Dicklyon/Over-capitalized.  Each link on those pages goes to the "what links here" list of links (from article space only, as I've already dealt with links from templates for most of them).  Some of these (like New York city) will be mostly quick and easy to fix with JWB. Some others will require a lot of individual attention (e.g. Constitutional Law or Data Science, which might be linked as part of the proper name of a title or organization, for example), but still JWB will be a big help.

I've had some trouble recently in the military history space, most notably at Talk:M40 Gun Motor Carriage, where my proposal, based on several of my moves that had been reverted, failed to find a consensus.  And I've had some strong pushback on some other moves, which made getting to consensus slow and rancorous, with long RM discussions (running to over 6 weeks in the case of Talk:All-purpose lightweight individual carrying equipment). So I'm going to avoid the military stuff entirely for a while.  There's plenty to be done elsewhere.  More generally, I'll be doing fewer moves and more just chipping away at cleanup edits, when I have JWB access again.

Your consideration is appreciated. Dicklyon (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Conditional support - I've no problems with these tools being restored to Dicklyon, as long as they promise to not bypass the RM route (example RFCs) for page moves. PS - My name in the appeal, isn't "Good Day" & so would appreciate the correction. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Fixed your name. Thanks for your understanding. Dicklyon (talk) 19:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

As to "not bypass the RM route for page moves", that's not related to JWB. And as I pointed out above, I've caused about 780 titles to be moved this year via discussions (RM & RFC), and about 500 without. In the few cases where some of those were reverted, I followed up with RMs, per WP:BRD; for example, Talk:Aerial rocket artillery#Requested move 21 September 2024 most recently. In general, when a move is unlikely to be controversial, moving without an RM is preferred. There's typically a huge backlog of RM discussions, some going back more than a month, and they take a lot of editor time, so shouldn't be done when fixes are simple and uncontroversial; that's what I'll commit to stick to. But that's not what this is about. Dicklyon (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Don't use the RFC route anymore, please. GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Dick Lyon is a net negative. SerialNumber54129 17:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  Sure, if you're counting style errors. Dicklyon (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Dicklyon is massively understating the disruption he's caused in the military history space. He has a demonstrated pattern of trying to push through poorly researched decapitalization moves without any attempts at prior discussion despite being well aware that they are controversial moves that would be contested. When pressed on the issue and asked to seek consensus *first* for page moves he can reasonably expect to be contested, he has repeatedly and consistently refused to do so. Instead, he simply performs the moves hoping for a fait accompli that nobody else will have the time or energy to contest them and clean up his messes. This exchange is telling regarding his inability to comply with WP:PCM -- he admits that he has trouble understanding WP:PCM's requirement that you must use the discussion process first if "someone could reasonably disagree with the move". His decapitalization attempt of RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 was simply wrong -- in an attempt to push it through without discussion, because he wasn't sure between two ambiguous capitalizations he chose a third, objectively wrong option instead. When the error was pointed out, he still insisted that at some point in the future, he'd open up an RM to further push the discussion. Yet despite having admitted that he has difficulty predicting when a move will be controversial, he's insistent in this very discussion that he will continue to make undiscussed moves when fixes are simple and uncontroversial; that's what I'll commit to stick to. That should be a glaring red warning siren when someone is self-admittedly unable to determine when something is controversial, but insisting that they'll only take uncontroversial actions. I've tried raising these concerns with Dick before, repeatedly, to no avail. Talking with Dick on anything relating to a move discussion is like talking to a brick wall. Nothing gets through, everything just bounces back. It's brought multiple admins to the point of frustration and walking away from participating in this area. Frankly, I think he should be permanently TBANed from any kind of page move or decapitalization discussion or action, but I'll be satisfied to start with not allowing him to have greater tools with which to disrupt the project. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

And FWIW, the RM he mentions at Talk:All-purpose lightweight individual carrying equipment was a bad close and should be reverted. There is clearly no consensus in that discussion - I understand these discussions are not a vote count, but that discussion is practically 50-50 between opposes and supports. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 20:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

This is the kind of personal attack and strong pushback I was referring to when I said I was going to avoid the Military History space. Obviously Swatjester's opinion is not aligned with mine, and not aligned with what was judged to be the consensus there. On the missile, I think he was referring to my suggestion that maybe RIM-161 Standard missile 3 would be better; that was the name of the article many years ago, and agrees with other editors who pointed out that the name is "Standard", not "Standard Missile". And it's based on sources, which are mixed, and also sometimes don't cap "standard". Anyway, my move was reverted and and I left him a note about it, and that was that. Not a huge disruption. Concurrently, with the gun motor carriages, I learned that in general a couple of MILHIST guys strongly reject the advice at WP:MILCAPS: When using a numerical model designation, the words following the designation should be left uncapitalized (for example, "M16 rifle" or "M6 bomb service truck") unless it is a proper noun (for example, M1 Abrams). So, those are all going to be controversial, which is why I'm going to stay away from them. Dicklyon (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• Conditional support Give this editor another chance; his request sounds reasonable. — Sadko (words are wind) 23:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose the responses here and discussions linked therein seem to indicate the same problems I had concerns about in the block review. I'm not sure whether more time will fix the issues and get Dicklyon to realize that because he wants these changes, that doesn't necessarily mean they're needed and especially not at scale. Star Mississippi 00:48, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  Dick Lyon's comment below that he deserves consideration just makes me edge closer to a strong oppose.

  As far as I recall, I have no substantive interaction with Lyon prior to assessing the block I referenced above. Similarly, no ties with Swatjester that would make me align with their annoyance, as Lyon describes it. @Dicklyon WP:NOTTHEM is helpful. Star Mississippi 01:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. The encyclopedia would be far better off if Dicklyon never made another edit pertaining to page moves or capitalization, and instead worked on entirely different things. Cullen328 (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support. DL's RM track record speaks for itself. That he has a camp of "un-friends" who dislike him for properly applying our title policy and style guidelines is not a reason to partially suppress his work in this area. As for alleged "disruption" in military topics, I've been following this, and what's really happening is a handful of military-focused editors are repetitively fighting tooth and nail against every lower-casing move despite the clear instructions in their own WP:MILCAPS guideline, and site-wide ones like WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS. Again, just because DL and our guidelines have a few people who resist them does not make the resisters in the right. To the extent there is disruption regarding capitalization and other style matters, it always comes from those who defy their application to a particular "pet" topic (even against the intent of guidelines particular to that topic and the views of other editors involved in it). To get back to the principal point here, DL clear understands the procedural expectations of him at this point and has been following them, so there is no reason to deny him use of a tool within those expectations.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:39, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support Dicklyon's approach, as he acknowledges above, has sometimes been suboptimal but his actions usually have much more support in the P&G than his opponents. (t · c) buidhe 03:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I uninvolved in pretty much everything discussed in this thread and AFAIK, I have no personal history with Dicklyon. However the standards have always been that moves that may be controversial should be discussed first. Moves is one aware where WP:BEBOLD is definitely not encouraged. So it doesn't matter how much editors think they are right on the issue as per our policies and guidelines; what matters if there may be good-faith pushback. While it can be hard to predict, and RMs can be costly, ultimately they're still a lot less costly than the problems that result from BOLDMOVES, so if there's any reasonable possibility you might be wrong, RM is the way. Even if most or all of the resultant RMs result in a move, and yet editors are still opposing their moves, we can discuss how to handle it, but it's definitely not just force it through in the hope they'll eventually stop complaining. It's apparent from the above, as well as the links, that Dickylon really doesn't understand this so it just seems a terrible idea to give them tools which will make it easier for them to make such mistakes. Nil Einne (talk) 10:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  Just wanted to add, the cost to the community of RMs should be the only reason to avoid them. No editor should ever be avoiding an RM because they fear if they start one there will be objections from editors in good standing and achieving consensus might take more effort; but they're hoping if they don't and just go ahead, no one will make the effort to object. Call it WP:Fait accompli or whatever you want, it's just not something editors should be doing. Nil Einne (talk) 10:41, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'd add that if Dicklyon would commit to only ever using JWB/AWB for moves after an RM closed by someone else established a clear consensus for their move, then I'd support them regaining JWB. However given strong concerns about their judgment, this has to be an explicit consensus for what they're doing e.g. ABC to Abc or all cases of ABC to Abc. I don't think we can trust their judgment for even something like ABc to Abc after getting consensus to move ABC to Abc or even if they go consensus for one case of ABC to Abc, they can move other cases of ABC to Abc. This is likely to be very limiting, so I can understand why they could not want such a limit. And in addition I'm not saying this justifies starting pointless RMs, if that happens the community may take action and they cannot blame the requirements imposed on them for JWB use. So it's not something I raised before now. However if others think that the problems they might cause via misuse of JWB for page moves aren't sufficient to justify denying it, then I'm fine with allowing it with these conditions. Nil Einne (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support—Someone above says: "poorly researched decapitalization moves". Really? I find his research thorough and balanced, and his knowledge of MOSCAPS good as well. A net significant benefit to en.WP. Tony (talk) 10:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. I won't support or oppose, but I think Dicklyon's colleagues do him a disservice when they say, more or less, "he's right on the merits, so restore his access." I can't think of a better way for Dicklyon to wind up right back in hot water than this sort of uncritical support. The community has said in the past that Dicklyon's evaluation of what is and is not a controversial move is heterodox. Whether he's "right" or not doesn't come into it. Mackensen (talk) 11:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm uninvolved with anything specific mentioned here, but have been involved with multiple other style-related (especially capitalisation-related) move discussions involving Dick in other topic areas and the links presented here show that despite the passage of time he has not learned how to predict what is and isn't going to be controversial or how to listen to and constructively communicate with other editors when they disagree with them. Thryduulf (talk) 13:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment This application has nothing to do with page moves and comments to oppose this application on perceived conduct in respect to page moves are off topic. A number of editors are commenting on their expectations in respect to page moves particularly in respect to capitalisation and individual views that DL is not conducting himself reasonably. The test of reasonableness (ie good-faith or bad-faith) applies equally to all involved parties. If there is a broad community consensus that capitalisation moves are a special case with particular expectations, then the broad community consensus should be established and documented. But this is neither the time nor the place. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  It was Dicklyon himself who brought up page moves in his opening statement. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  I don't give an F about the capitalisation issues (frankly I barely even know what it's about and barely know what our MOS says about such things) so as I said, I'm uninvolved regarding that. If there are other editors behaving poorly regarding capitalisation, we can discuss how to handle that somewhere appropriate. Clearly though, the way to handle it is not for an editor to try and force moves without discussion when they expect these editors will oppose. Likewise, if other editors are using JWB or AWB inappropriately then it should be removed from them, and I'd encourage you User:Cinderella157 or anyone else aware of such misuse to bring it to our attention. We're not going to give an extremely powerful tool which can cause significant problems when misused back to some editor so they can misuse it just because some other editors are misusing it. If that's what you're suggesting than sorry but that's one of the dumbest suggestions on AN in a while. Nil Einne (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  Nil Einne, I think that you may have the stick by the wrong end here. JWB/AWB are editing tools. In effect, they are like the search and replace function one can us in MS Word. They do not move pages. Hence, my comment. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Cinderella157: I don't misunderstand. JWB can be used to help process page moves making a lot of changes as part of a move which will need to then be reverted. This is incredibly disruptive, even more so than an inappropriate move which is disruptive enough as it is. It's clear from what Dickylon said in the opening statement, that this is one of the purposes Dicklyon intends to use JWB for. If they don't intend to do so, they should't have told us that this is what they intend to do. (Although realistically given the history I think editors would expect this is one of the things they intend to do and so they would likely have needed to explicitly commit not to do it rather than just not mentioning it. Them being honest was by that token, at least a small positive.) In fact they made a big deal over how they need JWB so they can process all these allegedly much needed moves which, so I don't understand why this is in doubt. One point I sort of touched on above but which hasn't been really dealt with much in this thread. If you move Burma to Myanmar, it doesn't mean that it's necessarily appropriate to change every single wikilink of Burma to Myanmar, care needs to be taken as in some cases it's appropriate to keep Burma. Definitely unless there was consensus in the RM that every single usage of Burma should change to Myanmar, you cannot claim that it's okay because there was consensus. This isn't a made up example, I distinctly recall this being an issue in the past where one or more editors (I don't think any of them were Dicklyon) made this mistaken assumption causing disruption. There is a chance I'm remembering wrong and it was Myanmar to Burma. Either way although I supported the move from Burma to Myanmar long before it happened, I can see this as disruptive. The same would apply to whatever moves Dicklyon is trying to make, even if perhaps less so due to capitalisation having less reason to vary, hence why in my comment above, I said I'd support it if Dicklyon only used JWB in relation to moves under very strict circumstances. You can come up with other circumstances if you want, e.g. they'd only use it after waiting 90 days from a move that didn't go through the RM process and find consensus as adjudged by someone else to make the change Dickylon wants to make, and with the recognition that since it didn't go through the RM process opposition once Dicklyon starts to use JWB needs to result in an immediate halt and reversal rather than a claim it's been 90 days and there was no opposition so it's now the status quo ante; I'd consider those conditions as well. But from the evidence I've seen including their latest comment below, definitely not without such very strict conditions since I simply don't trust Dickylon to have the judgment on when what they're doing is okay and when it's disruptive. Nil Einne (talk) 03:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Cullen. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Above comments have left me unconvinced that Dicklyon's behavior has changed in any substantive way since prior blocks/sanctions. The Kip ^(contribs) 03:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. I’m hard-pressed to give a user with a dozen-plus blocks access to such tools. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Attention should probably be given to his usual coterie of enablers as well. 2601:600:C87F:D360:D462:909E:F4D:D1E9 (talk) 21:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

2601:600:C87F:D360:D462:909E:F4D:D1E9, if you are going to cast aspersions at some unidentified people, you should log into your regular account. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose I think that Thryduulf basically wrote the same comment that I could have. XOR'easter (talk) 22:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cullen328 and Thryduulf. And no, Dicklyon, it's not that I don't have anything to say; it's that those editors already said it with better words. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose There's enough of a history for the community to reach a final conclusion. Access to these tools will just cause more disruptions. I recommend Dicklyon dedicate his time to improving the project in other ways. Nemov (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Got any specifics?

A number of opposers above seem to be reacting to long-ago problems, or to Swatjester's annoyance at me. I had admitted from the outset my problems in the military history space (which accounted for relatively few of the many moves and edits I've done this year), and offered to stay away from that, since some of the fixes that appeared to me to be uncontroversial turned out not to be. If I've done anything else that people found to be bad in some way, I'd appreciate hearing it directly, with specifics, and links, not just echoing Swatjester or vaguely alluding to past problems. I've claimed that I've "kept my nose clean" since problems more than six months ago, and therefore deserve to be considered for a "standard offer". If you think I'm wrong, don't I deserve to hear why? Dicklyon (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Dicklyon, the Standard offer is an essay. It is neither a policy nor a guideline. It is sometimes a useful tool, but it should be noted that it says This is not a get-out-of-jail-free card, and administrators are not forced to unblock you. You need to persuade other editors commenting here that there will be no further disruption from Dicklyon. But you have been repeatedly disruptive and have been blocked for it over and over and over for 17 years. You have not persuaded me and it is clear that you have not persuaded many other editors who have memories and have either never been blocked, or have been blocked far less often than you have been. Those who oppose this are under no obligation to furnish diffs. It is your long term pattern of misbehavior that is etched in many memories. Cullen328 (talk) 00:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand all that. So I'm trying to show "no further disruption", especially with respect to JWB usage, by showing good behavior for the last 6 months, and year mostly, with a few exceptions that were not nearly as bad as Swatjester paints them in poisoning the water for this discussion. On the Feb. kerfuffel with GoodDay, I made a nasty comment for which I got blocked, and apologized and he accepted. And I got blocked for "move warring" for one move that seemed right at the time and was shown right later. And I got blocked for edit warring for listing an RFC at central too many times. It was stupid, but none of that was particularly disruptive, and 3 of the 4 Feb blocks got lifted early after a little discussion; sure, they added to my total from years ago, and that's now on my permanent record, which is a drag. In the military history area, it's more complicated, but I've tried to be up front about what I did wrong and how I will avoid it in the future, and it's unrelated to the permission that I'm asking for. Reaching back years behind those events seems like an altogether unreasonable approach here. So I'm asking for the courtesy of having my transgressions pointed out, and asking for an evaluation of my last 6 months, not trying to impose an obligation or erase anyone's memory. And I'm pointing out that I've done a massive amount of good work in the last year, gnoming and otherwise, of which only a tiny fraction has bothered anyone. So if I've done something wrong that I've not already admitted to, I'd like to know what. Dicklyon (talk) 02:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

"one move that seemed right at the time and was shown right later" - you've demonstrated the problem here. For moves, it's not "is the move right" but 'is the move likely receive good faith opposition'? If it's the latter, then you need to use the RM process and not proceed just because you think the RM will eventually find a consensus on your side. Since you still don't seem to understand this even after multiple people have raised it above, how can there be any hope that you will understand it well enough now not to misuse JWB by making moves you think are right but which there is likely to be such opposition? Nil Einne (talk) 03:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

In my idealistic view of things, seventeen years of repeatedly disruptive behavior should be followed by seventeen years of exemplary, utterly non-controversial conduct before editing restrictions are lifted. The community will probably conclude that my assessment is too harsh. But six months is way too soon. Cullen328 (talk) 05:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Dicklyon, regardless of whether you and I agree on my interpretation of the examples I've provided, I think it's pretty hard to make the argument I've "poisoned the water" here when nobody in opposition has cited my opposition as their reasoning (e.g. no "per Swatjester") and at least a couple of people in support clearly disagree with me specifically. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 06:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

You were first to oppose after the null comment of SerialNumber54129, and next Star Mississippi said "the responses here and discussions linked therein seem to indicate ..." (and that was mainly you in the linked discussion, too, where I couldn't get you to point out an example other than the missile). Dicklyon (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Then Cullen jumped in with nothing, then Nil Eienne with "It's apparent from the above, as well as the links ...". Then Thryduulf with his long memory and well-known antagonism to MOS fixes. And six more with nothing to say piled on at the end. Dicklyon (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Dicklyon, are you actually trying to claim that your well-documented 17 years history of disruptive editing and your associated block log is "nothing"? Really? That is an astonishing assertion utterly devoid of evidence. Do you even care about your credibility? I have been editing for 15 years and have zero blocks on my record. Why is it that you cannot say the same thing? Cullen328 (talk) 04:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Dicklyon, you could have approached this discussion by saying, "I now realize that I have been editing disruptively for 16-1/2 years and I have now experienced an epiphany and I pledge to never edit disruptively again, As a token of my sincerity, I pledge to never edit again regarding page moves and capitalization, because I realize that the community has come to the conclusion that my editing in that area has been disruptive." But no. You want tools to be restored to enable you to continue your disruption more efficiently. Cullen328 (talk) 05:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

That's absurd. The community has not come to any such decision, and it pisses me off to hear you put out such misinformation. Dicklyon (talk) 05:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Dicklyon, uninvolved editors who take the time to examine your documented very long history of disruptive editing can look at your block log and at my my empty block log. They can then draw their own conclusions. Cullen328 (talk) 05:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Obviously I'm not denying my block log. And if any editors would take the time to examine my record, they'd see that along with my mistakes I've made huge positive contributions to WP. And if any would look at my behavior over the last year, I'd like to hear what they find. A few people were annoyed at losing their capital letters, but it was mostly just uncontroversial hard work. I admitted where my mistakes were, and people are acting like there's a lot more, but won't show me. I doubt any of them looked. If you did, what did you find? Dicklyon (talk) 05:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Dicklyon, of course I have looked at your edit history repeatedly over many years, and almost all I see is you obsessing (common term instead of psychiatric diagnosis) about trivial matters of zero interest to our readers, like changing something like "XYZ" to "Xyz", and when encountering resistance to your trivial edits, you dig in and engage in battleground behaviour. Cullen328 (talk) 06:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

So, tell us, Dicklyon, when will that misconduct stop? Cullen328 (talk) 06:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion

Not a recommendation, but perhaps if you were to stay away from page moving where lower-casing is involved, for a whole year. Maybe some of the editors who are opposing your request, might change their minds. GoodDay (talk) 02:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I will pledge to not do any page moves to lowercase alternatives, for a whole year, if I get JWB access back, if that's what it takes. And of course I will use JWB responsibly and carefully, knowing that if I don't I'll lose it forever. Dicklyon (talk) 03:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Call for applications: clerks, COI queue, checkuser, and oversight

As a reminder, the committee welcomes applications for these positions at any time but is keen to hold an appointments round in the next few weeks. Editors interested in becoming arbitration clerks, or administrators interested in the conflict of interest VRT queue, checkuser, or oversight are encouraged to email arbcom-en-cwikimedia.org before the end of Sunday 13 October. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Call for applications: clerks, COI queue, checkuser, and oversight

Can my account be locked please?

I can't "disappear", so I'll instead request to be locked. Sekundenlang (talk) 12:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

See WP:SELFBLOCK. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

BLP image

Would an admin take a look at File:Ben Shapiro I Don't Need A 7-Year Degree In Sociology To Know BS When I Hear It.png? Not only is it lacking verifiable copyright information, but the way it was being used at the top of Interruption (speech) was (in my opinion) a violation of WP:BLPIMAGE, WP:BLPREMOVE (for the caption) and WP:UNDUE. There seems to be no reason to wait seven days for this to be deleted per WP:F4 and it probably meets the criteria for WP:F9. Even if WP:CONSENT could be obtained, it seems too UNDUE for the article it was being used in. Anyway, I'll leave it up to an admin to decide whether there's any need to "warn" the uploader about this kind of thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Deleted as F9 copyvio. – robertsky (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Partial block appeal request

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

---

I'd like to appeal the partial block given by Bbb23 (talk · contribs) on the page Soka Gakkai based on an edit warring report I originally filed about another user. Bbb23 gave both I and the other user indefinite partial blocks on account of editwarring. I was planning on just eating the pblock since I was mainly concerned with POV-pushing on the page and that was one way (if a bit overkill, in my opinion) to keep the page stable. However I realized today that I no longer have access to the Wikipedia Library, which is a problem for me as I use it often to find citations. So I'm appealing the pblock.

In short, the editwarring report was made while I had another open report on WP:ANI about the user's apparent WP:COI issue. Strangely that report was ignored and was quietly archived after a couple days -- no input from an admin at all, not even to a "decline to act." I don't believe the WP:COI issue was taken into account when the ban was handed out. I don't deny that I violated the WP:3RR -- I thought that reverting clear POV edits or generally obvious contentious rollbacks were exempt from the rule but looking over the page again it's clear that it is not exempt. That being said, I do think an indefinite block on the page is overkill. Apologies if this is scattered, I'm very tired as I've been up all night. wound theology◈ 16:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm generally very willing to consider unblocks where the appellant acknowledges what they did wrong and states that their reason for wanting an unblock is to gain access to TWL. Can I suggest a voluntary restriction, in which you'd abstain from editing Soka Gakkai, with the earliest appeal being in 6 months? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely, I have little interest in getting back into that mess right now anyway. wound theology◈ 23:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

First, you are supposed to notify me when you complain about my actions; pinging is insufficient. Second, I don't understand what the Wikipedia Libary has to do with the pblock. Finally, if you have "little interest" in editing the article, why are you appealing now?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello Bbb23! Any block against a user's account also blocks them from using the Wikipedia Library, which is generally where editors should be getting their sources in many topic areas. This editor is asking to be unblocked so they can still be productive on other articles. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Notification is required when making a report against another user, and I'm not making a report against you. In fact I agree that blocking was appropriate. Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) has explained why I'm appealing the block. wound theology◈ 01:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

WT, we tend to interpret the notification rule pretty broadly, for future reference. Bbb23, would you oppose an unblock with a voluntary restriction? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: I will not oppose an unblock with two additional conditions: (1) that the voluntary restriction be logged at WP:Editing restrictions and (2) that a violation of the restriction will trigger a sitewide block, not just a reinstatement of the pblock.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I had definitely intended the logging, but that's a good clarification. The violation condition seems too extreme to me, but WT might be amenable, since they really seem committed to not editing that article. Thoughts, Wound theology? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't mean an indefinite sitewide block for a first violation; that would indeed be too harsh.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. wound theology◈ 15:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok. I plan to grant this in a little under 24 hours if we don't get opposing input. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

According to this, you may still be granted access to The Wikipedia Library. You will need to contact the Wikipedia Library team, who will review your blocks. Have your contacted the library team? Isaidnoway (talk) 00:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Frankly I've seen partial blocks repealed for much weaker reasoning (see Special:Diff/1245505916 and Special:Diff/1245514833). If the editor has agreed to a voluntary restriction I say we grant the request. TarnishedPath^talk 14:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Complaint about Azerbaijani Wikipedia Administrator @Solavirum

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

---

Hi. I want to report Azerbaijani Wikipedia Administrator @Solavirum. He blocked me on October 1, 2024 without warning for posting encyclopedic articles on the Azerbaijani Wikipedia:Articles for deletion . After I tagged other Administrators, my block was removed. Later, he threatened me and wrote that if this happens again he will impose a 1-month block. Administrator @Gadir noticed this and reminded him of Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot. But angry at my words (vindictively [qisas alarcasına in Azerbaijani]), he wrote: I’m waiting for an answer for your disgusting claims (iyrənc iddialar in Azerbaijani). I was treated and insulted! All you can read on my Azerbaijani User talk:Yousiphh Page.

Yousiphh (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Nobody on en.wp can do anything about users on az.wp. They are two different projects with their own standards and practices. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:15, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Deletion without reason

Hello  This user @MrOllie is deleting the source based content added to the accounting article.  In the accounting article, I added a text about the analytical part of accounting, which relied on the most documented sources.  The mentioned user deleted it on the pretext of repetition and similarity of the word.  This is despite the fact that .here is no other qord similar to the word of analytics in the article  I invited the user to talk and debate on his page, but he did not cooperate. Wikinegarr (talk) 19:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

no other word similar -- you mean, besides the 8 uses of the word "analysis" elsewhere in the article? And if you want to discuss a page, you should probably be using the talk page to build consenus, not other users' pages to harangue them. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The word analysis does not exist in the main definition of accounting at the beginning of the article, and according to some common misconceptions that accounting does not focus on analysis and its exclusive focus on recording information and not analyzing them, the presence of the word analysis at the beginning of the article is not sabotage or disruptive action.  Not that this user insists on dealing with it.  I tried to invite the user to reach a consensus through various methods, but he did not respond to me and did not cooperate.  Adding the word analysis to the main definition of accounting at the beginning of the article is not a problem.  Please register this issue as a consensus and add the word analysis to the article.  thanks Wikinegarr (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Why did you ignore the discussion that they started on the talk page?

I also suggest you leave a notice about this on their talk page (see top of this page). M.Bitton (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

sorry i didn't saw it Wikinegarr (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Please register this issue as a consensus That is not how it works. Please read WP:CONSENSUS and proceed accordingly. I also suggest that when discussing this (or any) topic on an article Talk page that you follow the guideline on talk page discussions, the nutshell description of which is "Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor" (emphasis mine). JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I am starting to think there is some kind of language barrier or WP:CIR issue going on here. Comments like Prioritizing the correct meaning. This meaning is not correct. If we don't add analytics, we've lost the meaning of bookkeeping to the audience. The most important difference between bookkeeping and sensitivity is this. [26] don't make any sense, and edits such as [27],[28], [29] or [30] show clear problems with language proficiency. MrOllie (talk) 23:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

And more samples can be found in the contributions of Wikijournalistt (talk · contribs), Wikinegarr's second account. MrOllie (talk) 00:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I told you what i mean. I mean we need to make clear th difference between bookkeeping and accounting in the lead. The difference between them is that accounting involves analysis but bookkeeping just involves recording and processing. Bookkeeping is a part of accounting but not all of it. It's not a big problem. Is it really hard for us to make their difference clear by adding just one word of analysis? I am sure what i wrote now is completely understandable. Wikinegarr (talk) 08:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

It's not just a matter of writing correctly, if you make an edit that is challenged, you must have a talk page discussion and get consensus. That isn't always easy as some article talk pages aren't very active but what you don't want is to get into an edit war with another editor. Edit warring typically leads to an editor being blocked which I'm sure is not the outcome you are seeking. Wikipedia is a platform where insisting you are right and persistently undoing other editor's work will spectacularly backfire on you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

If I had a nickel for every time MrOllie got sent to AN or ANI for frivolous reasons, I'd be a millionaire. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 08:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

LilianaUwU, I think MrOllie would be brought here less often if he gave more descriptive reasons for reverting another editor. He reverts A LOT of editors, mostly new ones. It's usually for valid reasons but there is often not very helpful edit summaries. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree, edit summaries like this could be made more descriptive. [31] Ca ^{talk to me!} 04:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, MrOllie really needs to pay attention to WP:BITE (I cannot stress this enough). Félix An (talk) 11:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Resignation of Maxim

Over the course of this year, my personal circumstances have changed profoundly and in ways I could not have anticipated at the time of the elections last year. I now painfully lack the time and energy to be a useful arbitrator and I do not expect that to change anytime soon; accordingly, I resign with immediate effect. I apologize that I was unable to complete my term. Maxim (talk) 13:37, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Resignation of Maxim

Backlog at CFD

Hi all! CFD currently has a backlog stretching back to August; there are 26 outstanding discussions. I am a participant in all 26, so I would appreciate it if some people could take a look. There are a bunch of easy, near-unanimous discussions (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 22 has a bunch of those) all the way up to more complex ones.

WP:CFDAI#Semi-automated implementation of the closure using XFDcloser has the instructions (non-admins can follow the non-admin procedure), and I am of course happy to answer people's questions :)

Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

never closed a CfD before. Mind checking my work @HouseBlaster. Went with the unan ones so I don't feel any conflict in asking this. Worried about the tech steps on the log page. Star Mississippi 23:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

You did it perfectly, Star Mississippi, including the tech stuff. Thank you for your help! :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the easy links and check up. Ping me if I can ever help

Not comfortable with the complex ones as I'm not familiar with the nuances of CFD discussion but happy to help lighten the load. Star Mississippi 00:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Star Mississippi :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

For anyone else also unfamiliar with CfD, [[32]] seems clearest path to the backlog. Star Mississippi 01:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I've helped close a few :) Elli (talk | contribs) 14:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Elli! HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism of UK constituency pages by user LawNerd123

User LawNerd123 is persistently removing notional results from UK constituency pages, contrary to usual practice on both Wikipedia and all major news sources. From previous discussion on the talk page this appears to be an issue they have with notional put together by ‘academics’, expressed somewhat conspiratorially, and they are now refusing to engage in discussion. Icc27 (talk) 23:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Please provide diffs showing (1) vandalis; (2) refusal to engage in discussion; and (3) "conspiratorial[]" ideas. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

You are also required to notify this editor of the discussion here on their talk page per the instructions at the top of this page. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I suspect this is what the filing editor was trying to achieve here, but that's obviously the wrong place to be writing to messages to people. Daniel (talk) 00:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historical_elections_closed. Daniel (talk) 00:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

There's clearly discussion here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies#Notional election results so it seems there isn't really refusal to discuss from either side. However both sides calling the other vandals ("vandalism") [33] [34] over what's clearly a content dispute is troubling. Editors should continue the discussion and stop making mass changes to articles. Since it's been going on for a while with no clear result, perhaps some form of WP:dispute resolution could be attempted. LawNerd123 did write an RfC but it doesn't seem to have been done properly but in any case I'd suggest discussion before starting an RfC. Since this is now a CTOP issue, there's likely to be sanctions on both sides if editors continue down the current path. Nil Einne (talk) Nil Einne (talk) 11:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

What errors were made, so that they can be remedied. I followed all of the instructions and it was listed in the RfC page but no one commented. LawNerd123 (talk) 12:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, it appears I didn't look properly and the RfC might have been largely properly listed (perhaps after someone else added some initial text instead of just bullet points) but was just ignored. I suspect this partly demonstrates a lot of the community don't really care much about the issue so getting more feedback to help resolve this might be difficult. However I would suggest that if seeking outside help these should be some further explanation for what it's about, an explanation all sides agree on, linked somewhere. Although I've lived in two parliamentary democracies which took significant inspiration from the British system, I really had no idea WTF a notional was and while I think I vaguely know now from seeing the various discussions, I suspect plenty of people, probably even plenty of people from the UK would have the same problem. Ultimately if people visit a discussion and have no idea what is being asked, they're probably just going to leave without comment, especially if it seems like something that doesn't matter much. Nil Einne (talk) 15:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you and you prove my point about what on earth a notional result is and just how confusing it is. LawNerd123 (talk) 03:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@LawNerd123: no it doesn't. You've seriously misunderstood my point as I explained in the Wikiproject. Nil Einne (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of poor use of discussion all over, including poor notifications. I have posted on @LawNerd123: 's talkpage to inform them of this discussion. As an interim step I recommend all users on this subject be restricted to 3 reverts on the subject as a whole in 24 hours and a bar on reverts that either give no explanation or label the previous change "vandalism". Timrollpickering (talk) 12:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

It is clear Icc27 is not adhering to the rules as laid out here. They are engaging in blanket reverting without explanation in violation of the rules laid down above. Please can action be taken regarding this.

1. [35]
2. [36]
3. [37]

Additionally, they are engaged in personal attacks such as calling me "anti-academic" which has no bearing on a collaborative discussion.

1. [38] - claims of "I don’t trust these academics and the rest of the world be damned".

--LawNerd123 (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Timrollpickering: This is a note for you as you made the decision regarding the behaviour of editors. LawNerd123 (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I've been away for a few days so just repeated some posts with the above restrictions on user behaviour. Please can another administrator take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies#Notional election results and work out either the consensus or whether a properly structured RfC is needed to resolve the content dispute. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

NPR

Please grant NPR rights to the approved bot, DreamRimmer bot. Thanks! – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Ingenuity (t • c) 17:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Will the bot also run retroactively on the redirects that were created over the last week that were not reviewed by the other bot @DreamRimmer to help burn down the backlog again, or did the new replacement bot already do so? Raladic (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response; I forgot about this ping. The bot has reviewed all pending redirects that meet the criteria and now reviews newly created redirects every 15 minutes. – DreamRimmer (talk) 10:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

RfC on In the news criteria

There is a request for comment on the In the news criteria at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: In the news criteria amendments. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Review of rangeblock

A year and a half, the range special:contribs/2600:387::/40 was blocked until next year, but it is causing much collateral damage. Please reconsider the block, assuming that the vandal is gone. ToadetteEdit (talk) 11:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I have alerted Ivanvector as he placed the rangeblock. -- LuK3 (Talk) 16:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

What vandal? And how are you determining the collateral damage? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:29, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been in the woods for the past week and a bit and didn't see this. This is a malformed IP range that behaves like a colocation provider, and has frequently been used by many distinct vandals over a long period of time. There are plenty of established accounts on it which are not affected since it's anon-only, and the block notice contains instructions for new users to request an account, and despite protestations of some of the anonymous users on the range the ACC backlog is currently a couple of days. It's actually not my block: Widr set the current block a year ago, 4 days after a previous series of blocks expired and new disruption resumed immediately; I only set the current settings (anon-only, account creation blocked with ACC ignore, talk access revoked) because the abuse continued on talk pages. I am not in favour of modifying this block. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Elections: Call for Candidates

Administrator Elections | Call for Candidates

The administrator elections process has officially started! Interested editors are encouraged to self-nominate or arrange to be nominated by reviewing the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Call for candidates.

Here is the schedule:

• October 8–14 - Candidate sign-up (we are here)
• October 22–24 - Discussion phase
• October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase

Please note the following:

• The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed.
• Prospective candidates are advised to become familar with the community's expectations of adminstrators, which are much higher than the minimum requirement of having extended confirmed status. This includes reviewing successful and unsuccessful RFAs, reading the essay Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates, and possibly requesting an optional poll on their chances of passing.
• The process will have a one week call for candidates phase, a one week pause to set up SecurePoll, a three-day period of public discussion, followed by 7 days of no public discussion and a private vote using SecurePoll.
• The outcomes of this process are identical to making requests for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA or administrator elections.
• Administrator elections are also a valid means of regaining adminship for de-sysopped editors.

Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. A separate user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.

To avoid sending too many messages, this will be the last mass message sent about administrator elections. If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

involvement of admin in ARBPIA area

User:Valereee has recently informed me of a formal warning to me on my talk page. She may have some good points, which I would be happy to consider as the friendly warning of a collegial editor, but she says it is a formal warning. Said admin has created and written the vast majority of the article Politics of food in the Arab-Israeli conflict which goes into detail about exactly that topic: Israeli and Palestinian nationalism and so on, and not in a minor or trivial way. In light of the recent discussion above (higher up on the page), which found that WP:INVOLVED does include even fairly small edits, and this is no small edit, I would like to find out if WP:INVOLVED applies to ARBPIA here. The article in question is not simply about food but includes such topics as Israeli history, cultural appropriation, and national identity, which is a similar topic of dispute at Talk:Zionism. Is this admin INVOLVED? Andre🚐 21:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I think it's remiss not to mention this part: If the community believes I'm involved, it's a friendly collegial editor warning about behavioral concerns, which really you should take just as seriously. -- asilvering (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't quote any part of the talk discussion but linked to the whole thing. And yes, as I just said and said in that conversation as well, a friendly collegial warning would be heeded, but she insists she is not involved and that this is a formal warning, which seems off to me. Andre🚐 21:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

FWIW I do think @Valereee is involved, but the result of this objection is WP:POINTY. I'd recommend trouting yourself (from an uninvolved region perhaps in the Atlantic) and call it day. You could have thanked Valereee for the advice (as you did) and left it at that. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

POINT requires disruption, I am simply seeking clarification. As I said to her, she is INVOLVED, but she disputes this, and insists it is a formal warning, I did offer not to have to do this, but essentially my hand was forced by her insistence that she is not INVOLVED. Andre🚐 22:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

BTW, if she would just agree to abide by the plain meaning of INVOLVED (read, that she is), I will close and withdraw the thread, as I'm not seeking any action other than such a finding. She also, I didn't mention, created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli pita. Andre🚐 22:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

And this is why we need to be careful about how we define involved. Nominating an article about a dish for deletion isn't a political act. The dish is apparently not independently notable. Valereee (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with the nomination. But compare this with the discussion of RTH above. RTH also made a bunch of RMs that he thought were relatively minor and didn't express a POV, but the community found that was involvement, because admins and editors should wear different hats in the area. I don't think this is so controversial that it needs to be litigated. Andre🚐 22:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea whether the current WP definition of INVOLVED applies here or not. And I have no intention of reading the linked section higher up on this page about RTH to look for similarities and differences in the two cases. But just as a reality check, I don't really see how writing that article on an example of food nationalism makes her involved in the entire ARBPIA area in general, or in the Zionism article. And the AFD is even weaker sauce. I don't think this is a POINT violation, but I also don't really think this clarification is productive. That said, I also don't see how your comment about preferring incremental editing warranted a formal warning about disruption (maybe the other stuff she referenced later, I don't know, but not the initial comment). Maybe this isn't helpful, but can I just gently ask both of you to do better, without pissing either one of you off? Floquenbeam (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Fine by me, you know I love ya and your ways, Floq. I'm tryin' here. Andre🚐 22:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

There's more. Valereee (talk) 22:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

This is why I'm at AN, I tried to extend an olive branch, but we're stuck here. How is it fair, then, therefore, that this thread is out of order? I offered a de-escalation path, and it isn't being taken. Andre🚐 23:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, I know, that's what I said. But you brought that up 4 1/2 hours later... your intial warning was only about the incremental changes comment. You mentioned the other stuff only when A pushed back. You probably know I don't touch ARBPIA stuff for this very reason, but it just seems like you're both being a little bit suboptimal here. I guess maybe the topic forces people to be suboptimal? Floquenbeam (talk) 23:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Floq, my initial warning was on the article talk page, about all the accusations of cherrypicking, before I came to their talk with the second warning. It's a really long talk page. 75K words. Valereee (talk) 23:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I do not have a positive or negative thing to say about that warning on the article talk page. Floquenbeam (talk) 23:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

There was no additional activity by me between those two messages, was there? Andre🚐 23:22, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll accept it if the community thinks I'm involved, but I edit around food. I seldom get into anything political except for the intersection of food and nationalism. I created Politics of food in the Arab-Israeli conflict because Falafel was turning into Politics of falafel, and I was arguing that falafel is a food, and even if it's being used politically it should still be treated as a food, and it was clear an article was needed so that all these politics didn't need to be dealt with primarily at the food articles. I created Gastronationalism for the same reason. As far as I can remember I've demonstrated no interest in working in PIA separate from food.

If we are going to consider admins involved for a single foray into a CT that happens to intersect with their primary editing focus, we are going to have no admins who can work at CT. Valereee (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

It's a good article, but it's also extensively about politics and issues of potential dispute. Andre🚐 22:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, lest anyone invoke POINT again, I made a few edits to said article, and I left a note on the talk there. I think this move thread clearly shows there are many fraught political issues of identity and cultural appropriation which are hardly clear-cut. Andre🚐 23:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

This is exactly the slippery slope that myself and others tried to warn about in the recent discussion. Ultimately, Valereee has edited much more significantly on the topic area - creating a whole article - while the only evidence presented against RTH above consisted of a few wording changes that ultimately were not that significant of contributions to the topic area. Yet, the community apparently clearly showed that they believe an administrator making minor wording changes or participating in a discussion about specific sections of a page makes them involved. As such, there is no choice here but to consider Valereee involved because of the parallel.

The question then becomes with respect to what is Valereee involved. My opinion would be that Valereee is not involved - unless the actual on-wiki dispute they are commenting in or taking administrator action on is related to that article or to a virtually identical topic/information on another page. However, Valereee's contributions to that article include (correctly so) many crossovers to the actual social conflict itself. Unlike RTH's situation above where they made relatively minor edits that basically only dealt with things that have happened over about the last year, Valereee has created a quite decent article that covers the topic (politics of food/identity) over the entire history of the conflict. It covers from After the creation of Israel, Jews migrated from many parts of the world to modern day developments (ex: the section Israeli couscous).

I can't in good faith argue that Valereee should only be involved with respect to food/society based on the RTH discussion above where it was found that, regardless of the exact content/topic of the edits, RTH was involved with respect to the entire 2023-present war. That would be unfair to RTH and others. I would be okay with Valereee considering themselves involved with the topic of society/culture (but not with respect to military action, for example), but the problem is that over the history of Israel the military actions were all taken because of or had significant crossover with the societal conflict. As such I think Valereee would do best to consider themselves involved with respect to the societal conflict similar to how RTH was advised to do above. And ideally, to prevent people from having to have more discussions on this, they may do good to just choose to not act as an administrator in the entire Arab/Israeli topic area.

To make it abundantly clear, I don't like where this is right now as a whole. I firmly believe that the discussion above dramatically changed the "norm" as to involvement - expanding it to entire topics rather than specifically the edits/content dispute/editors in question. However, as WP:PAG says, Technically, the policy and guideline pages are not the policy and guidelines in and of themselves. The actual policies and guidelines are behaviors practiced by most editors. So while WP:INVOLVED should be updated to discuss involvement in a topic area (rather than in specific disputes), the current norm as defined by the RTH discussion above should be equally applied here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

the only evidence presented against RTH above consisted of a few wording changes that ultimately were not that significant of contributions to the topic area is a very false statement. Levivich (talk) 00:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, I argued that it was one primary dispute including 1917 Balfour declaration, Zionism up to present, but the community did not find consensus for that. From the community consensus, RTH would be free to admin about the nature of Zionism, despite their extensive editing history, since it is not the same topic as the Israel–Hamas war. RTH argued his creation of Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip (27 Oct 2023) had nothing to do with the Israel-Hamas war (7 Oct–Present) which the community disagreed with. If there was a Nationalistic humus food-fight I would agree we are in comparable territory then with current question here. This whole conversation is making me hungry now. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 07:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Just made hummus last night. There are nationalistic (and subnationalistic) food fights everywhere there are people in conflict with someone who eats some of the same things they do. Which is pretty much anyone who is in conflict with a neighboring nation. Shopska salad is claimed by Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, North Macedonia, and Serbia. There's conflict at Hainanese chicken rice over whether it was invented in Malaysia or Singapore. There's conflict at Borscht over whether it's Russian or Ukrainian. Both India and Pakistan claim Basmati rice. Every west African nation thinks their Jollof rice is the authentic version. Taiwan thinks its cuisine is the only true remaining traditional Chinese cuisine. Armenia and Azerbaijan both claim Dolma. South Korea and North Korea both claim Kimchi. The list goes on and on, and I've at least touched most of these dishes, often writing about the conflicts over them. If I'm involved not only at the dishes themselves but also at the area of conflict, I'm pretty much involved anywhere people eat food. Which seems a bit silly, as I have zero interest in editing about (and often embarrassingly little understanding of) the conflicts themselves, but if I'm involved anywhere people eat, I might as well take AE off my watch. Threaten me with a good time. :D Valereee (talk) 10:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Not just places! Gender & sexuality, GMOs, Pseudoscience, Climate change, Complementary & alternative medicine, and COVID are all food related. We'll ping you back to AE for any gun control stuff. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, people hunt venison and such with guns. Valereee (talk) 13:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Damn! Abortion? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

There, I actually am involved. :D Valereee (talk) 13:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Double damn! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Shushugah: I read your claim that RTH argued his creation of Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip (27 Oct 2023) had nothing to do with the Israel-Hamas war (7 Oct–Present). I would appreciate that you link to the diff where I did so, because I don't think that I have. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I should have provided a diff proactively before publishing. I would have phrased it differently as a result. In the linked diff, you argued that you are involved in certain aspects of the war, but not others. Whereas community consensus found that you are involved in Israel–Hamas war broadly construed. My earlier comment regretfully implies something you didn't say. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

+1 re this point This is exactly the slippery slope that myself and others tried to warn about in the recent discussion. But, I disagree that the RTH discussion should be viewed as some sort of precedent. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I think there's a word we're overlooking here in WP:INVOLVED, which is "disputes". In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. ... Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include ... disputes on topics (emphasis added; parts not relevant to complaint elided). Has there been a dispute regarding Valereee's Israel/Palestine-and-food editing that resulted in her taking a side in a dispute that can be generalized to the topic area more broadly? If so, then she's probably involved. If not, then no, merely editing in a topic area does not automatically constitute involvement, with ARBPIA or with anything else. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 00:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. While the outcomes of the article move discussion appear to be settled, there was clearly a move discussion that attracted support and oppose on that article talk, generalizable to a view on whether Israeli food is appropriating Arab food. Pretty contentious topic in this area, with duelling narratives. Andre🚐 01:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree that Valereee is involved with respect to the question of whether Israelis have appropriated Arab food. Is that what she warned you about? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 01:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

The current discussion is about sources for the lead of Zionism and whether it fairly describes it as colonization. You can see that the article she wrote includes this text, trategy has prompted accusations of colonization of Arab and Middle Eastern culture and cultural appropriation by Israel. Not food related but it does touch on the larger topic. Andre🚐 01:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

So, no, she is not acting as an administrator regarding something she has been in a dispute over, even broadly construed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 01:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Broadly construed, she was involved in a dispute about an article about Israeli national identity construction (ie, Zionism). Andre🚐 01:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Look, she's involved with a given topic if she was in a dispute over it. You can slice it or dice it however you want, but you're not going to convince me, or I think most people, that a veteran culinary editor having an opinion about whether "politicization of food" or "Israeli appropriation of Arab food" is a better summary of sources is the same dispute as whether Zionism is colonialist. Loosely related, sure. But "broadly construed" is not infinite. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 02:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Based on the evidence provided so far, I don't think RTH Valereee has edited extensively enough in the topic area to be considered involved in everything related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. I do think there's evidence that he she is involved with Israel–Hamas war disputes over Arab/Israeli food and closely related articles. In general, I think that contentious topic areas were identified and delimited by either ArbCom or the community to encompass broad areas in which disruptive editors were editing disruptively. The extant contentious topic areas have lasted because there are still disruptive actors. It is valuable to the community to be able to topic ban disruptive users from these broad areas. I don't think it is sensible to use these categories—ones built specifically to counter disruption—to limit the participation of non-disruptive admins. I'd feel different about the very narrow topic areas (I'm remembering the Shakespeare authorship question topic area). If this keeps happening, I'll make this a template, I swear. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

If we're quoting our comments from the last thread, mine now feels a bit too on the nose: There's very few things in PIA that don't tie in to the current war. It's not true in the opposite direction: I don't think a lot of edits to conflict-related parts of hummus, Bar Refaeli, and You Don't Mess with the Zohan would necessarily disqualify someone from adminning ARBPIA. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 01:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

You've reminded me again that I'm hungry and impressed with Turturro's career turnaround. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

If you had topic banned me from the ARBPIA, and then I added some stuff to hummus about cultural appropriation, that'd be a violation, correct? Andre🚐 01:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure. However, if I (or rather some current admin) topic-banned you from hummus, it would not be a violation to edit about Zionism. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 02:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

These two situations are not comparable. Let's review:

• RTH
  • Talk:Israel–Hamas war is their all-time #3 most-edited article talk page
  • Voted in 4 RMs on that page and an RM moratorium
  • Created Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip, an article about a major event in the war
  • #1 author of Kfar Aza massacre, an article about a major event in the war
  • #6 by edits at Re'im music festival massacre, an article about a major event in the war
  • The four articles listed above are all among RTH's top 30 most-edited articles all time
  • RESULT: involved in "the topic of the 2023- Israeli-Palestinian conflict ... no consensus that this involvement spreads to all of the WP:ARBPIA topic area"
• Valereee
  • Created Politics of food in the Arab-Israeli conflict
  • Not a top contributor to any other ARBPIA articles
  • No other ARBPIA edits in evidence
  • RESULT: involved in all of ARBPIA???

Obviously not. Not even close. Levivich (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Why was the Andrevan account indefinitely blocked by Arbcom, and why was the account unblocked?Dan Murphy (talk) 04:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Not only is that not relevant, but it can't be discussed. But I can say it was unrelated to this topic above, ie not for an ARBPIA topic ban or involvement. Andre🚐 04:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Dan Murphy: Entirely irrelevant and I encourage you to focus on the discussion at hand. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

No, that feels relevant to at least ask. I was curious about it as well given the whole backstory. So no problem in checking. PackMecEng (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment I see a few people misinterpreting my close of the RTH thread and how that precedent (if it even is one) would be applied here. If the arguments made here were identical, the rough equivalent would be WP:INVOLVED in the topic of food as it relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, no consensus that it spreads to all of WP:ARBPIA. Note that I haven't evaluated the actual edits made by Valeree so I'm not saying this is or isn't what the result should be here. I also think WP:INVOLVED is in need of a refresh to determine what the rule should be, since a lot of the language and culture has shifted since it was written. Topics with Discretionary Sanctions were often tightly defined, such as Liancourt rocks or Cold fusion. If the edits are confined to one narrow piece of an incredibly broad topic area, then involvement should also be narrow where that's reasonably possible. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Not involved I've read this discussion and User:Valereee's editing activity does not rise to the level of involvement in any dispute around Zionism. The stretch here is light-years.--v/r - TP 19:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
• lol, valereee is a food editor. Her most recent creations[39] include Zaharakos Ice Cream Parlor, Fried onion burger and Pizza bianca. They also include List of regional dishes of the United States. It's totally unremarkable that she wrote Politics of food in the Arab-Israeli conflict. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Valereee is clearly not involved in ARBPIA. I hope this doesn't become a trend where people start coming here to get admins declared involved when they have a dispute with them. Pinguinn 🐧 05:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment The RTH matter transpired while I was on wiki-break. If I had seen it I'd have opined against RTH being viewed as involved because of precisely this kind of situation taking place. Andrevan was right to raise the issue. He can't be blamed for that, whatever the outcome here. So now, yes people are going to claim that admins are involved and it is going to be litigated, and they are acting in good faith because of the RTH decision. We can hair-split as to why X is involved and Y is not, but a perception lingers that we're in a mess of our own creation. Coretheapple (talk) 17:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  If I'm wrong I'm wrong and I apologize. But it would seem that the article is not about food, it's about politics. If Valereee were just editing about hummus' reception and its recipes, I wouldn't say a word. But I myself have edited about the topic of the politics of falafel [40] prior to Valeree's edits [41] and subsequent creation of the politics article, which again is about Israeli cultural identity formation, and not especially about culinary matters. So it would seem the two of us edited the same article about the same topics which are subtopics of ARBPIA. At the least, while she may not be involved in everything about the conflict, the two of us have become involved due to similar edits. Andre🚐 20:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  You're arguing an admin should be considered involved with an editor at an entire CTOP if the two ever edited the same article barely within that topic, even if they didn't have any interaction, much less dispute, at that article? Valereee (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'm arguing that your edits imply a perspective on the topics and therefore neutrality and impartiality, or the appearance thereof, are lacking. Again, if I'm wrong, I apologize, but that was what I determined from the RTH thing, which perhaps I misinterpreted. Andre🚐 21:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  The RTH discussion involved an admin viewed as being involved with the topic area. As I understand it neither this discussion nor the RTH discussion deals with involvement with any particular editor. We have RTH considered involved due to his edits in the topic area. I don't agree with the arguments made here that you haven't been editing in the topic area. So my position is that either you both are involved or neither is involved. I'd have preferred for both you and RTH to not be considered involved, but the RTH matter has already been determined. And btw I don't believe it's a question of partiality or impartiality. One can be impartial and involved. One can be biased and uninvolved. That's not the issue. Coretheapple (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• Maybe this doesn't change anything but there's a thread now about changing policy that came out of the discussion at Talk:Zionism, Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#Clarification_of_BESTSOURCES. Valereee made some changes to the policy which I reverted.[42] Not sure if this now substantiates that we are in a dispute. See also discussion there [43] [44] and other commentary, which to me, suggests that Valereee is a participant and not an impartial arbiter. Andre🚐 01:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  You seem to be arguing an editor can make an admin involved with themself w:re content in article space by reverting an edit that admin made anywhere on the project? To take that to its logical extreme, that would mean any editor, with a couple hundred reverts, can make every active admin on this project involved with them.

  My warning to you about making accusations of cherrypicking is a typical warning about behavior. If I'm not involved, it's a warning from an uninvolved admin. A warning about behavior doesn't make an admin involved. If I'm involved, it's a warning from another editor about behavior. Which really, you should take just as seriously as you would the same warning from an admin. Valereee (talk) 11:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  You think it's typical for an admin to get involved on the editorial process of source selection, the meaning of cherrypicking and whether it is reasonable, and try to change the policy to reflect your opinion on what is a reasonable editorial process? That is more than most admins. Andre🚐 19:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  I think it's typical for an admin to discuss and deal with behavior issues. All of my work at Talk:Zionism has been about behavior.

  An edit to NPOV is a completely new question, and I don't see how it's even relevant to the question of whether I'm involved at Talk:Zionism. Valereee (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  If there are legitimate behavioral issues with diffs, they may be presented. As this thread shows, you "warned" me once in the talk page discussion (not a warning, but participation), then you warned me, without any diffs, for arguing for incremental editing, as discussed by Floquenbeam above. Then when I objected to that you accused me of BLUDGEONING and SEALIONING, incivil, unless substantiated. Diffs still haven't been furnished for this. I admit that I may be participating too vigorously and thanked you for your advice. You insist that cherrypicking can only be an accusation, despite the fact that I have made clear that cherrypicking is not only an accusation but can be an unconscious bias or an unintentional blind spot. THEN you went on to try to change the WP:NPOV policy, one of the key content policies, to basically sanction the preferred editorial process which may be conducive to accidental cherrypicking if misused; I reverted it, and now some of the same editors participating in the process and taking your side of the dispute from Talk:Zionism have joined the discussion at WT:NPOV to advocate that the policy should be changed in such a way. This all seems like a run-of-the-mill behavioral issue? Because usually when I deal with admins, and I was one for a number of years but not terribly active in this area, they warn you once succinctly without a lot of to-do. Then if you put a toe out of line you are sanctioned or blocked. Also, there need to be diffs. Andre🚐 20:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'm willing to keep responding to you here, but I'm not sure it's helpful to anyone at this point. Unless someone else thinks this back-and-forth is shedding light here, maybe we should discuss at your talk or mine? Valereee (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  If the goal here was to come to a consensus about whether or not Valereee could be considered involved in this contentious area of editing, I think that moment has passed. Participation in this discussion has fallen off and this has become a two person discussion. I don't see a strong consensus in either the "Yes" or "No" direction which just goes to show how murky this area has become. You can continue to post if you want but I don't see anything definitive coming out of this discussion at the state of where it is right now so there might be other activities that are more worthy of your time and attention. That's just how I assess this discussion. My only comment is to all admins is to tread carefully when acting in contentious topic areas. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not going to insist on a formal closure, but (for the sake of my own understanding of where I stand) I do see what looks like consensus and I feel like I can act in good faith on what I'm seeing. Valereee (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  To be clear, there is no consensus whether you are involved or not. Andre🚐 20:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  Well, perhaps we do need a formal close, then, as what I'm seeing is one editor saying involved, 7 saying not involved, and others discussing whether the RTH close did/did not set a precedent that should/should not be applied for various reasons including whether it is/is not fair to RTH. Obviously that's not how you're reading the discussion. Valereee (talk) 13:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  "Involved" or not, perhaps you can explain this remark? I found it to be gratuitous. Coretheapple (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, Coretheapplie, I shouldn't be trying to insert levity into this type of discussion. I should have just left it at "Please try to assume good faith." Valereee (talk) 13:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. I appreciate that. And please take seriously the serious concerns I raised about your administrative actions on your talk page. Coretheapple (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  I recognize your concerns as valid, and will take them seriously. Valereee (talk) 13:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  Much appreciated, again, and I just wanted to raise another point that bothers me about this discussion and the RTH discussion. We're talking about "involved" as if it is the only thing that matters. What matters also is the perception of fairness and unfairness when it comes to administrative actions in contentious topic areas. Perhaps there should be guidelines for best practices for admins in this and other contentious topic areas. If admins and non-admins know the ground rules, perhaps there will be more admin oversight of the topic area. Coretheapple (talk) 14:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• The Zionism talk page rather suggests a dispute with everyone else there. Also a (non) discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Talk:Zionism. Selfstudier (talk) 11:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• So looks like Andrevan got a conduct warning, cried involved, this board largely disagreed with them, and so they went out to revert Valereee somewhere to try and create dispute. Bad form and shows a battleground mentality. PackMecEng (talk) 13:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  No, Valereee tried to change the policy to reflect her interpretation of a dispute that she was involved in, and I reverted that improper codification of that process, and there's certainly no consensus for that change on the talk. It could be considered WP:POINT to change a policy in that way. I know that from experience. Andre🚐 20:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  The edit I made was in pursuit of clarifying policy, not changing it. When reverted, I went immediately to talk and started a discussion, which is ongoing. Valereee (talk) 13:11, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  I dont think that is an accurate summary of the situation. PackMecEng (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

INSEAD

Can anyone have at this article? It has been a target[45] of long term promotional editing such as these recent changes on lead[46]. Many attempts have been made to remove the COI templates that have been placed in this article for a while now. [47][48][49][50] And promotional editing[51][52] from possible alternate accounts of the same individual who is currently globally locked for spam.[53][54] See also changes by an account presumably owned by the institution. Ratnahastin (talk) 13:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks like @Serial Number 54129 is well into cleanup (thank you). I have semi'ed it to allow the efforts to continue Star Mississippi 01:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Star Mississippi, for this and all the good work you do around here—you're all over the pace these days  :) SerialNumber54129 14:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Bypass title blacklist for featured picture promotion

Can an admin create a description page for File:Hip, Hip, Hurrah! Artists’ Party, Skagen (Peder Severin Krøyer) - Gothenburg Museum of Art - F 62.jpg locally? The right single quotation mark in the title is preventing me from creating it. It got promoted at FPC and needs to be tagged with {{Featured picture}}. Thanks. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 21:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Aye-aye. —Cryptic 21:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I think I've done it correctly? —Ingenuity (t • c) 21:18, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks like Cryptic got to it first, actually. —Ingenuity (t • c) 21:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both! – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 21:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

User:BoyTheKingCanDance NPP Reviews

On 27 September 2024, I asked BoyTheKingCanDance about his NPP review of the Gujarati film Bham (film). I inquired how it meets the notability criteria and why he marked it as reviewed. The film article only cites Times of India (TOI), which is considered unreliable per WP:ICTFSOURCES and the consensus at RSN. He then acknowledged his error and marked the article as unreviewed.

Today, I found that @TheSlumPanda nominated the article for deletion. It is a BLP (Biographies of Living Persons) article about an Indian politician, but it does not cite any significant coverage sources, nor has the subject been elected to any notable offices—just nominated for election. After checking its curation log, I discovered it had also been marked as reviewed by BoyTheKingCanDance, which is why it had not been nominated for deletion since its creation on August 13.

After checking BoyTheKingCanDance's curation log, one can immediately find multiple incorrect reviews, such as:

• Khomlang Laman: Which he recently marked as reviewed, has no WP:SIGCOV sources, no critical reviews, and includes citations from YouTube and BookMyShow, which are user-generated sources.
• Sayidkhan Kiatpathan (now draftified): A BLP, marked as reviewed by him, uses Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram as sources, along with a single profile link.
• Diane Hamilton (behavioral specialist): A BLP article, which he marked as reviewed without nominating it for AfD, was later nominated by Amigao, who described it as entirely promotional, and it will be deleted based on the votes. I respect his NPP work and acknowledge that his efforts greatly help reduce the backlog, but consistently marking these types of articles is not a good practice.

Request: I would like the community to review his NPP curation logs to check for additional errors and take necessary actions. GrabUp - Talk 09:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for alerting me to claimed imperfections in my patrolling. I will take extra care now that I have been alerted to my need to be more certain about the quality of certain sources (for example, Times of India). You will see from my edit summaries that I routinely highlight and remove weak sources including Facebook, Instagram, etc. I routinely point out that YouTube is not a RS. Thank you. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 09:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify one point Times of India is not considered unreliable, there is a consensus that additional considerations apply when using the source, see WP:TOI and WP:NEWSORGINDIA. It's should be used with caution but isn't outright unreliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:09, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, you are right, but the Times of India alone can’t make any subject notable due to the questionable reliability. Also, the TOI sources cited in the Bham (film) article do not provide significant coverage (SIGCOV), so even if I consider TOI reliable, it still wouldn’t work. GrabUp - Talk 13:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree, just wanted to clarify the situations in regard to TOI as it's a bit murky. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I think Sayidkhan Kiatpathan and Than Singh Doli definitely should not have been marked as reviewed. Two very poor articles, sourced to Facebook is laughable. AusLondonder (talk) 13:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I think this editor could improve his new page patrolling, as could nearly everyone who does it, but I think that this report is a little premature. I don't see any need for administrative action here. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Not an administrator, so everybody is well within their rights to ignore my comment. But @GrabUp, here's a spotcheck for you.

This isn't the first times concerns about BTKCD's reviews have been voiced by established editors; @SandyGeorgia raised concerns about they way they were letting copyvios through in June 2023 , and when BTKCD BTKCD blanked the notification, @Barkeep49 had to ask them to elaborate. BTKCD promised to "look out for [copyright violations] even more (much more)", and then blanked the discussion. So when, last month, @Compassionate727 lets them know that they missed a pretty obvious, copy-patrol flagged vio? Special:Diff/1240808766. Well, mistakes get made. The fact that they only took 22 seconds to review the page, judging from the timestamp of their previous review of Jeph Acheampong? That's a bit more concerning. But maybe they were in a rush. Let's look at some recent pages they've reviewed more closely. And, since notability can be very subjective, I'm going to look for articles the community has already flagged for deletion, or articles with the sort of severe content issues NPP is meant to review for. Again, this is only a spotcheck; I don't have the time or inclination to go over every single review, one by one.

• Khomlang Laman was marked as reviewed 16 seconds after their previous review.
• Sayidkhan Kiatpathan took 24 seconds
• Diane Hamilton (behavioral specialist) (606 words) took 19 seconds.
  • They also marked the original page Dr. diane hamilton twenty seconds after the previous review. As far as I can see, they did not fix the page name?
  • Page is currently at AFD. (Nominated by a different user)
• Battle of Goźlice 17 seconds after editing a different page.
  • The editor who created the Battle of Gozlice page later went to BTKCD's talkpage to ask why they'd reviewed the article without actual reading it/assessing it, to which BTKCD responded "I reviewed it and yes your comment is random. Thanks anyway." They then removed their comment from their talkpage without answering the other user's follow-up question, concerning the lack of assessment, with the edit summary "Thank you very much for your advice. I appreciate it."
  • The original pl-language page contains Earwig-readable copyright violations, and the en-language page contains human-findable violations. Might be a partial backwards copy that somebody retroactively cited to a Wikipedia mirror.
• Hair texture powder (300+ words) within only sixteen seconds.
  • Page contained earwig readable copyvio.
• Air Littoral Flight 1919 was reviewed in 45 seconds, and contained an unattributed translation of a frWiki article.
• Aeroflot Flight F-637 was reviewed in 93 seconds
  • Page was an unattributed translation
  • Page currently at AfD. (Nominated by a different user)
• Yvy marã e'ỹ (450+ words) was reviewed in 53 seconds
  • Page was a insufficiently attributed translation, as indicated in the edit summaries.
• New Zealand Wars Memorial, New Plymouth (477 words) was reviewed in 23 seconds.
  • Page contains a significant amount of WP:CLOP, heavily distorted in a style which suggests the original writer was trying to get around automated plagiarism checkers. To be fair, I had to spotcheck to find these violations.
• Bham (film) a little over two minutes after the page was created
  • Page contained earwig readable copyvio/a blatant advertisement
  • Page is currently at AfD. (Nominated by a different user)
• VASP Flight 780 (115 words) was reviewed in 10 seconds.
• Samayal Express twenty seconds after their last edit
  • Contained earwig-readable copyvio/a blatant advertisement

I've highlighted the seconds it took to do reviews for a reason, but you'll notice I've also highlighted the word count on some articles. Now, assuming that they're reading the articles they're reviewing (One of the basic steps lists at WP:NPP), this suggests they can read upwards of a thousand words per minute. A reading speed which our own article describes as "not feasible given the limits set by the anatomy of the eye". Now, maybe they're jumping back and forth between articles. Maybe they have super-human reading abilities. But, if they were on trial, this kind of stuff would get their rights pulled. And, again, they've already told the community that they would be on the lookout for copyright violations. So I don't know what to do. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 00:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed analysis, it really helped. It is concerning that they are not giving enough time to read the full article and are just marking articles as reviewed while removing other messages from talk pages without providing replies. This is not a good approach, even though they had to respond after Barkeep49 raised the issue. When I checked his curations, I was not aware of these copyright issues. Obviously, if they were on trial, they would not have the NPP rights continued. Let’s see what the admins think. GrabUp - Talk 03:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

GrabUp, could you strike that last comment? We don't have "trials" on Wikipedia, not for anyone, and I don't think anyone can predict the outcome of an investigation into advanced permissions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: Hey, you may have misunderstood. GreenLipstickLesbian and I were talking about the trial of NPP, which is given to new NPP users before Indef them the flag. We weren’t talking about a criminal trial type thing. GrabUp - Talk 08:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

GrabUp, you are absolutely right, I did misunderstand. I don't know as much as I should about how NPP privileges are awarded or removed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, Liz. Many people (including me) would have misunderstood, but few would have come clean about it. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I also misunderstood on the first read, and I do know about NPP privileges, so. -- asilvering (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm surprised I didn't follow up last year but I'm concerned with what happened on the user talk and have concerns with some (though not all) of the reviews listed here. I hope we hear a substantive response. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Not to pile on here, but I just removed blatant copying from Brinkworth railway station, South Australia, another BTKCD review. The copying would have immediately shown up with an Earwig search only using links in the page. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I have found the replies here insufficient and so I have removed Boy's NPR permission. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

BTKCD left the following message in on their talk page:

Dear all, the first thing I know I've learned is to have zero tolerance for unreliable sources. If there's little to no WP:SIGCOV from RS a page needs very serious work. I tended to be more tolerant of a few weaker sources here and there if a page contained at least a backbone of reliable sources, whereas I would now be stricter on those pages, and as a minimum I would highlight the unreliable sources with a template and NOT mark the page as reviewed. If the sources were seriously weak, or there were a lot of them, or there was another seriously weak combination of faults, I would draftify a page. The other thing I've learned is that there are subject-specific guidance pages that detail the respective strengths and weaknesses of sources. GrabUp kindly showed me the WP:ICTFSOURCES page, which I had no knowledge of, despite editing in this area, and it has greatly strengthened my knowledge of sources and their reliability pertaining to Indian cinema etc. Lastly, I've learned to slow down and look at EVERY source so that my assessment of a page is based around that to a greater degree than hitherto. Until now I've focused a lot on a page's overall quality. I looked to see if the tone was encyclopedic and had a NPOV (or fair coverage of various views), whether it had a proper lede and a correct page structure, whether it was written in correct and readable grammar and syntax, whether any sources were closely associated with the subject, and whether the subject itself was notable. In looking holistically like this, I may have inadvertently not given enough weight to the reliability of ALL sources. Lastly, I think I should ask more questions of other editors when I see something on a page that I'm unsure about. I should reach out. Asking is how I’ll learn. I've always found other editors to be super helpful, and I have always tried to follow advice. In closing, I humbly repeat my request for another chance. Wikipedia really means such a lot to me. I take my responsibilities seriously and really want to be the best editor that I can be. I also apologize that you're having to waste time guiding me today. With all my sincerity I'll truly try to be an ideal editor. Thank you for listening. Yours, BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Following this message I have restored NPR for a trial of 3 months after which I've told them to re-apply at WP:PERM/NPR. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

That’s great. I hope they will carefully review the articles from now on. GrabUp - Talk 13:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

While I recognize BTKCD is editing in good faith and wants to improve, I'm disappointed to see zero discussion of copyright matters considering that was a major issue. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I second Trainsandotherthings concern, especially with copyright being, really, the more problematic of the issues. While NPP is chronically backlogged and we need all willing hands possible, I would not have been so quick to restore his perm. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:13, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Draftification Issues

I recently noticed this issue when I saw they draftified a film article that was created within an hour. When I checked their Draftification log, I found multiple draftifications that violate the one-hour rule per WP:DRAFTNO.

• Draft:Hasan Mehraj: Created at 11:15, 1 October 2024, draftified by them at 11:20, 1 October 2024‎; within 5 minutes of creation.
• Draft:Iglesia Ni Cristo chapel, Kowloon: Created at 11:09, 1 October 2024, draftified by them at 11:23, 1 October 2024‎; within 14 min.
• Chen Xujun: Created at 16:01, 29 September 2024, draftified by them at 16:34, 29 September 2024‎; within 33 min.
• Rupa Chakraborty: Created at 13:13, 29 September 2024‎, draftified by them at 13:21, 29 September 2024‎; within 8 min.
• Draft:Gandha Marua School And College: Last edited by Gjs238 at 19:58, 28 September 2024, draftified by them at 20:11, 28 September 2024; within 13 min.
• Draft:S82 Zhengzhou–Shangqiu Expressway: Created at 16:03, 28 September 2024‎, draftified by them at 16:39, 28 September 2024‎; within 36 min.
• S37 Lankao–Xuchang Expressway: Created at 16:14, 28 September 2024, draftified by them at 16:38, 28 September 2024; within 24 min.

I can add more, as their draftification list is full of premature draftifications, and they don't seem to have knowledge of WP:DRAFTNO, based on their comment here. GrabUp - Talk 15:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

User:KabirDH

• KabirDH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ratan Tata (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

An aside firstly – total havoc on the Ratan Tata page with his recent death. There has been a request unanswered at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase, which has gone unanswered for over an hour now whilst the page has repeatedly been destroyed with tributes, test edits and vandalism.

Here though because I have warned User:KabirDH about edit warring and they continue to revert all my edits to the Ratan Tata page, despite the fact I have given reasons on the subject's respective talk page and invited him/her to discuss the matter first and wait for a consensus. User does not wish to comply with this request, and when I suggested I would take it here he/she has continued to repeatedly restore their edits. Thanks Jkaharper (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Another administrator has put three days of semi-protection on Ratan Tata. I've notified User:KabirDH that he is mentioned here. It would be normal to await a resolution at Talk:Ratan Tata where discussion is already in progress. Editing of the article has been extremely heavy and if admins have to intervene, the only thing that would work is a period of full protection. Before this happens the editors should make a bigger effort to explain the issues on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

may I have a ruling on SYNTH?

Moved to WP:ORN § Is this SYNTH

 – Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Important edit request

Hello, can someone remove background-color:transparent; from Template:POTD protected/2024-10-10 asap? This is causing major dark mode issues on the Main Page and is not recommended. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 18:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Done. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@Extraordinary Writ: tysm! —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 21:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Mentorship of TheNuggeteer re: their topic ban

TheNuggeteer was recently topic banned from content review processes, broadly construed, for six months. I've reached out to them on their talk page, offering a bit of a mentorship in which they leave pseudo–DYK reviews and errors reports on my talk page and I give them feedback. They won't be editing any live content-review pages or processes under this – only my talk page. I don't think that's a significant topic ban violation, but out of an abundance of caution, I did want to leave a note that this is something we'll be doing. Hopefully that's all right, thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this, leeky. -- asilvering (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

This is a good example of where mentorship could be beneficial for en.wiki. CMD (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any vio from that. Useful idea. Valereee (talk) 14:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Good idea. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I love this, thank you for being willing to do this @Theleekycauldron. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Just noting my comment here, which is implicitly support for doing this. Daniel (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

While there is the potential that TheNuggeteer may be in technical violation of the ban, I think that if the mentorship is successful then Wikipedia may benefit more than by enforcing the ban strictly. That having been said, outside of the mentorship (your talkpage, and possibly his), the user should be required to abide by the ban completely until/unless it is removed, in full or in part. Animal lover |666| 22:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I just stumbled across this. I was in the unfortunate position of having to propose the sanctions against TheNuggeteer, but I have no desire to see him locked out of content venues for any longer than he needs to be. Thank you for volunteering to do this, leeky — it's very kind of you — and good luck to you as well, TheNuggeteer! I hope this mentorship during your time off will serve you well and help you come back a strong contributor in April. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Emily Armstrong (musician)

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

---

There's some weird page move fuckery going on at Emily Armstrong (musician). Could someone please move it back to Emily Armstrong, which currently redirects to Emily Armstrong (musician)? The singer is clearly the primary topic, and I think something got borked in a page move. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

• There is Murder of Emily Armstrong (unrelated), would that change the primary or give reason to qualify the name? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any article move warring recently, just a series of moves by long-standing editor User:Jax 0677 a few weeks ago. I'm not sure why this was escalated to AN. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Move it yourself. If you can't, go to Wikipedia:Requested moves#Uncontroversial technical requests and request it there. On the outside chance your request there is declined (I doubt it will be), follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting a single page move. Animal lover |666| 06:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

See User talk:Jax 0677#EMily Armstrong. I've no idea why this has to be at WP:AN. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The base page should be a dab, given there is Emily Armstrong (musician), Murder of Emily Armstrong, and Emily Armstrong (artistic swimmer) that could all be listed, and none appear to be a PRIMARYTOPIC. I also completely am baffled by this being at AN. GiantSnowman 08:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

A disambiguation page already exists. If there is no clearly obvious answer as to which page should have the title, perhaps an RM discussion is needed. However, there is probably no reason to report a single move on this page--just about every administrator intervention reason has an other venue. Animal lover |666| 09:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• Per this page, Emily Armstrong_(musician) has over 100 times as many page views as any of the other Emily Armstrong articles, and is likely the primary topic, as From Zero now is. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

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

This looks very odd

A report at TB2 for Suraj Avhad Real (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) lead me to the talk page of Sungodtemple (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which is filled with seemingly random questions from new users. Anyone have an idea what the bleep is going on here? I have refrained for the moment from notifying either of these editors on the off chance that this might be some kind of sock farm. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Are they part of a mentor program? Joyous! Noise! 18:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Their answers to the questions seem reasonable. I think they are being asked questions because their name is posted at Wikipedia:Growth Team features/Mentor list. Black Kite (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Ahh. That explains everything. It's nice to run into something odd that actually isn't malicious now and then. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Gentle Request

Dear Administrator, I am writing to request a reconsideration of the restrictions placed on the Shehzad Poonawalla page, which was protected for administrators only following multiple recreations in 2018. At the time, the subject may not have met the notability guidelines. However, Shehzad Poonawalla has since gained significant recognition, and his notability is now well-established. Poonawalla has become a prominent spokesperson for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and has appeared in numerous reputable media outlets such as the BBC, among others, discussing important political topics. These reliable sources underscore his relevance in the public and political domain, making his biography notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. I would like to kindly request that the page be reviewed and possibly recreated, even if only as a stub. If any additional notability checks are needed or further action is required, I would be happy to assist in providing more references or content. AstuteFlicker (talk) 13:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

The best way for you to provide references and content would be for you to create a draft article at Draft:Shehzad Poonawalla and submit it for review at AFC. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger Can't I just create a stub article and submit it for AFC once the article is created slowly and gradually we will add more details to the article is it possible??AstuteFlicker (talk) 14:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

That's what PB is telling you to do, @AstuteFlicker. Create the draft -- with at least three instances of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject -- and submit. You will not be able to create a stub in article space directly, and no administrator will remove that protection before they see a draft with the necessary sources. Valereee (talk) 15:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

If you can create a stub of high enough quality that an administrator thinks is good enough (the general indication of good enough being stated above), the page will be moved to the article title, along with its history (and, as a result, your status as author). However, the recreation history of this article, after it was deleted, is such that no admin is likely to allow recreation directly ever. Animal lover |666| 17:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I previously escalated an issue regarding the creation of a Wikipedia article on a topic that is restricted to administrators. I was advised to create a draft (which I have done Draft:Shehzad Poonawalla) and submit it through the Articles for Creation (AFC) process. However, I am unable to see the "Submit for review" option on my draft.

Since the topic is restricted, I believe this may be the reason for the submission issue. Could you please guide me on how to proceed with submitting this draft for review, or if any administrative assistance is needed to facilitate the AFC process?

Additionally, I am encountering an issue with the short description in my draft. The short description is displaying below the infobox in mobile view, but I would like it to appear at the top of the page. I was informed by my mentor that this issue only occurs in mobile view, while it appears correctly on the desktop version. Could you please advise on how to resolve this and ensure the short description appears properly on all devices? AstuteFlicker (talk) 10:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Don't worry about the short description. The reviewer who accepts the draft can add it themselves. -- asilvering (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• I don't see if the topic is currently notable enough. Still fails WP:SIGCOV. Orientls (talk) 13:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

  Hello @Orientls,

  The article is currently a stub, which is why I haven't added much content yet. However, there are many reliable sources available, and I plan to expand the article further soon. I feel that the topic meets the significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) requirements, and I believe that with time, the article will grow into a more comprehensive one.

  Thank you for your understanding. AstuteFlicker (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

  If left alone for too long (currently 6 months) it may be deleted, but as long as you keep editing it you have all the time you need. This is actually an advantage of using the Draft: namespace, as in the article namespace it would be deleted quickly if not improved. Animal lover |666| 16:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

A month later, Telegraph RfC hasn't been reclosed

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

---

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 444 § RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues was reöpened (correctly, IMO) on 18 August. Well, less reöpened and more un-closed, since it's sitting in an archive. An edit just came across my watchlist citing The Telegraph on a gender article, and given all the work people put in to expressing their opinions on the matter (including me, full disclosure), it would be nice to have something to point to as the current community consensus, even if it's just an admin-approved finding of no consensus. A key issue in both the original close and the original overturn was that they were unilateral non-admin closes. Could we maybe get a panel of two or three admins to finally put this to bed? Otherwise I fear all that discussion will have been for naught and we'll be doomed to repeat it all in 6 to 12 months. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 18:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Just to mention, this is listed at closure requests, but CR has a backlog of 44 discussions currently. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. With close challenges becoming de rigueur and people pushing for the broadest possible interpretation of WP:INVOLVED, closing complex discussions is becoming an even more thankless task. – Joe (talk) 10:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I mean putting aside the general problems with closing, that Telegraph RfC is very long (68k words from a simplistic counter) and an extremely fraught issue in recent times. The re-opening happened after it spawned a 50k+ word review. (For clarity I mention the review not because anyone closing has to read it, but because it indicates the mess anyone closing probably fear awaits.) So I'm not particularly surprised anyone looking at closing who's even vaguely aware of the background goes "no way!" perhaps with some swear words thrown in. Nil Einne (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

• The irony of it is that it should be closed as generally reliable, which I suppose is the status quo, but it's such a sprawling swamp of a discussion—not counting the review referenced above!—that everyone will demand a panel* and/or a 5,000-word closing statement to feel justice has been done, and more importantly, seen to be done—writ large. And then there will be another massive discussion about the reclose of the reopening of the close. SerialNumber54129 14:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

* Present company excepted; I didn't spot that Tamzin had already mentioned a panel  :) SerialNumber54129 14:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

• The community doesn't think it's generally reliable on trans issues.—S Marshall T/C 08:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey S Marshall, please reclose it. SerialNumber54129 18:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

S Marshall's point is a good one, to clarify: we have a situation in which those who took part in an RfC appear to have decided (with some room for dispute, of course) that X is a reliable publication on Y issue, but the broader community, when presented with the same issue, appears not to. Does the broader community (here) take precedence over the attendees of an RfC? Not necessarily; but who's got the appetite for another RfC?! SerialNumber54129 19:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe your third crack at this will be funny. Believe in yourself! Parabolist (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

A person should not believe in an "ism". He should believe in himself. John Lennon said it on his first solo album. "I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me." A good point there. After all, he was the Walrus...

User:Parabolist, are you the walrus? SerialNumber54129 18:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Can we not have another discussion here on the issue please? Until and unless someone closes the RfC in an unchallenged way, editor are free to believe what they want about what the RfC found be that the Telegraph is generally reliable on trans issues or not or that there was no consensus or whatever else. But from the community point of view let's stick with 'we don't know' or just don't talk about. Of course if you think you have have read the discussion well enough that you can be certain what the consensus was, are sufficiently uninvolved that no one will be able to reasonably complain about you closing the discussion, and have sufficient experience that you can close the discussion in such a way that enough of the community will accept you properly closed the discussion; well then feel free to answer Tazmin's request. Otherwise your opinion of what the discussion found doesn't seem to be something we need to hear about at this time. Nil Einne (talk) 10:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I very much agree. I actually don't have an opinion on what the consensus was, having only participated long enough to make a few comments. I'm just hoping someone will close it—for, against, no consensus, narrow consensus, whatever—and hope we can use this space to find some closers, and not to re(re(re))litigate the subject. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 23:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

  +1. This debate has already spiraled badly out of control between the RfC and close review, the last thing we need is yet another discussion. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

It should've remained closed under the original closure. It's obvious the revert of the closure was done out of process. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@LilianaUwU: For the love of G-d, could you please not? I'm here asking for a few brave volunteers to step up and close this mess, and I and two others have just begged everyone to not relitigate, and you want to, what, challenge the validity of the second close of the challenge of the close, a month after the fact, for being vaguely "out of process"? For heavens' sake. Please go write an article or something. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 02:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Please go write an article or something. Challenge accepted. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe this one just doesn't need a formal close. It seems obvious that based on the arguments in the RFC and subsequent discussions, the community is not able to agree on any course of action right now. The safe course would be to pretend this drama never happened, and maybe start a fresh discussion (without all the baggage) to see if things have changed in 6 months or so. This just doesn't seem like a problem that can be solved right now. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

On some topics, I'd like that solution. If there's, say, a heated and convoluted RfC about how to describe some aspect of the Hamas–Israel war, there's a good chance that scrapping the thing and waiting 6-12 months will yield better results. Here, though, I'm not convinced. This was a contentious issue in the first RfC in Jan. '23, it was contentious when this RfC started in June, and it's contentious now in September. I don't see a reason to think that that trend will have broken in six months. It's possible that there could be some deus ex machina in that time, The Telegraph fucking up on a gender matter to the degree of Dominion v. Fox; but if the facts are roughly the same in March, I think the consensus (or lack thereof) will be as well.

What I do think might work would be for someone to do a fairly broad close finding no consensus or only rough consensus (I shan't presuppose which, but I think it's clear this is not a slam-dunk in either direction), but primarily concerned with highlighting the main points that should be discussed in any subsequent RfC. That way we could have some sort of incremental progress. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 03:31, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I largely agree with you, I just don't think we can even agree what goal we should have incremental progress towards (at least not without a ton more drama than we've already had). I think the Wikipedia equivalent of a mistrial due to a hung jury is the only way we'll move forward. That way, next time the opposing factions will hopefully have a better grip on what they need to prove and what arguments their opponents are likely to raise, so we can get past the blocker of "did X really refute point Y or not". I don't think there's much daylight between my suggestion and a fairly broad close finding no consensus; there's no chance we won't be back here in a few months so we might as well skip the intermediate steps of the close-review-review-review and the close-review-review-review-review. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 04:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Finding that there's no consensus is trivially easy, and any of our regular closers could tell you that there's no consensus about whether the Telegraph is reliable on trans issues. That's not even controversial. What's getting people so angry is the decision about what RSN should say in the absence of a consensus.—S Marshall T/C 07:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, while I know this sounds like a bad joke, perhaps we should have a separate RFC about that general rule (ie. what RSP should say when the most recent RFC on a source's general reliability reaches no consensus, especially if there were older RFCs.) The separate RFC would not mention the Telegraph at all; while of course the shadow of it would hang over proceedings, the hope is that separating it out and making it clear that we're making a long-term decision on how to handle that general situation would encourage users to participate based on how they genuinely think we should operate in that broad situation, rather than setting policy purely based on what it means for the Telegraph specifically. At the very least I suspect that such an RFC would, itself, be able to reach a clear consensus; and it is an aspect of procedure we should nail down if it's going to result in this level of discordance. --Aquillion (talk) 13:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. In cases like this where a large part of the community doesn't understand how or why an important piece of "inside baseball" works the way it does, it's probably worth discussing whether the status quo actually reflects current consensus on how it should work. There should probably be an WP:RFCBEFORE though, to take the community's temperature on the issue and figure out a concrete proposal or two. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like a bad idea. Closers should pay attention to the thread and relevant PAGs. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

But it would remove the obstacle to solving this, wouldn't it?—S Marshall T/C 23:06, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

It looks like the Telegraph could soon be under new management[55], new owners may take it in a different direction. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

 Resolved As mentioned in the sub-section below thanks to Sandstein. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Uninvolved admins willing to assist in a panel close, please leave a comment below this header

• Tamzin, I'm actually looking at it. I'm trying not to look at the review of the review of the review; Nil Einne had a point with their suggested addition to "no way". But I'm already troubled; there are at least two editors with some experience who claim that Critical Discourse Studies is a "non-notable journal"--can I just say "NOT CORRECT" and point them this way? There's another who claims that journal publications are primary sources--OK I'm out of rhetorical questions. What fun! Drmies (talk) 21:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
• I have unarchived (see below) and closed the RFC. Sandstein 12:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks Sandstein. I've placed a copy back into the RSN archives, so anyone searching on RSN for it in the future can find it, and placed a notification on RSN that it has been reclosed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks - I overlooked that it was in the RSN archives, not the AN archives, which would make sense... Sandstein 13:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you! I think this is a good close, I anticipate another major slap-fight over the "list at RSP" issue, but I think you've chosen wisely in kicking that particular can down the road for now, since "how do we list things on RSP after a no-consensus close" isn't exactly what this particular RfC was ever designed to be about. --Licks-rocks (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yes. I agree that this close is very reasonable (and badly needed) and that the issue of no consensus at RSP is separate. (We should probably resolve that issue, though.) Loki (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

  I've now deleted it from here, as it's presence here is confusing at first glance. The copy of course still exists at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 444#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, that is why the link doesn't work at RSN. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

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

WP:RFPP backlog

Hi. There's currently a backlog at WP:RFPP. You may also want to investigate the recent articles I've rolled back today, as several users seem to be reverting each other. The articles in concern are Linus Media Group, Linus Sebastian and Bob Swan. A^♭m ^(Ring!) _(Notes) 08:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll take a poke at those articles and check in on them. Sirocco745 (talk) 09:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

The topic on Amazigh, berber, wiki page.

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

---

It has come to my attention that there is a peculiar inclusion of Arabic in the Amazigh/berber wiki pages, for example (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berbers) wiki page, particularly in the headline on the right. Additionally, the Tifinagh script—the written form of the Amazigh language—has been removed, while Arabic translations of Amazigh name are present. This is concerning, as both populations are distinct, and there has been ongoing conflict within Wikipedia regarding this issue. The Amazigh community has consistently opposed the inclusion of Arabic in a page dedicated to a completely different ethnic group with its own language and script. The question arises: why does Arabic appear on the main ethnic group page at all? This issue persists throughout the entire wiki page, where nearly spùe major terms includes its Arabic translation, yet Tamazight, their 'own' language that is widely spoken, does not receive the same treatment. This discrepancy is not present in the translations of wiki pages for other languages, suggesting a bias that warrants correction. I urge the admins to reconsider the approach taken in the English version of the Amazigh/berber wiki pages to accurately reflect the uniqueness of the Amazigh identity and language. Also, the reason I am coming here instead of discussing it directly is simple. As stated before, there is a form of passive aggression between 'both' sides, and certain individuals will revert any changes made regardless. Therefore, I wish to approach the administration to find a solution to the issue of the Amazigh wiki pages. This has been an ongoing problem that has led to many bans, brought up during a 'literal' university discussion event, and other complications. TahaKahi (talk) 09:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

This might be a thing to discuss in an RFC. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems this would fall somewhere under WP:MOS. You could try asking at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

First, admins do not adjudicate on content disputes and second, your complaint is full of baseless assertions and misleading comments (that won't stand up to scrutiny in the right venue). M.Bitton (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm trying to have a proper conversation to resolve the ongoing disputes across multiple pages. However, I’ve noticed that the same individuals, including yourself, M. Bitton, often approach this issue with a defensive tone, at times, such as now, passive-aggressive. I’ve seen you engaging in similar arguments before, even in the same page i spoke of. and it seems that each time there's resistance to any changes related to this matter. I want to focus on finding a solution based on mutual understanding. I’ll also follow up on the suggestions from Gråbergs and seek input from the administration to ensure a fair outcome. If you have a counterargument to my points, I’d be open to hearing it and reviewing where I might be mistaken. However, I believe that a more constructive approach from you would be helpful. TahaKahi (talk) 06:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

TahaKahi, the only portion of this that is appropriate here, where we discuss behavior, not content, is there is a form of passive aggression between 'both' sides, and certain individuals will revert any changes made regardless, and for that we need evidence in the form of WP:diffs. Administrators don't deal with content. GGS was advising you to go to WT:MOS, the talk page for the manual of style, and discuss this with other editors. Editors make these decisions, not administrators. Valereee (talk) 14:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes i did open a WT:MOS discussion about the subject, though it seems it’s going to continue being diverted into a senseless argument without reaching a resolution. Currently, this person appears to be having the same issue not just with me but also with another person on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Algeria discussion for similar reasonings, There is significant passive aggression involved. This is certainly going beyond just a 'MOS' issue. I’m trying to understand the best course of action, so I apologize if I wasn't supposed to open this in the administrator's noticeboard. TahaKahi (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

The best course of action when you disagree with another editor over content is to discuss -- at length, if necessary -- and if the two of you can't come to an agreement, follow the WP:dispute resolution process. Please don't make accusations, such as "passive aggression", without evidence. Valereee (talk) 15:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I made one, but it was closed after he decided to request the deletion of the page instead. You can see the details here [Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Karima Gouit] After he requested the page to be deleted, which followed the entire discussion about whether to include her Tamazight name or not, you can see the details here [Talk:Karima Gouit], This was followed by him making a report claiming that I am a sockpuppet.[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/YassinRi], all this while he had yet another dispute in [Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Algeria discussion] This was related to a matter concerning Amazigh content too with another editor, which he ignored, as seen in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Skitash&oldid=1250286001] claiming he's not interested in Wikipedia:FORUMSHOPPING , Thus, he is avoiding two disputes with different editors over a similar subject. I don't see how opening anotherWikipedia:Dispute resolution would help if he’s going to set the page up for deletion nomination or ignore the dispute entirely.. TahaKahi (talk) 16:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee, I think there may well be a recurring behaviour problem here. There are now three different participants in this discussion who are saying that they have had difficulty engaging in normal, productive editing on this topic, despite a desire to do so. The dispute resolution process appears to be completely ineffective, since the named parties do not show up. But if editors try other venues when that occurs, they are told they are forumshopping (eg [56], provided elsewhere in this thread). You can see M.Bitton's refusal to engage in good-faith discussion below. (And, when you look at the thread below, it's worth observing that statements are often silently amended to look less strident than they were originally, eg [57].) -- asilvering (talk) 01:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I think you have good observations and points here, Asilvering. Andre🚐 01:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I already said that the "admins do not adjudicate on content disputes" and the "OP is welcome to make a case on the article's talk page (whatever that may be)". I also started a section about the OP's behaviour (with a question that the OP completely ignored), so please tell me, what discussion am I supposed to be engaging in? Content issue or something else? Also, do you honestly think that changing "prime" to "an" is some attempt to deceive? Is that your idea of the good faith assumption that you've been lecturing me about? M.Bitton (talk) 01:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I did not say that you engaged in an attempt to deceive. I said that you often silently amend your statements, which is a simple, neutral fact. If you think that observation is evidence of bad faith, I am concerned about your ability to distinguish bad faith from good faith. If you are concerned about the transparency of your edits, I would recommend using strikethrough when you make changes, so that both the original and the changed version are clear to readers. -- asilvering (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

So why did you ask me to assume good faith when I stated neutral facts?

If you are concerned about the transparency of your edits I'm most certainly not concerned in the slightest.

I would recommend using strikethrough when you make changes, are you suggesting that I changed my comment after someone has replied to it?

I'd appreciate it if you could answer the question about the discussion that I'm supposed to be engaging in (see previous comment). M.Bitton (talk) 00:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

When you're saying that another person's edit is disruptive or that they are engaging in pov-pushing, that is not simply stating neutral facts. If you truly believe that those kinds of assertions are neutral facts and not a matter of subjective opinion, I am extremely concerned. Regarding are you suggesting that I changed my comment after someone has replied to it, no, I am not, and I did not say that. The discussion you should be engaged in is, quite frankly, not on this board. It is my belief (explained in my earlier comment below) that the best way to resolve this is through an RfC that settles the question at the heart of this dispute. -- asilvering (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

If you truly believe that those kinds of assertions are neutral fact they misrepresented the sources. That's the undisputed fact that I was referring to and the one that you ignored while asking me to "assume good faith".

I said that you often silently amend your statements, which is a simple, neutral fact. you said more than that: to look less strident than they were originally is your opinion (it's not a fact).

I am more concerned than you are by the fact that you keep evading simple questions about what you said (describing your opinion as a "neutral fact" (it's not) to justify your accusation and asking me to assume good faith when I'm describing simple neutral facts). There must be a reason behind this double standard and I want to know it. M.Bitton (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

It is not my opinion that you have silently edited your statements. An opinion would be something like "M.Bitton is acting in bad faith, as one can see by how they edit their statements after posting them". I didn't say that, and I don't think that, either. I'm not sure what simple questions you think I'm evading by saying "I did not say that", so I'm afraid I can't address that part of your reply. What I do think (and this is my opinion here) that this conversation is unproductive and that the editors involved in the content dispute here should solve it through normal means, such as WP:DRN or WP:RFC. -- asilvering (talk) 18:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

It's not just your opinion, it's your baseless opinion (unless you're actually claiming to be in my head). This is the second time that you quote only part of what you said (while leaving out the relevant to look less strident than they were originally). Regardless, your reply doesn't address my concerns regarding the double standard.

The discussion you should be engaged in is, quite frankly, not on this board. so why did you say You can see M.Bitton's refusal to engage in good-faith discussion? M.Bitton (talk) 18:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton, my goal here is to identify what course of action will most fruitfully improve the encyclopedia. As I have said, I believe that to be a good-faith conversation about the content, which could happen on an article talk page, at WP:DRN, at an RFC, or so on. Since this issue appears to be larger than any single page, it seems to me that an RFC will be the most useful. If it is also your goal to improve the encyclopedia as fruitfully as possible, I suggest you take part in that kind of discussion. -- asilvering (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Since you don't want to address the raised concerns, I will simply believe what is clear to me and guess the rest. M.Bitton (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree with asilvering here, the conversation I see below is rapidly spiraling into a mess and something needs to be done about editor behavior, although I'm not sure what powers admins have in this specific case. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 05:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I've also had trouble communicating with the OP. I think they're trying to edit constructively, but they've repeatedly had troubles with the subtleties in WP:MOS topics and take everything extremely personally. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, the OP is abusing the process: their comment on WP:MOS and this one on DRN are nothing more than an attempt at vilifying an editor who's preventing them from pushing a POV (as exemplified by the OP's misrepresentation of two sources in order to replace Arabic with Neo-Tifinagh). They are doing the same thing here without notifying the editor that they are making this report about (in a very odd, if not disingenuous way). M.Bitton (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  This report was regarding the matter of the Amazigh/Berber Wikipedia pages, not about the person himself. That’s why I refrained from mentioning his name in the report, as my dispute with him was ongoing elsewhere. It was later closed due to his request for the "reported" page to be deleted, thus ending the dispute resolution as it moved to converse on why it should or shouldnt be deleted. I’d refer to my response to Valereee in this administrator noticeboard. TahaKahi (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  The provided diffs and the forum shopping tell a different story. M.Bitton (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  My comment was expressing my point of view on the issue, which is directly related to my own dispute with him, as it's the same matter—his bias against Amazigh Wikipedia pages. Nevertheless, I will reword this. I notified him of the earlier disputes made and directed to him. This was a general report. Thirdly, you are also involved in the issue concerning the inclusion of Arabic, which makes it a violation of Wikipedia:FOREIGN and also the rule "Non-English names should be moved to a footnote or elsewhere in the article if they would otherwise clutter the first sentence" in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1250265052] as you deleted the Wikipedia:LEADLANG and added the supposed cause as MOS:FULLNAME, while its also under Wikipedia:FORLANG the historical character is not an Arab, His full name is not 'ibn ...', which translates to 'son of'; it's not used as a full name. you are the only one, out of all the other more refined translations of the wiki page (spanish, french, etc) that include arabic, If you have an issue with this, initiate a dispute. Otherwise, you're violating the guidelines just as much as you think I am. TahaKahi (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  I have better things to do than entertain the nonsensical assertions of someone who misrepresents the sources to push a POV. M.Bitton (talk) 17:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for expressing your concerns very politely. In the future, I would appreciate it if you could address inquiries about your edits directly rather than dismissing them with indirect remarks, i will be coming back to them once my current dispute reach a concluding decision. TahaKahi (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  Your disingenuousness knows no bounds. M.Bitton (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  Skitash's contributions are not as neutral as Mr. Bitton would have us believe.

  I will give you an example on the article qashabiya, Skitash deleted the Berber origin under the reason WP:OR (no sources) [58].

  • He defends a mention of "Arab" clothing which is also not based on any source. As luck would have it, we notice that he is less diligent in verifying the effectiveness of the Arab character than the Berber character in the sources. I therefore point out to him that the source is diverted [59].
  • He reintroduces the unsourced and contentious mention of an Arabic character [60] : with a diversion of sources in a second step [61]. This second phase was carried out under his knowledge that the source which gave a Berber origin existed [62].
  • When a work of History is quoted opposite that does not go in his direction, it is reverted [63] under criteria whose rigor is not required by him to include the Arabic origin (since he diverts press articles that make no mention of the Arabic character of the qashabiya).

  => Conclusion : Skitash's initial argument is invalidated: there is no WP:OR because a source gives the Berber origin of the clothing. But he chooses to reintroduce the Arab origin, the first time by not putting the same verification criteria, the second time by deliberately trying to mislead us with a source in Arabic. So how can we understand this behavior? Is it only editorial according to you? How can we accept that he combines a Rollback cap and editorial contributor on subjects of Arab or Berber identity where he is involved and where his opponents are not simple vandals? Monsieur Patillo (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  I have provided the diff that proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that the OP misrepresented two sources to push a POV. What do you have to say about that? M.Bitton (talk) 21:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  This dispute is unlikely to be resolved on this board, because this board deals with behavioral, not content disputes. However, I would urge all the participants to be civil and assume good faith. Now, this isn't really in scope of this board, but is there any reason why the article can't include both the Arabic and Amazigh or Berber content? I noticed the parties seem to be editwarring about which one, but really, why not have both and say according to X Y, according to Z, A? Andre🚐 20:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  That's something that needs to be decided on a case by case basis. The OP is welcome to make a case on the article's talk page (whatever that may be). M.Bitton (talk) 21:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  My request has consistently been to address the representation of Berber languages and topics related to Berber culture on Wikipedia. Specifically, I have been asking for pages related to Berber languages, Berbers as an ethnic group, and other topics such as Berber religion and traditions to prioritize Tamazight as the primary language, while considering Arabic as a secondary language under Wikipedia:FORLANGfor berber topics where Arabic is closely connected. If including Arabic results in clutter, I suggest it be moved to a footnote. I have tried to reach out through talk pages and dispute resolution processes, but my concerns have often been redirected or ignored. I seek to avoid repetitive edit wars, especially regarding the inclusion of Tamazight on pages that predominantly concern Berber topics. For example, revisions I have made on historically Berber figures or topics have been removed, or Arabic translations have been prioritized on pages like the Berbers page, It appears that despite the subject matter being primarily related to Berber culture, some editors, such as M. Bitton and Skitash, have consistently reverted or removed Tamazight translations in favor of unsourced Arabic translations for no reason. In order to move forward and avoid continuous disputes, it is important to reach a consensus on allowing the inclusion of Tamazight in content that is specifically about Amazigh topics, without the need for repetitive edit wars or the potential for deletion, this is the bare minimum, the Wikipedia:LEADLANG, the bare minimum in comparison to some of the concerns raised by Monsieur Patillo TahaKahi (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  Is this the same dispute at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Algeria_discussion? If so, maybe the parties could all sign up for that? Andre🚐 21:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  Despite what you keep claiming, your report is first and foremost, about an editor that you are yet to notify. Putting the content issue aside and getting back to what this board is for (editors' behaviour), do you have anything to say about your misrepresentation of the sources to push a POV? M.Bitton (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  @M.Bitton I didn't understand your intervention, if she addresses me? what diff are you talking about? Are you involved yourself or are you an administrator?

  @Andrevan Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Algeria_discussion concerns another editorial problem than the names. Skitash is also involved because he introduces a one-sided vision of an 85% Arab ethnicity of Algeria, suggesting that it is due to medieval Arab migrations. While the academic consensus on the subject is that the population is composed mainly of indigenous Arabized Berbers. A first DRN concluded to include "both sources" in the body of the text, which Skitash refuses, and he does not formulate a proposal. I therefore request a second DRN to help formulate a WP:NPOV text.

  For the names in Tamazight the difference between WP:en and the other projects, even if it is not an absolute argument because the projects are independent, shows that something is wrong... It is a case of WP:CPP practiced by seasoned contributors. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  The above question was meant for the OP (not you). M.Bitton (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think you have to agree with Skitash's or M.Bitton's initial statement to sign up for a DRN. Just getting all the parties writing statements with a moderator is the goal. The initial statement will be subject to change. Andre🚐 21:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  Originally, I intended to raise this discussion in a general sense without naming specific editors, as my aim was to address the broader subject and seek a resolution that might carry on on all related subject to not have an edit war in each. However, as the discussion progressed, certain individuals involved in earlier disputes became part of the conversation, which led to specific references being made to those earlier matters. This was not my intention, and I did not want to cause any trouble for anyone, but rather to address the issue in a neutral and constructive way. Though I will notify Skitash about this page, though he has previously removed notices related to his own dispute and indicated that he will ignore the report. as i have mentioned earlier. I have also observed that my notices have been deleted on multiple occasions, which has made it difficult to address these matters in a productive way. While the subject of Monsieur Patillo's dispute is related to a different issue, it involves the same individuals and concerns similar themes of potential POV pushing. I would also recommend that the administration encourage M. Bitton to engage more respectfully and civilly with all parties involved. His behavior has been an ongoing concern during this entire process and seems to have been overlooked. TahaKahi (talk) 21:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Andrevan The DRN that I requested on Algeria has nothing to do with it. On the other hand, the example that I cite above on qashabiya is emblematic of Skitash's behavior (double standards, and misuse of sources). I would like my testimony on qashabiya to be taken into account by the administrators. Because the picture is not as idyllic as Mr. Bitton presents it about Skitash. Combined with the extensive rights that Skitash has, it is a real problem. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Right now the administrators are ignoring this thread because it's a big mess of mud slinging. If you want to level it up, start with some really specific and incisive and concrete diffs of your allegations. Otherwise, you may be headed for inaction or worse, a boomerang. Andre🚐 21:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Andrevan my message of 20:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC) contains detailed diffs and 10 lines of precise exposition on Skitash's action on qashabiya.Should I have opened another incident section for this? Mr. Bitton should also be told not to lead the debates because it weighs down the page while he is not personally involved. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 21:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't need to be a separate section, just detail the diffs that break Wikipedia policy or guideline and explain how. The diffs currently presented read to me about content disputes, not behavior so likely nobody is investigating them that thoroughly. Andre🚐 22:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• I will give you an example on the article qashabiya, Skitash deleted the Berber origin under the reason WP:OR (no sources) [64].
• He defends a mention of "Arab" clothing which is also not based on any source. As luck would have it, we notice that he is less diligent in verifying the effectiveness of the Arab character than the Berber character in the sources. I therefore point out to him that the source is diverted [65].
• He reintroduces the unsourced and contentious mention of an Arabic character [66] : with a diversion of sources in a second step [67]. This second phase was carried out under his knowledge that the source which gave a Berber origin existed [68].

When he reintroduces an unsourced element (Arabic origin instead of Berber) the first time [69], and then a second time [70] he introduces it again by fleshing out the section with a diverted source (in Arabic) [71] to mislead the other contributors, for me this is not editorial but behavioral. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, just make this clear for me, if I open a dispute, say about Kahina, to include the Wikipedia:LEADLANG, should a decision be made to include it? And if a subject related to her, or an object connected to her, is reverted by the same two individuals again, should I initiate another dispute and continue this cycle over and over, or should I report the individuals? Because as I see it, I will have to dispute almost every Amazigh-specific page, as they seem to be heavily influenced by these individuals. TahaKahi (talk) 22:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Your only concern right now should be to address the serious concerns regarding your misrepresentation of the sources. M.Bitton (talk) 22:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Please refer to my previous reply in this section where I engaged with you on this topic, and your response was a direct insult and dismissiveness. You are trying to divert the subject. I will ignore you until an administrator says otherwise. TahaKahi (talk) 22:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Please see #TahaKahi's_behaviour for more info. M.Bitton (talk) 23:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I apologize if I add myself to this discussion: I would like to say my piece on the general issue and then on a couple of users in particular.

in particular on the Algeria page there are countless discussions on the talk page about this denigrating theme towards the Berbers for which even the use of the Berber language in the infobox is not allowed by users who continue to delete the changes and in some cases threaten you with edit warring.

Since I am a novice I am not clear on how to proceed so not long ago I asked how to do it on the help page. I also opened a dispute but nothing helped. To date I have had the opportunity to have particular experience with a particular entity like Skitash who modifies my changes without paying attention to the changes made (I therefore imagined that he did it for WP:POV). Frankly I see that these users remain unpunished while if someone tries to correct an article that does not respect their pov is threatened with edit warring.

I see some examples of this unprofessional behavior here on the kaftan page (evidence); about those he admitted that he didn't paid attention to what he cancels as you can see here. Another example is about the qashabiya page where here he made assumptions without even reading the sources of the text, nor those inserted by me, nor those inserted by him; also, not improving the discussion about those edits which i asked explanation about.

P.S. Sorry if my english is not perfect or if I haven't explained myself better Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 22:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@TahaKahi, can you explain what you mean by brought up during a 'literal' university discussion event? -- asilvering (talk) 01:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

It may not seem like a big deal, but we had an event at my university (FPS UCA) about Amazigh inclusion in Morocco. Some students raised concerns, citing examples from the internet about how topics related to the ethnicity are not properly represented. Issues discussed ranged from the poor digitization of the Amazigh language, despite it being widely spoken, to cultural marginalization and the continued use of Arabic as the primary language in the internet when 'represented', which the English Wikipedia was used as an example, as its greatly differentiate from other versions when it comes to representing the ethnic group in their subject, at times, barely doing so. TahaKahi (talk) 07:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@TahaKahi, do you mean by your last sentence that Amazigh culture is less marginalized on other-language Wikipedias? In particular I'd be interested to hear about how French Wikipedia has handled the topic. If there are academic articles on the topic that you can share (on Amazigh marginalization in favour of Arabic generally, or of Amazigh marginalization on Wikipedia specifically), that would be helpful context for uninvolved editors. We're well aware that systemic bias is a problem on Wikipedia. Of course, that doesn't make it much easier to fix. -- asilvering (talk) 23:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, no other Wikipedia language uses Arabic as a LEADLANG for any Amazigh-related topics. There’s a great document written by Yamina that provides good background on the issue, tracing it back centuries, though much of what you’ll see now is more modern, which i believe she also delves into.

El Kirat El Allame, Yamina. (2009). Issues in the representation of Amazigh language and identity in North Africa. Langues et Littératures, 19, 179-196. TahaKahi (talk) 05:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

A few things come to mind re-reading this thread and the related SPI report. 1) It does strike me as odd, per Asilvering, that the article for the Berber language, Tamazight or Amazigh in English, doesn't actually include the Berber word for the Berber language using any of the Berber alphabets, which TIL is ⵜⴰⵎⴰⵣⵉⵖⵜ in ⵜⵉⴼⵉⵏⴰⵖ, as added by this blocked user, whereas in fr:Langues_berbères, it is there in two different dialects plus a further Latin script all of which en is lacking. 2. In WP:OR it is clearly explained that a translation is not OR. Per WP:TRANSCRIPTION, specifically exempted. So at the very least, maybe we should have the Berber name of the language so that we can cut down on random driveby editors trying to do it, because what is really the argument for it not being there? "Unsourced" isn't one? 3. The SPI report accuses TahaKahi of being a DUCK of a banned user because he's adding Berber translations of Berber stuff, but I'm sure more than one user wants to do that. In fact, we have two different proposed socks from Skitash, While you may not be a sock of Yassine181, you are most certainly a sock of YassinRi and TahaKahi also points out that he was previously cleared of socking as shown here with comment by Yamla. Along with the other user Tikirwan mentioned earlier, we know of at least 3, presumably distinct, Berber people trying to fix this perceived discrepancy, along with the 3 in this thread, and there was a university lecture where someone was promoting or suggesting to do so; a similar thing has happened in the Jewish community recently leading to a big upsurge in interest in random editors coming to opine. So, the renewed SPI, in which TahaKahi has a detailed rebuttal, and points out that he actually learned a bit how to do Wikipedia stuff from the previous accusations by Skitash, seems overconfident at best or bad faith - of course, I'll look pretty stupid if one of the users above is a sockpuppet or they all are - but I'm AGF. So I wonder how this SPI is going to return a positive result this time if it was "inconclusive" last time, and doesn't currently appear to be a clear match per Izno (the cited "first thing" diffs don't look the same to me, did you select the wrong diff? Or am I blind?) Also, I do agree that Skitash and M. Bitton can be a bit brusque and businesslike. That's not always a bad thing to be no-nonsense, but something seems a bit awry here. Andre🚐 06:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Since you insist on discussing the content (here of all places):

• It's "Berber languages" and not "Berber language".
• In the article, some of the alphabets are included in a footnote with the word Tamazight.
• Berber people trying to fix this perceived discrepancy "perceived" is the key word here. Is that a good reason to turn a blind eye to the disruption? As an example, I'll cite an edit of theirs that made me invite myself to this discussion (just like you did): how on earth can anyone justify such edit? M.Bitton (talk) 12:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton, the justification is obvious and has been stated several times in this thread: no other Wikipedia language uses Arabic as a LEADLANG for any Amazigh-related topics. You are free to disagree with the reasoning for this edit, and of course it may be a poor edit for other reasons, such as source-text integrity, that can be discussed on the talk page as normal. Edits aren't disruptive or unjustifiable just because you disagree with them or they are poorly done. -- asilvering (talk) 16:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering: the edit that I cited is disruptive (it's not the only one) and what you're quoting is a content issue, which begs the question: why are you entertaining it on this board? M.Bitton (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering Why should we have to follow what other Wikipedias do? Moreover, that claim is factually incorrect, as several other Wikipedias, including German and Turkish, do include Arabic in the leads of Berber-related articles. There is nothing wrong with this, especially given that the vast majority of Berbers speak Arabic (either as a first language or a second language), which serves as the lingua franca among different Berber groups and main official language across all countries in the Maghreb region.

If TahaKahi is truly here to improve Wikipedia, why is it that nearly all of their 146 edits are centered around Arab-Berber disputes? This is a clear sign of a single-purpose account and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Skitash (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

We don't have to follow what they do. However, "I want to standardize how a topic is discussed over multiple wikipedia projects" is a clear justification for an edit. Again, you don't have to like or agree with that kind of edit. But acting like that isn't a justification, and that using that as a justification is prima facie evidence of bad faith and pov-pushing, is not warranted. @M.Bitton, that edit is not obviously disruptive. It has a clear edit summary. It provides a source. If you think it is a bad edit, for whatever reason at all, you are well within your rights and community norms to do so, and to revert the edit and discuss it on the talk page.

As @Andrevan has pointed out, we're likely to get many editors bringing up this same issue, with varying levels of skill, reasoning, and intent. It looks like the best way to solve this would be to open some kind of RfC on the topic of WP:LEADLANG in Amazigh-related articles. My guess is that the RfC would result in consensus for multiple non-English languages in the lead sentence, which I assume would result in fewer problematic edits on these lead sentences. -- asilvering (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Your keep assuming bad faith and justifying your accusation with opinions that you describe (in a self-serving style) as "neutral facts". How about you reply to the questions that I asked you previously and that you keep ignoring? M.Bitton (talk) 17:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

M.Bitton, my opinion on your questions are that that are just to pivot away from the problem. I had been trying to keep my mouth shut, but that has gotten too difficult now. All this discussion has done is constantly remind me of Talk:Shakshouka and the mess that exists there. My viewpoint of your actions to articles like Berbers and Kahina is the same as with Shakshouka months ago; that you know so much more than myself on the subject, but you primarily revert edits rather than make improvements. I honestly hope it is an incorrect assessment, as it bothers me on some level that I feel unable to make improvements to them while others can do so and don't. But it doesn't help that I can check the edit history and see "M.Bitton [...] (Reverted # edit(s) by..." throughout the history. In this case, I would agree that you are in the right about the other editor's actions. But I do want you to consider that you can simultaneously be both in the right and the wrong on something and I think it applies here.

If you would rather not discuss this, then fine as I can force you to do so. If you want a different subject, then here is one I will offer via a question: asilvering did already answer your questions, so why are you claiming they didn't? --Super Goku V (talk) 10:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

If you think that there is a problem with the Kahina article, then you go ahead and highlight it on the article's talk page (that I suggest you read beforehand), as simply claiming that one can be right and wrong at the same time is meaningless. I didn't invite myself to this report to discuss the content, I said that it and repeated it more times than I care to remember (those who are mistaken about what this board is for are welcome to fill it will walls of text without me).

I'm assuming that you're referring to the discussion that took place after the above question (while wondering why you're bringing up in this section). asilvering did not answer my questions about:

• the double standard: a) they kept asking me to assume good faith when I was stating neutral facts (about the OP's source misrepresentation). b) They claimed that I often silently amend my statements to make then look less strident (as if they can read my mind), and when I asked them to assume good faith, they described their opinion as a "simple, neutral fact".
• the so-called discussion: they said You can see M.Bitton's refusal to engage in good-faith discussion below.. When I asked them which discussion they're referring to, first they ignored the question and when I insisted (because this is a serious accusation), they said the discussion that I should be having is "not on this board".

I have given up hope of seeing answers to these questions (I'm only mentioning them again because you brought up the subject). M.Bitton (talk) 12:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering: pinging to make sure you don't miss it. The questions that I referred to above start with So why did you ask me to assume good faith when I stated neutral facts?. M.Bitton (talk) 17:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Also have you stopped beating your wife yet? @M.Bitton, that is not a question, it's an accusation. Valereee (talk) 14:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

That's misleading, Skitash. The question wasn't whether they include Arabic but whether they omit Berber alphabets. In both links you gave, in de:Berber and tr:Berberiler, do include ⵉⵎⴰⵣⵉⵖⵏ in the lead and tr includes ⴰⵎⴰⵣⵉⵖ also, although both appear to be about the Berber ethnicity and not the language group. In the corresponding language pages de:Berbersprachen and tr:Berberi dilleri, the former includes ⵜⴰⵎⴰⵣⵉⵖⵜ, the latter has neither Berber alphabet nor Arabic, but tr:Tifinag lists ⵜⵉⴼⵉⵏⴰⵖ (using svg). In en articles on Berbers, Berber languages, neither include any Berber alphabets in the lead or infobox, though the page Tifinagh does. But can't you see why to a Berber person and really in general, this is an omission that should probably be corrected, and that more than one person might seek to correct? Andre🚐 23:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

"In en articles on Berbers, Berber languages, neither include any Berber alphabets in the lead or infobox" Are you sure? Berbers does include Berber alphabet in both the infobox and footnotes in the lead. The footnote next to "Berber peoples" only includes Arabic because "Berber" is an Arabic term that doesn't exist in Berber languages. Berber languages does too; see Berber languages#cite note-2 and the "Tamaziɣt" (Berber Latin alphabet) in the infobox. Skitash (talk) 23:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Nooo.... In the footnotes, but not in the lead text or infobox text that I can see. The Berber Latin alphabet and the Berber Arabic alphabet aren't what I'm referring to here. I'm referring to the traditional Berber alphabets, which are official in Morocco as far as I know. Andre🚐 23:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

That's likely because MOS:FORLANG recommends moving non-English names to footnotes to reduce clutter. Furthermore, if you're referring to Tifinagh, it's only official in Morocco. Berber languages are spoken in more countries than just Morocco. In Algeria, for example, the government has yet to decide whether to officialize Tifinagh, Berber Latin, or Berber Arabic. Skitash (talk) 23:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, but look at a page like Hebrew language. We include the name of the language in both Hebrew, mostly used by Jewish people, and in the Samaritan script, which is related but distinct. That's because both groups have a claim to that language. I don't think FORLANG is too specific about what clutter constitutes. Nor does that apply to listing those alternative alphabet in the infobox text. Or Aramaic, which includes both Syriac and Jewish Babylonian. Andre🚐 23:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

That's fine, I have no issue with moving text out of the footnotes in Berber languages if that's what you're suggesting. However, what TahaKahi is bizarrely trying to propose is that we delete Arabic text from articles that have anything to do with Berbers, such as Yennayer, despite the fact that the word exists in Arabic and the holiday is celebrated by both Arabs and Berbers. Skitash (talk) 23:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

The fact that exists in arabic doesn't mean that is an arabic holiday. Even the fact of the celebration it doesn't make sense. If an indian celebrates chinese year, it doesn't make the holiday indian. Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 00:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

That is not the case first of all cause judge others languages inappropriate the arabic version would have been removed too but that did not happened. Also it does mean a thing that in algeria the tifinagh is not the only offical one cause it's used in a lot of cases; road signs, names of companies, websites, even newspapers so this argumentation is pointless. Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 23:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea what you just wrote. Skitash (talk) 23:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

First of all, that is not the case. If other languages were considered inappropriate, the Arabic version would have been removed as well, but that didn’t happen; for example Algeria page has arabic in it and that is not Forlang for you. Furthermore, the fact that Tifinagh isn’t the only official script in Algeria doesn’t diminish its significance, as it is widely used in many contexts, such as road signs, company names, websites, and even newspapers. Your argument that the use of Tifinagh is inappropriate because it is not officially recognized in Algeria is irrelevant, as it is largely used by the population. Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I still don't quite get what you're hinting at. Non-English names are contained within footnotes in Algeria. Since you brought up road signs, it is only signs in Berber cities that do have Berber text,[72] and even those arbitrarily use either Tifinagh, Berber Arabic or Berber Latin. What makes you think it's a good idea to choose Tifinagh over all the other scripts? Additionally, there was an RfC in Talk:Algeria, where the consensus was to not include Berber text for this very reason. No Berber script has been officially chosen yet. Skitash (talk) 00:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Skitash also removed the mention of the Berber language for the city of Béjaïa, even though it is in a Berber-speaking region. [73]. while the infobox settlement provides a native language parameter. He should therefore have applied FORLANG by removing Arabic and keeping the local name (and other official language) in Berber: Bgayet. For ideological reasons, he has always decided to remove the Berber name and not the one in Arabic. On the French article that was featured does not encounter these problems, there are both Arabic and Berber names in the language of the country, without the sky apparently falling on our heads. The alphabet questions are a pretext: on other Wikipedia projects there is no problem and many cities in Algeria like Algiers, Béjaïa opt for Tifinagh and Arabic plates. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 01:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Do you really think this AIV report is going to help, Skitash? Andre🚐 02:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

It shouldn't have been needed, but a quick isolated look at Monsieur Patillo's contributions and dispute history led to a quick overdue block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

That wasn't exactly my read. I thought it wasn't appropriate for AIV as a content dispute and not clear vandalism. But maybe I didn't look closely enough at the diffs. Andre🚐 02:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Such reports are indeed not appropriate for AIV, but I ended up reviewing such reports when they appear as they usually describe actual disruption that someone is frustrated about and needs help with, and sending them away to other venues just causes more frustration. When I see such a report, I normally either take action or decline it by removing the report with an edit summary pinging the reporter and explaining why. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, you might want to confer with Asilvering or review this thread though. Andre🚐 02:59, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@ToBeFree I don't really want to make much of an accusation here either. I'm trying not to say much more on this subject until I see a decision regarding it, but from what I can see, isn't it interesting how this is unfolding? [74] and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:CIR issue and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/YassinRi.

Read through the past comments in this discussion, and you'll see @Skitash and @M.Bitton, especially the latter, breaking this Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

There is a clear issue here and no matter how many times i try to make it clear, nothing comes out of it, i try to engage but my comments get either ignored or the person im converting with move to a different subject instead, i urge to read through the entire discussion here and see how the behavior and arguments.

Outside of this, can someone tell me, what form of report do i open for this subject? and as for what i feel like is targeting, personal and group-wise. where do i make a report of such. TahaKahi (talk) 07:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

#TahaKahi's_behaviour and the list of personal attacks against Skitash here and on other venues such as [1],[2],[3] and even AFD, where they had been reminded by CoffeeCrumbs not to cast aspersions (which they obviously ignored) speak for themselves. M.Bitton (talk) 12:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I have read your message. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

TahaKahi's behaviour

@TahaKahi: putting the content issue aside and getting back to what this board is for (editors' behaviour), do you have anything to say about your misrepresentation of the sources to push a POV (see diff)? M.Bitton (talk) 21:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest that instead of continuing to make accusations, you take the opportunity to explain and provide references for your statements. Throughout this discussion, you have made numerous remarks and insinuations, but little constructive input to move the conversation forward. You have also avoided addressing a specific issue that was directed towards you regarding a potential violation of Wikipedia guidelines, and have continued to engage disrespectfully to me. TahaKahi (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Please answer the question regarding your misrepresentation of the sources to push a POV. This behaviour issue is exactly what this board is meant to address. M.Bitton (talk) 21:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Refrain from creating separate sections in this report on a different subject. make your own dispute. Secondly, what you're doing is Wikipedia:PA making accusations without any basis, immediately after making hateful remarks throughout the subject. Be civil. This is the last time I ask you this. TahaKahi (talk) 22:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Please answer the question regarding your misrepresentation of the sources to push a POV (the supporting diff has been provided). M.Bitton (talk) 22:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Please refer to my previous reply in this section where I engaged with you on this topic, and your response was a direct insult and dismissiveness. refer to your response "I have better things to do than entertain the nonsensical assertions of someone who misrepresents the sources to push a POV." You are trying to divert the subject. I will ignore you until an administrator says otherwise. TahaKahi (talk) 22:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

You cannot ignore an undisputed fact that is supported by a diff. Since you broke the community's trust by misrepresenting you misrepresented the sources to push a POV, you need to start by acknowledging what you did, explain why you did it and what you will do differently in the future. M.Bitton (talk) 22:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

M.Bitton, I don't see any evidence anywhere that TahaKahi has "broken the community's trust". I strongly suggest that you do not talk to other editors in this way, especially when you appear to be on the other side of them in a content dispute. -- asilvering (talk) 23:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering: Is source misrepresentation something that the community finds acceptable? That's what they did (the evidence has been provided) and they refuse to even acknowledge it. M.Bitton (talk) 00:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton, you've been on wikipedia for a long time and know very well what it means when someone says an editor has broken or lost community trust. TahaKahi isn't blocked, and it's completely inappropriate to talk to them in this way. Settle your content dispute by having an earnest, good-faith discussion on the article talk page. Don't dismiss or insult the other editor, which, as you can see even from this brief thread, has been completely unproductive. -- asilvering (talk) 00:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering: If that's the only bit that's concerning you, then I will strike it so that we can concentrate of the primary issue (their misrepresentation of the sources). M.Bitton (talk) 00:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Settle your content dispute by having an earnest, good-faith discussion on the article talk page. Both of you. (Or: all of you.) Stop accusing each other of pov-pushing. Assume good faith and have a serious discussion about the sources and what they say. -- asilvering (talk) 00:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Their misrepresentation of the sources is not a hollow accusation, it's a fact, unlike their report and the aspersions that they keep casting on another editor across multiple boards. M.Bitton (talk) 00:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I did not say it was a hollow accusation. I said you needed to assume good faith and have a serious discussion about the sources and what they say. If you need to pretend to have good faith, then pretend. Go talk it out. -- asilvering (talk) 00:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Here's an example (one of many) of their bad faith accusations. M.Bitton (talk) 01:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering M.Bitton is not wrong. TahaKahi is clearly only on Wikipedia for a single purpose: using it as an ethnic WP:BATTLEGROUND as exemplified by this unjustified edit. Looking at their contributions, it's evident that all of their edits have something to do with pushing a pro-Berber POV in various articles, even if it means blatantly misrepresenting sources (which they failed to address above) and throwing around baseless bad faith accusations everywhere/WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Not to mention, the editor in question is currently under investigation for sockpuppetry, as their initial edits clearly seem to continue the work of a blocked editor.[75][76] Skitash (talk) 11:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I will make a few adjustments to this conversation. First, the 'pro-Berber POV' you mention is quite strange. You see me adding Wikipedia:LEADLANG to Berber-specific Wikipedia articles, such as the one you mentioned, and your first thought is that I'm pushing a pro-Berber POV? I have not made any major contributions to Amazigh content that would support the claim you're making during my time on Wikipedia.

Secondly, I have already discussed your report in this conversation, and I will refer to it again. You made a report based on an incident from last June, for which I was unbanned, and your accusation of sockpuppetry was proven false. Yet, here you are, making the same accusations after we had a disagreement about including the main language on an Amazigh page. You didn’t want to engage in a proper discussion as per Wikipedia rules. Again, I'll refer to earlier replies where I cited these events and how you moved from ignoring the talk page, locking the dispute resolution by requesting deletion of one of the pages, then making a second report. Anyone can visit the second sockpuppetry report and see for themselves. So far, everything you’ve considered unjust for removal falls under Wikipedia:FORLANG and you have yet, to have a proper conversation with me about it instead of making it a pro-berber or pro-arab discussion. You have yet to explain how they don't fall under this guideline and have instead avoided a constructive conversation. I will again refer to my previous replies. TahaKahi (talk) 12:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

To add, here is his report: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/YassinRi TahaKahi (talk) 12:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

That does not justify removing the Arabic name, especially when the same term exists in Arabic (where it translates to January). If you were truly following MOS:FORLANG, the right thing to do would have been to include both names in a footnote, as M.Bitton did here. Furthermore, you've once again avoided addressing the fact that you've misrepresented sources, and this says a lot.

While you may not be a sock of Yassine181, you are most certainly a sock of YassinRi. As I mentioned in the sockpuppet investigation, it's highly improbable that it's a mere coincidence both of you added the exact same dynasties and names (Barghawata, Almoravids, Almohads, Abu Mohammed Salih) to the article, especially when the article rarely gets edited. You started restoring YassinRi's edits to Safi, Morocco just over a month after they were blocked indefinitely.

As for Karima Gouit, deletion was rightly requested as the article fails WP:GNG. There are hardly any RS (non-social media sources) available about her. Skitash (talk) 12:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Yennayer wiki page is only about the topic of the first month in the berber calendar. your description does not fall under the reasoning for including Wikipedia:FORLANG. Let me remind you, just because two words come from the same language or have the same origin does not mean they should be included. Additionally, the names in question are not Arabic, nor did they originate from the Arabic word itself. You can verify this by checking the etymology. If you have proof that they did originate from Arabic, that information should be placed in the etymology section, not in the introduction under FORLANG. Applying FORLANG in this case is inappropriate for a topic that is exclusively Berber, such as the first month of their calendar, its not a hard thing to grasp on.

As for your accusation of me being a sockpuppet, keep that in your report as it seems you're trying to start yet another argument in a section of a different topic. There's no need to bring it up here when there’s already a separate discussion on the matter. Also, do not make misleading claims like 'You started restoring YassinRi’s edits.' That did not happen, nor have you provided any evidence showing that exact behavior. Again, keep that in your report.

Regarding Karima, you should have initiated a discussion on her talk page, but instead, you chose to act independently, even after a dispute had been raised. You decided to file a second report after your first was proven based on false reasoning, my ban, as ban seen in my talk page, is not as a cause of your initial report reasoning. It's worth noting that your deletion occurred when the inclusion of the Tamazight word was under discussion, and it’s unlikely you would have requested the deletion otherwise, considering you hadn’t made any prior edits to her page. This clearly indicates targeting. However, the issue here is Amazigh inclusion in their own specific-topic articles. Your personal grievances with me should be kept in your sockpuppet report. Let’s not make this notice any longer by repeating the same points over and over. TahaKahi (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

 Note: the OP's source misinterpretation aside, I noticed that they are still harassing Skitash by vilifying them with accusations that they plastered all over the place[1][2] (see their recent comment about them). M.Bitton (talk) 22:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

This has become a two or three person discussion, maybe it would be better placed on ANI or elsewhere. It would be nice if y'all didn't keep taking potshots at each other as it seems very BATTLEGROUNDy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Once again, you are trying to claim harassment, even though you clearly mention a dispute resolution and the MOS notice while we cleared out how this admin notice even came to be. which includes trying to resolve the issue before taking this step. After so many disrespectful remarks throughout this notice, please be more civil. I am not the only person who has asked you to do this. TahaKahi (talk) 05:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not trying, I am saying it and backing it with diffs. Commenting on Skitash across multiple boards is not acceptable (read WP:PA and WP:AGF). M.Bitton (talk) 09:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: after persistently harassing Skitash and getting away with it, TahaKahi has now turned their attention to me: after falsely describing the facts that I reported as "personal attacks", they decided to template me. M.Bitton (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@ToBeFree TahaKahi is still WP:FORUMSHOPPING by repeatedly filing reports against me, including a new one on this very noticeboard regarding my reverting of these edits of theirs.[77][78][79] They seem to think it's perfectly fine to add anachronistic WP:OR and misrepresent sources (which they failed to address above). Given their persistent baseless personal attacks and aspersions (targeting not just me but M.Bitton as well),[80][81][82][83][84] don't you think this SPA's harassment has crossed a line? Skitash (talk) 23:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I have seen both the creation and the removal of the thread as well as the pings. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@ToBeFree We still have an issue. Despite being told by an admin to avoid interacting with editors they're in dispute with, TahaKahi continues to harass @M.Bitton by WP:FORUMSHOPPING on DRN, AIV, and edit warring on their own talk page.[85][86][87] Skitash (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring on someone else's talk page would already justify a harassment block to me, but I've given up attempting to deal with the issues discussed in this section here administratively. Rough consensus amoung uninvolved administrators appears to be that noone needs to be blocked if everyone is nice to each other from now on. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

End this notice

It’s clear that nothing will come of this, especially as both sides are no longer acting civil and the issue continues to drag on. I request that this be locked and hope that through dispute resolution, all parties can reach an understanding. TahaKahi (talk) 6:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Like in the story of Pandora's box, something easily opened can be difficult to close. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

That's not your call. You're the only editor who has been persistently attacking Skitash (here and on various other boards) and the only one who misrepresented the sources. M.Bitton (talk) 13:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• The walls of text here are ridiculous. No one is going to read through all of this, and honestly in cases like this it starts to feel as if that's the motivation. If you can just make sure the discussion is at least 10K words, no one will bother to read it and maybe it'll get archived without action.

Any party who actually wants this to ever be looked at, please stop talking now. Those parties who are simply trying to run the word count up, also please stop talking. Valereee (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

• Noting that I've responded to this parallel, spurious AIV report filed by TahaKahi, and reviewed this discussion in the process. As I noted in that discussion, I don't see sufficient cause for blocking anyone at this time--there's been a lot of terseness and unproductive accusations, but none of it has resulted in clearly-disruptive edits (M.Bitton's allegations of misrepresenting sources, if true, are disruptive editing, but the leading fashion in which the allegations have been raised here is not conducive to a clear assessment). The combination of combativity and SPA behavior would be enough that if this were a CTOP, I would likely be implementing a topic-ban for TahaKahi at this time due to the spurious AIV report after the various prior AN reports. As it is, frivolous reports will cross the line into tendentiousness if continued, but if editors are willing to have patience and take recourse to talk page discussion and RfCs this can be resolved without anyone getting blocked. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  I will gladly stop editing any topics related to the subject for the time being, but is it fair to ask that the WP:HOUNDING of my edits stop as well? I've tried to leave the topic and move to completely different areas, such as Assyrian gods [88], but my edits were reverted again by the same individuals, who seemingly have never worked in anything related to that topic before. I understand the concerns, but even when I try to set aside past interactions and engage in discussion on the talk page, as seen on the Barb horse talk page [89], I receive responses like 'I've had it with your aspersions.' All I'm asking is to be able to work on unrelated subjects without interference from the same individuals. It's a difficult position to be in, where more experienced editors are closely watching all my edits, reverting them for controversial reasons, and barely engaging in discussion. I can't build a positive contribution record when my edits are reverted within less than an hour. TahaKahi (talk) 18:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  Could you please try fixing 10 typos and reverting 10 instances of obvious vandalism from Special:RecentChanges? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  It is certainly fair to ask that the hounding stop. That revert on Ashur (god) (summary: "not an improvement + badly written") is extremely out of line, and the topic is unrelated to the dispute on WP:LEADLANG. -- asilvering (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  It's an unattributed translation from the French Wikipedia,^{[90] vs. [91]} including the sources used there and even the punctuation after them. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, this is the translation. Baldpotat0 advised me on how to fix it, and I’m gradually working on it in my sandbox. However, I don't think you're fully understanding our point. There are clear signs of WP:HOUNDING. While I can’t report it, as you've mentioned, why should it continue? You can see my edits being reverted by the same two people each time, which directly fits the definition of hounding, even if they have their reasons (the revert of Ashur wasn’t based on what you mentioned regardless). I’m certain other editors could help correct my mistakes and guide me or revert clear issues, as I’ve said before, especially now that I’m learning how to use the sandbox. If possible can we kindly move this to my talk page if you still want to clear it out? To stop increasing the word count here. TahaKahi (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  In my personal unchanged opinion, you should fix 10 typos and revert 10 instances of vandalism instead of complaining about a perceived inability to build a positive contribution record. If these get reverted, we can talk. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Question about Wikipedia:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan and RfC in Turkey

Can someone confirm this RfC (Talk:Turkey#RfC_on_massacres_and_genocides) would fall under WP:GS/AA, due to mention of Armenian genocide?

Participation in this RfC would require Extended Confirmed status, right? I'm asking because of this [92]. I haven't notified the editor since there is no issue with their behavior, but their edit in the talk page would need to be reverted if there is an extended confirmed restriction. Bogazicili (talk) 05:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I believe it would. I'm tempted to suggest moving the discussion to a subpage so we can put EC protection on it, to prevent further misunderstandings. WaggersTALK 14:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

do it. Buffs (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Removed the comment [93] Bogazicili (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Merge close Talk:Mamie Lake (Wisconsin)#Merge Proposal

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

---

Coming here from ANI. This appears to be a controversial merge and the close of discussion was possibly a WP:BADNAC. The close was controversial because of off-wiki involvement, and an arb complaint against one of the voters, and then a close-call numerically. A discussion started immediately after the close, and the closer did not seem receptive to self-reverting. I would like to ask for an experienced administrator to close or reopen. The Merge closer was notified (Licks-rocks) and they only have just over 2000 edits. Merge discussion, article. Lightburst (talk) 23:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Involved editors

• Endorse, Licks-rocks close was well articulated. The claim that it is problematic merely because Licks-rocks only has 2,000 edits (it's actually 2,381 as of this comment, but that's irrelevant) is an argument completely lacking in policy. TarnishedPath^talk 00:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• No comment on the close, but would encourage action (here or ArbComm) to put this situation to rest as there have been many many bytes spilled over a camp/lake of very little significance (in real world speak, not notability) and old issues re-hashed at the various admin boards as well as potentially off site, apparently. Weighing in here as AfD closer, but neutral as to subject matter. It's clearly an issue that needs resolution Star Mississippi 01:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse. As observed by @HighKing, many editors opposing the merge did not address how the sourcing -- including any new links -- actually satisfied NCORP to the extent that they should alleviate PAGEDECIDE concerns; in fact, many of them didn't even argue that the sources were IRS SIGCOV and instead just noted the article had "reliable sources". The claim that the current content was too detailed to be DUE in the target but also too encyclopedic to be deleted needed evidence those details were actually sufficiently well-supported in NCORP-level sourcing to belong anywhere, but this wasn't established. This was adequately reflected in the closer's statement there's just barely too little significant coverage for this company to have its own article, and the current Bent's Camp Resort article covers a lot of material about non-notable individuals and events as a result. This material would not survive a merge, and the remainder would not create too much of an issue being merged here. JoelleJay (talk) 02:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse a detailed rationale was given for the close, and a close-call numerically doesn't matter when the strength of the arguments is taken into consideration, as it was here. The AfD close stated "recommend discussing a merger on the Talk", which is exactly what happened, so allegations of off-wiki involvement are unfounded as the merge proposal was simply following the recommendation, and WP:BADNAC doesn't apply here either. Licks-rocks, please don't be discouraged from closing further discussions based on the OP's comments, you did nothing wrong here. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse - Not a WP:BADNAC under any of the criteria. There was no breach of process for this 258 word article about a campsite by a lake. Not a contentious topic and no concerns were raised in the discussion that this was contentious. Indeed, Lightburst's revert of the completed merge and close discussion was done on the justification that it needs uninvolved close [94], which is exactly what it had. The close was entirely within closer discretion, and no argument has been made by Lightburst that the policy arguments were misjudged. Additionally, gidonb was uninvolved in the discussion but made the point in the post close discussion that Even IF true that the camp is notable on its own, merging was still a good idea. If and when a long and well-referenced article on the resort is developed, this can become a SPINOFF. Given the length of the lake and camp articles, and the camp being part of the lake, its shores and beaches, there is no justification to SPINOUT. Which ultimately is what this is all about. Appropriate presentation of limited material for the benefit of a reader. Because that is the first and most important role of an editor. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• EndorseSigh. It is clearly not a controversial topic: it is one non-notable camping site article being merged into an almost-as-non-notable lake article. And Lightburst reiterating how 'controverial' it is does not make it so. Thus BADNAC does not apply, either because of who made the close nor because of the nature of it. And per the close itself, it was reasoned, thought-through and accurate. If one thing comes out of this latest sojourn of Lightburst's to AN, it's that Licks-rocks should not stop closing discussions. SerialNumber54129 14:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse. None of the criteria under WP:BADNAC have been met. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn WP:BADNAC 2 discussion is contentious... (multiple ways this is true) and 3 The non-admin has little or no experience editing Wikipedia generally... (2300 edits). All I ask is that an experienced closer - preferably an admin, assess and open or close this. This is also not a WP:SPINOUT issue as Sirfurboy has suggested, and I am also concerned that they are hanging on the "uninvolved" close words, because I later explained that I meant experience. Finally, merging a notable 100+ year old logging camp into a lake article does not help our readers and that is what this is really about. Lightburst (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  I later explained that I meant experience. Yes, and you also edited that word in to the answered talk page discussion here today,[95] which is a bit cheeky! BADNAC 3 is not meant to be applied to editors with five years on Wikipedia, and thousands of edits who have closed multiple discussions. It is for people who come in and don't understand what they are doing. It does not apply to Licks-rocks. BADNAC 2 is about recognising actual contentious closes, such as the telegraph RFC, for which Licks-rocks recognised that it was contentious and was attempting to form a panel close.[96] A 258 word article about a campsite on a lake is not contentious. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  This article has been discussed at ANI, WPO, AN, on several WP talk pages, in an AfD, in a Merge discussion, in this Merge review... but you say not contentious? Not-contentious per your examples but contentious causing or likely to cause an argument... - this is true of the article and having an inexperienced closer was likely to be controversial - this was shown by the immediate questioning of the close. I am wondering why this is so important to you. You have been pressing to diminish the visibility of this article - petitioning for a close, active in all discussion to diminish. Is it to protect the integrity of the project? I imagine someone who wants to learn about this historic place but they are directed to a lake? This helps our readers? And you say an editor with 2300 edits should close contentious discussions. What other contested merge discussions or other numerically divided discussions have they closed? I started in 2013 but made few edits until 2018, so if I started closing discussions in 2018 I would have five years on my account and not enough experience. Licks-Rocks had 19 edits in 2019, 256 in 2020, 285 in 2021, 192 in 2022, 1105 in 2023... 524 for 2024. They have started one article. They have only been involved in 20 AfDs. So I am not saying they are a bad editor, just that they do not have the experience and clout to close this discussion. Lightburst (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  A lack of clout also makes it a BADNAC now? TarnishedPath^talk 23:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  TP I would like to ask you to stop trolling me. You have trolled my talk page and nearly every comment I make here - please stop jabbing me. You have been very uncollegial for quite a long time. Lightburst (talk) 00:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  I note further mistruths, aspersions and incivility from you. I'd suggest you strike but I've come to expect that you have no intention of adhering to Wikipedia's behavioural guidelines. The irony here is that you started an ANI thread against ATG, largely on the basis of their incivility. TarnishedPath^talk 01:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors

• Weak overturn: The WP:BADNAC argument obviously doesn't work here, because WP:BADNAC explicitly says that closes shouldn't be challenged solely because the closer was not an admin. But I also don't like this close, because it was extremely close numerically and because more of the support arguments had no policy content than oppose arguments. I don't think it was completely unreasonable, but I do think this is a case of a closer trying to find any shred of consensus where no consensus actually exists. Loki (talk) 01:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus. I do not think finding consensus to merge was within the closer's discretion. I do not think the supporters sufficiently rebutted the notability arguments, and while I persoanlly agree that the merge would be good here, I didn't see a compelling argument under NOPAGE in this discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, most of the supporters' arguments were backed up further during the AfD, here. --Licks-rocks (talk) 09:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn pretty much per voorts. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse The sourcing was insignificant and routine and did not justify a standalone article. Campgrounds and cabins are common on these lakes, and they should be covered in the context of the lake rather than as generic local businesses, if at all, and the close addresses the comments to this point appropriately. Reywas92^Talk 16:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse. WP:BADNAC is just one big ad hominem. The merge discussion must be seen in the context of the AfD that preceded it and spurred its opening. In that discussion, the closer found the merge !votes to give a "slight edge" to retaining the information, either at the original article or in a merged form. Equally, the merge and delete !votes together suggest a clear majority at the AfD did not consider the topic notable enough for its own article. Therefore, I do not find the oppose !votes in the merge discussion, essentially seeking to rehash the notability question, solid enough, and support the close in favour of merging. It's hair-thin, and I'm not sure what I would have done, had I been forced at gunpoint to close this discussion, but I think that even if one does not find the above line of reasoning persuasive, one should apply some WP:IAR to let everyone move on from this historically unimportant quarrel. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse BADNAC's definition of experience is The non-admin has little or no experience editing Wikipedia. This seems to me like it's talking about brand new editors with edit counts in the low hundreds, especially those who are not extended confirmed. Applying that to an editor with 2300+ edits, 5 years experience, and long history of discussion participation is a stretch. I do agree that the discussion is controversial, but the controversy seems to be about longstanding grudges and not anything to do with Bent's Camp Resort or Marnie Lake. Pinguinn 🐧 23:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Close seems fine to me. I agree with everything Pinguinn writes, especially the last sentence. --JBL (talk) 00:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse - and I have to say that I'm really unimpressed with the conduct by Lightburst here. The seeming hyperfixation on Lick-rocks' edit count is a classic case of editcountitis, and it almost comes off as condescending. It almost comes across as "this editor must have X amount of edits before they can close merge discussions". How many? 1000, 2000, 5000, 10000, 20000? Also the appealing to administrators below is almost like asking the other parent. An often repeated axiom at RFA is that administrators are just editors with extra buttons, and their opinion doesn't hold any more special weight than a "normal" editor. Administrators don't need to "counsel" Lick-rocks on anything, seeing as many editors here agree with what he did. LB, you're fellow editors *can* have a different opinion from you without you "feeling bad" for them, whatever the hell that means. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 01:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse. Really couldn't care less for any BADNAC complaints—small lake resorts aren't a contentious topic, that the discussion got a bit heated does not mean a NAC is ill-advised. I think no consensus results should be avoided when feasible, and this was feasible; a lot of "Oppose" arguments were rehash of the AfD notability debate, which is irrelevant per WP:NOPAGE. There were some bad votes on the "merge" side too, but the core argument that the amount of information that WP ought to have on the resort based on coverage is short enough for a merge to be desirable checks out. Mach61 01:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• If any admin feels this close was poorly executed, they are of course free to notify me and re-close with a different result. --Licks-rocks (talk) 23:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
• Pinging @Sirfurboy, @Serial Number 54129, @AndyTheGrump, @Frank Anchor, @7&6=thirteen, @Silver seren, @Yngvadottir, @HighKing, @Isaidnoway, @Bruxton, @JoelleJay, @Cunard and @Homeostasis07 as involved editors. TarnishedPath^talk 23:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Not relevant to the merge close. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Clearly an issue that requires extensive admin attention, if not an ArbCom resolution to make sure this level of off-site WPO harassment never happens again to another user. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC) If you're implying that I'm part of a conspiracy of WPO harassment, such outlandish claims require correspondingly strong evidence to justify making them. Otherwise you're just straight up peddling mistruths. TarnishedPathtalk 00:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC) I agree with TarnishedPath, I don't appreciate the implication that I was involved in some alleged "off-site WPO harassment". If you have evidence against specific users, then be specific, and stop casting aspersions. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC) Where did I say either of you – or any of the pinged editors – were involved in off-site harassment? All I said was such harassment exists. Links to WPO discussions cannot be provided on-site because of an RfC that determined posting those links would constitute "outing", even in situations when WPO users themselves dox, harass, threaten and abuse on-site editors. That's the aspect to all this that requires @ArbCom: attention, unless admins here finally take a stand to address these issues beforehand. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC) Ok, here's the deal. If you think there is grounds for an ArbCom case, start one. Because making repeated accusations of wrongdoing while failing to provide the slightest bit of evidence is an abuse of WP:AN [97] and WP:ANI [98] noticeboards, and clearly also off-topic for any merge [99] discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC) An aside: Homeostasis07, if you can't post to WPO content, then please don't make allusions to that website when talking about other editors on Wikipedia. This is casting aspersions, whether or not you see it that way. Additionally, I am curious how you think admins or ArbCom can have any influence over the content posted there, whether it is idle gossip or harassment. I'm not sure of exactly what "stand" you want admins or arbitrators to take as many of the people who post there are already blocked on this project. I know that I'm not going to spend my time on WPO reading posts there when I could be doing productive work here. And if the content there upsets you, I suggest you steer clear of visiting that site. Liz Read! Talk! 03:09, 15 October 2024 (UTC) @Liz: Please see the RfC that determined posting any links to WPO are prohibited. I certainly agree with you about the overall state of WPO. It's a cesspool that isn't worth any productive editor's time or effort. I'd love to post 50 different links to random WPO comments I have saved, but I can't. I've been going through those links, and have seen that several Wikipedia users have been deleting their uncivil comments on WPO. Thankfully, I saved most of them on webcite. This will certainly make one of the more interesting Arb cases, should they accept. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC) I thought WebCite had stopped accepting archiving requests over a year ago? Anyway, if you are going to start an ArbCom case, I suggest you stop muddying the waters further by making allegations here, when you can't post the evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC) Not if you have access via an academic membership. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC) This thread is supposed to be a review of the closure of a merge discussion. This off-topic stuff should be hatted or something. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 04:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• @Lightburst, there is absolutely nothing contentious about this subject. It is a boring location on a lake. Claiming that it is contentious does not make it so. Further your claim that Licks-rocks 2,388 edits (not 2,000 like you claim) entails has little or no experience editing Wikipedia generally is without merit. Licks-rocks has been editing for at least 5 years. BADNAC does not apply and absolutely zero of your arguments address any inadequacies in the close itself. TarnishedPath^talk 14:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I hoped for an experienced closer because this discussion looked like a classic no-consensus. In coming to AN, I hoped that one of the administrators on the project would look at the merge discussion and assess. I feel bad that some of my colleagues have come here saying they believe this was a fair reading. I believe as Loki said above, it seems like

a case of a closer trying to find any shred of consensus where no consensus actually exists

. I also feel bad that two of my colleagues have encouraged Licks-rocks to continue to make more of these types of closes. I hope that an administrator will counsel Licks-rocks about that for the good of the project. Lightburst (talk) 00:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by ltbdl

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

---

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections. Other editors may comment below. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

ltbdl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – ltbdl☃ (talk) 13:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

topic ban from post-1992 american politics and gender related disputes, imposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive334 § Ltbdl

Administrator imposing the sanction

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

[100]

Statement by ltbdl

i wish for my topic bans to be lifted. the ban stems from comments i made during the telegraph rfc, disparaging springee. these were made in the heat of the moment, and i do apologize. i will not make those kinds of comments again. i want to continue to copyedit articles under these topics.

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

With the scant appeal and the recent violations it's a hard no from me. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Springee

I find the explanation for the original behavior insufficient. As I noted in the original ARE discussion, I have no prior interaction with this editor. If I their original statement were the result of something, what was the offending comment? I think most of us can understand wanting to snipe at another editor if that other editor, for example, grossly insults and dismisses a logical argument you make. This, however, was out of the blue and non-specific. When other editor asked about the comment the response was to double down. Given they had time to think about their response, other editors asked them to retract the comment and finally they refused to explain the comment in the ARE, it's hard to accept "heat of the moment". What triggered that heated moment? What assurance do we have that such heat of the moment statements won't repeat? Why no explanation at the original ARE filing? Minor note: I was not notified about this filing. It does appear an attempt to ping me was part of the original request but probably failed due to the lack of a signature. Springee (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Ltbdl has already violated their TBAN. On 9 Oct they made a series of edits to Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2024_United_States_presidential_election (exp [101]) as well as an earlier edit to 2024_United_States_presidential_debates (11 Sept [102]). Springee (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by ltbdl

I'm going to first suggest say this is too soon from the topic ban being enforced to be lifted. This was less than 4 months ago. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

This is for sure my first impression as well. ltbdl declined to even participate in the discussion. If they want to do copyedits there are literally millions of articles not under the scope of the tban that could use it. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

ltbdl, it's hard to even start saying anything about this. You made no statement when the sanctions were imposed, and now, 54 words. Give us something to work with. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

what do you want me to say? ltbdl☃ (talk) 00:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Given the violation of the topic ban as recently as 2 days ago: [103], can you tell me why I shouldn't block you immediately for this? RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, no clear case made for lifting coupled with the recent violation. Copyediting is welcome elsewhere and is not so needed that it merits lifting sanctions. Star Mississippi 21:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: Recently violated the topic ban. C F A 💬 02:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose The UCC (2.2) suggests we lend editors "a hand when they need support". Providing ltbdl incentives to explore adjacent interests beyond a specific topic area, when participation in said topic area puts their account at likely risk of restrictive protective actions, is consistent with that mandate. "Indefinite" should never be a synonym for "eternal," but four months may — perhaps — not provide sufficient time for an editor to complete their journey of reflection and exploration that a ban should, at least in part, help inspire. It would be unfair to ltbdl for us to lift the ban this year, and maybe even next year, and to do so would be a forfeiture of our aforementioned obligation to maximize opportunities for their success. I look forward to ltbdl returning to this topic at some undetermined point in the future and I can't wait to see what great contributions they'll make in other areas in the meantime. Chetsford (talk) 09:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose and block [104] is very clearly a violation of your topic ban. Maybe I'm being a bit harsh, but I cannot fathom how you would think a reduction of restrictions would be appropriate at this time when you aren't abiding by it in the first place. Buffs (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting a topic ban on any editor who violated their topic ban in recent days. Cullen328 (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose given that they violated the topic ban just six days ago. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Burst of Joy.jpg

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

---

Hi, Please undelete the first version, so that it can be moved to Commons. Thanks, Yann (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Yann  Done – robertsky (talk) 22:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Seahawk-2023

User @Seahawk-2023 has been on Wikipedia since April 2023 and has not engaged in a single discussion, has never left an edit summary, and does not respond to any attempts by other editors trying to discuss their problematic edits.. They have been warned countless times by other editors and they refuse to reply. They have not once shown signs of trying to engage with other editors, participate in discussions, or any other collaborative efforts. Can any action be taken? I have warned them before and so have many others but they continue without acknowledging our concerns. They have not engaged in discussion at all. MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 00:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Over 9000 edits never to anywhere but articlespace. I've p-blocked; as always, anyone is free to alter or remove this block if it no longer applies. -- asilvering (talk) 00:57, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Title-blacklist creation

I'm trying to create the redirect "Sand-nigger" as a punctuation variant of Sand nigger. It should redirect ot the same place. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Done. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 09:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Madoc revert

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

---

I would like to ask for permission to keep a reinstated revert I did in the Madog ab Owain Gwynedd article, I need help from an administrator with experience on the issue. Please see Talk:Madoc for the unfolding issue. The user @Richard Keatinge: reverted over 12,000 characters of work conducted on and off over the past two weeks, the work was a simple tidyup and grammar correction to unfold an unreadable article. Then I simply added a few references and a new paragraph and merged other paragraphs and simply adding references where they were missing. The work I undertook was simple, with virtually no additions except for one La Times reference and a few website to reinforce the point. The reason I have come to the administrators board is because of the issue Richard and I had when I did work on House of Aberffraw up until September 2023 was reverted, there was a discussion: Talk:House of Aberffraw#An entire article of OR? which was settled (or forcibly quashed, depends who's opinion that is), and also at the same time there was an issue regarding King of Wales, please see Talk:King of Wales#King of Wales. It's just I feel the user I mentioned has potentially been personal in reverting my work again, this time without a real reason. Therefore I would like an administrator to intervene, and if possible look at the Aberffraw and King of Wales discussions from last year to identify the bigger picture, as I believe the work on the King of Wales article in particular should be reverted to the improved forms, as the article has gone from 53,000 character to 6,000 for the past year, and no one was has made an effort to continue the good work that was done for the King of Wales article. Please and thanks. Cltjames (talk) 21:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cltjames, you haven't even given the reverting editor time to respond on the article's talk page (he hasn't edited since the revert). Schazjmd (talk) 21:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The user and I had an ongoing discussion last year, and this complaint is not just for the revert he did today, it is also for the reverts and potential article deletions which he did last year. Therefore, he has spoken about my 2/3 of my complaints. Cltjames (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I see that in both the discussions at Talk:King of Wales and Talk:House of Aberffraw, other editors agreed with Richard Keatinge's arguments. Do you have diffs of any behavioral or conduct-related issues that an administrator can consider? What you've presented so far just looks like multiple content disputes. Schazjmd (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I feel I want an administrator's opinion on the King of Wales article in particular, as you have to look at the List of legendary rulers of Cornwall and List of High Kings of Ireland and Legendary kings of Scotland. Out of the majority of Celtic nations, Wikipedia allows for the Irish, Scottish and Cornish articles to display legendary rulers... So, why not the Welsh?? As for content disputes, I'm not sure if Richard is being personal in dismissing my work, or if he read through the article carefully to see my copyedit. Therefore, again I would like a professional opinion, I just feel my side of the argument has been underappreciated and it needs more input that only Wikiproject Wales users, as it has NOT been a neutral process so far. Cltjames (talk) 21:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cltjames, administrators don't have the final say on content. In content disputes, they're equal to all other editors. Take a look through dispute resolution and see if there are any methods you haven't tried yet. Sometimes, you just have to accept that community consensus doesn't agree with your point-of-view and move on to other articles. Schazjmd (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

OK thanks. It's just unfair how consensus isn't always the right answer, take @Titus Gold: for instance, his was work good and correct, only to be dismissed based on an unfair trial. The work I conducted was diligent and I spent 2 weeks on and off IMPROVING the article's structure and grammar and references problems. Therefore, to avoid an edit war, I've brought it to the noticeboard, something I have learnt from trial and error. I guess we will wait for Richard's comment on the issue and take it from there, thanks @Schazjmd:. But for the record, I believe the article is correctly presented now, and I want a peer review type situation that's all, it would be crazy to dismiss my edits without a correct review. Cltjames (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

So, quick update. As for the Madoc article, there shouldn't be any real issues with the grammar, structure or presentation of facts, because it was vetted for years and just minorly updated with a few paragraphs. Therefore, I have submitted a request to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests#Madoc for a copyedit, which is a good idea. Otherwise, the debate over the King of Wales article is now settled as I've created the article List of legendary rulers of Wales using the previous reverted version. And as for Aberffraw, I did continue to work on the article after the cull and revert, and I'm satisfied with the standard of the article now, compared to before that is. So, can we cooperate please Richard, and just do minor edits and not a complete revert, as I'm only arguing my case with administrators reading because I genuinely feel a revert was the wrong idea due to the scope of the edits being minor in comparison to an overhaul, sorry about this again. Cltjames (talk) 00:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

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